Are there any non-bigoted & legit reasons for opposing the Islamic centre in NY?

[Violet_Crumble]

I've seen people claim there are but have yet to see what they are. The closest I see some people get is to say that Muslims flew planes into the WTC, forgetting that Muslims died in those buildings and that equating all Muslims and Islam with terrorism is in itself bigoted. So has anyone seen any reasons for opposition that aren't bigoted?

[opihimoimoi]

1. NON EXIST...and FUCK Pat Toomey and the Bush Tax Shit

[d_r]

2. Nope.

[Raspberry]

3. Well--

it is, no doubt, an "in your face" gesture, and lots of people object to in-your-face gestures, just on principle.

[Posteritatis]

16. You believe building it is a conscious attempt to provoke people?

Rather than, say, the neighborhood wanting the centre?

[Raspberry]

24. Yes, I do n/t

[ThomCat]

26. That neighborhood has been trying very hard to recruit organizations

and businesses to move back in. Southern Manhattan is still sparsely populated compared to how it used to be.

If everyone is being invited to move back into the area then that is hardly "in your face."

:eyes:

[Posteritatis]

27. What is your evidence for this claim? (nt)

[Raineyb]

146. That by the way does NOT count as a non-bigoted reason for opposing the

center.

[Raspberry]

29. Just my opinion

[Posteritatis]

32. You said "no doubt," so you obviously think it's more than just an opinion

My guess is that you don't know the first thing about the people who are planning to build the center, though.

[Karenina]

167. Obviously, either do you!

:rofl:

[jberryhill]

37. If I may, can I ask you who we are fighting for in Iraq and Affhanistan?

Was it "in your face" for the Bush administration to endorse an Iraqi constitution that made Iraq an officially Muslim state, when before it was not?

[ThomasQED]

45. Wow

I'm glad I read this thread. I never knew that about the constitution. Thanks for educating me today!

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Let me elabore

the Ba'ath movement is essentially a secular movement. Sadam might not have been the nicest of guys, but he ran a hard core secular state.

The current constitution makes the Iraqi state not exactly secular, but not exactly religious either, but actually gives Sharia more or a place in the matters of state. This was a nod and a wink to the majority Shia population who felt persecuted by the minority Sunni.

[jberryhill]

113. The upshot being that we fought a war FOR Islam, just like Kuwait

"First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation"

That is Article II of the Iraqi constitution that WE fought to obtain

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. I know separation of church and state

is gone.

[Posteritatis]

132. I wouldn't call the Gulf War "a war for Islam"

Defending an Islamic country is not the same thing as defending Islam itself. The coalition went in for other reasons.

[Raineyb]

147. Your bigoted opinion. n/t

[Mz Pip]

28. Do you live in NYC?

Have you even been to NYC? You can tell what's a half a block away much less 2 blocks away.

The people who seem to find this offensive don't live in NYC and just want to continue to politicize 9/11. They don't care about the people of NYC.

[Dorian Gray]

31. Exactly

I live in NYC, and I was here on 9-11. I watched the towers fall, and it pisses me off that people are politicizing this with their bigotry. No New Yorkers I know have a problem with this community center.

[davidinalameda]

44. you're saying New Yorkers are all in favor of this?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. All of the good ones.

The rest are bigots who can eat shit and die.

[Forkboy]

64. You saying they aren't?

And if so, do you agree with them?

[davidinalameda]

127. Polls re oppositionn

Most voters in New York (58%) oppose the building of an Islamic mosque near Ground Zero in New York City.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the state finds that just 20% favor the building of a mosque near the 9/11 Ground Zero site, while 21% are not sure. These findings are very similar to those found nationwide.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/new_york/58_in_new_york_oppose_mosque_near_ground_zero

A majority of New Yorkers oppose plans to build a mosque and Muslim cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero, according to a Quinnipiac University Poll released Thursday.

Fifty-two percent of the respondents said they did not want the mosque to be built at all, 31 percent are in favor of it, and 17 percent are undecided.

"New York enjoys a reputation as one of the most tolerant places in America, but New Yorkers are opposed to a proposal to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero," said Quinnipiac University Polling Institute Director Maurice Carroll in a press release.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/New-Yorkers-Oppose-Ground-Zero-Mosque-Poll-97602569.html

[Posteritatis]

130. New York State != New York City

Who cares if people in upstate NY are unhappy about it? Their opinion should matter just as much as that of someone in Montana, e.g., not at all.

[Forkboy]

156. Polls also said the Iraq War was a good thing, and that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Is it safe to assume that you're one of the ones against this then?

[Mz Pip]

107. No

I'm not into absolutes. I doubt all people in NYC are for this, but I kind of doubt that there is some enormous opposition to it either. It appears that much of the opposition is from people - like Sarah Yep Yep and and Pat Robertson - who are more interested in politicizing this than are actually interested in the feelings of the 85% who voted for Kerry in 2004 and even more that voted for Obama in 2008.

These people don't care about the wishes of the people of NYC.

