Mosque at Ground Zero is a "Slap in the Face"

[emtannie]

tniuqs, how about you reply to the topic at hand, not run me down on my opinions

Ummm... turnip prefaced his post with "To play the devils advocate and not politically correct."

He was disagreeing, not to run you down, but to generate discussion... which is why he started his post with that comment.

While I agree that as a whole, the Islamic religion does not represent the views of extremists, it irks me that a mosque (a representation of Islam) is being built at the foot of two amazing structures destroyed by muslim extremism. Some of you here might argue that it was actually socioeconomic and political factors that gave rise to Muslim extremism that took countless lives on 9/11, but you would be wrong. Most of the conspirators including the pilots in the 9/11 plot had PhDs, and were from wealthy backgrounds. Recent psychological research into religious extremism finds that even after you correct for poverty, lack of economic opportunity, etc, extremist views in the middle east actually increase.

"Go forth in Jihad... [9.39] If you do not go forth in Jihad, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you [to go on Jihad]"...

Um, have you read the Old Testament? Yahweh of the old testament is perhaps one of the most unpleasant, cruel, jealous characters ever to be written about in any book.

I agree - Old Testament is filled with extreme characters; however, New Testament writings are focused more on grace, strength, love, and forgiveness, based on the life and teachings of Jesus, as written by his disciples. Like any religious beliefs, there are extremists within Christianity as well.

[daedalus]

Ummm... turnip prefaced his post with "To play the devils advocate and not politically correct."

He was disagreeing, not to run you down, but to generate discussion... which is why he started his post with that comment.

I agree - Old Testament is filled with extreme characters; however, New Testament writings are focused more on grace, strength, love, and forgiveness, based on the life and teachings of Jesus, as written by his disciples. Like any religious beliefs, there are extremists within Christianity as well.

As I recall, Christians are still compelled to follow the teachings of the Old Testament. Religious moderation provides the cover for religious extremism, as it provides cover for cultural relativism.

[Lone Star]

Let's be honest here...

Building a mosque at Ground Zero is a brutal slap in the face. It sends a message (whether intended or not): "We knocked down the World Trade Center and killed THOUSANDS of your infidel citzens in the name of Allah, now we will build a shrine to him on the very ground that we spilled so much of your blood on!"

Be 'tolerant'? I think not! It would be no different than going into Iraq, blowing up the center of their economy, government, militia and killing thousands of innocent civilians and building a Christian church on the site.

Ground Zero has become 'holy ground'for this country. To allow a shrine to the very god they were serving to level the buildings that stood there is beyond 'poor taste/poor form'.

If we must be 'tolerant' of the muslims, then we should expect some 'tolerance' in return. Tolerance is a two way street; you not only get it, you have to give it.

[daedalus]

Let's be honest here...

Building a mosque at Ground Zero is a brutal slap in the face. It sends a message (whether intended or not): "We knocked down the World Trade Center and killed THOUSANDS of your infidel citzens in the name of Allah, now we will build a shrine to him on the very ground that we spilled so much of your blood on!"

Be 'tolerant'? I think not! It would be no different than going into Iraq, blowing up the center of their economy, government, militia and killing thousands of innocent civilians and building a Christian church on the site.

Ground Zero has become 'holy ground'for this country. To allow a shrine to the very god they were serving to level the buildings that stood there is beyond 'poor taste/poor form'.

If we must be 'tolerant' of the muslims, then we should expect some 'tolerance' in return. Tolerance is a two way street; you not only get it, you have to give it.

Here here!

