A very good reason for me to not weigh in on the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversey is I don't live in New York, and I'm not Muslim. Also come to think of it, it's a community center and not a mosque. And it's not proposed for ground zero.
So if I WERE going to weigh in about it, I'd probably say something like Eboo Patel of the Interfaith Youth Corps said on CNN.
Patel: In America, we don't tell people based on their race or religion or ethnicity that they are free in this place, but not in that place --My ex-neice is Muslim. A remarkable young woman, brave and intelligent, and like almost all Muslims, not a terrorist. I am a white male, and I've never felt the need to enslave a black man. I know a lot of Republicans, and to my knowlege none of them has ever bombed an abortion clinic.
Lemon: [interrupting] I understand that, but there's always context, Mr. Patel . . . this is an extraordinary circumstance. You understand that this is very heated. Many people lost their loved ones on 9/11 --
Patel: Including Muslim Americans who lost their loved ones. . . .
Lemon: Consider the context here. That's what I'm talking about.
Patel: I have to tell you that this seems a little like telling black people 50 years ago: you can sit anywhere on the bus you like - just not in the front.
Lemon: I think that's apples and oranges - I don't think that black people were behind a Terrorist plot to kill people and drive planes into a building. That's a completely different circumstance.
Patel: And American Muslims were not behind the terrorist plot either.
The Museum of Tolerance has come out against this community center, prompting Peter Gross on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me this last weekend to joke that they are building a Museum of Irony across the street. Point is, if we don't behave like adults here and stop knee-jerking around with the Muslim community, we'll never get them on our side where we need them. America has enough enemies without turning our friends into them also.
43 comments:
"I cannot imagine that Muslims want a mosque on this particular site, because it will be turned into an arena for promoters of hatred, and a symbol of those who committed the crime. At the same time, there are no practicing Muslims in the district who need a place of worship, because it is indeed a commercial district...Some Muslims will consider that building a mosque on this site immortalizes and commemorates what was done by the terrorists who committed their crime in the name of Islam. I do not think that the majority of Muslims want to build a symbol or a worship place that tomorrow might become a place about which the terrorists and their Muslim followers boast, and which will become a shrine for Islam haters whose aim is to turn the public opinion against Islam.”
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=21980
Since you don't consider the site for this building to be at "Ground Zero", how did landing gear wind up inside the old Burlington Coat Factory that was there on 9/11/01?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_Coat_Factory#History
While I agree that the financiers have have every legal right to build there, they could use compassion, sensitivity and common sense to realize there might be a beeter place to build it. That is, if their message truly is one of tolerance and understanding.
Let's ask this... what would be acceptable to build in this lot, and why?
Let's ask it this way: would it be acceptable to build a "God hates Fags" church next door to the Ryan White Foundation headquarters?
Since you and I aren't Muslims, and Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed is, what do you take from his words in the first comment?
What I take from Al-Rashed's comments is this: all Muslims are not terrorists. Therefore we shouldn't penalize all Muslims for the actions of a handful of Islamic Jihadists.
Your God Hates Fags analogy is revealing, because it equates this Community Center with a hate group even though there is no indication that that's what they have in mind. What if they wanted to build a Presbyterian Outreach Program next to the Ryan White Foundation? Same thing.
So really, you don't think anybody should build ANYTHING on Ground Zero?
That's not what Al-Rashed is saying at all. He's pretty clear in this passage:
I do not think that the majority of Muslims want to build a symbol or a worship place that tomorrow might become a place about which the terrorists and their Muslim followers boast, and which will become a shrine for Islam haters whose aim is to turn the public opinion against Islam.
He doesn't mention anything about "punishing" Muslims. Hard to believe you misunderstood what was actually written but projecting your feelings onto it.
You don't find anything provocative about building this so close to Ground Zero?
The "God hates Fags" analogy is similar because both that and the mosque deal with free speech and free religion issues.
I'd feel the same way about the God hates Fags church as I do about the mosque. Both would be legal, but that doesn't make them the right thing to do.
Where would you ever get the idea that I think nothing should be built there?
I got that impression because you declined to name something that you'd consider appropriate when I asked you. See above.
I think it would be inappropriate to build an Al-Quaeda headquarters in that site, if that helps clarify my position.
What about this hypothetical: a mosque in a city where the families of 9/11 survivors live. Appropriate?
