Mosque at Ground Zero

[Badran]

How about the Jains or the National Science Foundation just to name the first 2 that come to mind? Are you seriously suggesting that every group and religion creates people that think they have the right to kill those that disagree with it???

Thats not exactly what i claimed, i said that terrorists are everywhere. As in, the kind of people who would commit certain things, exists in every religion or group, naturally. No group are perfect. However, i didn't mean that there aren't any groups who haven't killed others for disagreeing with them. If there are groups that do not even contain those kind of people, i was simply unaware of them. But at least the majority of religions contains such people.

1. ~1.5 billion

3. Both.

Well, i have read and heard various numbers, and this one was the highest i've seen. But lets assume this is the number, what does that lead us to? 150 million of people who contain a small number of extremists, and the rest are people who do not condemn this violence. Thats hardly hundreds of million, its a hundred and 50 millions.

I'm not trying to say that there aren't a lot of terrorists, or that muslims are not all terrorists. My point it is unfair to come to conclusion on the religion based on these minority's actions and interpretations of the Quran.

They mean that there is a component to Islam that creates terrorists. You can make the argument straight from the Koran that Muslims are supposed to kill the infidel. You have not interpreted it that way, but a good number of Muslims do.

Well, that is you conclusion, but it is not exactly fair. Since the huge majority of muslims do not act this way. People committed this kind of stuff countless times, and in so many ways. It is simply inaccurate to come to conclusion on a religion or a group of people through the worst examples.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I agree with a lot of your post, starting with that comment, and I disagree with a few points:

Let's clarify a few concepts and terms:

First of all, when you insist on lumping all conservatives into one heap, you're doing the exact same thing that people who lump all Muslims into one heap are doing.

Many conservatives are not opposed to the mosque/community center being built at that location, because they uphold the rights of freedom of religion.

Many people who oppose the building of the mosque/community center are NOT conservatives, but are friends, coworkers, and family members of those who were killed in the terrorist attacks by radical Muslims on 9/11.

The problem is, Kathryn, that a lot of conservatives not only choose not to hold each other accountable; they attack any non-conservative would do so. I'd gain a lot more respect for them if they'd change that.

Right on. Thanks for reiterating what many on this thread have been saying, and thanks for putting up the map, which should clarify (to anyone who will take the time to look at this objectively) that the proposed building will not even be VISIBLE from Ground Zero.

If I hear one more political pundit repeat the LYING phrase "Mosque at Ground Zero" I think I will throw my coffee cup at the TV. Well, maybe not...but I'll feel like it.

Good for you. Honestly, if it wasn't for all the media hoopla, one could drive right by it and hardly even notice it. (There are far more important things to pay attention to while driving in Lower Manhattan!)

Christians didn't pilot commercial airplanes filled to the brim with innocent people into two of the largest structures in the US, killing thousands. There are churches, mosques, synagogues, and all other sorts of religious buildings by the thousands throughout NYC and they've been built without a murmur of protest - and will continue to be built.

Well, yeah. But neither did Muslims bomb Oklahoma City, or launch the Crusades (they were actually the target of them), or have the Inquisition. Don't get me wrong, Islam's track record is far from perfect. But you summed it up very well in the second sentence.

What makes this so inflammatory (though I agree with the decision to allow the center to be built) is the very fact that it's a new Muslim center with such close proximity to that site.

Oh - and the fact that the whole situation can be used and manipulated by a large number of special interest and political groups to further their own individual agendas. Don't leave that part out!

Correct on both accounts.

That's right - The First United Methodist Church was there WELL BEFORE THE BOMBING and in fact sustained significant damage to it's structure during the bombing. Don't know if you've been to the church, but I have. It has the most beautiful open air chapel memorializing the victims


This coincides beautifully with the heart rending memorial across the street erected by St Joseph's Catholic Church:

And Jesus Wept: On a corner adjacent to the memorial is a sculpture of Jesus weeping erected by St. Joseph's Catholic Church. St. Joseph's, one of the first brick and mortar churches in the city, was almost completely destroyed by the blast. The statue is not part of the memorial itself but is popular with visitors nonetheless.

Oklahoma City National Memorial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both these churches were devastated by the bombing, and as I said, they already owned the land and buildings, and were victimized by the bombing.

I've been there too. Quite a heart-wrenching place, isn't it?