See, most, including I, value tolerance. As Sam Harris would say, the only way that we are going to be able to move forward in the world today in the face of multiple separate groups of people with irreconcilable, incompatible views on what happens after we die and what our creator demands of us before then, is to value open honest conversation. It is merely an obsession with being "politically correct" that demands that we here in America subscribe to the idea that we must be tolerant of intolerance. The creators of southpark were threatened with murder for depicting the prophet Muhammad in a bear costume in a cartoon, and the liberal ideologues have the nerve to tell southpark to be more sensitive to others and that their cartoons are inciting intolerance. American liberals tell us that it is ok for extremists to threaten murder for such things, because it is the religious laws in their land and who are we to tell them they are wrong. Yet, it is a seemingly one way street and as Americans we must bend to the will of everyone else and do not have the right to be angry over an islamic church being built were our way of life and citizens were attacked, lest we be viewed as intolerant and bigoted to suggest that we do not wish such things built near ground zero.

Keep in mind, I am a very politically liberal. I envision an open society where everyone is free to believe what they wish, I just find it infuriating that we are required to tolerate intolerance for fear of being labeled as unaccepting of other cultures if we do not. And this is not a Christian perspective because we are not a Christian nation, but a secular one.

Edited June 7, 2010 by daedalus

[HERBIE1]

Er. I think there's a bit of a difference between a mosque and a burning cross. A better analogy would be no white owned churches in black neighborhoods.

Actually, in this context, no there is not. Years ago we a KKK rally here in the middle of a Jewish area. As distasteful and insensitive as it may have been, the rally was allowed to go on. With the freedoms we have, we are also supposed to have responsibilities, but some do not abide by this notion. In both cases, people object to the extreme hate, prejudice and bigotry, and do not care about offending anyone or being insensitive.

Ted Kacynski, Tim McVeigh, and the abortion clinic bombers all send their regards. Also, there was a pretty lengthy period when the Christians were the world's terrorists. It doesn't make terrorism right, but neither does claiming that any one religion is someone the religion of terror.

I really like these comparisons.

I'll ignore the Crusade reference- red herring. We believed the world was flat at this time, that the sun was the center of the universe, and lots of things that we think are pretty silly now. Let's keep things relatively current.

What single religious- or any other- "group" do people such as isolated nut jobs like the Unibomber, McVeigh, or abortion clinic bombers represent? The unibomber hated technology, McVeigh hated government intrusion in his life, and abortion clinic bombers are ultra right wing, bible thumping nut jobs. Where's the commonality there?

How can you equate them with radical Muslims who have a common bond- their fanatical brand of one type of religion and an avowed jihad?

There are crazy people in this world, who do crazy things, for all types of crazy reasons, but don't pretend they have anything in common with a group who expresses a single minded desire to spread their brand of "religion", at any cost.

Well, gee, we weren't expecting a Spanish Inquisition or anything. Also, what about the numerous Muslims who who weren't terrorists that died on 9/11? Oh, wait, their death means less than those real, red blooded Christian Americans who died, right?

Who were the hijackers on 9/11? What was the common tie that bound them? What is the common tie that binds all these different terrorists, who originate in countries all over the world? My objection to the mosque is not about Islam. True Islam has nothing in common with the flavor practiced by jihadists. The jihadists view Muslims that do not agree with them in the same light as any other infidel. In their eyes, they are no different than Christians.

Also, how far away is "appropriate." Should any mosques currently in that radius be torn down?

Torn down? No, but I certainly think that building another one, WITHIN SIGHT of the WTC's is the height of absurdity and insolence, and a problem waiting to happen.

Should churches be torn down near abortion clinics because radical Christians bombed abortion clinics?

Which came first? Again, torn down- no, but establishing an abortion clinic within site of an existing Catholic church is similarly absurd, and asking for trouble.

[under-dreaming]

Some of you here might argue that it was actually socioeconomic and political factors that gave rise to Muslim extremism that took countless lives on 9/11, but you would be wrong. Most of the conspirators including the pilots in the 9/11 plot had PhDs, and were from wealthy backgrounds

Wrong only if it is assumed that socioeconomic and political factors were meant to say that they were all poor and uneducated. JPINFV brought up a name that admitted to doing what he did for socioeconomic and political factors: Ted Kacynski (aka "UNIBOMBER"). Kacynski was a mathematical genius and a college professor. He claims that the consumer direction of the West brought him to the edge. I bring this up because there are several political and socioeconomic concerns that a member of a Middle Eastern community would be concerned about. Not just the idea of being poor, but the idea that leaches from the West are taking advantage of your circumstances. Shady political relations and economic concerns between the West and the Middle East have been going on for some time, and it is not all based on religious feuds (though much of it is believed to be).

