I agree with you about not compromising the Constitution or the rights of the people to worship whatever and wherever they want. I just think it's in poor taste to build a Mosque at Ground Zero. That's all. It's really a propriety issue to me, rather than a Constitutional one.

Can they build a Mosque at Ground Zero? Of course, it's their right to do so.

Should they build a Mosque at Ground Zero? Nope, they shouldn't.

That second opinion is baseless, though.

It is an odd thing.

Most of the Christian Churches in Europe were built on sites that were previously "pagan" (mostly Roman and Greek) places of worship. In the middle east the Christians have placed churches on the sites of former mosques, and of course in Israel the muslims built the dome of the rock on land the jews claim as theirs (supposedly the spot where Abraham almost sacrificed Isaac).

My point is that it is nothing new to see one religion build in an improbable place, and anathema that it is, a mosque near the 9/11 site is nothing new in history.

My heart and gut tell me this is totally inappropriate, but just maybe it can serve to heal, but only if the Muslims undergo a Reformation much as the Christians did, and renounce all the crazies. I am still waiting for a fatwah AGAINST 9/11 and all these suicide bombings, and until I see more than one my bad attitude is not going to change.

EXACTLY!!!!

I wish I could have put it that well. Geez, DT, your parents really got their money's worth out of that law school .

Steve Cuozzo, of the NY Post, had an interesting "Devil's Advocate" take on the situation today.

Oh, stop this inane hysteria already!

Steve Cuozzo, NY Post

Call me an al Qaeda stooge -- but count me out of the hysteria over plans for a new mosque and Islamic community center two blocks north of Ground Zero.

What horrible symbolism, many say -- so close to where 2,749 died at the hands of Islamist butchers on 9/11!

But the site at 45 Park Place, owned by Cordoba Initiative and its real-estate partners, might as well be a mile away in dense downtown, where larger and taller structures block even a glimpse of it from the World Trade Center.

Despite hints that giant minarets would loom over the massacre site, you wouldn't likely even see the proposed 13-story building from Ground Zero.

A stink over a relative pipsqueak of a project is ridiculous in a city facing real threats by Islamist butchers. If we're afraid of a mosque with a swimming pool on top of it, we might as well save time by adopting sharia law now.

Downtown-dwelling Muslims were not guilty of 9/11. There's been a mosque on Warren Street, close to the WTC, for 30 years, and no one has raised a peep.

It isn't clear whether Cordoba has the $100 million it needs to build. If it does, no legal obstacle stands in its way. It could put up the mosque without any zoning changes.

The only possible barrier is the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission, which can be a kind of terror itself.

The sleepy LPC has had its eye since 1989 on naming the building that now stands at 45 Park Place, the five-story former Burlington Coat Factory, a protected landmark -- but never cared enough to vote on it.

Once the LPC puts a property on the calendar, its owners can't do anything to it until the LPC makes up its mind whether to designate it or not -- a lazy limbo that drives both landlords and preservationists nuts.

Mosque foes want City Hall to nudge the panel into declaring the factory a landmark.

That's a favorite ploy of every knee-jerk, anti-progress faction in town: to seek retributive, retroactive landmarking of a building nobody cared about -- until a landlord proposed replacing it with something the NIMBY crowd doesn't like.

The real insult to those who died on 9/11 is not a mosque that Ground Zero visitors won't even know is there, but how long it's taking to rebuild the WTC -- an affront that can't be blamed on Islam at its most maniacal.

scuozzo@nypost.com

All of these appeals to 'gut instinct' and 'what the heart says' are ridiculous self-righteous justifications for a revolting cynicism.

It doesn't wash, I'm afraid, even if you try and counter it with token would-be rationality. The 'arguments' against this mosque being built that have been put forth in this thread basically amount to this:

'Even if I can see reason, put forth by others, I'm basically knowingly ignoring it to indulge in deeper hatred, anger, cynicism and, frankly, Islamophobia, and because I am calling all of these prejudices "gut instinct" or "what my heart says", that somehow makes it alright, even if I self-glorifyingly acknowledge it as a "bad attitude", because at least it's honest.'

It's a very backward way of thinking, actually.

Capo, Did you never have an opinion that you KNEW was wrong, but you couldn't help thinking it anyway? Never had your heart (or any other illogical organ) interfere with your head? Or are you Spock-like and ruled completely by logic??

I'm not sure; probably. That didn't stop it from being a 'ridiculous self-righteous justification for revolting cynicism' though. If I know something I think is wrong, I'll seek a way in which I can arrive at something which isn't wrong. That's the hope, anyway.