I couldn't imagine what would go through the minds of that church's members if the popular media stirred up controversy about rebuilding it. Talk about rubbing salt in the wound. Though I think the circumstances are somewhat different for building a brand new religious center, the rubbing salt in the wound analogy still applies. I cannot imagine what the more tolerant group of Muslims in America have to put up with day, after day, after day. What message does it send to them that some people don't even want them to have a particular place of refuge?

I can ASSURE you that if they had come out in support of the Christian Identity Movement, there would have been an uproar. Also, if it was found that they had donors who supported the Christian Identity Movement, or had they said "Well, we were all accessories to this bombing," there would have been as much public backlash on them as there has been on this current project and imam.

I think so. And on the same token, I'll reverse my position if Park51 is dedicated as a shrine to terrorism, or something of the sort. But that's just the thing: It's almost completely unlikely that it will.

I wonder - will the Islamic Center build a large, beautiful memorial on it's grounds/facility that will memorialize the American victims of 9/11?

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

In fairness, they ought to at least have something. Maybe not such a large memorial, simply as a matter of space--we are talking Lower Manhattan, after all.

 

[Evandr]

I don't understand how it's so difficult to realize they are holding onto a very petty grudge, and are showing irrational, unfounded, and unwarranted hatred towards a group that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. It would be like me egging a local Baptist church that is in no way affiliated with Fred Phelps because his group protested Dio's funeral. That church had absolutely nothing to do with it, but they are getting backlash because some other Baptist group decided to picket a soldier's funeral.

You are absolutely correct, it is irrational but it is also a reality, guilt by association, even remote association is a concept that is alive and well in the world and we cannot make it go away by ignoring it nor will its consequences be any less real.

The real issue is not "Good or Bad - Right or Wrong" it is "Wise or Unwise" and that is the only consideration that has the potential to ensure the best possible outcome.

Also, don't judge too harshly those who have real reasons to greive what happened on 9/11 - I don't think I could ever view the loss of a loved one to terrorists as something in the catagory of a petty grudge.

 

[Alceste]

Evandr, are you saying that, as a mormon, you are guilty (by association) of polygamy and child rape, and that you take people's feelings about FLDS into consideration when practicing your faith?

 

[jmvizanko]

Thats not exactly what i claimed, i said that terrorists are everywhere. As in, the kind of people who would commit certain things, exists in every religion or group, naturally.

But I don't think most terrorists are just crazies who happen to belong to whatever miscellaneous groups exist. Most terrorists are driven by having a belief that that is what they are supposed to be, and mostly this is due to religions, and the one that does the most of it is Islam.

Thats hardly hundreds of million, its a hundred and 50 millions.

Ok, its 150 million. Not exactly a small number.

My point it is unfair to come to conclusion on the religion based on these minority's actions and interpretations of the Quran... It is simply inaccurate to come to conclusion on a religion or a group of people through the worst examples.

It is absolutely unfair to claim that Islam always causes support of terrorism in all of its believers, or even most of the time. But to ignore that it is the reason why most of the, probably millions, of Islamic terrorists are terrorists is just plain delusional or ignorant.

 

[Evandr]

Evandr, are you saying that, as a mormon, you are guilty (by association) of polygamy and child rape, and that you take people's feelings about FLDS into consideration when practicing your faith?

Absolutly not but there are those who would judge me by what they preceive as the history of the LDS church, even though they may have no accurate or complete understanding of what that history is and the underlying philosophies and foundations of that history. Fortunatly I have not had to deal with any such fallout but the poswsibility does exist.

I don't know what you mean by child rape and as for the FLDS they are a splinter group having taken the authority unto themselves without being called to it by God, that is their right but it is also my right to stay my course and not worry about how the Lord will deal with the FLDS or any other religion for that matter. I'm quite sure they are wonderful people who just want to be left alone to practice their beliefs as they see fit but I also believe that some issues must be tailored to the laws of the land and polygamy is one such issue. The LDS Church changed it's views on polygamy in order to not be in contradiction with the laws of the land, a change I believe was given by revelation from God in order to avoid the problems the FLDS are currently having. Remember, polygamy is a social directive subject to change not an eternal principle of the Gospel. Fortunatly none of the laws of this land are in conflict with the unchanging and eternal principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[Alceste]

Absolutly not but there are those who would judge me by what they preceive as the history of the LDS church, even though they may have no accurate or complete understanding of what that history is and the underlying philosophies and foundations of that history. Fortunatly I have not had to deal with any such fallout but the poswsibility does exist.

