The New Mosque

[Gaspar]

Guido,
The truth hurts.  And the closer to home, the more it hurts.  Why would one be at all concerned that they move the mosque somewhere else if they weren't xenophobes and bigots?

And how far away would be far enough??

Like it or not, agree with it or not, this mosque is a symbol.  Was it designed to be a symbol?  Who knows, but it now is. 

If built it will represent different things to different people.  A vast majority of Americans unfortunately will see it as a symbol of defiance, as polls suggest.  Terrorist organizations have already said they see it as a symbol of victory.  Muslim Americans will view it as a victory.  Libertarians, like myself, a see it as a bold example constitutional freedom (but we are few).

No matter what the outcome of this debate, if the mosque is built it will continue to be divisive.  I fear it will be a target for hatred, and a beacon to both sides of the debate. 

Reason would dictate that if you wish to build a place of tranquility, you do it in a peaceful manner. 

They have been offered several more appealing locations.  These have been offered in good will and at reduced cost or no cost. So far they have declined.  It seems their motive is to plant a flag.  No good will come of this.  That is unfortunate.

[Conan71]

Like it or not, agree with it or not, this mosque is a symbol.  Was it designed to be a symbol?  Who knows, but it now is. 

If built it will represent different things to different people.  A vast majority of Americans unfortunately will see it as a symbol of defiance, as polls suggest.  Terrorist organizations have already said they see it as a symbol of victory.  Muslim Americans will view it as a victory.  Libertarians, like myself, a see it as a bold example constitutional freedom (but we are few).

No matter what the outcome of this debate, if the mosque is built it will continue to be divisive.  I fear it will be a target for hatred, and a beacon to both sides of the debate. 

Reason would dictate that if you wish to build a place of tranquility, you do it in a peaceful manner. 

They have been offered several more appealing locations.  These have been offered in good will and at reduced cost or no cost. So far they have declined.  It seems their motive is to plant a flag.  No good will come of this.  That is unfortunate.

I think that sums it up the best.

[we vs us]

I answered that question a little earlier today.

You ducked it.  If they have a responsibility to consider every viewpoint, then it's your responsibility to be clear in what you want from them.  Compromise of any sort demands nothing less. 

So:  if they're too close, then where is far enough away?

[cannon_fodder]

I tried a second time, and I failed.

Guido, I am not arguing the benefits of building the mosque.  I'm not saying it is a good idea.  I'm not saying it will bring people together.  And I'm not arguing that you, the dead people from 911, their families, or anyone else doesn't have a right to speak out against it.  Be as mad as you want. Protest.  You have the right to.

My position is very, very simple:  there is no legal avenue one can use to stop the construction of this mosque. Any try would almost certainly be overturned.

That's what I'm interested in discussing.  The legal aspect. That's it.  No more, no less.  No matter how mad you are, how much the 911 association hates it, or if the victims of 911 rose from the dead in protest - it doesn't change the fact that they qualified under all the zoning ordinances, got the permits, and have a green light to convert that building into a mosque.  

I addressed your concerns:  people are upset, people are offended, and and people are afraid.  That has no bearing on whether the mosque can be constructed.  It goes to the question of should it be constructed.  You, and indeed most Americans, answered that question in the negative.  But that opinion is not outcome determinitive.  They can build it in spite of your protests or in order to spite you.  And again, I'm not interest in the *should* it be built aspect of the discussion, as opinions are pretty well set and I am fairly ambivelent.

To the issue of religious freedom;  how is this not an issue of religious freedom?  The question is being posed:  should we prevent a religious institution from being built because people of the same faith committed a horrible act in the same neighborhood?  The essence of the question is whether we should allow a group of people the right to build a house of worship or if it offends too many people and we don't allow it.  I simply do not understand the contention that religious freedom has nothing to do with prohibiting the construction of a religious institution when the sole reason given is that it offends people (because of the religion it is meant to worship).