I know what you're saying and I realise the 'dilemma', but I would stress it's not a case of 'not being able to help it'. That sounds like a vague way of further enhancing one's own prejudices to me. It's a language trick. In many ways, that the prejudice is a conscious one makes it all the more reprehensible. Which takes us back to my previous post and what the arguments against this mosque boil down to.

I'm not a Vulcan.

Reprehensible? I think it's the opposite. If a part of you has an opinion that you know is wrong on some level, and you are ashamed and guilty, I think that's called progress. Otherwise, you're just an ignorant and racist jerk. At least you're alert to how inappropriate your thoughts are, and that is the first step towards change. If it didn't even occur to you that your thoughts are bigoted in any way are - those are the people that are reprehensible.

Glad to hear that you're not Vulcan, although you have the kind of boyish face that could carry pointy ears.

Agreed SB. To admit there is some form of prejudice lurking is an admission of weakness, and it is by definition the only way to start ridding one's self of the Islamaphobia Capo complains of.

Unfortunately religion by nature creates intolerance, because each of the major religions holds itself out as the "true" religion, and people are atught this from the time they aresmall children, whether it be in a madrassa or in a strict catholic school run by nuns, or a yeshiva.

I mean if a jewish terrorist blew up Mecca, and 10 years later someone said they were building a synagogue there, I think there would be some distraught muslims.

You think, DT?

They'd declare a Jihad and you know it.

SB, 'wrong on some level' is another language trick.

It's wrong on every level. Wrong is wrong. Or, if 'wrong' itself isn't the best word, 'harmful' and 'detrimental' fit just as well. It's intolerance in a word; not only that, but worse: it's intolerance that is completely unwarranted , completely baseless, and very reactionary. It's a product of consuming and readily listening to, whether consciously or not, the same media coverage that's appealed to all kinds of emotions - honest emotions that have been targeted and effectively milked by a largely and ultimately indifferent (and opportunist and parasitic in the fullest degree) media in the name of endorsing American imperialism - which is what 9/11 regretfully spiralled into at the very moment it happened. Sorry for the mouthful; 'the same media' that stirred, for instance, this 'not so logical part' of you:



Firstly, that sort of sensitivity to something as horrific as 9/11 isn't illogical; secondly, though, nor should it be 'the part' of you that stirs anger at this mosque being built. There's a leap in logic there

That's the issue at stake here.

I haven't quoted you at length so far in this thread because the intolerant bigotry I spoke of was directed more at Mignon and Pizzaboy, the first of whom doesn't think burning this 'bullshit' mosque to the ground isn't an overreaction and the second of whom is consciously listening to the 'part of him' that voices the same sorts of anger-fueled concerns as you, 'and doesn't feel bad about it. At all.'

I'm not saying this is some simplistic issue, but I am saying - especially to those showing at least some concern about their own Islamophobia - we've got to be very careful about the language we use to defend, justify or acknowledge the prejudices we uphold for whatever reason. Because language is the manifestation of both what we are thinking and what in many ways we have been taught to think, whether consciously or not.

Apologies if this seems like irrelevant philosophizing; it isn't, though. It's an attempt to chisel underneath these prejudices that are being put forth here.

We'd be getting off to a much better start if we tried to understand where these prejudices might come from. And saying, 'they originated at the moment extremists flew two planes into the World Trade Center,' isn't going to help one bit, because the issue is much more complex than that.

And I'm saying that because frankly I don't see how 'a mosque', even one built at Ground Zero, is offensive to anybody who isn't in some way holding - conscious of it or not - a deep prejudice against Muslims as people or Islam as a faith. That's regardless of whether or not the same offended people are still angry at and hurt by the events of 9/11, because that anger and hurt is finding manifestation on quite an irrational level, as a result of all kinds of social phenomena endorsing American imperialism in the wake of a terrorist attack on home soil; the same anger and hurt could and should be channelled elsewhere, through other means, directed at different targets, so to speak.

I don't see a connection between watching the horror of a plane going into the WTC and then being offended, angered or upset by a mosque being built on the same site 1 year, 10 years or 100 years after that isn't in some way the result of a deeply irrational, destructive and dangerous prejudice.

Which is why the last three words of this earlier post (italicised here) are indeed reprehensible, because they cling onto that 'gut instinct' even more sharply due to a previous concession to reason:

I believe this mosque should be built. If it meets the zoning codes, if they get their building permits, if it's all legal and aboveboard, then build it. I wouldn't want it stopped, because you can't. It's too dangerous a precedent to set.