[a la izquierda]

105. THANK YOU!

Jeez louise. I grew up in NJ, and lived across the bay from the towers. I now live in Oklahoma, where politicizing 9/11 is like a state pasttime.

[Dorian Gray]

30. Why is it in your face?

You think this Muslim community wants to say: "Ha ha! All you people died and we are still here?"

Maybe they want a community center and to worship.

Why in the heck is that "in your face?"

[Posteritatis]

35. (Insert rhetoric using the word "uppity" here) (nt)

[NoNothing]

4. It hurts the property tax base?

[slackmaster]

9. That's a good one, quite legitimate

Tax the churches, the synagogues, the mosques, the temples, etc.

[mzteris]

11. amen to that! REVOKE tax exempt status for all "religions"!!! n/t

[NNN0LHI]

36. +1

[MattBaggins]

5. No

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. No. But a letter to the NYT today excoriated the imam who is...

... instrumental to the project for assigning blame for 9-11 primarily to USA for creating the fanaticism of the hijackers.

No ... I don't know if that's accurate nor does it necessarily follow that the project should be opposed assuming that is/was the opinion of the imam.

Just another element to consider. ( I'm for construction, BTW)

[Mariana]

136. Interesting. I wonder if that writer ever had anything to say about

this little exchange that took place on the teevee between Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on 9/13/01. They explicitly blamed the USA for the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I

Partial Transcript:

Falwell said, "What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve."

Robertson replied, "Well, Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror, we haven't begun to see what they can do to the major population."

Falwell said, "The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I'll hear from them for this, but throwing God...successfully with the help of the federal court system...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the finger in their face and say you helped this happen."

Robertson said, "I totally concur, and the problem is we've adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government, and so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do, and the top people, of course, is the court system."

[chowder66]

7. I have heard the argument against building the mosque...

because the building that they are going to knock down is considered a landmark or should be considered a landmark/historic building. It could very well be a legitimate preservation argument for some. Obviously there are those that are against it for all the wrong reasons though....aka religion, bigotry.

[csziggy]

12. The decision this week was that that building is not historically significant

That was the last legal obstruction.

If the building were historically significant, it could be remodeled for the new use, so that probably would not have stopped the project, though it might have limited some of the uses because of structural reasons.

I want to see someone stop the building of churches in Salem, Massachusetts because Christians tortured and killed witches there. That would be just as legitimate a reason to block construction as the ones raised about the mosque/cultural center.

[PDJane]

8. Not that I can find, and I've been looking.

There's a prayer room in the centre. Big whoop. By that standard, every hospital with space set aside for meditation or prayer would be a church.

There's no evidence that there is funding, and the non-profit hasn't been registered at the moment.

The building was damaged in 9/11, but it is the old Burlington Coat Factory. It's not at ground zero, however.

It's just another ginned-up distraction.

[Fearless]

10. Muslims died during 9/11.

I'd prefer nothing, being an atheist. But if there's something, I think everyone should have a piece of the pie.

[Scurrilous]

13. Nope. n/t

[Rabrrrrrr]

14. No, unless you can come up with a really good reason that the extra mass throws off the gravity

in bad ways.

But good fucking luck with that, :rofl:

[mzteris]

15. my only concern is

it will be a lightening rod for teh crazies in fundie 'Murkha

[Posteritatis]

18. What isn't a lightning rod for those bozos these days? (nt)

[mzteris]

33. you're right, but i meant that in a more

literal sense. As in "retribution" or some sick sh*t like that, you know?

[Ignis]

17. Not a damn one.

Any excuses I've heard are simply the moral equivalent of "they shouldn't build a synagogue there because Jews killed Christ." :puke:

But then, these are probably the same people who think our President is a sooper-secret Muslim Socialist Marxist, so there's no reasoning with them whatsoever.

[TheKentuckian]

19. Not that spring to mind or even pop in there after much consideration.

[Spazito]

20. None that I have seen...

none at all.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. Yes, but not sufficient ones.

I think that the argument that it will cause pain to the families of some of the victims has some merit, and is certainly not bigoted - demanding objectivity from the bereived is deeply unfair - but I don't think it's sufficient to justify opposing building it; sympathy for the feelings of those who have lost ones should not overule basic civil rights.

[mmonk]

25. That reason asserts blame on a religion, not perpetrators of the crime.

Therefore, if a bereived blames all Muslims, it's their issue, not unfair.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

40. Yes, it's their issue.

If one of your or my loved ones were horribly murdered, we might well have issues too, though. My point is precisely that it's not fair to hold the bereived to the same standards we hold everyone else to.

[uppityperson]

77. Muslims died on 9/11 (not just those in the planes). I wonder if their families have an issue

with having a Islam Center in NYC?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

85. I have no idea.

I suspect that for some of them this might be a comfort, and others just won't want anything to do with the area ever again, but both of those are pure guesswork on my part.

