Should An Islamic Mosque Be Built At Ground Zero?

[WinePusher]

In New York City, there is a contreversy on whether or not to construct a Mosque near the grounds of the 9/11 attack. This is completly outraegous and infuriating because no one seems to be able to answer the question Why There? Why build a Islamic mosque at the site of a place that was destroyed by Islamic Jihadists? I'm sure there are plently of other land space where a mosque can be built, but why have these Muslims decided to build it so close to Ground Zero? Are they oblivious to the fact that at that area, thousands of americans were killed by Muslim Jihadists?

Should a mosque be built at ground zero?

[Danmark]

Fine, you add up your list so we can compare it to the 100 million victims of athiestic communism.

As you should know your Black Book has been severely criticized on a number of fronts. Among them is the confusion you exhibit here; to wit, confusing deaths due to famine and starvation because of incompetence rather than ideology. So the absurd numbers thrown around are simply not accurate even if you were comparing apples to apples.

It is also completely unfair and inaccurate to blame non theists for Communist Party excesses.

You also err in that you equate terror and deaths done solely in the name of an avenging god, particularly one religion's adherents' killing another's because of their religious beliefs, with deaths that result because secular economic ideology or political power struggles.

I absolutely agree that Islamic terrorists are doing the former, just as Christian terrorists have done, largely in the past.

But this discussion is getting WAY off the point and onto that old rut of trying to saddle both sides with Hitler and Stalin, instead of the central point which was made very well by Micatala:

If Martin Luther Kng was genuine and sincere about promoting equality and racial harmony, he would have backed off when white southerners expressed their indignation towards desegregation, or the abomination of interracial marriage, or equal rights.

MLK was obviously not a moderate; he was a radical whose statements and actions have exposed him as a trouble-maker. A real moderate would have spent all his time condemning the Black Panther party and others in the civil rights movement who expressed extreme views or tactics.

You see how ridiculous your position is? Following your logic, anyone who promotes something that others strongly object to should hold themselves hostage to those feelings of indignation. That is a formula for continued injustice if ever there was one.
[emphasis mine]

[WinePusher]

Yea, I thought that was his goal. If he was genuine and sincere about it he would have backed off when the American people expressed their indignation towards this abomidable Mosque. He is not a moderate, he is a radical and his statements have exposed him. A real moderate would have condemned Hamas is an agent of terrorism, which he didn't. A real moderate would not have said that the United States is an accesary to terrorism or that Bin Laden is made in America, which he did.

If Martin Luther Kng was genuine and sincere about promoting equality and racial harmony, he would have backed off when white southerners expressed their indignation towards desegregation, or the abomination of interracial marriage, or equal rights.

MLK was obviously not a moderate; he was a radical whose statements and actions have exposed him as a trouble-maker. A real moderate would have spent all his time condemning the Black Panther party and others in the civil rights movement who expressed extreme views or tactics.

You see how ridiculous your position is? Following your logic, anyone who promotes something that others strongly object to should hold themselves hostage to those feelings of indignation. That is a formula for continued injustice if ever there was one.

Also, you are incorrect on the Imam. He did condemn Hamas as an agent of terrorism. I believe he is on record as saying that several times.

You compare this hack Imam to Martin Luther King and I'm the ridiculous one? LOL

Anyways, nobody is trying to deny this Imam his right to freedom. There are tons of other spaces in NYC that are available and he chose the space that is the most divisive.

If a bunch of black people flew 2 planes into the World Trade Center in the name of MLK, do you think MLK would approve of a statue of himself being built at the site? Hell no he wouldn't. That's the difference and your analogy is ridiculous.

[Danmark]

Yea, I thought that was his goal. If he was genuine and sincere about it he would have backed off when the American people expressed their indignation towards this abomidable Mosque. He is not a moderate, he is a radical and his statements have exposed him. A real moderate would have condemned Hamas is an agent of terrorism, which he didn't. A real moderate would not have said that the United States is an accesary to terrorism or that Bin Laden is made in America, which he did.