Of course there is a prejudice against Muslims. Why? Because September 11th, the Christmas Day bomber (who thankfully only succeeded in setting fire to his twig and berries), the Times Square Bomber, they've all been Muslim Extremists. Unfortunately, the millions of law-abiding Muslims get painted with that brush. Is that right? Hell, no. Is it somewhat inevitable? I'm afraid so. Do I agree with it? No. Do I still feel it? At times, I will admit that I do. Do I like that about myself? No. Will I try to change that about myself? Yes. Will I succeed? Don't know.

However, don't ever make the mistake of thinking that my grief and anger regarding that day was fueled by the media. I smelled the stench. I've helped comfort the survivors and the families of those lost. My anger and grief didn't need any fuel.

I too agree that the request to build the Mosque should go through the New York City zoning and building permit process and a permit issued if the Mosque is in compliance with process requirements.

Also, you (and New Yorkers generally) don't have to explain nor apologize for the emotions evoked by 9/11 and those who perpetrated it. Those emotions are understandable by most Board members.

I'm pretty sure you can't even build a Church or any other house of worship of any other religion in Mecca, or even the whole Saudi Arabia, (not really sure on the latter, but was like that for years) let alone that case you mentioned.

Then again you can't really compare Saudi Arabia with the US, right? That's the whole difference between the two countries. Just playing the devil's advocate here.

if you all can't get over your racist/prejudiced feelings, that's a personal issue, you should deal with it if you want to. if someone has a license and permission to build any house of worship in this country- if this is still fucking america- they will build it.

i'm sorry that you all equate jihad (a term that has ridiculously different meanings and uses, other than what is most popularly defined as 'holy war'), with something muslim people have written on their foreheads and leave their houses to pursue. if killing innocent people was actually a tenant of islam, than there are more than a billion of us, and you all would be in a shitload of trouble.
i'm sorry that you act like americans are the only people in the whole universe, throughout ALL HISTORY, that have been attacked innocently.

and please keep in mind 3 things: i am a muslim, I was born here (haha! sorry bout it) and i don't know any specifics about this mosque project other than that horrible article posted, i am simply replying to the general hatred towards mosques and general hostility towards muslims.

once all you ignorant people in this country, who proudly call yourselves americans, actually step outside your holes and educate yourselves about other religions, people, cultures, beliefs, and ideologies- you will continue to perpetuate the same hate that the most extreme people YOU HATE live by. a mosque is not an evil place, and azaan (call to prayer) is not any more offensive (if you think it's offensive and not beautiful), than any church bells.

american muslims died in the 9/11 attacks, too. i'm sure they're not building a mosque near Ground Zero just to piss you off, so shut the fuck up. thomas jefferson is probably wondering in the afterlife what the fuck happened to his country.

this country is incomparable to any other. just because it is not yet the proverbial 'shining city upon a hill'- doesn't mean we should not strive our best to become it. we let ourselves down as a country when we act/react this way. don't you think the enemy (terrorists, thieves, destroyers of lives, greedy people, murderers, etc) relish in our ignorance and hatred? it fuels their flame.

(Don G, sorry about the cursing, but this is unbelievable, man)

pp

Not to disagree with the point you are trying to make pp, what you say is right and what's the US is all about. BUT, from one born Muslim to another, how can you compare Azan to the Church bells?

Many Churches don't have them anymore. If they still have them, how many times a day or more accurately how many times a year they chime? Is it 3-5 times a day, including once every wee hours of the morning when most people are asleep? Now I'm not sure if they let the Mosques do that in the US, my guess is that they wouldn't. But that's why I hate Mosques.

Now as getting education on Islam, I don't think you got one better than I did and let's just say the amount of crazies you get from the Quran itself, is quite appalling. You can deny it all you want, or say it was specifically for a period of time that it came, or that it doesn't apply in today's world, but let's face it, it is there and people can rightfully take it literally, as it is to some extent in Gospel, Torah, etc. Not to mention the glorious woman's rights content that I wouldn't want to be treated according to that.

So, let's just cut the bull about getting to know Islam. Islam has to go through reform and then I'm not sure why we need religion at all if we start acting more rationally, as this religion is every bit irrational as the next one out there.

That all being said, I suppose you should be free to practice whatever religion you want as long as you don't commit any crimes or infringe upon others' rights. Worst case scenario, it is like contemplating murder and not actually committing it.