I also don't know how the sunni/shia divide might affect their feelings. Actually, I don't even know which this mosque/centre is going to be - does anyone else, out of curiosity?

[mmonk]

120. I do not blame innocent people for crimes of the guilty but if I did,

I would be wrong.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

123. Absolutely.

My point is emphatically not that the loved ones of those killed by Muslims are in any way right to blame anyone other than those responsible for it, but that it's forgivable that they do so.

To reiterate, I *don't* think that that sympathy should go as far as infringing the rights of others to e.g. build this centre, but I don't think it's ipse facto bigotted to draw attention to it.

[polmaven]

150. And if a memorial to the terrorists

was being built there, I would agree. But it isn't! Muslims did not attack the U.S. on 9/11/2001. Terrorists did. The vast majority of the Muslim world had condemned that attack. There is no legitimate and non bigoted reason to oppose this Community Center.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. That's still a bigoted reason.

It's still slurring muslims as terrorists, and it goes one further by slurring 9-11 victims as dumbass bigots.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

56. I'm afraid I think you need to reconsider both halves of that.

Are you really saying that you're confident if one of your loved ones was murdered as part of a terrorist act committed by, for example, supporters of bimetallism, and intended to promote bimetallism, it wouldn't leave you hostile to bimetallists, and the construction of the headquarters of the national campaign for bimetallism on the site wouldn't cause you pain? Or that the fact that that pained you would make you a dumbass bigot?

And, whether or not you believe you'd be capable of retaining total objectivity even in the depths of your grief (I'm sure many people can and do; I'm also sure some don't), saying that other people can't is not saying that I agree with the beliefs they come to hold - as I said in my first post, I think that the pain it will cause some of the victims' families is *not* sufficient cause to ban the construction of this Islamic centre.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. OK, I reconsidered it. Still holds up.

The only "family members of 9-11 victims" who are against this are bigots, and they deserve to be in pain over it.

[shaayecanaan]

91. The problem with that argument is that it is indeterminate...

it depends on a presumption, not necessarily empirical, that the presence of a mosque would/will upset family members of those who had died, and to an extent that would justify a policy response.

I imagine there are many things that might upset such a family member, such as seeing their beloved's favourite brand of soup in the supermarket aisle or seeing a similar sort of car that they used to drive.

Unless the Centre was particularly prominent or the person in question was going to frequent it regularly I am not sure that the presence of an Islamic centre in this particular location would cause lasting distress to such a person. The link between the death of their loved one and the mosque is rather too tenuous for that, I would think.

There is always an enormous amount of opposition to the building of a mosque anywhere. Even if approved it is very likely that the Muslims involved will be prevented from building a minaret or making the call to prayer. However, usually after the building of a mosque the opposition dies down as people go about their business. That was certainly the case with the Bosnian mosque located not far from my street. Some of the residents even apologised to the imam for their earlier opposition.

[mwb970]

168. But that reason doesn't make sense.

It's not a monument to the hijackers, or even to Islam. It's a community center, promoted by the very same "peaceful Muslims" that Sarah Yoyo wants to shout it down.

I truly don't see why this would "cause pain" to the victims of 9/11, unless they have a deep, fundamental misunderstanding of Islam, Christianity, history, the Constitution, and the nature and mission of America itself.

Oh, wait. Conservatives have a deep, fundamental misunderstanding of all of those things.

[Tesha]

22. No. (NT)

[JI7]

23. the reason would have to include not allow other religions either to build one

it would have to apply to all religions.

but so far all the reasons that are given assumes that every muslim is responsible for 9/11.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[UndertheOcean]

38. nope ,nada ,zip

[Twinguard]

39. The only potential concern I can see is...

Who is funding it?

As long as the proverbial check isn't signed by Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda, I don't see a problem.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. No.

This is one of those issues that makes it real easy to spot closet bigots.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. I think the OP's looking for non-bigoted examples.

This is not one of them.

[uppityperson]

78. delete

[Forkboy]

46. You can always be counted on.

Much like Rush can always be counted on.

I'd ask you a question, but we all know you're a hit and run cowardly type......

[Starbucks Anarchist]

50. He replaced it by building two blocks away?

Who's his contractor? Mr. Magoo?

[LostinVA]

62. I need to know what this said!!!!!!

[Posteritatis]

75. Usual "bin laden's building the mosque" conspiracy theory rambling. (nt)

[LostinVA]

76. Thanks!

[Forkboy]

106. It was a post from stray cat, troll at large.

if you're familiar with any of his right wing posts you can guess what this one said. :)

[LostinVA]

110. Nuf said

[Starbucks Anarchist]

124. They said Bin Laden replaced the WTC with this mosque.

And that people should "follow the money" regarding the mosque's funding. :hi:

[Posteritatis]

52. Do you actually believe what you just spouted? (nt)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

57. Bin Laden is building this mosque?

That would certainly be a sufficient reason to oppose it, I grant you, but it's not something I've heard claimed before - possibly you should notify the CIA that you know this?