I don't know what you mean by child rape and as for the FLDS they are a splinter group having taken the authority unto themselves without being called to it by God, that is their right but it is also my right to stay my course and not worry about how the Lord will deal with the FLDS or any other religion for that matter. I'm quite sure they are wonderful people who just want to be left alone to practice their beliefs as they see fit but I also believe that some issues must be tailored to the laws of the land and polygamy is one such issue. The LDS Church changed it's views on polygamy in order to not be in contradiction with the laws of the land, a change I believe was given by revelation from God in order to avoid the problems the FLDS are currently having. Remember, polygamy is a social directive subject to change not an eternal principle of the Gospel. Fortunatly none of the laws of this land are in conflict with the unchanging and eternal principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I'm not sure what you're saying here - you stated that all Muslims and the religion of Islam are "guilty by association" simply because Wahhabi extremists call themselves Muslims, and that this means all Muslims should govern themselves in a way that avoids provoking bad feeling in others who do not differentiate between Wahhabi extremism and Islam. I asked if the same logic applies to Mormons, because the FLDS is widely disapproved of (the child rape is due to the fact that many FLDS "wives" are under 16). I wasn't asking for a history of the Mormon church or the reason for the schism, I was asking whether you, personally, abide by the same conditions you would have mainstream, moderate Muslims (those Americans who also adhere to the "law of the land") abide by. Meaning, do you consider mainstream feelings of antipathy toward respect to FLDS before you practice your faith in public? IOW, do you concede that you are guilty by association and that discrimination against Mormons is fair?

 

[Evandr]

I'm not sure what you're saying here - you stated that all Muslims and the religion of Islam are "guilty by association" simply because Wahhabi extremists call themselves Muslims, and that this means all Muslims should govern themselves in a way that avoids provoking bad feeling in others who do not differentiate between Wahhabi extremism and Islam. I asked if the same logic applies to Mormons, because the FLDS is widely disapproved of (the child rape is due to the fact that many FLDS "wives" are under 16). I wasn't asking for a history of the Mormon church or the reason for the schism, I was asking whether you, personally, abide by the same conditions you would have mainstream, moderate Muslims (those Americans who also adhere to the "law of the land") abide by. Meaning, do you consider mainstream feelings of antipathy toward respect to FLDS before you practice your faith in public? IOW, do you concede that you are guilty by association and that discrimination against Mormons is fair?

I am certainly not saying that, I am saying that there are those who would take that position and act accordingly, I am not one such. In my view the FLDS are no different than any other religion, they have their beliefs and if those conflict with local, state and/or federal law then they should answer for it. The LDS church has no such conflicts nor do they hold any ties with the FLDS.

As for the perceived association of one Islamic/Muslim group to another, it is sad to have to realize that some, not all, find it difficult to separate truth and justice and because of that reservation need be made to address those issues if they are esteemed logically to be real issues of concern. The association between the LDS and the FLDS has been steeped in history and the sting associated with the actions of some misguided individuals has long since faded into history but the sting of 9/11 has not.

 

[Alceste]

I am certainly not saying that, I am saying that there are those who would take that position and act accordingly, I am not one such. In my view the FLDS are no different than any other religion, they have their beliefs and if those conflict with local, state and/or federal law then they should answer for it. The LDS church has no such conflicts nor do they hold any ties with the FLDS.

As for the perceived association of one Islamic/Muslim group to another, it is sad to have to realize that some, not all, find it difficult to separate truth and justice and because of that reservation need be made to address those issues if they are esteemed logically to be real issues of concern. The association between the LDS and the FLDS has been steeped in history and the sting associated with the actions of some misguided individuals has long since faded into history but the sting of 9/11 has not.

Forgive me, but it seems to me as though you are using your ignorance of the divisions within Islam, their history and complexity, as justification for holding a different standard for yourself as a mainstream Mormon than you do for mainstream Muslims. And you are using the fact that this particular brand of ignorance is widespread in America as justification for maintaining and enforcing it.