Regarding the psychological development of a human being: in an environment where everyone is claiming that there is a definitive "evil" in this world (America), indoctrination will follow. Indoctrination of any type may lead to radical behavior, as we have seen in American abortion clinic bombings in recent days; or as we have read about in the tales regarding the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition; even the lynchings of blacks in the post-war south. Even slavery in general! Educated, religious, hard working Americans... who just happened to own slaves and believed that blacks were not worthy of being treated as humans. All this right in our own back yard... now I am ranting...

Having a PhD does not necessarily make one more aware and open to the vast perspectives of the human species. It often just makes them more efficient when it comes to achieving their emotionally driven goals.

For the record. I don't think America is evil. I also don't think that Islam promotes violence unless one chooses to interpret it that way. Build the mosque. It's not their fault.

By refusing to allow an Islamic house of worship to be located at or near ground zero, we will be acknowledging that it was Islam that flew those planes, not a group of men that were in no way officially representing the Islamic people throughout the world, even if they (the hijackers) thought they were.

[JPINFV]

Actually, in this context, no there is not. Years ago we a KKK rally here in the middle of a Jewish area. As distasteful and insensitive as it may have been, the rally was allowed to go on. With the freedoms we have, we are also supposed to have responsibilities, but some do not abide by this notion. In both cases, people object to the extreme hate, prejudice and bigotry, and do not care about offending anyone or being insensitive.

Skokie (which was the National Socialist Party, but the point still stands) was a freedom of assemblage case, not a freedom of religion case. Besides, freedom of ____ will always be directed towards actions that the general population doesn't like. If there was majority support then there would be no need for protection. Yes, sometimes the views being exposed is disgusting, but the alternative is mob rule.

I really like these comparisons.

I'll ignore the Crusade reference- red herring. We believed the world was flat at this time, that the sun was the center of the universe, and lots of things that we think are pretty silly now. Let's keep things relatively current.

Inquisition!= Crusades? Ok, Salem Witch Trials? Current pedophile cases throughout multiple Christian denominations?

Regardless, thank you for proving that when we do it, it's ok (or we'll just ignore it because it's helpful for our side), but when other people do it, it's bad.

What single religious- or any other- "group" do people such as isolated nut jobs like the Unibomber, McVeigh, or abortion clinic bombers represent? The unibomber hated technology, McVeigh hated government intrusion in his life, and abortion clinic bombers are ultra right wing, bible thumping nut jobs. Where's the commonality there?

However, apparently, all Muslims are represented by Al Quada. All I'm trying to do is show a little consistancy, however again. When Christians do it, they're nut jobs. When Muslims do it, they represent all of Islam. Cheeky.

How can you equate them with radical Muslims who have a common bond- their fanatical brand of one type of religion and an avowed jihad?

There are crazy people in this world, who do crazy things, for all types of crazy reasons, but don't pretend they have anything in common with a group who expresses a single minded desire to spread their brand of "religion", at any cost.

How can you claim that all Muslims are radical, which going "ZOMG MOSQUE!" is doing?

Who were the hijackers on 9/11? What was the common tie that bound them? What is the common tie that binds all these different terrorists, who originate in countries all over the world? My objection to the mosque is not about Islam. True Islam has nothing in common with the flavor practiced by jihadists. The jihadists view Muslims that do not agree with them in the same light as any other infidel. In their eyes, they are no different than Christians.

And a strict reading of the Bible have lead Christian denominations, both large and small, to argue that anyone not following their brand of religion (both brand of Christianity and non-Christianity) aren't true Christians. However, again, the underlying theme us=nut jobs. Them=all Islam.

