Merged Two Mosques to be built near Ground Zero

[Elind]

Question: Why should your opinion be given any weight or consideration if you cannot offer any facts or evidence which support the formation of that opinion?

Whether you give my opinion weight or consideration (you have, it seems, given the latter) is entirely up to you.

As to the evidence of the opinion I assume you are referencing, which is one of being critical at several levels but not in favor of "banning" anything, that is the simple fact that I see no evidence of a grass roots effort to build this cultural/religious bridge by American Muslims. It seems to be a plan by some big shots who depend on it for their careers.

Feel free to contradict.

 

[Thunder]

it does appear that the Cordoba Institute did want the mosque to be close to GZ, but not for reasons of insulting the families or gloating over 9-11. perhaps they misinterpreted and underestimated the feelings such a choice would make.

with this in mind, perhaps its not such a bad idea to hep them find another location in Lower Manhattan.

I think a location closer to Canal St, would be a decent compromise.

they get to build their mosque/community center in Lower Manhattan, and the bigots get to keep their ground "hallowed".

 

[Elind]

Careful now. Someone might call you names if you get too reasonable. I suspect they might simply have chosen that building because how often can one get a deal on damaged property in Manhattan?

However it is a bit late to change this without ending up with egg on their faces, and it would encourage the true bigots, who do exist.

Stupidity rules. I think the applicable term for many parties would be Groupthink.

 

[Thunder]

hmmm....

I think if the Cordoba folks sit down with the haters/bigots & the NYC Archdiocese and come up with a compromise location, closer to Canal St., I honestly think both sides would look like they manned up.

However, if the Cordoba folks agree to move 5 blocks north, I'd like to see a signed commitment from the mosque-haters, that they would NOT protest this new location in any way/shape/form.

that includes Ms. Pamella Geller.

however, if the mosque-haters refuse to commit to not opposing the new location, than I suggest the Cordoba folks build it at the current location.

 

[Elind]

You are way too accommodating for reality. I have no clue where this soap opera will end up, but I suspect it is already a no win situation for everyone. Sad really.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I fully agree with the last statement. That will teach you Americans some civilty

I was going to say yes to the 2nd option, save this country from it's more damaging members.

 

[Thunder]

You are way too accommodating for reality.

i want this story to end.

i hope that a location closer to Canal st. would "appease" the haters, but part of me thinks they won't be happy till its moved to Montreal. (360 miles north of GZ)

if this is the case, and the haters simply refuse to tolerate any "mega mosque" in the USA, than they should be fought tooth and nail.

i only want to compromise with folks who are willing to compromise.

is this like Chamberlian compromising with Hitler? no, cause they got no signed agreement from Hitler that he will annex the Sudenland and go NO FURTHER.

that is exactly what I am calling for. a signed letter from Hitler stating that he will go no further, and an acknowledgement that if he does, we will declare war.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... the opinion I assume you are referencing, which is one of being critical at several levels but not in favor of "banning" anything, that is the simple fact that I see no evidence of a grass roots effort to build this cultural/religious bridge by American Muslims. It seems to be a plan by some big shots who depend on it for their careers.

Feel free to contradict.

The above revealed attitude along with other things you've said contradict the claim below you made earlier:

I lived and worked in their countries, with my family, for about 10 years. I found 90% of them charming friendly and very hospitable. Probably about the same percentage as here.

I suppose you could say you are consistently inconsistent.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

it does appear that the Cordoba Institute did want the mosque to be close to GZ, but not for reasons of insulting the families or gloating over 9-11. perhaps they misinterpreted and underestimated the feelings such a choice would make.

with this in mind, perhaps its not such a bad idea to hep them find another location in Lower Manhattan.

I think a location closer to Canal St, would be a decent compromise.

they get to build their mosque/community center in Lower Manhattan, and the bigots get to keep their ground "hallowed".

Yes, they wanted it, for positive reasons involving the events of 9/11.

It's my feeling that the best approach, if I were them, would be to make it known very loudly that their intent was completely distorted by a few horrible people. I'd make it clear they are our our side. They are not the people those few horrible people are making them out to be.

I'd put pictures of every Muslim killed on 9/11 including a VERY LARGE one in the center of the Muslim EMT who lost his life volunteering to help. I'd add a billboard to the images that said something like, "We grieve for our lost loved ones along with those we didn't have the pleasure of getting to know. We are not here to offend you, we are here to tell the terrorists they will not win. We will not join them."


Giving in, walking away sends the message, you are right to blame all 1.6 billion Muslims for the acts of less than 100 of them. The worst of the bigots, and there are plenty of them, are not going to be happy no matter where the center site is relocated. These people are hateful and that is not going to change.

The reasonable people are going to be able to say, they get it, and they were wrong to think the center should be seen as offensive to anyone. It's wrong to move the center. That would be a win for terrorists and the truly serious bigots alike.

 

[Elind]

The above revealed attitude along with other things you've said contradict the claim below you made earlier:

I suppose you could say you are consistently inconsistent.

I suppose I can say that you are consistently misinterpreting.

Those two statements have no direct connection to each other.

However I can suggest a mention that I made earlier, on the off chance it will help you. There is a difference between how individuals behave towards other individuals, as individuals, and how they behave as a group.

The most charming person in the world can become quite different when acting a member of a group. The word I used was Groupthink. It is a real term, if you want to look it up, and it applies to both main protagonists in this case.

