Mosque going up in NYC building

[bloodyminded]

The problem with the idea that it "will be viewed by some Muslims as a symbol of Muslim triumph"....well, that's not even faintly an argument against it, for a few reasons:

First, there's no reason why the symbolism which some Muslims will adhere to should trump the more benign symbolism that other Muslims will adhere to. Why should it?

Second, if the Centre doesn't go up, this too will be viewed by some Muslims as a negative about the United States (that is, IF the original argument is valid, it clearly cuts both ways).

Finally, I was under the impression, notably by those opposed to the Centre, that we shouldn't let terrorism dictate how we live our lives. Refusing to build it on the premise that "some Muslims" will see this as an Islamic triumph is actually doing just that.

Edited September 11, 2010 by bloodyminded

[kimmy]

So? Are all monuments bad now? Should we tear down the one on Vimy Ridge, because some people might consider it to be a glorification of armed combat?

If one sets out to build a monument on somebody else's "hallowed ground", there is going to be controversy. If the people who revere the site for whatever reason don't think your message is in keeping with the reasons for their reverence, they're not going to be happy.

Ummm....so?

And again, so?

So I see no reason why we should be happy to see Islamists given a monument to their cause.

-k

[kimmy]

I asked this question before and I'll ask it again. If he believes in peace and pluralism, how does that not make him a liberal?

That has to be the flimsiest definition of liberal I've ever heard of. Do you consider Stephen Harper and George W Bush to be liberals too?

-k

[CANADIEN]

ya, ya... two blocks and around the corner away! Did anyone actually check the roof of the current mosque??? Hey now - perhaps there are remains there... two blocks and around the corner away!

so set up the boundaries. Many in this thread have continued to ask, "how far away, is far enough"? 3 blocks... 5 blocks... 20 blocks? What are the boundaries?

There are other boundaries to be set... The site is special... So how should it be treated.

(madatory statement that will likely be ignored: the term "some people" below does not refer to the opponents to the Cordoba Project as a whole, to the majority of opponents, or to AW)

Some people havestated they view Ground Zero as a sacred site, and that for this reason no mosque should be built there. Fine, then if it's a scared space, I'd expect those same people to argue that office towers shoul not be built on a sacred space.

[kimmy]

so the U.S. State Department is an enabler for your believed exploitation - hey?

That his message of co-existence and the compatibility of Islam with democratic government is convenient for US State Department purposes in the middle east really doesn't have anything to do with Park 51. That's a non-sequitur.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

She can speak for herself, but no, that's not what she's saying at all.

It's a breath of fresh air in this thread on the rare occasion someone actually comprehends what's being said.

The idea that I'm "trying" to say something is ignorant beyond words. I'm saying exactly what I'm saying, but evidently smallc et al can't respond to what's actually said, so they have to speak for me and respond to their own ludicrous claims as to what I'm "trying" to say.

As for myself, I see no reason why I shouldn't be skeptical of Rauf's intentions. I don't believe he's linked to extremism, but I do believe he's just trying to exploit 9/11 to spread his message, and to spread Islam in general.

As one moderate Muslim put it, he's trying to push it down American's throats, and he's doing it without taking people's feelings into consideration.

Sincet he's proclaiming to "build bridges," there's even more reason to be skeptical of his intentions since he's accomplishing exactly the opposite; he's set the relationship between Islam and the rest of the country way back.

[nicky10013]

That has to be the flimsiest definition of liberal I've ever heard of. Do you consider Stephen Harper and George W Bush to be liberals too?

-k

I mean a liberal democrat. Not in a partisan sense, but a belief in democratic systems of government, pluralism, respect and tolerance. Some people have been trying to paint him as a radical. He clearly isn't.

Even saying that, I see some of his critiques of foreign policy and they certainly come from traditional left wing critiques of US foreign policy. Saying he votes democrat wouldn't be a stretch by any means.

[nicky10013]

It's a breath of fresh air in this thread on the rare occasion someone actually comprehends what's being said.

The idea that I'm "trying" to say something is ignorant beyond words. I'm saying exactly what I'm saying, but evidently smallc et al can't respond to what's actually said, so they have to speak for me and respond to their own ludicrous claims as to what I'm "trying" to say.

Sorry, you've changed yoru story so many times, it's hard to know where you stand at any one minute.

