Two very different views of the "Ground Zero Mosque"!

[mwb970]

Here it is as the objectors see it:



And here is the reality:

[LostinVA]

1. Oh, bravo -- you are 100% right!

[dmallind]

2. Can I vote for #1?

A bit incongruous I admit, but would certainly be the most aesthetically pleasing building in NYC. Or anywhere else come to that.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

3. I like the subtle implication that the bigots can't tell a Hindu monument from a mosque. -nt

[dmallind]

5. Sorry - Shah Jahan as a Mughal was an orthodox Muslim

It's not a mosque, correct. But it's very definitely Muslim.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

6. *Checking* Yep, you're correct. Live and learn. -nt

[mwb970]

17. You had the right idea, though.

I was trying to suggest that most Americans have a stereotypical idea of mosques and Islamic architecture in general, and would picture the only mosque-like building they knew of!

[Kalyke]

4. I see it like this:

[justanaverageguy]

7. Look, here's the rub

I fully support allowing this mosque/community center to be built for very obvious reasons.

However, with that being said I am insulted by the fact that many of the muslims involved with this project would NEVER support a similar project by the YMCA in Mecca. Hell for that matter non-muslims are not even permitted in mecca, much less a YMCA. It's an insulting double standard. The arrogance of it insults me.

Let's support it being built because that simply demonstrate our moral superiority, but not let's not pretend that the insult that some take by it is not legit.

[dmallind]

8. You can't have both

You can't be morally superior AND bothered/insulted by it. The only reason we would have to claim moral superiority is because we DON'T react in the same way and get upset if Muslims exercise their religion in NYC.

And of course for that comparison to make sense even as a hypothetical construct, you would have to assume that NYC or the US is a specifically and legally Christian entity just as Saudi Arabia is a specifically and legally Muslim one (the full name of the country is a clue). Since the US, and no part of it, can under the constitution ever be a specifically Christian place, the existence side by side of any and all religions anywhere where any are permitted must always be...well.....sacrosanct. The analogy falls flat exactly because we are NOT a Christian nation, and have no damn right treating any religion differently from any other.

[justanaverageguy]

10. Of course I can

Supporting its construction despite its insulting nature when it's organizers would not support a reverse scenario elsewhere is a clear demonstration of America's moral superiority on this issue. It's not the presence of the building itself that is insulting, it's the leaders behind it. It's their double standard. It's their audacity to demand to be allowed to do something in this country that they would not themselves support being done in their own homeland. I am not insulted by the muslim who screams for religious freedom here in America. No. On that issue America is morally Superior to countries like Saudi Arabia (drawing on my analogy). I'm insulted by the muslim that would scream for religious freedom here, but not support it and would most likely work against it elsewhere. The scream would ring hollow. It would be hypocritical. It is insulting.

[Mariana]

12. Please name names.

Which Muslims involved in this project have said that they oppose religious freedom elsewhre in the world?

[justanaverageguy]

14. Try as I might

I couldn't find any comments, speeches, or writings, in which Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has criticized any muslim countries for their lack of religious freedom. His silence, in my opinion implies his support. Everything about him that I can find portrays him as a bridge builder. Someone who wants to build a bridge between the muslim world and the west. He seems to honestly want Americans to be more accepting of muslims. A worthy goal for sure. However, with that being said a bridge needs to move in both directions. While fighting for his and all other muslim's religious freedoms here, he should take time to pause and to consider the lack of religious freedoms that muslims in other countries show their fellow man. That it takes to two to tango. That when he calls on America to be more tolerant, he should also call on the muslim world to be tolerant of other religions and cultures. He is certainly in a position to do so.

We as American's (I hope) consider the freedom of religion to be inalienable. This is obviously not a view shared by the muslim world. So yes, when leaders of that religion want to lecture me on the freedom of religion, they are not coming from a place of strong credibility. I'm not the one who needs the lecture.

[Mariana]

20. So, you haven't found any Muslims involved with this project

who've said they oppose religious freedom elsewhere in the world. You assume that this particular Imam does oppose it, although he hasn't said so.

I haven't read his books or articles, but if I were all that bothered about what a man's opinions and positions on an issue might be, I'd do that first. Have you?

[dmallind]

13. Ermmm...the main leader is an FBI-go to guy

Not exactly dealing with Bin Laden here. Or are all Muslims alike? What screaming have this specific bunch done (they already have a mosque a couple more blocks away BTW)? Even if everything you said were true, any Muslim "screaming" for religious freedom here while not supporting it "in their homeland" (which is kind of impossible since if they are here isn't it their homeland?) is themself an example of choosing the US over an Islamic state of their own free will. Hardly offensive.

You are trying to claim that assumed (not demonstrated) perceptions on the part of some unnamed Muslims about the US and Islamic nations, where they clearly have made a choice indicating the former is superior, is somehow insulting and should be offensive to other Americans. That makes no sense.

And you still do not address the fundamental problem with your analogy. The US is not a Christian entity, but a pluralistic one. Saudi Arabia is an ISlamic entity. I am truly thankful you seem to see pluralism as superior and I agree, but then we must surely both see that the scenarios are not at all comparable. Building a mosque, even if it were a mosque, anywhere where it is legally permissible to do so for zoning etc, in a pluralistic country is not at all analogous to building a Christian center in a country that is constitutionally an Islamic state. The analogy would perhaps hold for building a mosque in St Peter's square in the Vatican City being equal to building a church in Mecca, but nobody - not even these screaming Muslims - seems to be suggesting that. Only building an Islamic center in a country that allows them under its constitution. There is no hypocrisy in treating different situations differently. NYC is not Christian territory and Mecca is Islamic territory. That difference alone negates any claim of insult or warranted offense.

[justanaverageguy]

15. Thank you for the well thought out conversation

I absolutely want to respond to you. However, I've gotta run for the day. I will respond later this evening.

[ChoralScholar]

9. We should step up and be the bigger person (or society)... EOM

[justanaverageguy]

11. Absolutely agree

Because in that context the word "bigger" means "better". I think we should always strive for that.

[LostinVA]

16. What the heck does Mecca have to do with NYC???

[seabeyond]

18. um... we arent them. who we are, i HOPE, is not based on what other, oppressive govt

does.

you cannot use that as an argument or measurement for what and who we are, .... surely

[surrealAmerican]

19. Look, there's no two ways about it ...

... Saudi Arabia is a miserable place to live. Your analogy, however, doesn't really work. New York is not a "holy city" for our "state religion". In fact, we have no state religion. Muslims have been living in that neighborhood for many years (since well before 2001), and it's not exactly inflammatory that they should want a community center.