I agree with Howard Dean, by the way:
http://bit.ly/akwIzA
I think a mosque in the immediate vicinity of Ground Zero is a bad idea. There are plenty of other mosques already in operation all over the city.
Do you think building a mosque where this one is planned for shows any poor taste or judgement on the people that are trying to build it?
Would you support a "God hates Fags" community center next door to Ryan White Foundation HQ? You never answered that earlier.
Not that it matters, but we're not talking about a mosque, we're talking about a community center. It's like a soup kitchen isn't the same as a church, even if they're run by the same people.
I'll do you a solid and answer your hypothetical though you don't seem to want to answer mine; a "God Hates Fags" community center ANYWHERE is a bad idea and I'd prefer not to see one open, but they have a right to open them. So I guess if the landowners of the lot next to the Ryan White Center wanted one there, let 'em build it.
Though you haven't said how these things are analogous. And remember that the guy you're talking to doesn't take it for granted that they are.
Why do you think Howard Dean and Harry Reid think it's a bad idea? Surely they don't share much in common with my views.
Why are they both against it?
I feel the same way about the mosque as you do about the God hates Fags center.
Thought I made that perfectly clear in comment #2:
While I agree that the financiers have have every legal right to build there, they could use compassion, sensitivity and common sense to realize there might be a beeter place to build it. That is, if their message truly is one of tolerance and understanding.
So apparently you, Howard Dean and Harry Reid believe that the bombing of the World Trade Center was cheered on my 1.8 billion people, or 2/7ths of the world. My guess is that Reid and Dean are just playing politics. Me, I come to my own conclusions. And you are mistaken.
But if you feel that way, why don't you hate Bush for spending all our money to liberate some of them from Saddam Hussein? You say he saved lives there - doesn't that mean he INCREASED THE NUMBER OF TERRORISTS?
Really, you can't be wishy washy about this. And don't be like Sharron Angle, afraid to say what you feel.
So Muslim leaders, Democrat leaders, and Republicans think this is a bad idea, but you know better than all of them, don't you?
Is it still okay in California for residents to protest the opening of a Wal Mart store in their neighborhood? Do you support that type of activism?
On the contrary, Republican Leaders (the mayor of New York) Democratic Leaders (the President of the United States) and Muslims think that building the center there would demonstrate how strong and free America is, but YOU disagree. Maybe you don't think America is strong, or shouldn't be as free as it is.
Bloomberg is a Republican? You sure about that?
Still curious on your thoughts on my Wal Mart question.
Bloomberg is an Independent. I stand corrected. Substitute Ted Olson.
I already threw you a hypothetical freebie. You want more, give.
You think Ted Olson occupies a position in the Republican Party equal to what Harry Reid and Howard Dean do with the Democrats?
If your hypothetical is from comment #9:
What about this hypothetical: a mosque in a city where the families of 9/11 survivors live. Appropriate?
I have no problem with the existing mosques that are standing in NYC. They are "grandfathered", as they were in place before the murders of innocent people took place at the hands of Muslim extremists.
Now back to my question:
Is it still okay in California for residents to protest the opening of a Wal Mart store in their neighborhood? Do you support that type of activism?
I can't help it if the Republicans all read from the same play book. Olson will probably be kicked out by the end of the month.
From that AP style guide that everyone's quoting today:
No mosque is going up at ground zero. The center would be established at 45-51 Park Place, just over two blocks from the northern edge of the sprawling, 16-acre World Trade Center site. Its location is roughly half a dozen normal lower Manhattan blocks from the site of the North Tower, the nearer of the two destroyed in the attacks.
The center's location, in a former Burlington Coat Factory store, is already used by the cleric for worship, drawing a spillover from the imam's former main place for prayers, the al-Farah mosque. That mosque, at 245 West Broadway, is about a dozen blocks north of the World Trade Center grounds.
Already being used - let the grandfathering begin!
It's okay for them to protest a WalMart, but since I shop at 'em myself I hope the Walmart goes up.
So, should anything ever be built on Ground Zero, which is very near where this community center is being proposed?
So if it's ok for the local citizens to protest against opening a Wal Mart, why isn't it ok to protest the opening of a community center?
Saying the location isn't at Ground Zero? Tell that the the thousands of people who ran from that area, inhaling the dust of 3000+ human remains as the buildings came down.
In case you have forgotten: http://twitpic.com/2g1zqu
And to your "grandfathered" comment, coulda sworn you said the location wouldn't be used as a mosque, it is a "community center".