While it is true that many faiths, including Native Americans and Mormons (LDS), have had their faiths legally belittled and intruded upon; I don't think anyone would admit we want that to be the norm.  It is also true that you couldn't fund a new church in Saudi Arabia without specific approval and jumping through MAJOR hurdles (if at all), but we're supposed to be better than that.  Once again, it's very simple, their right to build a place of worship trumps your, or anyone elses, sensitivities.

So if anyone has an argument as to why the mosque should be legally prohibited, I'd be happy to hear it.  Otherwise it's just repeating your opinion that you don't want it there (or not wanting it there in the 3rd person: "I support the people that have a right to hold the opinion that they don't want it there").  The opinions have been noted, but fail to address my concern. 

A legal challenge to stop the cosntruction, however, would be interesting.

[Conan71]

My position is very, very simple:  there is no legal avenue one can use to stop the construction of this mosque. Any try would almost certainly be overturned.

That's what I'm interested in discussing.  The legal aspect. That's it.  No more, no less.  No matter how mad you are, how much the 911 association hates it, or if the victims of 911 rose from the dead in protest - it doesn't change the fact that they qualified under all the zoning ordinances, got the permits, and have a green light to convert that building into a mosque.  

No one is arguing this as a legal issue.  It's strictly emotional and and talking about whether or not this is a provocative move, and whether or not the developers should consider the feelings and input of the survivor's and non-survivors families.  Nothing more nothing less.

[custosnox]

It's not just the 9/11 victims' rights to speak out that I support; it's also that a clear majority of New Yorkers want the mosque moved and I support their right to speak out.  Do you have a problem with people that oppose something, whether rightly or wrongly, to speak out?

As for your "straw man" accusation, could you clarify that? Are you accusing me of an anti-Islam bias based on the fact that I am Christian? If so, you are way off.

With every argument that has been posted, your counter has been "it isn't sensative to those it offends."  Even when it is said that they have every legal right to build, that is your response.  And since it can be argued in the opposite direction, as in it can be said that it isn't sensative to those who want to build it to ask them to build it somewhere else, your argument losses substance.  Yet you keep using it, and you only use it in the one direction.  And just because the majority wants something does not make it right, history has shown us that time and time again.

[Conan71]

With every argument that has been posted, your counter has been "it isn't sensative to those it offends."  Even when it is said that they have every legal right to build, that is your response.  And since it can be argued in the opposite direction, as in it can be said that it isn't sensative to those who want to build it to ask them to build it somewhere else, your argument losses substance.  Yet you keep using it, and you only use it in the one direction.  And just because the majority wants something does not make it right, history has shown us that time and time again.

Let me ask you this:

If 70% of Americans or whatever the percentage is thinks this is:

A) A bad idea
B) Insensitive to victims and survivors
C) A provocative monument to an Islamic victory

How does that build a bridge of goodwill between Muslims and non-Muslims? Your logic is along the lines of saying we need to allow illegal immigration from south of the border to continue unabated and then everyone else assimilate to Mexican language and culture.  Since when did minority rights trump all else, including common sense? 

[Gaspar]

Your logic is along the lines of saying we need to allow illegal immigration from south of the border to continue unabated and then everyone else assimilate to Mexican language and culture. 

I thought that's what we were doing?

[Townsend]

Let me ask you this:

If 70% of Americans or whatever the percentage is thinks this is:

A) A bad idea
B) Insensitive to victims and survivors
C) A provocative monument to an Islamic victory

How does that build a bridge of goodwill between Muslims and non-Muslims? Your logic is along the lines of saying we need to allow illegal immigration from south of the border to continue unabated and then everyone else assimilate to Mexican language and culture.  Since when did minority rights trump all else, including common sense? 

This is also pushing people of Muslim faith away and supporting the radical clerics' points of view that the USA hates them and wishes their end.

[guido911]

With every argument that has been posted, your counter has been "it isn't sensative to those it offends."  Even when it is said that they have every legal right to build, that is your response.  And since it can be argued in the opposite direction, as in it can be said that it isn't sensative to those who want to build it to ask them to build it somewhere else, your argument losses substance.  Yet you keep using it, and you only use it in the one direction.  And just because the majority wants something does not make it right, history has shown us that time and time again.