[Cleita]

47. None. n/t

[booley]

48. Ok I got one

It invites bat shit crazy non new yorker cons who never gave a crap about the city except to call it a cesspool of liberalism to come to the city and opine about how New Yorkers should feel.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. Oh yeah, heard that one before.

"Japanese internment was a good thing, because it protected the Japanese from those angry white mobs."

[booley]

55. Actually I was being facetious

We all know they don't' need an excuse.

And it was the only non bigoted reason I could think of as it's more about getting the bigots to shut up since from what I can tell all the people who are opposed to this muslim center aren't from the city.

[Caliman73]

70. I would not consider that a Legitimate reason

Unless you want to kick out all of the gay, bi-racial people, interracial couples immigrants, etc... extremists will always find an excuse to hate.

[robertpaulsen]

53. Same answer to the question: "Are there any non-bigoted & legit reasons for opposing Prop 8?"

The correct response is:

FUCK NO!!!

[petronius]

58. Non-Muslim families of victims might feel an aversion to an Islamic presence,

which is an understandable albeit unfair and irrational response. However, 'feelings' are never a valid reason for discrimination by businesses or governments...

[Raineyb]

148. That reason would still be bigoted. n/t

[TNLib]

61. Not really from what I understand they owned that property for decades

I think this is one of those non issues that the right wing wackos are using to stir up their base. Racism and bigotry play up well in repuke politics.

[Douglas Carpenter]

63. of course not and those who claim there are legitimate reasons would never say this

if it involved any other marginalized minority group.

It is DU policy to grant special understanding to racist and bigots IF they are racist and bigoted against Arab and Muslim people.

[npk]

65. Why does the mosque have to be built at ground zero

Were there any other location available.

Would anyone have a problem is a Christian Church was built in the near a sacred battlefield in Afghanistan?

[Douglas Carpenter]

66. It is not a mosque. It's a community center with a prayer room and it is being built 2 blocks away

"The tragedy here is that the Islamic Center is precisely the sort of institution that the Anti-Defamation league traditionally supported":

Oz Sultan, the programming director for the center, said the complex was based on Jewish community centers and Y.M.C.A.'s in Manhattan. It is to have a board composed of Muslim, Christian and Jewish leaders and is intended to create a national model of moderate Islam.

“We are looking to build bridges between faiths,” Mr. Sultan said in an interview.

City officials, particularly Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, have forcefully defended the project on the grounds of religious freedom, saying that government has no place dictating where a house of worship is located. The local community board has given overwhelming backing to the project, and the city's landmarks commission is expected to do the same on Tuesday.

“What is great about America, and particularly New York, is we welcome everybody, and if we are so afraid of something like this, what does that say about us?” Mr. Bloomberg asked recently.

- Joe Klein - Political Columnist for Time Magazine

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/07/31/the-defamation-league/?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0vIfS1g3b

[Posteritatis]

67. A MOSQUE IS NOT BEING BUILT AT GROUND ZERO.

PERHAPS THE CAPS WILL LET THIS FACT GET THROUGH TO PEOPLE STILL IGNORANT ENOUGH TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

For fuck's sake, people!

[npk]

71. EVERYTHING I HAVE READ SAYS MOSQUE

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/03/mosque-9-11-site

A plan to build a mosque and a Muslim community centre within two blocks of Ground Zero cleared a major hurdle today amid an intensifying groundswell of opposition from rightwing pundits and politicians.

The $100m project would see a 13-storey centre, with prayer space, swimming pool and restaurant, rise in Park Place, just north of the World Trade Centre where al-Qaida terrorists struck on 11 September 2001.

[Posteritatis]

73. Everything you have read is wrong or a lie. (nt)

[npk]

81. So a respected UK paper is lying

BTW, since you are so upset about the spread of ignorance, you should no that the word "MOSQUE" refers to any building dedicated for Islamic worship or prayer. Which I believe would be this supposed "Community Center". Which they only started referring to as a community center after all the controversy started.

[Posteritatis]

82. If they're calling a prayer room a mosque and saying it's at Ground Zero? Yes.

If that's what constitutes a mosque then the humanities building at the last university I went to is a mosque, and the hospitals in town are churches.

And no, they didn't start referring to it as a community center after this all started. They'd been doing so before the right started howling about dhimmitude and whatever else they needed to do to get this complete non-story into global news.

Oh, and just to reiterate, they aren't being built at Ground Zero and anyone who says otherwise is stupid and wrong. Period.

[Douglas Carpenter]

83. from the same article you referenced:

The plan for a Muslim centre is the brainchild of the Cordoba Initiative, a group set up after 9/11 to build bridges between moderate Islam and the West. Its name alludes to the Spanish city that was famous for its religious toleration under the Moors.

Proponents point out that there has been an active mosque on a separate site within six blocks of Ground Zero for the past 30 years. The Cordoba Initiative has also promised that the mosque – which it prefers to call an inter-faith prayer space – will be welcoming to non-Muslim religions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/03/mosque-9-11-site

[npk]

84. So. I think they should build 100 mosques or excuse me "community centers"

All over ground zero. I was just asking what was so special about demolishing a standing building to build on a site that is sacred ground to many people in New York and around the country.