If Martin Luther Kng was genuine and sincere about promoting equality and racial harmony, he would have backed off when white southerners expressed their indignation towards desegregation, or the abomination of interracial marriage, or equal rights.

MLK was obviously not a moderate; he was a radical whose statements and actions have exposed him as a trouble-maker. A real moderate would have spent all his time condemning the Black Panther party and others in the civil rights movement who expressed extreme views or tactics.

You see how ridiculous your position is? Following your logic, anyone who promotes something that others strongly object to should hold themselves hostage to those feelings of indignation. That is a formula for continued injustice if ever there was one.

Also, you are incorrect on the Imam. He did condemn Hamas as an agent of terrorism. I believe he is on record as saying that several times.

You compare this hack Imam to Martin Luther King and I'm the ridiculous one? LOL

Anyways, nobody is trying to deny this Imam his right to freedom. There are tons of other spaces in NYC that are available and he chose the space that is the most divisive.

If a bunch of black people flew 2 planes into the World Trade Center in the name of MLK, do you think MLK would approve of a statue of himself being built at the site? Hell no he wouldn't. That's the difference and your analogy is ridiculous.

No one called you ridiculous. Your argument was called ridiculous. As for comparing MLK to 'this hack Imam,' MLK was vilified while he was alive. He was hounded and persecuted by the right in general and in particular J. Edgar Hoover who had the FBI conduct illegal surveillance on him.

I don't know anything about this 'hack Imam,' but the point remains that neither he nor others should be cowed by the majority into giving up their rights.

[WinePusher]

I don't know anything about this 'hack Imam,' but the point remains that neither he nor others should be cowed by the majority into giving up their rights.

You, along with the other Mosque apologists, continually dodge the fundamental point. If a bunch of people flew a plan into 2 large buildings that killed thousands of people in the name of Danmark, would you (Danmark) be comfortable if people wanted to build a statute dedicated to you at the site? I certainly wouldn't because I realize how offensive it would be, and the Pope of the Catholic Church realized that and moved the planned convent away from the concentration camp.

[Danmark]

I don't know anything about this 'hack Imam,' but the point remains that neither he nor others should be cowed by the majority into giving up their rights.

You, along with the other Mosque apologists, continually dodge the fundamental point. If a bunch of people flew a plan into 2 large buildings that killed thousands of people in the name of Danmark, would you (Danmark) be comfortable if people wanted to build a statute dedicated to you at the site? I certainly wouldn't because I realize how offensive it would be, and the Pope of the Catholic Church realized that and moved the planned convent away from the concentration camp.

I think you make a good point about it being good politics for churches/mosques/temples to be sensitive to the overall politics and community feelings in an area when they do their site selection.

In fact this is exactly the advice I gave a Buddhist church that was running into opposition no matter where they tried to locate their facility. We were also mindful of the potential for opposition no matter where they wanted to locate since Buddhists are outnumbered about 1000 to 1 in my area.

Here, the mosque is two blocks away and the politics are national. The wise thing to do is beyond my knowledge, but I know they should not be intimidated into giving into a majority religion. There is a time to stand and fight.

It reminds me of an incident I was involved in. A rather overbearing and pompous individual who was a member of a group I belonged to, was being teased and provoked by a friend of mind. My friend was the sort of person who, tho' very clever and mischievous, was not physical (we were both in our 50's, the bully in his 30's).

When the bully left the room, my pal sat in his chair, and motioned for me to sit in the one he'd just left. Naturally, as my buddy had planned, when the pompous bully returned, he figured out what had happened, but directed his attention to me instead of at my clever friend.

He ordered me to stand up and give him 'his' chair that he thought my friend had deprived him of. As I was trying to think of a way to defuse the situation with a little humor as I gave him 'his' chair, the bully repeated his demand and became physically threatening, announcing he had been a 'high school wrestling champion' and he would physically remove me if I did not give him the chair.