Which came first? Again, torn down- no, but establishing an abortion clinic within site of an existing Catholic church is similarly absurd, and asking for trouble.

That's just bass ackwards to say that the abortion clinics should have to be concerned about churches while Muslims have to be concerned about Ground Zero.

Oh, and no one has yet answered the question about whether the Americans who died in the WTCs and were Muslims are real Americans or not. Apparently only non-Muslims worked in the WTC?

[maverick56]

I've been sitting on my hands, trying to decide if I really want to get into this one. So far, I've stayed away from politics and such on this site, but I've been talking this particular topic elsewhere so, here goes...

Somewhere along the way, people in this country got the definition of tolerance confused with the definitions of acceptance and agreement. Being upset over this brazen act of disrespect (yes, that's what it is) has nothing to do with being intolerant of Muslims or their beliefs.

Webster's, Tolerate: "to recognize and respect [other's belief's, practices, opinions, etc] without sharing them" and "to bear or put up with [someone or something not liked]"

If anything, the insistence of placing a Muslim development (it's much more than just a mosque) at Ground Zero is "intolerant" (in the PC definition of the word), insensitive and grossly disrespectful to the feelings and beliefs the people of New York and this nation. It's a blatant act of arrogance and contempt, taking pleasure in rubbing salt in an old wound. How do we think it will be seen by the Islamic world? The placement of mosques throughout Islamic history has been an expression of conquest and superiority over non-Muslims. Muslims built the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock on the site of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in order to proclaim Islam’s superiority to Judaism. The Umayyad Mosque in Damascus was built over the Church of St. John the Baptist, and the Hagia Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople was converted into a mosque, to express the superiority of Islam over Christianity. Historians have estimated that over 2,000 mosques in India were built on the sites of Hindu temples for the same reason.

But the Ground Zero mosque, or mosques, won’t be another example of that Islamic supremacism, will they? After all, the mosque initiative’s organizer, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, has said that the building of the mosque by the World Trade Center site was intended to make “the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.”

The group behind the 15 story Islamic Center sent a statement to Mike Huckabee’s show on Fox News, claiming that the planned mosque was “a project to honor those who were harmed on September 11. It is a project to proclaim our patriotism to this country and to stand side-by-side all men and women of peace.”

And Ground Zero is not a holy site, so the symbolism of Islam conquering and replacing other religions isn’t there—or is it?

The Twin Towers, after all, were the symbol of America’s economic power. Placing a mosque by the site of their destruction (at the hands of Islamic jihadists) symbolizes the taming of that power. Abdul Rauf has placed the blame for 9/11 not on jihadists at all, but on the U.S. and the West, saying that they “must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end.” Statements like that call into question just who the mosque organizers have in mind when they say the mosque is intended to honor “those who were harmed on September 11.”

The possibility of deception cannot here be ruled out, given that Abdul Rauf has a history of making smooth statements that appear to endorse American principles and values, when on closer examination he is upholding Sharia law, denigrating freedom of speech, and advocating against anti-terror measures.

You all are sitting here arguing religion and missing the point completely. Islam and it's purposeful spread isn't about religion - it's about ideology. And it's an ideology that directly clashes with everything our nation stands for.

[HERBIE1]

Skokie (which was the National Socialist Party, but the point still stands) was a freedom of assemblage case, not a freedom of religion case. Besides, freedom of ____ will always be directed towards actions that the general population doesn't like. If there was majority support then there would be no need for protection. Yes, sometimes the views being exposed is disgusting, but the alternative is mob rule.

Many of the white supremacist groups use their interpretation of religion as a justification for their views and actions. THAT is the point here. Allowing them to march was certainly an affront to many Holocaust survivors who live in that town. But, they also knew a march or rally is a temporary, one day thing. As disgusting and offensive as it may be, these people knew that these groups were not setting up shop in their suburb. They allowed them to assemble because of the freedoms we have in this country. Setting up a permanent reminder of an atrocity, committed by a specific group, in the shadow of where a heinous crime was committed is something completely different.

Inquisition!= Crusades? Ok, Salem Witch Trials? Current pedophile cases throughout multiple Christian denominations?

Huh?

Regardless, thank you for proving that when we do it, it's ok (or we'll just ignore it because it's helpful for our side), but when other people do it, it's bad.

However, apparently, all Muslims are represented by Al Quada. All I'm trying to do is show a little consistancy, however again. When Christians do it, they're nut jobs. When Muslims do it, they represent all of Islam. Cheeky.

How can you claim that all Muslims are radical, which going "ZOMG MOSQUE!" is doing?

Wrong. I never said that, never implied it and I won't respond to a strawman.

And a strict reading of the Bible have lead Christian denominations, both large and small, to argue that anyone not following their brand of religion (both brand of Christianity and non-Christianity) aren't true Christians. However, again, the underlying theme us=nut jobs. Them=all Islam.

Wrong. Never said that. In fact, I said exactly the opposite. More strawmen.

That's just bass ackwards to say that the abortion clinics should have to be concerned about churches while Muslims have to be concerned about Ground Zero.

Really? So you would have no problem if a neo-Nazi hate group decided to build their own shrine next to a place like Auschwitz? You see nothing wrong with that?

Just because it may be legal to do something, does not mean it's a good idea. Actions have consequences, and if we allow this group to build their mosque in that location, who do you think will be responsible for mitigating anything that results from that structure- the Muslims who worship at the mosque?

Oh, and no one has yet answered the question about whether the Americans who died in the WTCs and were Muslims are real Americans or not. Apparently only non-Muslims worked in the WTC?

I'm quite sure there were citizens, noncitizens, tourists, those here on visas, Buddhists, Muslims, Lutherans, atheists, and every other religion represented among the victims of 9/11. The hijackers did not fly planes into churches or other houses of worship. This was an attack on our way of life, on America as a whole. The people who died were merely collateral damage to them and their religions were of no consequence. Those towers were attacked because they are a well known symbol of this country, our political and ideological beliefs, and our way of life.

A mosque is a symbol of Islam, just as a synagogue or temple is a symbol of Judaism, and a Catholic church is a symbol of Christianity. Do these structures all represent the views of every extreme sect of those religious groups? Of course not, and nobody would argue that point, but they DO represent a broader religious viewpoint. Let's look back over the last 20-30 years and see who has been responsible for the majority of terror attacks. The USS Cole, US embassies, army bases, both WTC attacks, the Pentagon, Flight 93, the recent underwear bomber, the shoe bomber- what do all of these acts have in common? What symbol or artifact would you use to express the common factor in all those incidents?

The stated intent of the group that wants to build that mosque was to promote peace and understanding for their religion. I do not doubt that for one minute. It's a noble goal, and I'm all for it. I object to WHERE they intend to make that statement. If something like this is allowed, there will be consequences. Guaranteed. Why would we knowingly subject ourselves to another potential disaster if we can possibly avoid it? The potential downside of allowing this to go forward far outweighs the possible good that may come from it. Build the mosque, promote your desire for peace, understanding, and tolerance, but do NOT do it in the shadow of one of our country's worst disasters which was perpetrated by a group who uses that religion- as warped as their view of their religion may be- as justification for their actions. If these Muslim leaders cannot see the harm or offense that many will take from this, then I question their stated intentions.Tolerance and understanding is a 2-way street.

I've been sitting on my hands, trying to decide if I really want to get into this one. So far, I've stayed away from politics and such on this site, but I've been talking this particular topic elsewhere so, here goes...

Somewhere along the way, people in this country got the definition of tolerance confused with the definitions of acceptance and agreement. Being upset over this brazen act of disrespect (yes, that's what it is) has nothing to do with being intolerant of Muslims or their beliefs.

Webster's, Tolerate: "to recognize and respect [other's belief's, practices, opinions, etc] without sharing them" and "to bear or put up with [someone or something not liked]"

If anything, the insistence of placing a Muslim development (it's much more than just a mosque) at Ground Zero is "intolerant" (in the PC definition of the word), insensitive and grossly disrespectful to the feelings and beliefs the people of New York and this nation. It's a blatant act of arrogance and contempt, taking pleasure in rubbing salt in an old wound. How do we think it will be seen by the Islamic world? The placement of mosques throughout Islamic history has been an expression of conquest and superiority over non-Muslims. Muslims built the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock on the site of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in order to proclaim Islam's superiority to Judaism. The Umayyad Mosque in Damascus was built over the Church of St. John the Baptist, and the Hagia Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople was converted into a mosque, to express the superiority of Islam over Christianity. Historians have estimated that over 2,000 mosques in India were built on the sites of Hindu temples for the same reason.

But the Ground Zero mosque, or mosques, won't be another example of that Islamic supremacism, will they? After all, the mosque initiative's organizer, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, has said that the building of the mosque by the World Trade Center site was intended to make "the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11."

The group behind the 15 story Islamic Center sent a statement to Mike Huckabee's show on Fox News, claiming that the planned mosque was "a project to honor those who were harmed on September 11. It is a project to proclaim our patriotism to this country and to stand side-by-side all men and women of peace."

And Ground Zero is not a holy site, so the symbolism of Islam conquering and replacing other religions isn't there—or is it?

The Twin Towers, after all, were the symbol of America's economic power. Placing a mosque by the site of their destruction (at the hands of Islamic jihadists) symbolizes the taming of that power. Abdul Rauf has placed the blame for 9/11 not on jihadists at all, but on the U.S. and the West, saying that they "must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end." Statements like that call into question just who the mosque organizers have in mind when they say the mosque is intended to honor "those who were harmed on September 11."

The possibility of deception cannot here be ruled out, given that Abdul Rauf has a history of making smooth statements that appear to endorse American principles and values, when on closer examination he is upholding Sharia law, denigrating freedom of speech, and advocating against anti-terror measures.

You all are sitting here arguing religion and missing the point completely. Islam and it's purposeful spread isn't about religion - it's about ideology. And it's an ideology that directly clashes with everything our nation stands for.

Well said.

While I have no way of knowing the true intentions of this guy, many times a public face is the polar opposite of what someone actually believes. Like I posted, this is about symbolism and making a statement. As we both noted, the WTC was a symbol of the country as a whole, and the stated goal of these jihadists is to convert everyone to their way of thinking. It's not about compromise. In Sharia law, religion and society rules are one in the same, and there is no room for debate. As such, a mosque- in terms of that brand of Islam- represents more than just a religion, it's a symbol of what they feel the world should be. We have a separation of church and state here- completely antithetical to what these radicals believe.

It's just an opinion, but to me, ideas like building this mosque in the shadows of Ground zero are simply a way of injecting their ideas into the mainstream of our society. They prey upon our ideas of tolerance and being PC, and they know many here will bend over backwards to prevent any appearance of being intolerant to a contrary opinion. They use our ideas and freedoms against us. We have seen sleeper cell types like the recent Pakastani who lived here for years- was educated here, worked, raised a family, and assimilated into our society until it was time to engage in their true calling. I think we will see many more instances of these "home-grown terrorists".

[maverick56]

It's just an opinion, but to me, ideas like building this mosque in the shadows of Ground zero are simply a way of injecting their ideas into the mainstream of our society. They prey upon our ideas of tolerance and being PC, and they know many here will bend over backwards to prevent any appearance of being intolerant to a contrary opinion. They use our ideas and freedoms against us. We have seen sleeper cell types like the recent Pakastani who lived here for years- was educated here, worked, raised a family, and assimilated into our society until it was time to engage in their true calling. I think we will see many more instances of these "home-grown terrorists".

You hit the nail right on the head.