I don't really give a shit what they do.

[Douglas Carpenter]

89. this is the building or "sacred ground" where the community center is being built. from your article

The proposed site of the Islamic community centre to be operated by a group called the Cordoba Initiative. Photograph: Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty Images

Today the commission unanimously declined to preserve the building, an 1850s Italianate structure that was damaged on 9/11 and has been disused ever since. It said there was nothing sufficiently distinguished about its design that earned it landmark status.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/03/mosque-9-11-site

[uppityperson]

92. A building 2 blocks from the WTC center is "sacred ground"?

Seriously? How many blocks filled with buildings do you have to go out to have it not be "sacred ground"? Are you asking all businesses or centers within a certain range to relocate?

[npk]

95. I'm saying that this building is within the close proximity to ground zero

And I am not saying anything should or shouldn't be built. I could careless about any religion. My only point was this is a sensitive issue. Why was this Imam so unwilling to compromise and avoid the controversy and anger and simply build at another location. If I am not mistaken there was a proposed site on minutes away, but far enough from ground zero, and it was cheaper as well.

[uppityperson]

98. I think they already owned it. I would ask in return why should they have to

buy a new place? Do you have other info about the "other site" or about them owning this?

[npk]

101. They should not be forced to.

Only they could have chosen to.

If they already owned it then fine. I had not heard that. But if I am mistaken then so be it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

103. there was no controvery and there was no "sensitive issue" until a bunch of crazy

right-wingers like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich stirred things up.

The decision to build a community center with an inter-faith prayer room was not the decision of some Imam:

"The plan for a Muslim centre is the brainchild of the Cordoba Initiative, a group set up after 9/11 to build bridges between moderate Islam and the West. Its name alludes to the Spanish city that was famous for its religious toleration under the Moors.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/03/mosque-9-11-site

[npk]

108. Palin and Gingrich exploited the controversy

But to say that there was no controversy from the beginning is not factually correct. Many people in New York were against this from day 1. Palin and others only fanned the flames.

[SoxFan]

111. Let me ask you a question

Within a few blocks of the WTC site, you will find an adult video store, an off-track betting parlor, and a liquor store. Do you have a problem with those things on sacred ground?

[uppityperson]

112. That is a good question. Post to mark to see if there is any answer.

:thumbsup:

[npk]

118. I do not have problem

If those places were there before 9/11 then they are established as part of that area or landmark buildings that were there when the attack occurred. I am only playing Devils Advocate here. I can understand how some people would not want to see a building that sustained damage around ground zero, that might have some specific symbolic meaning to some people, destroyed and something else, a new building, put up in it's place. I can see both sides of he story.

[Mariana]

137. I guess the "sacred ground" is only violated

if Muslims build on it. Everyone else can do business there as usual.

[Chan790]

162. Burlington Coat Factory is sacred ground?

That's what they're knocking down, a Burlington Coat Factory that is NOT on the WTC site and I cannot see any grounds that one might consider it sacred ground unless they believe that the savings on outerwear really are divine.

[uppityperson]

90. I quote you "within two blocks of Ground Zero"

there is already one within 3 blocks of ground zero. Should they have to relocate also?

[npk]

96. Was that mosque built before or after 9/11

I don't know. I am not familiar with this mosque as you seem to be.

[uppityperson]

102. Since 1970. Here's a link and info and a map of stc/omgmosque sites

Masjid Manhattan has been in the area already (20 Warren St, Ny, NY), looks like about one block away

http://www.masjidmanhattan.com/Default.aspx

Here is where the new one will be (purple is wtc center, red dot is spot)

[npk]

104. Thank you, uppityperson

I am simply speaking as to what I have heard some of the families say, and that is that they are opposed to any new building in that area. I am not saying I agree or disagree. I can understand their grief. It may be somewhat misplaced but I don't believe all of them to be bigots. I can only imagine what the death of their loved ones caused them. Of course I also realize that many Muslims were killed as well in the WTC attack. MY only point is that this seems to be a losing proposition in my eyes. At least in terms of building some sort of community allegance and fostering better understanding. I just don't see those things happening, which is what the Imam said was the whole purpose. I just think he could have chosen a site a little further away from ground zero and that perhaps his message would ring home a bit louder.

[uppityperson]

109. Most NewYorkers I've heard of are fine with it. Stopping it because of some loudspoken

bigots people is a losing proposition. Couching it as and "omg mosque!" is preying on people's unthinking emotions and is wrong. From what I hear from friends in NYC, it all seems fine to them.