So to recap, you say it isn't a mosque, but should be grandfathered under the WAMK rules because it is a mosque.
Let's define Ground Zero. Any place that ash fell on - okay? And to be consistant, no Muslims allowed in those areas. Or we can allow them, but they must not pray or think Muslim thoughts.
Wait a minute... a lot of people in the north part of Manhattan were watching on TV. They were certainly affected by it. We can't allow Muslim prayers anywhere on the island.
You're convincing me! Come to think of it, it's best to restrict any kind of Muslim prayer in the US. I'm not saying go so far as to make it against the law, just don't allow them to do it out loud. Or silently.
I'm still trying to get some clarity on if you think it's a mosque or not. First you said it wasn't, but now you say they have been worshiping there for awhile already, so it is.
If it's not a mosque, how can their freedom of religion be being comprimised, as you suggest in your last comment?
Makes no difference to me. If it were a mosque, I'd be okay with it. If it weren't, would you be?
If it wasn't a mosque, I'd be fine with it.
What if it was a community center which contained a Mosque? Like a Christian-run center that had a chapel within its walls?
Let me try and be as clear as possible. I do not support a mosque being built on hallowed ground. I don't support it as a singular entity, or as a portion of a larger building project.
I recognize and acknowledge that they have every legal right to build there, but feel it is an exercise in poor judgement and an affront to the families that lost loved ones in the immediate vicinity.
Clear enough?
I suppose that's clear, but it's based on the mistaken feeling that Muslims brought down the twin towers. TERRORISTS brought down the twin towers.
Is it wrong to build a Church next to the Ryan White headquarters? "God Hates Fags" is a Christian organization after all.
So one should never exercise any judgement of what is "right", as long as the law says it's ok?
Is that what your ultimate argument is? As long as it's legal, nothing else matters, in any situation?
No gray area anywhere, as long as the law says something is ok to do?
Also, is your centention that people can only be one thing? They can be Muslim, but not terrorist? Can't they be more than one thing at a time? Is there such a thing as a Muslim terrorist?
"Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn't follow the great traditions of Islam. They've hijacked a great religion."
Barack Obama said that. Why is it so difficult to understand?
You are saying that Obama says no Muslims are terrorists? How many different religions use the Koran as their guide?
Any answers to what I asked in the last two comments? They weren't rhetorical.
Some Muslims are terrorists. Some Christians are terrorists too. So what are you getting at?
Your earlier point saying that the hijackers weren't Muslim.
So one should never exercise any judgement of what is "right", as long as the law says it's ok?
Is that what your ultimate argument is? As long as it's legal, nothing else matters, in any situation?
No gray area anywhere, as long as the law says something is ok to do?
Still waiting on an answer here.
If it were right, I wouldn't be arguing with you. It's not right to demonize 1.8 billion people over the actions of 300 of them. That's how you get holocausts.
Not really clear on your answer. I've re-read several times, and still don't know what you are trying to say.
So one should never exercise any judgement of what is "right", as long as the law says it's ok?
Is that what your ultimate argument is? As long as it's legal, nothing else matters, in any situation?
No gray area anywhere, as long as the law says something is ok to do?
Yes, right should always be considered even if the law doesn't cover it.
The law says a 16 year-old may drive a car, provided certain requirements are met. Would it be "right" for a parent to allow a 16 year-old that just got a driver's license to make a cross-country drive solo?
No, it would not.
This issue with the mosque is the same thing.
It's legal, but it's not right. And I know you know that.
No that's my point. It's WRONG TO DEMONIZE ALL THE MUSLIMS for the actions of a few. It's seriously wrong. It's as wrong as can be, especially since the expressed purpose of the center is to foster understanding between the faiths.
We really haven't budged an inch since comment #1, have we.
By your own definition, the mosque has already failed. Has it fostered understanding between the faiths, or further polarized?
What if I told you that the 16 year-old in my previous comment was of genius-level IQ, valedictorian of his high school, and graduated from Harvard #1 in his class by age 16. Why would you demonize him because he is 16?
If there was a history of all Muslims being aggressive (let's say more aggressive than Christians anyway) then I'd go along with your analogy.
If there isn't such a history, then you should be in favor of closing all mosques. You are not, are you? Why not?
By the way, academic acheivement is no substitute for driving experience.
Post a Comment