IMO, considering the above, a cultural centre open to people of all faiths and devoted to promoting dialogue, cooperation and understanding between different religions is exactly what is needed, regardless of which faction is leading the project. Rather than question the motives of the people who wish to build such a centre, I would consider the motives of those who would prevent it from being built.

 

[EtuMalku]

Why not? Its a very simple matter. A mosque, the muslim's house of worship, is proposed to be built two blocks or so away from this location. Why on earth shouldn't it be?

To have ill-feelings towards this, means you have ill-feelings towards all muslims, its as simple as that.

No, this is the exact crux of most everyone that is against the mosque being built there, it is about the insensitivity towards the families and friends of those that were murdered on 911. How many times must I state this?

On the other hand could some of you explain these verses to me?

Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

Qur'an (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority"

Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Qur'an (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..."

Qur'an (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Qur'an (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah"

Qur'an (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

Qur'an (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

There are like 100 verses of promoting violence and referring to Jews & Christians as enemies.

 

[Evandr]

Forgive me, but it seems to me as though you are using your ignorance of the divisions within Islam, their history and complexity, as justification for holding a different standard for yourself as a mainstream Mormon than you do for mainstream Muslims. And you are using the fact that this particular brand of ignorance is widespread in America as justification for maintaining and enforcing it.

IMO, considering the above, a cultural centre open to people of all faiths and devoted to promoting dialogue, cooperation and understanding between different religions is exactly what is needed, regardless of which faction is leading the project. Rather than question the motives of the people who wish to build such a centre, I would consider the motives of those who would prevent it from being built.

Funny thing is we are almost in complete agreement. I hold no animosity toward anyone but those who would promote the terrorist activity that caused 9/11.
What you say is true but I do not believe that this is the best way to try and establish such understanding because those associated, as well as American opinion of their Islamic neighbors, may fall prey to the ignorance and prejudice you mistakenly claim I am guilty of yet many are guilty of and who may be prone to acting on those still ill feelings because not enough time has passed nor effort been made by American Islam to soften the sting of 9/11.

Weather we like it or not there are those who will sling violence and hatred toward any they can, even vaguely, see as someone from whom they can exact their pound of flesh in an act of revenge, even if that hatred and revenge is through nothing more than innuendo and poison rhetoric. It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword and the fact that this is even an issue in the mainstream media indicates that the potential for harm exists. There is much work to be done by American Islam to prepare America to understand and accept the reality of the separations you speak of and the innocence of those wanting to build near ground zero. Thanks to the media and the silence of American Islam in coming out against radical Islam, Americans have a much skewed view of Islam. It is sad but true and until this can be corrected, the wisdom of building a Mosque of ANY kind near ground zero comes into question.

How are Americans supposed to see American Islam as not sympathizing with radical Islam when they have not stood and declared their alliance with America against such acts of violence? How can these wounds heal when those we trusted as American citizens have committed acts of extreme violence on our own soil and then been declared heroes abroad? I wish all this were not true but it is and until it is corrected I believe it would be a gesture of good will and understanding if those who wish to build the Mosque would be more sensitive to the situation and choose a different location or at very least, do something from the highest levels of Muslim clergy to show their disdain for what has happened and their determination to maintain a stern, public, and obvious demonstration of where they stand with regard to such violence, perhaps then Americans would not have such a problem with the proposed Mosque.

 

[Badran]

But I don't think most terrorists are just crazies who happen to belong to whatever miscellaneous groups exist. Most terrorists are driven by having a belief that that is what they are supposed to be, and mostly this is due to religions, and the one that does the most of it is Islam.

Terrorism is the use of fear to reach a certain goal. That has nothing exclusive to religion. Religion merely serves as justification and/or sometime indeed motive for these actions. And the reason why most terrorists are religionists can be very easily explained by the very simple fact that the majority of people in the world are religionists. And the supposed notion that Islam has the highest number of terrorists today can be very easily also explained when you look at other common factors that muslim societies and countries are under today.

It is absolutely unfair to claim that Islam always causes support of terrorism in all of its believers, or even most of the time.

Thank you.

But to ignore that it is the reason why most of the, probably millions, of Islamic terrorists are terrorists is just plain delusional or ignorant.

I'm not saying its impossible for someone to interpret or have a violent view of Islam that would justify and probably motivate his behavior, i'm mainly saying two things. One, that we shouldn't assume that all terrorists have this motive or reasons. Two, that we shouldn't blame the religion, thats all.