"Now as getting education on Islam, I don't think you got one better than I did..."

i'm really sorry, but i think that's subjective, especially because i do not believe clerics, imams, or any religious intermediaries are necessary for me to learn my faith. not to say that maybe you do know more- but how do you assume that? i realize that iran has made it's people both disgusted with islam and has misled their entire population with lies, propaganda, made-up hadiths, among other things. it is hurtful to see what they have done, and i go to work with iranians every single day, and have a lot of persian friends as well and hear their grievances. the aftermath of the elections was something i dealt with on a daily basis for months (for work). they force their citizens to be muslim, they put it on their birth certificates (as do other so-called muslim countries) and that is not the way to learn, know, and accept islam- it is completely AGAINST islam. the quran is an interpretive document, it is made for individuals to understand for themselves.


"So, let's just cut the bull about getting to know Islam. Islam has to go through reform"

there are still people who think muslims are devil worshipers and hate jesus. people should learn about others, it's a human responsibility. maybe muslims should be more receptive to exploring their book better, using their God-given intellect, and learning their faith according to their best instincts as human beings, on that i can agree. as far as women's rights, TRUE women's rights exists in the original teachings of the faith and anything that is contrary to that is not real, not authentic, and should not be looked at as such. hadiths have become the weapon of the oppressor at this point.

and i don't agree with the whole church bells v. azaan thing at all. people should learn to deal with each other, or we're all headed for a frustrating life. i'm not saying all this stuff to waste my time or get anyone to change their feelings or beliefs, i just wish the majority of people who speak on this subject (and they rarely speak intelligently but instead throw in slurs and prejudice) - weren't ignorant to the subject at hand. instead they say things that are hurtful.

anyway, said my peace. i hope you're not offended by my comments, afs, it's nothing personal and i hope people understand where i'm coming from.

thanks,
pp

PB are you overwhelmd by my understatements?

I'd be very shocked if they weren't understandable to (understood by?) everyone here.

I already said "that sort of sensitivity to something as horrific as 9/11 isn't illogical". But this sensitivity shouldn't become irrational over-sensitivity manifested by unwarranted anger, hatred, intolerance and even fear of Islam.

The issue here seems to be that as long as we allow to build a mosque at the site of what was the World Trade Center - as long as we accept or embrace the Muslim community by accepting or embracing the building of this mosque - there is the possibility of fundamentalist, extremist or radicalist Muslims carrying out a terrorist attack at the site of what was the World Trade Center. It's the old argument of "as long as there is religion in any form, intolerant radicalism can and will foster".

If that's not the issue plain and simple, then I'm all ears.

And I don't disagree with the notion that "as long as there is religion in any form, intolerant radicalism can and will foster." But if I want to eradicate society's needs to believe in a superstition, I know that refusing to build a mosque is not going to do it. But that's another issue entirely...

Finally, building or not building this mosque is not going to stop, dilute or fuel another terrorist attack in the US. If the contrary to that was ever implied in this thread, you live in a smaller physical and mental bubble than I thought.

PP, I talked about Quran itself, not any hadith or saying and teaching of Mullahs. Muslims claim the book has not been tampered with. There's only one copy, not a single word has been replaced. Have you read it all? Did you have to read it and get good marks so that you can get into the college? My guess is that you didn't have to, and I had to. Not all of, but enough to see what's it about. The delightful highlights. Hadiths are joke books at best. Again I emphasis that I talk about the so called words of God.

As for people thinking ill of Muslims, I know there's that prejudice. I agree it is wrong, and I wasn't discussing that point.

But in the very text of Quran, life of a woman is worth half of a man if she is killed and one is obligated to pay ransom. Her testimony is worth half of a man. A man can marry four women as long as he keeps the relationships fair and balanced, except for the prophet Mohammad who has given cart Blanche on that issue, who even married a girl of age six and had sex with her when she turned nine. Then there's also a verse in Quran referring to him actually marrying the wife of his step son, and the case was that he saw her without burka and fell in love with her and the dutiful son divorced her to let him marry the girl. After which there came a Hijab verse, so that all Muslim women should cover themselves from men who are not their relatives. Also women get half of a share of what a man gets as inheritance. A wife gets only 1/8 of his husbands belonging after his death, as the husband would get 1/4 of her belonging if there are children involved. Should I go on? Oh, I nearly forgot the prize winner of woman's right crazies! A woman has no right to divorce her husband once she marries him, unless she proves he makes her life miserable, the conditions being very restrict; but the husband has the right to divorce her if he decides so. No questions asked. THESE ARE IN QURAN. Actual verses.

I think Muslims are either in denial or don't want to admit that some of them are not really acting according to the book. They've been sugar quoting it and taking what they wanted and dismiss the rest. Eventually, that's what should happen, but I think you should know that crazies are in there, ticking like a time-bomb.