I agree that my argument loses its substance because I have been beating my own dead horse restating my support for those that want the developers to have the mosque built elsewhere. As for your last sentence, I restrained myself and did not go with the "Captain Obvious" pic.

[guido911]

I tried a second time, and I failed.

Guido, I am not arguing the benefits of building the mosque.  I'm not saying it is a good idea.  I'm not saying it will bring people together.  And I'm not arguing that you, the dead people from 911, their families, or anyone else doesn't have a right to speak out against it.  Be as mad as you want. Protest.  You have the right to.

My position is very, very simple:  there is no legal avenue one can use to stop the construction of this mosque. Any try would almost certainly be overturned.

That's what I'm interested in discussing.  The legal aspect. That's it.  No more, no less.  No matter how mad you are, how much the 911 association hates it, or if the victims of 911 rose from the dead in protest - it doesn't change the fact that they qualified under all the zoning ordinances, got the permits, and have a green light to convert that building into a mosque.  

I addressed your concerns:  people are upset, people are offended, and and people are afraid.  That has no bearing on whether the mosque can be constructed.  It goes to the question of should it be constructed.  You, and indeed most Americans, answered that question in the negative.  But that opinion is not outcome determinitive.  They can build it in spite of your protests or in order to spite you.  And again, I'm not interest in the *should* it be built aspect of the discussion, as opinions are pretty well set and I am fairly ambivelent.

To the issue of religious freedom;  how is this not an issue of religious freedom?  The question is being posed:  should we prevent a religious institution from being built because people of the same faith committed a horrible act in the same neighborhood?  The essence of the question is whether we should allow a group of people the right to build a house of worship or if it offends too many people and we don't allow it.  I simply do not understand the contention that religious freedom has nothing to do with prohibiting the construction of a religious institution when the sole reason given is that it offends people (because of the religion it is meant to worship).

While it is true that many faiths, including Native Americans and Mormons (LDS), have had their faiths legally belittled and intruded upon; I don't think anyone would admit we want that to be the norm.  It is also true that you couldn't fund a new church in Saudi Arabia without specific approval and jumping through MAJOR hurdles (if at all), but we're supposed to be better than that.  Once again, it's very simple, their right to build a place of worship trumps your, or anyone elses, sensitivities.

So if anyone has an argument as to why the mosque should be legally prohibited, I'd be happy to hear it.  Otherwise it's just repeating your opinion that you don't want it there (or not wanting it there in the 3rd person: "I support the people that have a right to hold the opinion that they don't want it there").  The opinions have been noted, but fail to address my concern. 

A legal challenge to stop the cosntruction, however, would be interesting.

Why would a legal challenge to stop the construction be "interesting" to you? After all, as you so boldly stated, "there is no legal avenue one can use to stop the construction of this mosque."

Now, if you want to debate the legality of how someone would go about stopping the construction of the mosque (which has never been my position; and I thought the position of the protesters was its relocation) for the sake of argument, I will have to muse hard over that one. But as I wrote way back, I think the developers have every right to build it there.

[custosnox]

Let me ask you this:

If 70% of Americans or whatever the percentage is thinks this is:

A) A bad idea
B) Insensitive to victims and survivors
C) A provocative monument to an Islamic victory

How does that build a bridge of goodwill between Muslims and non-Muslims? Your logic is along the lines of saying we need to allow illegal immigration from south of the border to continue unabated and then everyone else assimilate to Mexican language and culture.  Since when did minority rights trump all else, including common sense? 

It seems that the majority of those who oppose this "mosque" have formed their oppinions based on half-truths and misconceptions, as has been pointed out several times in previous posts.  And how can they build bridges of goodwill if they are always told to leave?  As far as comparing them to the illegal immigrants, that's really stretching it.  First off is that word illegal.  That means they have come here unlawfully.  Last I checked, these folks were legally allowed to build a community center with a place reserved for worship in it at this location.  Second, your making it out like by them building the center there, it means that everyone in lower Manhattan must now pray to Allah, and praise the deeds of the prophit Mohammad.  That is what the equililant to the argument of having everyone assimilate the culture and language of mexicans.

