8

Quote :

"community center"

so is it gonna be like the YMCA?

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 3:24 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2010 3:24:22 PM

Oh, Grumps. I had forgotten that you have that in common with Mr. Rauf, your opinion that if it weren't for the notoriously scandalous female population of Greeley, Colorado, circa 1950, America could have been spared 9/11 altogether. Really, do you think the mosque is enough to gain their forgiveness? Shall we allow them some sharia as well?

8/6/2010 3:30:36 PM

Your ability to lump more than a billion people into one monolithic group is impressive.

8/6/2010 3:50:08 PM

Ditto.

You go even farther, I believe. You contend that all religions and ideologies are essentially the same, right? So we're really all just one big monolithic species with minor variation caused by things like volcanoes and drought.

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 4:00 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2010 3:56:33 PM

Quote :

"Building something like this takes a lot of people, and I hope they have trouble finding a crew willing to do it. I don't suspect there is a lot of enthusiasm among blue-collar New Yorker workers to get this done."

i'm sure they'll gladly swallow any bitterness for work. seeing how construction is at historic lows, i doubt there would be many people willing to pass up a paycheck.

Quote :

"so is it gonna be like the YMCA?"

probably. i haven't seen the plans for it, but i suspect that it will be like many other religious buildings that are in the US: a giant house of worship, and a detached or semi-detached community center with basketball courts and water-painting classrooms, and other feel good things (although it is in a much tighter urban setting). a lot of the outrage seems to be from a general lack of understanding of what the program will be. to me, the "community center" is exactly that. a community center open to the public, that encourages interaction from people with a diverse range of backgrounds. the house of worship will likely be like every other house of worship in the country: open to anyone willing to worship inside its doors that practices or is interested in practicing that particular religion.

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2010 4:15:20 PM

Didn't read much of the thread, but I'd figure I'll comment.

First of all, if you take away that it's a mosque and Islam is tied into, there is controversy already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordoba_House

I found the guys wife's quote of "only in america is this possible" to be a great quote. Opposition to the mosque will say "Look at them using us". If you're for the Mosque you say "damn right. America is freedom".

I personally have nothing wrong with a mosque in that location, which is the big debate. I do think questions about the validity of where the money comes from are a little frightening. I think if we can tolerate as a society this building to be built and successful, we really will have come full circle. People often forget that one person's act and motives to an in-group, are most often completely independent of the group as a whole.

8/6/2010 4:17:09 PM

^ so then you support the "god hates fags" protestors at military funerals and other scenes of tragedy?

8/6/2010 4:21:04 PM

^you don't have to support their ideology in order to support their right to exist

8/6/2010 4:22:38 PM

^^ can you elaborate the situation... then I'll give you my opinion. I don't follow news too often, but this topic I was facinated with.

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 4:23 PM. Reason : ]

Also, I have to say. I try to come into the Soap Box with a serious comment and the comment back is what it is. I love tww.

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 4:24 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2010 4:23:15 PM

Don't bother. His argument boils down to "if you're for one controversial albeit legal activity, you're for them all."

8/6/2010 4:26:11 PM

Quote :

"^you don't have to support their ideology in order to support their right to exist"

FLAWLESS VICTORY

8/6/2010 4:29:25 PM

Hell, I even support their ideology.

These guys, right here, are moderate Muslims, despite what Glenn Beck has to say. The conservatives are always asking where these guys are, and they're now shouting them down.

One might accidentally think that conservatives really do hate all Muslims.

8/6/2010 4:37:06 PM

And you can still support one's right to exist despite being critical of their ideology.