Also unlike any other religion, Islam has orders to handle the society, thus making it a ruling agenda, rather than just a personal issue of faith. Who would see to it that women get screwed over otherwise? Or that inheritance be divided as it's been directed by the holy book if not the government? The holy Islamic government?

And as for Azan, that's infringement of my right to sleep early in the morning. I don't have to deal with it. In an ideal society I should be able to call the police to deal with them and make them shut the heck up.

By no means I'm offended. I suppose I don't have a religion anymore. Hard to offend me now.

Islam is not the only religion to have laws that regulate society and that are brutal to women. Christianity had it (divine right of kings, papal infallability, women forbidden from being priests {still} ). Also the Jews. Very strict dietary laws....read Deutoronomy and some of the early Old Testament, and you get the same thing.

The difference is Christians, and Jews to a lesser extent (there are still crazies in both religions) have undergone reformations, and Islam has not fully done so.

It is ridiculous to believe that God spoke directly to three men, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, all from the same corner of
the world and all within a relatively brief period of time and
"told" each of them different things. It is a fairy tale, and sadly people have been killing each other over it for thousands of years.

I agree with you, but you see, Jesus never got the chance to actually regulate any laws. Mohammad did have this chance and then there's a verse in Quran, that Muslims should follow God, the prophet and those who are appointed by them thereafter. So it has the potential for ruling more than any other religion and the line of Caliphs went on for centuries.

Again I agree that these three religions are fabrication of Middle Eastern people, but don't think they've been very different at core if you get to know them while they were originally formed here. Women have been and still are treated like dirt here, that's been the custom of this region. However, a European woman would've never succumb to polygamy. Romans and consequently Europeans adopted Christianity and changed it to fit their own life style.

Quran states that Jesus was never crucified, and didn't die on the cross, but was lifted to heaven before they can lay a finger on him. It states that no man can pay for others' crimes than themselves, thus questioning the whole salvation concept that today's Christianity dwells upon, stating that those who believe in such a thing are misled. Muslims even repeat about 17 times a day in their prayers that God was neither born nor has given birth nor has ever had a son.

Religion has been only a tool to keep people in line. Whether they are European or Middle Eastern peasants, it has been only there to make sure they wouldn't question or defy authority. Other than that, it has been metamorphosed into the customs of the region it has been practiced.

This topic has stirred up some emotions and philosophizing. Good stuff.
Building a mosque - an extravagant mosque - at Ground Zero will undoubtedly elicit an emotional response. I was there that day; two blocks away. I saw Tower 2 begin to collapse. I ran. I was caught in the cloud. I thought I was going to die. I spent the day trying to get out of NY. I spent the following weeks coping with the event; seeing posters and flyers searching for the dead; remembering the dead. I passed a fire house everyday with flower wreaths and photos of the deceased firemen. I understand the emotional reaction.
But intellectually I can't associate this act with Muslims. No more than I can associate bombings in Northern Ireland with Catholics or Protestants. When acts of violence are justified by religious affiliation I immediately separate the religion from the act. Violence is an act of deviance; of pathology. Extremists. Don't put a religion after or before that word.
I suppose that legally a mosque can be built near Ground Zero, but it shouldn't be built. The entire area should be declared a cemetery. The remains of hundreds or thousands of people are scattered in the ground of that site. Leave it be. Plant grass and trees and let it be a memorial for all who died there; Muslim, Christian, Jew, Atheist....human.

Angry relatives of 9/11 victims last night clashed with supporters of a planned mosque near Ground Zero at a raucous community-board hearing in Manhattan.

After four hours of public debate, members of Community Board 1 finally voted 29-1 in support of the project. Nine members abstained, arguing that they wanted to table the issue and vote at a later date.

The board has no official say over whether the estimated $100 million mosque and community center gets built. But the panel's support, or lack of it, is considered important in influencing public opinion.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manha...L#ixzz0p4NodwEm

My understanding is that they have to face the Landmark Commission next. The site where they want to be build is under consideration (or already had been designated already??) for landmark status. That would mean that it can't be altered, and certainly not to the extent that this project would require.

I could make the statement that it wasn't Muslims who flew those planes into the world trade centers, it was extremists.

But I'm not sure if thats what I believe.

Whether you believe something or you don't believe something has nothing to do with whether it's true or not true.

Well, yes, thats correct, but it would determine whether you were arguing for or against building the mosque.

I also read in the paper today that the Mosque is supposed to open on September 11th, 2011. If that's true, it's fucking ridiculous and very stupid

A mosque? At Ground Zero? Not a good idea! That, I think would be a slap in the face to the families, survivors of 9/11 and the nation in my opinion. That idea is in very bad taste!