[nathanm]

Let me ask you this:

If 70% of Americans or whatever the percentage is thinks this is:

A) A bad idea
B) Insensitive to victims and survivors
C) A provocative monument to an Islamic victory

How does that build a bridge of goodwill between Muslims and non-Muslims? Your logic is along the lines of saying we need to allow illegal immigration from south of the border to continue unabated and then everyone else assimilate to Mexican language and culture.  Since when did minority rights trump all else, including common sense? 

If it weren't for the regular protesting of mosques that are nowhere near Ground Zero, I might have more sympathy for the majoritarian argument. Of course, on of the major purposes of our Constitution is to prevent the majority from trampling on the rights of the minority.

I really don't get this "terrorists will be emboldened by it" argument. Should we now do things based on whether or not terrorists will like it? How about the argument that by not building it there, it sends a terrible message to Muslims the world over that we won't let them exercise their religious freedom when we get our sentiment stirred up by a racist xenophobe? If it were truly that big of a deal, it wouldn't have gone 8 months with nary a newspaper article before being picked up by that tool Geller.

Face it, some 9/11 families are OK with it, some of them aren't. Some people are OK with it, others aren't.

And if you want to know why 70% of Americans are against it, it might have something to do with the lies being peddled by Fox News. If I believed that it was going to be some sort of training camp for terrorists and all the other BS being said about it, I wouldn't want it built anywhere.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/moment-of-zen---prince-alwaleed-bin-talal-on-fox-news

Oh, and what alternate locations have actually been offered?

[Conan71]

It seems that the majority of those who oppose this "mosque" have formed their oppinions based on half-truths and misconceptions, as has been pointed out several times in previous posts.  And how can they build bridges of goodwill if they are always told to leave?  As far as comparing them to the illegal immigrants, that's really stretching it.  First off is that word illegal.  That means they have come here unlawfully.  Last I checked, these folks were legally allowed to build a community center with a place reserved for worship in it at this location.  Second, your making it out like by them building the center there, it means that everyone in lower Manhattan must now pray to Allah, and praise the deeds of the prophit Mohammad.  That is what the equililant to the argument of having everyone assimilate the culture and language of mexicans.

That still didn't answer my question as to how this is structure is a goodwill gesture when most people, ignorant or not of real or percieved issues are against it.  There's no doubt there's a lot of misinformation and misplaced fear on the part of some opponents but there's also historical precident throughout Islam for people to cast a wary eye in the direction of this center. 

I can say that since we started the debate on here, I've learned more about Imam Faisal and the Cordoba Initiative and I'd like to believe there are the best of intentions with this.  If what I'm led to believe is correct, then moving the location should be less about capitulation to the Cordoba folks than truly showing the good will this is supposed to stand for.  I think it's telling when adherents to Islam are saying that it would be wise to put this elsewhere if they want to build a bridge. To someone who lost their spouse on 9/11, they might have a serious distaste for all Islam even though it's only a small handful of Muslims who were involved in this atrocity.  I'm reading things though that almost make Muslims sound like the victims of 9/11 not the citizens of the United States.

As far as everyone having to pray to Allah, not at all.  I'm simply trying to figure out where the rights or desires of a minority are more important than those of a majority and using the example of illegal immigration as a little absurdity to put an exclaimation point on this.  Even prior to this hitting the national spotlight in a big way, more than 1/2 of NYC area residents were against it.  We also know there are Democrats, Independents, women, and Muslims against this.  Hardly rank and file Fox watchers.

[guido911]

You ducked it.  If they have a responsibility to consider every viewpoint, then it's your responsibility to be clear in what you want from them.  Compromise of any sort demands nothing less. 

So:  if they're too close, then where is far enough away?

Fine, four blocks from Ground Zero. Apparently there is already a mosque four blocks away, the Masjid Manhattan, that New Yorkers are not upset about. Happy now?