As one moderate Muslim put it, he's trying to push it down American's throats, and he's doing it without taking people's feelings into consideration.

Sincet he's proclaiming to "build bridges," there's even more reason to be skeptical of his intentions since he's accomplishing exactly the opposite; he's set the relationship between Islam and the rest of the country way back.

This is crap. How can he shove anything down the throats of America? How many times has he gone on the record about the project? Once or twice? The rest of the debate has been dominated by the people who are inexplicably opposed to the project.

[CANADIEN]

If one sets out to build a monument on somebody else's "hallowed ground", there is going to be controversy. If the people who revere the site for whatever reason don't think your message is in keeping with the reasons for their reverence, they're not going to be happy.

So I see no reason why we should be happy to see Islamists given a monument to their cause.

-k

By that "logic" (and yes, the brackets are intentional), the Centre should be built where planned because otherwise its non-presence there would be used by Islamists as a symbol of the so-called hatred of the West towrds Muslims. Guess why I think it does not make sense? Because it doesn't.

[Guest American Woman]

Sorry, you've changed yoru story so many times, it's hard to know where you stand at any one minute.

I've never changed my "story." My stance, my views, have remained exactly the same. You've tried to ascribe views to me so many times, though, that I can see why you're confused.

[bloodyminded]

There are other boundaries to be set... The site is special... So how should it be treated.

(madatory statement that will likely be ignored: the term "some people" below does not refer to the opponents to the Cordoba Project as a whole, to the majority of opponents, or to AW)

Some people havestated they view Ground Zero as a sacred site, and that for this reason no mosque should be built there. Fine, then if it's a scared space, I'd expect those same people to argue that office towers shoul not be built on a sacred space.

If it's a sacred space, then the world has too many to count. We have created many of them ourselves, albeit in countries and among people who are simply not too "important."

[dre]

If one sets out to build a monument on somebody else's "hallowed ground", there is going to be controversy. If the people who revere the site for whatever reason don't think your message is in keeping with the reasons for their reverence, they're not going to be happy.

So I see no reason why we should be happy to see Islamists given a monument to their cause.

-k

Actually Islamists would like nothing better than for the project to be stopped. They get support in the Islamic world for anti-western causes in part by pushing the narrative that Americans dont like Muslims. Victory for Islamists would be for Americans to turn on each other... Have the dumbass mob find a way to stop this mosque... or even better a bunch of violence over it.

[kimmy]

By that "logic" (and yes, the brackets are intentional), the Centre should be built where planned because otherwise its non-presence there would be used by Islamists as a symbol of the so-called hatred of the West towrds Muslims. Guess why I think it does not make sense? Because it doesn't.

If you think people are mad about Park 51 right now, wait until after the Islamists start telling their followers "We smashed down their towers and built a mosque!"

People will see this thing as their enemy's symbol of victory, and all of Imam Rauf's cries that it is not will do little to convince them otherwise.

-k

[waldo]

As for myself, I see no reason why I shouldn't be skeptical of Rauf's intentions. I don't believe he's linked to extremism, but I do believe he's just trying to exploit 9/11 to spread his message, and to spread Islam in general.

so the U.S. State Department is an enabler for your believed exploitation - hey?

That his message of co-existence and the compatibility of Islam with democratic government is convenient for US State Department purposes in the middle east really doesn't have anything to do with Park 51. That's a non-sequitur.

why... how dismissive of you! Hardly a non-sequitur. Let's see: To you, Rauf proposing the community centre is exploitation... but, sponsoring Rauf is a matter of convenience for the U.S. State Department? Do you see the motive behind the U.S. State Department sponsoring/enabling your perceived exploiter?

[Shady]

Actually Islamists would like nothing better than for the project to be stopped. They get support in the Islamic world for anti-western causes in part by pushing the narrative that Americans dont like Muslims.

Well then the Islamic world is pretty fucked up. Because if somebody in the Islamic world forbids a Catholic church from being built, I couldn't give a shit.

But basically you're saying that the mosque needs to be built or the terroists have won!

Edited September 11, 2010 by Shady

[Oleg Bach]

OBAMA is not a Christian - and he like the idea of Islam creating an American state of submissive trolls bowing to the east like a gaggle of praying Mantis bugs..and HE can sit on his throne the mediocre little man and rule his superiours...untill he has massed enough freaks to over throw the intelligent and kill them all in a Islam based socialist revolution - Islam is not your friend.