[Raineyb]

151. I don't give a shit what they say.

If they only make a stink over a Muslim community center I have not one ounce of patience to deal with such bigotry. None. The Imam does not have to choose a different site to appease a bunch of whining bigots that's part of the freedom that these knuckle-draggers are always touting. That freedom applies to him as well as the morons and attempt to try to play neutral by "seeing" both sides does nothing more than cave in to that bigotry. It is wrong and frankly it's the same ploy the MSM uses when discussing most topics. It is not reasonable to treat the viewpoint of bigots as equally valid as those of their victims. One side is CLEARLY wrong and the reasons why they are wrong matter not one whit.

[npk]

72. EVERYTHING I HAVE READ SAYS MOSQUE

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/03/mosque-9-11-site

A plan to build a mosque and a Muslim community centre within two blocks of Ground Zero cleared a major hurdle today amid an intensifying groundswell of opposition from rightwing pundits and politicians.

The $100m project would see a 13-storey centre, with prayer space, swimming pool and restaurant, rise in Park Place, just north of the World Trade Centre where al-Qaida terrorists struck on 11 September 2001.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

74. ALL THE OBJECTIONS I'VE HEARD TO THE MOSQUE ARE BIGOTED

Still waiting

[npk]

86. I wasn't objecting to them building the mosque

I was only asking why this Imam was so hell bent on building near ground zero. Were there no other places that were say not so sacred or sensitive locations. Why is this Imam can't see the other side of the coin. Does he not understand that this is a sensitive issue to so many people.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[npk]

97. So the families of the 9/11 victims

Are all bigots in your eyes.

AND I don't know where you got:

"Why do these black people want to move into my nice white neighborhood? Can't the live on the other side of the railroad tracks? With the other blacks?"

I spoke nothing about that.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

100. The families of the 9-11 victims who oppose this are bigots, yes.

Fuck them.


"Why do these black people want to move into my nice white neighborhood? Can't the live on the other side of the railroad tracks? With the other blacks?"

"I spoke nothing about that. "

Same thought process.

[jberryhill]

116. Correct. Do we keep Germans under control here? They killed a lot of Jews

We can't have an Oktoberfest in Brooklyn, now can we?

Lots of people are victims of violence by others. We do not accept class-hatred because of some holy victim status.

There were fine people killed in 9/11. There were assholes killed on 9/11. I am sorry for the loss felt by all, but it did not render an entire group of people to be perpetually asshole-proof.

[jberryhill]

114. How about the white families who were victims of crimes by blacks?

Do we respect their feelings and keep blacks away from them?

It is precisely the same kind of generalization.

[Violet_Crumble]

143. Exactly right! n/t

[polmaven]

149. The word MOSQUE

is simply more provokative......this is a community center with a prayer room as one of several sections included. If the MSM said 'COMMUNITY CENTER", however, it would not create the "discussions" that the word MOSQUE does.

[Curmudgeoness]

68. There is not a lot of free space to build in that area. Why shouldn't

anyone who wants to build on open space, and who is willing to buy the property, be able to do it? And who cares what they would do in Afghanistan, this is not Afghanistan. Or....is it?

[uppityperson]

79. you mean aside from the fact it is NOT at ground zero?

Aside from the fact it is a block from another mosque?

[Caliman73]

80. To answer your questions.

1. It is not a mosque, despite all the stuff you read calling it that. It is a center with a prayer room.
2. That is irrelevant, they have permission to build wherever the planning commission says they can and permission was granted almost unanimously. The public was invited to participate as they usually are when someone is building in public areas.
3. Also irrelevant. We are not a Christian nation. WTC is not a sacred battlefield, it is the site of a crime perpetrated by extremists. We are not Afghanistan and thus have no say in what their laws and customs are.

We are the United States and we claim to be the most advanced, tolerant, and accepting nation on earth. If we claim it then we need to stop fucking about and act like it.

[GOTV]

160. Because someone legally aquired the land and that's what they want to build ...

... why do you hate freedom?

[WillyT]

69. No

Plain and simple.

:shrug:

[SmileyRose]

87. No - BUT

building a Muslim anything 2 blocks from Ground Zero to foster understanding was obviously a PR epic fail.

[uppityperson]

93. Only for a certain mind-set. eom

[BootinUp]

94. It might be used as a terrorist training center?

This is not a serious post.

[Pithlet]

99. I haven't seen one yet.

I've seen the claim too. I don't see it.

[JerseygirlCT]

115. None that I've heard or can think of

All of what people are saying seems to boil down to bigotry and ignorance.

[unkachuck]

119. only if your shrink determines....

....that you are suffering from acute Islamophobia....if so, take two aspirins, say three Hail Marys and in the morning sign yourself into a second-floor room at a hospital of your choice....

[flvegan]

121. This thread is awesome. n/t

[fishwax]

122. nope

none that I've seen.

[blondeatlast]

125. No. nt

[HEyHEY]

126. Its colours clash with the Gap next door.

[MajorChode]

128. The ADL opposes it

Personally I could give a shit either way, but I was kinda surprised to see the ADL make a statement opposing it. It almost seems as if they are saying, we condemn bigotry, but maybe the bigots have a point this time:

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/CvlRt_32/5820_32.htm

[Posteritatis]

129. They're using the same 'argument' some of the people in this thread are

Namely, "Muslims destroyed the WTC, and Muslims are a monolith, therefore they shouldn't build anything related to their religion within some vague distance of the site which, when pressed, we'll probably define as 'not in Manhattan at all' because someone, somewhere, might be upset if they do otherwise until the last 9/11 victim's children die of old age."