 

[Ladewig]

Probably more than would say the same about atheists. I'm an atheist, but I don't really consider them bigots; just ignorant about many things.

So what is your definition of a bigot?

I am willing to drop this derail; however, just for curiosity's sake (rather than for the sake of arguing) I do want to know your definition.

 

[Thunder]

It would be nice if the Cordoba folks would state WHY they wanted a Muslim community center/mosque sooo close to the WTC.

I know the reason. They thought a moderate, tolerant, inclusive, Muslim community center that had inter-faith events and worked to show Muslims and Islam in a modern and tolerant light, would be a great affront to the terrorists of 9-11, and show Americans that not all Muslims are terrorists and evil.

Somehow, that message has not been aired. And I don't understand why.

 

[GreNME]

Whether you give my opinion weight or consideration (you have, it seems, given the latter) is entirely up to you.

As to the evidence of the opinion I assume you are referencing, which is one of being critical at several levels but not in favor of "banning" anything, that is the simple fact that I see no evidence of a grass roots effort to build this cultural/religious bridge by American Muslims. It seems to be a plan by some big shots who depend on it for their careers.

Feel free to contradict.

Since there was never a claim that this was a grass roots project from the start you seem to have build a very nice strawman. While certainly Rauf's conflicting statements regarding who is going to be investing are provable, that doesn't mean much of anything. You may not be aware of this, but since the funds have to go through the NY Charity commission means that a large chunk of the financial data for this project is going to be public information. Of course, that doesn't simply mean you can log into "seemuslimfinancialrecords.com" or something and see everything broken down from boring tax filing speak into plain English, but on the other hand if we could all have our desires fall into our outstretched hands then there would be little reason for folks to get an education or actually learn about something in order to form an informed opinion on a subject.

In other words: why contradict a strawman?

 

[GreNME]

It would be nice if the Cordoba folks would state WHY they wanted a Muslim community center/mosque sooo close to the WTC.

Because the building they bought was hit by debris from the 9/11 attacks, had sat for eight years unused and crumbling, and because both Rauf and his wife have been involved in 9/11-related memorial and law enforcement activities since the attacks in 2001. Added to that, the building sold for a fraction of what it was selling for over the years and had a large enough footprint to do something more than just have a small prayer room in a basement. This building gets to be an "eff-you" to the attackers on 9/11, it gets to provide some actual useful services to lower Manhattan, like similar centers built by others in Manhattan it gets to be a public relations hub, and finally it gets to provide jobs and some neighborhood revitalization to lower Manhattan.

Honestly, parky, the Cordoba folks (particularly Rauf and his wife) have been saying this stuff outright from the beginning. Your statement is as bizarre as when people say "why aren't Muslims openly speaking out against terrorists?" and then completely ignoring the tons of examples where they have.

 

[Chaos]

I agree with you, so you can't be talking about me; can you?

My point of these, logically speaking those who want to take away Muslims´ constitutionally guaranteed right to construct a building within the limits of zoning law must either answer "yes" to all three of these, or demonstrate very convincingly how their bigotry is different from other peoples´ bigotry.

And I´m pretty sure that, over the last century or so, more Whites have been murdered by Blacks, more Democrats by Republicans, and more foreigners by Americans, than Americans by Muslims, so if anything any one of these three would be even more justified.

 

[Elind]

Since there was never a claim that this was a grass roots project from the start you seem to have build a very nice strawman.

I think that all I said, in essence, was that I would have thought much better of this project had it been a grass roots idea.

Unfortunately, I can't take credit for a deviously nice strawman, which is sometimes hard to construct.

 

[Elind]

So what is your definition of a bigot?

I am willing to drop this derail; however, just for curiosity's sake (rather than for the sake of arguing) I do want to know your definition.

Fair question, but a difficult one because it varies with context.

I suppose I would say that if a perceived bigotry can be rationalized (even if there is a rational contradiction) then it is a matter of ignorance more than bigotry. On the other hand when it amounts to hate largely based on the fact that there is a difference and the details of the difference are irrelevant, then it is bigotry.

 

[Kestrel]

It would be nice if the Cordoba folks would state WHY they wanted a Muslim community center/mosque sooo close to the WTC.

I know the reason. They thought a moderate, tolerant, inclusive, Muslim community center that had inter-faith events and worked to show Muslims and Islam in a modern and tolerant light, would be a great affront to the terrorists of 9-11, and show Americans that not all Muslims are terrorists and evil.

Somehow, that message has not been aired. And I don't understand why.

The message was aired rather well by this New York Times article published last December.

The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.”

 

[Taarkin]

My point of these, logically speaking those who want to take away Muslims´ constitutionally guaranteed right to construct a building within the limits of zoning law must either answer "yes" to all three of these, or demonstrate very convincingly how their bigotry is different from other peoples´ bigotry.

B-b-but what about the non-bigots who don't want to take away Muslims´ constitutionally guaranteed rights, but just want the scary musselmen to go away?

 

[Thunder]

I like folks who say "there is nothing bigoted about wanting Muslims not to build a Mosque at Ground Zero. I mean, Muslims did do 9-11...right?".

or the folks who say "we should pay attention to the feelings of the 9-11 families, who don't want a mosque desecrating the site of their loved one's murder".