[kimmy]

why... how dismissive of you! Hardly a non-sequitur. Let's see: To you, Rauf proposing the community centre is exploitation... but, sponsoring Rauf is a matter of convenience for the U.S. State Department?

Yes, that's exactly it.

Do you see the motive behind the U.S. State Department sponsoring/enabling your perceived exploiter?

He has a message that fits the US's middle east message, and he might have enough credibility with third-world Muslims that they don't see him as an Uncle Tom. That's not very complicated, is it? I don't see what point you're trying to make.

-k

[Shady]

Yes, that's exactly it

It's nice to see waldo finally get something right.

[Guest American Woman]

It's nice to see waldo finally get something right.

I think it was an accident ....

[CANADIEN]

If you think people are mad about Park 51 right now, wait until after the Islamists start telling their followers "We smashed down their towers and built a mosque!"

People will see this thing as their enemy's symbol of victory, and all of Imam Rauf's cries that it is not will do little to convince them otherwise.

-k

Some people will see it at this... some people will see it at that. How about seeing it the way the promoters of the project see it?

But hey, I am trying to talk common sense to someone who thi nks I have been defending people by calling them idiots.

[kimmy]

Actually Islamists would like nothing better than for the project to be stopped. They get support in the Islamic world for anti-western causes in part by pushing the narrative that Americans dont like Muslims. Victory for Islamists would be for Americans to turn on each other... Have the dumbass mob find a way to stop this mosque... or even better a bunch of violence over it.

Stopping this project might piss off third world Muslims? Who cares? They're pissed off already. That bell has already rung.

But mainstream Americans have not-- to this point-- become pissed off at Muslims. This project offers the potential for that to happen.

-k

[dre]

If you think people are mad about Park 51 right now, wait until after the Islamists start telling their followers "We smashed down their towers and built a mosque!"

People will see this thing as their enemy's symbol of victory, and all of Imam Rauf's cries that it is not will do little to convince them otherwise.

-k

If you think people are mad about Park 51 right now, wait until after the Islamists start telling their followers "We smashed down their towers and built a mosque!"

But that narrative would be completely untrue. "Islamists" didnt build jack shit. We cant worry about people who are simple enough buy into that kind of shit... theyre beyond hope anyways and will believe what they want to believe.

People will see this thing as their enemy's symbol of victory, and all of Imam Rauf's cries that it is not will do little to convince them otherwise.

Only stupid people will believe that though. Because this building ISNT the "enemy's" symbol. They dont own it, and have nothing to do with it, and its the last thing they would have wanted anyways.

[kimmy]

Some people will see it at this... some people will see it at that. How about seeing it the way the promoters of the project see it?

But hey, I am trying to talk common sense to someone who thi nks I have been defending people by calling them idiots.

Do you think people will still see Park 51 as a friendly outreach project when it becomes a topic of Islamist rhetoric?

-k

[waldo]

Yes, that's exactly it.

He has a message that fits the US's middle east message, and he might have enough credibility with third-world Muslims that they don't see him as an Uncle Tom. That's not very complicated, is it? I don't see what point you're trying to make.

-k

no - to make it, as you say, "exactly it"... just carry your assertion to it's logical conclusion. Just say you believe the U.S. State Department is enabling your exploiter. That will make "it exactly". You're so quick to dismiss the official acceptance and sanctioning the U.S. government extends to Rauf... dismiss that in favour of your exploitation labeling. C'mon... just make it, "exactly it". Just say it - sure you can.

[Machjo]

I wonder how the Muslim family members of the victims of 9/11 must feel today. They have gone to commemorate their loved ones side by side with non-Muslims who also lost loved ones on that day, ever-aware that the person standing next to them blames them for the death of their loved ones, only to to have faced the same person yesterday as a protester in front of their mosque at noon while going into the mosque to pray, likely thinking about the commemoration today.

For those Muslim mourners, I can only imagine what it must be like not only to have lost a loved one on 9/11 but then to be essentially blamed for his death based on your own religious beliefs.

I can't think of anything more offensive that to have your beliefs blamed for the murder of your loved one, which is essentially what the proests are about.