Fuck that.

[MajorChode]

131. Pat Robertson and the teabaggers are suing to stop it

Personally I really don't care to line up behind those fucksticks.

[Hugabear]

134. I'd love to be inside that courtroom

Pat Robertson: "But Your Honor, they're Muslims! Do you remember who it was who attacked us on 9-11?"

Judge: "Case dismissed, and please pay the Cordoba Iniative their legal costs."

[Mariana]

138. Pat Robertson? He has some damn nerve, doesn't he?

Here's a clip of him and Jerry Falwell explicitly blaming Americans for the 9/11 attacks!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I


Partial Transcript:

Then Falwell said, "What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve."

Robertson replied, "Well, Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror, we haven't begun to see what they can do to the major population."

Falwell said, "The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I'll hear from them for this, but throwing God...successfully with the help of the federal court system...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the finger in their face and say you helped this happen."

Robertson said, "I totally concur, and the problem is we've adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government, and so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do, and the top people, of course, is the court system."

[MajorChode]

139. Thanks, I had forgotten about him saying 9/11 was caused because God hates fags

[Mariana]

141. Funny that Muslims are NOT on their lengthy list of people at fault.

Unless they count as "pagans".

Just various groups of other Americans that they don't like.

[MajorChode]

161. Interestingly, Robertson said God utilizes terrorists

"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you, This is not a message of hate -- this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor."
–Pat Robertson, on "gay days" at Disneyworld

[Raineyb]

152. The ADL is using a bigoted argument and frankly has lost any

credibility they may have had.

[MajorChode]

157. They didn't have much

These days the ADL is more of a mouthpiece for Israel than they are a civil rights organization. Their tactics are similar to McCarthy's. Anyone who dares criticize Israel or American support of Israel is automatically branded an anti-Semite.

Noam Chomsky wrote this more than 20 years ago:

The leading official monitor of anti-Semitism, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith, interprets anti-Semitism as unwillingness to conform to its requirements with regard to support for Israeli authorities. These conceptions were clearly expounded by ADL National Director Nathan Perlmutter, who wrote that while old-fashioned anti-Semitism has declined, there is a new and more dangerous variety on the part of "peacemakers of Vietnam vintage, transmuters of swords into plowshares, championing the terrorist P.L.O.," and those who condemn U.S. policies in Vietnam and Central America while "sniping at American defense budgets." He fears that "nowadays war is getting a bad name and peace too favorable a press" with the rise of this "real anti-Semitism." The logic is straightforward: Anti-Semitism is opposition to the interests of Israel (as the ADL sees them); and these interests are threatened by "the liberals," the churches, and others who do not adhere to the ADL political line.114

The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming "one of the main pillars" of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli press casually describes it, engaged in surveillance, blacklisting, compilation of FBI-style files circulated to adherents for the purpose of defamation, angry public responses to criticism of Israeli actions, and so on. These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel's refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement. The ADL was condemned by the Middle East Studies Association after circulation of an ADL blacklist to campus Jewish leaders, stamped "confidential." Practices of this nature have been bitterly condemned by Israeli doves -- in part because they fear the consequences of this hysterical chauvinism for Israel, in part because they have been subjected to the standard procedures themselves, in part simply in natural revulsion.

http://home.nvg.org/~skars/ni/ni-c10-s20.html

[Raineyb]

158. I didn't think they had any. I was merely making a rare attempt at

diplomacy.

:shrug:

[bring_em_home_bush]

159. FUCK CHOMSKY!!!!!11111!!!!

just saving some bigot the trouble.

[MellowDem]

133. Nope. nt

[JoeyT]

135. Not that I've heard.

There are some batshit crazy ones floating around that aren't exactly bigoted. They're just insane.

Conspiracy theories aside, I guess opposing the building of any religious structure anywhere would work as a non-bigoted argument, but it's an unconstitutional one.

The land is worth a hell of a lot of money, and once a religious structure is built they're not going to be able to tax it anymore (At least I think that's how it works.) but that argument would circle back to the "Any religious structure" argument.

[The Magistrate]

140. Hard To Imagine What They Might Be, Ma'am

[Violet_Crumble]

142. I saw a DUer claim this morning there were many legitimate reasons to oppose it...

...but they weren't forthcoming with even a single one of those many legitimate reasons. After reading through this thread, while there were a few attempts by others to list reasons that might not be bigoted, things like opposing it because of the supposed architectural heritage of the building on the proposed site wasn't being thrown up by a bunch of architecture buffs, but by an organised group of anti-Muslim conservatives (who I gather are for the most part from other parts of the US) who couldn't give a toss what value any building has - they don't want any Islamic centre and they'll try anything or any loophole to cause trouble.