It is at this point in the story that I was in a position similar to the Imam. One may want to be gracious and give in to a request, but when the request becomes a demand from a bully, the issue becomes more complicated, particularly when one has been a collegiate wrestler, tho' that and what happened next is not relevant to the point.

But to your question: I might very well have no problem with my statue being erected there . . . if I could use it to condemn the terrorism and remind people of my true principles.

[micatala]

Yea, I thought that was his goal. If he was genuine and sincere about it he would have backed off when the American people expressed their indignation towards this abomidable Mosque. He is not a moderate, he is a radical and his statements have exposed him. A real moderate would have condemned Hamas is an agent of terrorism, which he didn't. A real moderate would not have said that the United States is an accesary to terrorism or that Bin Laden is made in America, which he did.

If Martin Luther Kng was genuine and sincere about promoting equality and racial harmony, he would have backed off when white southerners expressed their indignation towards desegregation, or the abomination of interracial marriage, or equal rights.

MLK was obviously not a moderate; he was a radical whose statements and actions have exposed him as a trouble-maker. A real moderate would have spent all his time condemning the Black Panther party and others in the civil rights movement who expressed extreme views or tactics.

You see how ridiculous your position is? Following your logic, anyone who promotes something that others strongly object to should hold themselves hostage to those feelings of indignation. That is a formula for continued injustice if ever there was one.

Also, you are incorrect on the Imam. He did condemn Hamas as an agent of terrorism. I believe he is on record as saying that several times.

You compare this hack Imam to Martin Luther King and I'm the ridiculous one? LOL

Completely non-substantive response noted.

I did not say MLK and the Imam are equivalent in all ways. The point is holding your actions hostage to the indignation of others is a ludicrous position to take, and that is the position you are in general defending here. My example simply illustrates that general point, which you have not addressed in a meaningful way.

Anyways, nobody is trying to deny this Imam his right to freedom. There are tons of other spaces in NYC that are available and he chose the space that is the most divisive.

You are leaving out a lot of relevant information.

He chose the space in part because it was available and in the neighborhood of an existing mosque. Your implication he chose the space to be divisive is a bogus accusation on your part. I doubt you can provide any legitimate evidence to support that implied accusation.

If a bunch of black people flew 2 planes into the World Trade Center in the name of MLK, do you think MLK would approve of a statue of himself being built at the site? Hell no he wouldn't. That's the difference and your analogy is ridiculous.

Well, your speculation may or may not be right, but your counter-analogy is deeply flawed. We are not talking about a personal monument, here. We are talking about a mosque, of which there are hundreds if not thousands around the nation, probably dozens in NY.


And again, even if my analogy is flawed, the main point it illustrates stands.






I'll also point out earlier in the thread I tried to get anyone who objected to having this mosque 2 blocks from the actual site to say how close would be OK, taking into account there had been a mosque in the area (I think about a dozen blocks away) for some years.


What say you? How close would be OK in your view? Why is a dozen blocks OK but not two, or do we have to move the existing mosque further away now as well?





Finally, I will note that, while you may not feel this way, there are those who say we should not have any mosques, or at least any new mosques, anywhere in the U.S. There are those who are "indignant" about any new mosque in their area (I believe Murfeesboro TN is one such case). Do we nix all those mosques as well?







I can understand people being upset and objecting. It is an emotional issue. What I don't accept are the illogical arguments against the mosque, the misinformation about and false accusations against Rauf, the aspersions on his motivation for the project, and the the extent to which general anti-Muslim hysteria is at play here. See Pam Gellar, who is one of the prime instigators of those against this project, as an example of the latter.

I also do not accept that this emotion has to trump all other considerations regarding the project.

[Neatras]

And I can discuss the 100,000,000 of victims of atheistic communism in its short sick history, but can we get back to today?

Well, if only to at least provide some sort of perspective on violence that occurs by people claiming to be christians (quite literally today): http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news ... gay-rights

[otseng]

You are one of the most dishonest users on this site.

Moderator Comment

Just correct with facts. Do not make personal attacks.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.