 

[Autodidact]

I agree with Levite and disagree with the ADL. I should say that I have interviewed Daisy Kahn myself and queried an article on this community center. I am strongly in favor of it for several reasons.

1. Freedom of religion. It's a fundamental American value.
2. It's not a mosque, and it's not at Ground Zero.
3. These people, the people who want to build this center, are on our side. These are the very kind of people we need to support and ally with. By joining with them and against Radical Islam, we are actively opposing that terrorist agenda. Their goal is to divide us. By working together, we defeat them. People are not going to suddenly stop being Muslim. So what version of Islam do we want to see, Osama Bin Laden's, or a moderate, law-abiding, religion respecting, community oriented, tolerant version?
4. The opposition is the same kind of bigoted, scape-goating, chauvinistic, ignorant hate-mongering as is aimed at gay people or atheists. It's disgusting.

 

[Badran]

No, this is the exact crux of most everyone that is against the mosque being built there, it is about the insensitivity towards the families and friends of those that were murdered on 911. How many times must I state this?

Okay, let me put it differently. Instead of tiring you by making you restate your point, can you just explain in a little detail how is this insensitive towards the families and friends of the victims? Because no matter how many times you say it, it will make no sense, at least to me.

On the other hand could some of you explain these verses to me?

Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

Qur'an (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority"

Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Qur'an (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..."

Qur'an (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Qur'an (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah"

Qur'an (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

Qur'an (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

There are like 100 verses of promoting violence and referring to Jews & Christians as enemies.

Most verses of the Quran that refers to christians and jews, are referring to certain ones, not in general. You see what i'm saying? They have specific stories and incidents with particular people that this refers to. In general, as in the general rule, we are instructed to treat both christians, jews and non-muslims in general in a tolerant, peaceful, and equal treatment.

You have to put in mind what kind of situations were those verses addressed to, and what kind of people its talking about.

 

[Autodidact]

Oh, and if it were a synagogue, ADL would be singing a different tune, the hypocrites. But the outfit that has them beat for pure hypocrisy is the American Center for Law and Justice, an organization that claims to be "specifically dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights." That right, their entire purpose is to fight for freedom of religion, and they oppose this building because "a historic and hallowed site [an abandoned Burlington Coat factory] that should not be destroyed to build an Islamic mosque."

I should start a blog for the hypocrite of the week and put this phony sham hypocrite outfit on the first post.

 

[Alceste]

I see, Evandr. Your objections are pragmatic, not moral. I've been watching Rome, and you think like Cicero. Nothing wrong with that - we think differently. I'm more the ethical type - I try to develop ethics that are applicable in every circumstance for every person, not find the path of least resistance.

 

[Rakhel]

Not too sure if this is the proper place for this, but seeing as how this thread talks about the controversal NYC mosque, I will let others be the judge.

Not so fast.
The developers of the controversial mosque proposed near Ground Zero own only half the site where they want to construct the $100 million building, The Post has learned.


Read more: Half-baked mosque - NYPOST.com

 

[Evandr]

I see, Evandr. Your objections are pragmatic, not moral. I've been watching Rome, and you think like Cicero. Nothing wrong with that - we think differently. I'm more the ethical type - I try to develop ethics that are applicable in every circumstance for every person, not find the path of least resistance.

Fair enough, we both want something positive to be done neither do either of us place blame where blame is not due, innocent people should not be penalized for the actions of their brethren, it's the angle of how we look at things that differs a bit. Good speak though - Thanks

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Also, don't judge too harshly those who have real reasons to greive what happened on 9/11 - I don't think I could ever view the loss of a loved one to terrorists as something in the catagory of a petty grudge.

It's petty in that they are showing hostility towards a group that done nothing wrong to them. Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with those who lost friends and family on 9/11, but part of the healing process is to move on with life. In a sense, they are beating a poodle because a rabid pit bull killed their child.

 

[Smoke]

Third--and this represents the epitome of the hypocrisy--if this were to be a Christian center, we wouldn't have heard a word about it.

Oh, yes we would. We'd be hearing about how wonderful it was, how faith, peace, and healing rise from the ashes of 9/11. You greatly underestimate the hypocrisy.