I read Mayor Bloomberg's speech about it and not being from that part of the world, aren't too knowledgable about him, but that speech was awesome and clearly from someone who understands the concepts of freedom and tolerance and that there has been a history of religious intolerance aimed at different groups in New York over time.


Here's his speech. It's a good one...


'"We have come here to Governors Island to stand where the earliest settlers first set foot in New Amsterdam, and where the seeds of religious tolerance were first planted. We've come here to see the inspiring symbol of liberty that, more than 250 years later, would greet millions of immigrants in the harbor, and we come here to state as strongly as ever – this is the freest city in the world. That's what makes New York special and different and strong.

"Our doors are open to everyone – everyone with a dream and a willingness to work hard and play by the rules. New York City was built by immigrants, and it is sustained by immigrants – by people from more than a hundred different countries speaking more than two hundred different languages and professing every faith. And whether your parents were born here, or you came yesterday, you are a New Yorker.

"We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors. That's life and it's part of living in such a diverse and dense city. But we also recognise that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11.

"On that day, 3,000 people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn't want us to enjoy the freedom to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams and to live our own lives.

"Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that, even here in a city that is rooted in Dutch tolerance, was hard-won over many years. In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch Governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue – and they were turned down.

"In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal, political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies – and the organiser was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.

"In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion – and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780's – St Peter's on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Centre site and one block south of the proposed mosque and community centre.

"This morning, the city's Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted not to extend landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community centre are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building. The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.

"The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the US Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.

"The World Trade Centre Site will forever hold a special place in our City, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves – and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans – if we said 'no' to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

"Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values – and play into our enemies' hands – if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists – and we should not stand for that.

"For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime – as important a test – and it is critically important that we get it right.

"On September 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked 'What God do you pray to?' 'What beliefs do you hold?'

"The attack was an act of war – and our first responders defended not only our city but also our country and our Constitution. We do not honour their lives by denying the very Constitutional rights they died protecting. We honour their lives by defending those rights – and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.

"Of course, it is fair to ask the organisers of the mosque to show some special sensitivity to the situation – and in fact, their plan envisions reaching beyond their walls and building an interfaith community. By doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our city even closer together and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any way consistent with Islam. Muslims are as much a part of our city and our country as the people of any faith and they are as welcome to worship in lower Manhattan as any other group. In fact, they have been worshipping at the site for the better part of a year, as is their right.

"The local community board in lower Manhattan voted overwhelming to support the proposal and if it moves forward, I expect the community centre and mosque will add to the life and vitality of the neighbourhood and the entire city.

"Political controversies come and go, but our values and our traditions endure – and there is no neighborhood in this city that is off limits to God's love and mercy, as the religious leaders here with us today can attest."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/aug/03/michael-bloomberg-ground-zero-mosque

[Douglas Carpenter]

144. I saw that too,

link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8875367#8880172

that thread was locked but not one single reason was ever given other than bigotry or pandering to bigotry was offered by anyone - just preposterous denial

[Douglas Carpenter]

145. here is Mayor Bloomberg's speech on youtube

link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQsHc1EHgQY

.

[uppityperson]

153. I wonder if there will be an answer to what are those "numerous reasons"?

[Violet_Crumble]

163. Highly doubtful, as there isn't even a few reasons, let alone 'numerous reasons'

In fact, I'm not even able to think of a single reason that's legitimate...

[krispos42]

154. Oh, I'm sure there are the potential for one or two.

Lack of parking, maybe. Insufficient emergency exits. Or perhaps the proposal is an architectural eyesore. Maybe the recorded calls to prayer will disturb the people trying to honk their car horns.

[Raineyb]

155. Lack of parking? Nothing would get built in NYC if parking was taken into

consideration. Insufficient emergency exits? That would be taken care of when the plans are gone over. It's a non issue. They already tried using landmark status and that didn't work and in a city with lots of tall shiny buildings, it's a disingenuous argument. They let churches play those loud ass bells every 15 minutes for half the day. Why would the calls to prayer be any more disturbing?

[krispos42]

164. They might find something legitimate, but it's not likely, as you said.

Doubtless they'll try, though.


He he, the church bells you mentioned reminds me of a Monty Python skit used to have on audiotape...

I think this is it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBBlRB1HH2g

[Withywindle]

165. Not that I've heard.

I've seen a lot of flailing, but it all seems to come down to some version of "Muslims are scary! I don't trust them! Who knows what this REALLY is? I don't actually know any 9/11 survivors or victims' families, but I am CONCERNED about the possibility that someone, somewhere, might find it upsetting. Not me, of course. I'm just worried about the SACRED GROUND. Because of course, nothing can stay sacred if there are icky Muslims on it."

[Violet_Crumble]

166. Bit of a kick just in case anyone who thinks there are legit reasons is reading this thread n/t

[Scurrilous]

169. ...

:thumbsup: