Merged Two Mosques to be built near Ground Zero

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've been telling some people that it's a bad idea. But they seem to not get it:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183113

Do you think it's a good or bad idea?

I think it's an extremely bad idea to suggest a no-First-Amendment zone around Ground Zero. (In other words, your goals and my goals are utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not to build this thing on the land they own.)

If the goal of the people building this mosque/community center is to have a mosque/community center in that area, then I think it's a good idea for them to build it there. In fact, I can think of no other way for them to achieve their goal.

The fact that their goal is not my goal is, again, irrelevant.

ETA: Beyond that, if we're considering the goals of, for example, the ADL, healing and reconciliation wrt the divisions and prejudices that arose as the result of the 9/11 attacks, I also think it's an extremely bad idea to oppose the building of this mosque/community center at that location. In fact, I think one result of its existence there would be to remind people that not all muslims are terrorists, that many muslims in New York were as much victims of 9/11 as anyone else, and that muslims are people who should be treated with respect regardless of their religious beliefs, just as we would treat any other people.

It's easier to have prejudiced hatred against an anonymous group of "them" rather than people you know (perhaps even as friends, neighbors, lovers, relatives, etc.) and interact with routinely.

 

[Chaos]

Sensible reasons someone might have an opinion on this:

- You intend to use the facility
- You are considering contributing money to build it
- You live on the block, and might be impacted by its presence

Since I don't fall into any of those categories, it's neither a good idea nor a bad idea to me.

(Actually, I may be a user if they have lecture series or similar, and there's a topic of interest to me -- such as at the 92nd St Y. But I still don't have an opinion.)

Since you live on the same planet as a bunch of bigots who oppose the mosque, it does indeed concern you.

Whether "the bigots hate the idea" means you should support or oppose the idea is left to you.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's not a coincidence they chose that vicinity.

No, it's not a coincidence. This congregation (or whatever you might call a muslim community) has practiced their faith in that neighborhood for 40 years. They've just lost their lease on the space they've been renting which was inadequate for their size anyway.

There's nothing nefarious about a religious group wishing to lawfully practice their First Amendment rights anywhere in America.

There is something nefarious about spreading misinformation.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think its [sic] a horrible, terrible, offensive, disgusting, and pathetic idea. I am horrified by it.

Why?

 

[Thunder]

Why?

its too big.

 

[A'isha]

No, it's not a coincidence. This congregation (or whatever you might call a muslim community) has practiced their faith in that neighborhood for 40 years. They've just lost their lease on the space they've been renting which was inadequate for their size anyway.

There's nothing nefarious about a religious group wishing to lawfully practice their First Amendment rights anywhere in America.

There is something nefarious about spreading misinformation.

While I agree with your last two sentences, the Masjid Manhattan community that Pardalis quoted from (and has been completely wrong about in pretty much everything he's said about them with the possible exception of their website address) is not the same one that wants to build the center on Park Street. They're two separate congregations (and I don't believe that the Cordoba Initiative group has an established congregation, as it's designed to be more of a community center than an actual mosque, unlike Masjid Manhattan, and Masjid Manhattan is still located a few doors down on Warren Street from where they had been located since before the WTC opened, which is all of four blocks from Ground Zero, while the proposed Cordoba Initiative site is two blocks closer to Ground Zero).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

its [sic] too big.

Then you must find a great deal of Manhattan to be "horrible, terrible, offensive, disgusting, and pathetic idea" since there are many buildings there that are far larger than this one (or rather than this complex of buildings--sounds like it will be 2) is likely to be.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

While I agree with your last two sentences, the Masjid Manhattan community that Pardalis quoted from (and has been completely wrong about in pretty much everything he's said about them with the possible exception of their website address) is not the same one that wants to build the center on Park Street. They're two separate congregations (and I don't believe that the Cordoba Initiative group has an established congregation, as it's designed to be more of a community center than an actual mosque, unlike Masjid Manhattan, and Masjid Manhattan is still located a few doors down on Warren Street from where they had been located since before the WTC opened, which is all of four blocks from Ground Zero, while the proposed Cordoba Initiative site is two blocks closer to Ground Zero).

Thanks again for the clarification.

So does the Cordoba Initiative group exist somewhere already? It sounds like they recognize a need for this facility in the area. Surely they're not building it in the hopes of that flavor of muslims to move in and use the facility.

At any rate, even if they are, they're still protected by the First Amendment right to "the free practice thereof". I haven't seen any evidence that the project is intended as any sort of victory trophy or anything like that. Have you?

 

[Taarkin]

I have a question for the the thread: if the 1st amendment read "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof(except for Islam)", or if there were no free exercise clause at all, would your feelings on the issue be any different?
For the record I don't think mine would.

 

[SOdhner]

I have a question for the the thread: if the 1st amendment read "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof(except for Islam)", or if there were no free exercise clause at all, would your feelings on the issue be any different?

If I had been raised in a version of this country that didn't have that rule, my opinions might well have formed differently (I'd like to believe otherwise, but...). If it were just magically removed now I would feel the same but might have to re-word some of my arguments.

 

[Elind]

I think its a horrible, terrible, offensive, disgusting, and pathetic idea. I am horrified by it.

But I respect property rights and Freedom of Religion, so they are more than welcome to build it right there.

Folks have the right to beg and demand that it not be built there. But government has NO place in this matter. None whatsoever.

Nothing like coming in late. There was a poll on this, and of course most people voted for the nice option. I didn't find a question that satisfied my position, but that is the way polls go.

I'm responding to this post because of the last sentence above, and I agree. I also suspect that you would agree that foreign governments have NO place in this matter either.

So my question, which has been asked by many, is simply; "who is paying $100,000,000 for this project?"

If it is by collections from American Muslims, I say go for it and good for you.

If it is by foreign sugar daddies in other countries, or theocracies, I have a problem.

Why can this simple question not be answered?

On another dimension of the issue, I have heard some nasty crap on places like Fox which I condemn, but regardless, I have to say that the organizers of this project must have their brains up their asses if they couldn't anticipate that this would be a controversial plan and raise many hackles. What were they thinking?

 

[hgc]

Since you live on the same planet as a bunch of bigots who oppose the mosque, it does indeed concern you.

Whether "the bigots hate the idea" means you should support or oppose the idea is left to you.

I have strong opinions about the bigots. They concern me.

What doesn't concern me is if this project is a good or bad idea. In saying that, I am intentionally excluding feelings of people who are offended by it. I won't let their hurt feelings, which are motivated by no good reason that I've heard yet, be the arbiter of what I consider a good or bad idea.

 

[elbe]

While I agree with your last two sentences, the Masjid Manhattan community that Pardalis quoted from (and has been completely wrong about in pretty much everything he's said about them with the possible exception of their website address) is not the same one that wants to build the center on Park Street. They're two separate congregations (and I don't believe that the Cordoba Initiative group has an established congregation, as it's designed to be more of a community center than an actual mosque, unlike Masjid Manhattan, and Masjid Manhattan is still located a few doors down on Warren Street from where they had been located since before the WTC opened, which is all of four blocks from Ground Zero, while the proposed Cordoba Initiative site is two blocks closer to Ground Zero).

I had those stories confused as well.

 

[GreNME]

So my question, which has been asked by many, is simply; "who is paying $100,000,000 for this project?"

If it is by collections from American Muslims, I say go for it and good for you.

If it is by foreign sugar daddies in other countries, or theocracies, I have a problem.

Why can this simple question not be answered?

This is the kind of ridiculous JAQing off that gets hammered in the CT subforum, yet folks continue to play this stupid game here and in the politics subforum.

As far as we can tell there is nothing strange about the funding for this place except that Rauf said to one group that he wanted it all American-funded and to a UN-related crowd he claimed funding was open to international parties. Have a look at all the buildings in Manhattan, then narrow that view to all of the religious cultural buildings-- the JCC and the 92nd St Y, for example, are two that are actually partners with the Cordoba Initiative and also have anonymous donors-- and you find that the Cordoba Initiative really doesn't stand out from the others it's emulating (the two aforementioned as well as the Christian Chautauqua Institution, which isn't in NYC) in size, scope, or operation, and the fact that the Cordoba Initiative has working relationships with many of them (and open support from them) should be a clear indication why these types of questions are so nonsensical.

On another dimension of the issue, I have heard some nasty crap on places like Fox which I condemn, but regardless, I have to say that the organizers of this project must have their brains up their asses if they couldn't anticipate that this would be a controversial plan and raise many hackles. What were they thinking?

This is another thing that really gets me. Do you really care what they were thinking or are you just saying that because it sounds like a reasonable objection? This article in the NYT, published all of nine months ago, goes into why, including introducing imam Feisal Rauf (and mentioning his wife, who was an advisor on the 9/11 memorial and museum), and even goes so far as to point out that the imam has actually worked with the FBI before in reaching out to the Muslim community. Really, this guy has been vetted more than once and actually has supporters in both Christian and Jewish religious organizations in NYC and beyond, so the fact that now, only since Congress has gone into recess and the campaigning has kicked into high gear, all of the sudden there's some kind of questions being thrown about just reeks of demagoguery and capitalizing on bigotry.

Ask yourself: if this group were not Muslim, would there be any reason to question anything about this project? If their being Muslim makes a difference, can you explain why in a way that doesn't conflate Muslims with al Qaeda and Islam with 9/11? Stating that people might conflate those things accidentally or mistakenly is not an explanation, that's just a description of racism and if anything is precisely the kind of thinking that doesn't belong in government.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So my question, which has been asked by many, is simply; "who is paying $100,000,000 for this project?"

If it is by collections from American Muslims, I say go for it and good for you.

If it is by foreign sugar daddies in other countries, or theocracies, I have a problem.

Why can this simple question not be answered?

The Park 51 project is funded by the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative. Linky. They're soliciting donations on their website as well: http://www.park51.org/vision.htm (See the big "donate" button.)

While I've seen no evidence that they receive funding from overseas, why would that matter?

Do you realize the central authority for the Roman Catholic Church is itself an independent sovereign state? Do you think that's reason to object to Catholic churches being built in the U.S.?

Is there something in the First Amendment that says that Americans can't pursue their free exercise of religion if they receive money from foreign states?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have a question for the the thread: if the 1st amendment read "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof(except for Islam)", or if there were no free exercise clause at all, would your feelings on the issue be any different?
For the record I don't think mine would.

I'm not sure I can even answer that. If we had an Islam exception in the First Amendment, we wouldn't have freedom of religion, and I can't imagine living in a U.S. that lacked that freedom. It really is a one of the most basic and fundamental principles our country is founded on.

And recognizing that we are a pluralistic nation goes right along with it.

But if your point is whether or not my position is based on simply the fact that they have the legal right to build their mosque and community center, then I would say no. (See me earlier comment in this thread about considering the goals of the ADL as an example.)

I think having a community center like this would indeed benefit the community and might even help to heal and reconcile the differences that give rise to the bigotry we've been talking about. Prejudice is nearly always a response to ignorance. When you get to know individuals of a certain group, you're less apt to treat the group as a monolithic mass sharing the stereotypical characteristics ascribed to that group.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I think it's an extremely bad idea to suggest a no-First-Amendment zone around Ground Zero.

Put a "free speech zone" somewhere out in the harbor and make everyone happy.

 

[Elind]

This is the kind of ridiculous JAQing off that gets hammered in the CT subforum, yet folks continue to play this stupid game here and in the politics subforum............. should be a clear indication why these types of questions are so nonsensical.

Your sentences are too long. Foreign funding is clearly different from American funding for a non business project like this (not to mention, probably tax exempt). Why on earth would foreigners wish to fund a cultural/religious center in the USA, when American aren't?

This is another thing that really gets me. Do you really care what they were thinking or are you just saying that because it sounds like a reasonable objection?

I have to explain a lot it seems. I don't agree with much of the rhetoric we have heard from the predictable sources, but the issue has done done nothing to endear Muslims to the average American and that was predictable. It is a no win situation for either side, but it was initiated by one side. I'm just saying it was poor strategy and guaranteed to back both sides into corners.

introducing imam Feisal Rauf (and mentioning his wife, who was an advisor on the 9/11 memorial and museum), and even goes so far as to point out that the imam has actually worked with the FBI before in reaching out to the Muslim community. Really, this guy has been vetted more than once and actually has supporters in both Christian and Jewish religious organizations in NYC and beyond, so the fact that now, only since Congress has gone into recess and the campaigning has kicked into high gear, all of the sudden there's some kind of questions being thrown about just reeks of demagoguery and capitalizing on bigotry.

I have no doubt that Rauf is no Al Qaeda mole, but I have reservations about his inability to categories Hamas and Hizbullah as the terrorist organizations our state department calls them. I have also read some of his logic contortions equating Sharia with Democracy which seem laughable to me. Hey! It's democratic as long as we just follow these here rules....

Ask yourself: if this group were not Muslim, would there be any reason to question anything about this project? If their being Muslim makes a difference, can you explain why in a way that doesn't conflate Muslims with al Qaeda and Islam with 9/11? Stating that people might conflate those things accidentally or mistakenly is not an explanation, that's just a description of racism and if anything is precisely the kind of thinking that doesn't belong in government.

Name any other identifiable group/religion/sect who committed this crime in their name, and many others, and the gut reaction would be exactly the same. Islam is conflated with 911 and much more. Just because you think that is sad, and I do too, doesn't make it go away.

As I said earlier, I would love to see something done by American Muslims for Muslims. I want the Saudis and other governments who, whether by proxies or not, build "churches" in other countries, to stay at home.

Of course I don't know what the case is. For some reason it seems to be an issue the developers tip toe around. Why is that?

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Name any other identifiable group/religion/sect who committed this crime in their name, and many others, and the gut reaction would be exactly the same. Islam is conflated with 911 and much more. Just because you think that is sad, and I do too, doesn't make it go away.

Bigotry is sad, yes. The "gut reaction" comes from religious/racial stereotyping, I don't see why I should feel sorry for someone or appease them because their "gut" is religiously intolerant..

 

[Elind]

The Park 51 project is funded by the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative. Linky. They're soliciting donations on their website as well: http://www.park51.org/vision.htm (See the big "donate" button.)

While I've seen no evidence that they receive funding from overseas, why would that matter?

Do you realize the central authority for the Roman Catholic Church is itself an independent sovereign state? Do you think that's reason to object to Catholic churches being built in the U.S.?

Is there something in the First Amendment that says that Americans can't pursue their free exercise of religion if they receive money from foreign states?

Oh dear.

When was the last time you announced plans for a $100,000,000+ project and all you had was a website asking for donations? Rubbish. They have the bulk of that pledged. Why not say from whom?

When was the last time you heard of the US government financing religious institution construction overseas? You would be outraged wouldn't you? But you have no problem if other governments, possibly theocracies, do so here.

That is weird form of logic.

As to the Catholics, I'll bet a substantial sum that Catholic institutions in the USA are to all intents and purposes funded by American Catholics.

Muslim American doing their thing is just fine by me.

And the last point, if the "American" institution was not of the religious type, they would most likely have to register as an agent of a foreign state if funded by same state. I do believe there are laws to that effect.

I repeat, I don't know that is the case, but lack of transparency and knowing something about how the likes of Saudi operate, I have suspicions. Theoretically this should be able to be cleared up by opening the books. Saying there is a website for donations doesn't hack it.