8/6/2010 4:37:20 PM

Well, there's already at least one Islamic Cultural Center of New York--and the following are some of the remarks that have come from the former imam and his replacement there:

The Uncomfortable question of Anti-Semitism
November 4, 2001

Quote :

"Recently, I read an interview with Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha -- who was not only the representative in the United States of the prominent Cairo center of Islamic learning, al-Azhar University, but also imam of the Islamic Cultural Center of New York City. The sheik, who until recently lived in Manhattan on the Upper West Side, explained that 'only the Jews' were capable of destroying the World Trade Center and added that 'if it became known to the American people, they would have done to Jews what Hitler did.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/04/magazine/the-uncomfortable-question-of-anti-semitism.html

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE IMAM; New York Cleric's Departure From Mosque Leaves Mystery
October 23, 2001

Quote :

"[Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha's] departure from the Upper East Side mosque, the Islamic Cultural Center of New York City, which regularly draws 4,000 Muslims for Friday prayers, comes amid questions about an interview he reportedly gave to an Arabic Web site on Oct. 4 saying that Muslims in America were being persecuted, that their children were being poisoned by Jewish doctors in American hospitals, and that 'Zionists' in command of the nation's air traffic control towers aided the suicide hijackings."

http://tinyurl.com/299b8r8

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE IMAM; New Head of Mosque Wants Proof
November 2, 2001

Quote :

"'In the first place, we don't have conclusive evidence that the World Trade Center attack was waged by Muslim elements,' [Imam Omar Saleem Abu-Namous] said."

http://tinyurl.com/2b6xezn

Those imams really showed a lot of sensitivity while the Twin Towers lay in rubble and thousand of bodies were still in the buried under them.

8/6/2010 5:24:12 PM

is your argument that because one guy said something bad, that these guys will too?


sorry, i don't see the connection to this building

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 5:32 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2010 5:31:09 PM

^ My argument is self-evident. And it was two Muslim leaders at one New York Islamic cultural center. If these religiois leaders don't represent the views of their followers, then why do we listen to, say, an Al Sharpton?

If they wouldn't show some fundamental sensitivity in the days immediately following 9/11, when would they show it? Honestly.

It strikes me as damned peculiar that some of you swoop in here anytime some TV evangelist--a Christian ("ZOMG! STUPID! HE BELIEVES IN INVISIBLE SKY DADDY!!!1")--says or does something dumb. But when Farrakhan or any Muslim says or does something similar, you spout something along the lines of "SO WHAT?! YOU HATE BROWN PEOPLE! RAWR!!!1"

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 5:41 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2010 5:38:56 PM

^^^ I did a search for "Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf," "Rauf," and "Feisal" in each of your links, with no results.

So what do any of your links have to do with their leader?

Essentially, this is the association you're creating, right-- "Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf" --> Cordoba Cultural Center --> some other Islamic cultural center --> the guys quoted in your links. Only three degrees of tenuous separation. Better than usual! Nice!

^ Man, even simpler than I thought. This Muslim said something, therefore it reflects the values of this other Muslim. One degree of even more tenuous separation!

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 5:42 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2010 5:40:35 PM

^^i read the quote. the antisemitism was harsh. but there is no connection to these guys who are building this mosque.

you're only "self evident" point is to be guilt by association (if you can even call it that, because i'm not sure these guys are even buddy-buddy). really, it's as stupid as someone saying that we should all be wary of catholic priests because a few of them like to touch boy's butts.

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 5:46 PM. Reason : ahhh... i see you found a way to sneak in al sharpton...bravo]

8/6/2010 5:42:34 PM

^^ Right on cue.

^ Not true at all.

NEWS ALERT: The imam in question has made similarly controversial statments:

Quote :

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened [9/11], but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

Despite what some claim, there is a pattern there. And I've never witnessed the two of you give Christians the same benefit of the doubt that you so vehemently defend for the Muslims at issue. Never.

8/6/2010 5:49:13 PM

Quote :

"^^ Right on cue."

Where's the rebuttal?

Quote :

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened [9/11], but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

I agree with this statement. Should I be banned from buying property in NYC?

Quote :

"And I've never witnessed the two of you give Christians the same benefit of the doubt that you so vehemently defend for the Muslims at issue. Never."

Citations: 0
Relevance: 0

8/6/2010 5:52:28 PM

pretty ridiculous string of posts here.

1. they should be allowed to build. the constitution guarantees it. there are no arbitrary denials of a religious structure.

2. nobody has to like it. also, people can hate it without being a racist or a bigot. the builders should also be prepared for the PR catastrophe and that comes with it.

END.

8/6/2010 5:58:46 PM

Quote :

"And I've never witnessed the two of you give Christians the same benefit of the doubt that you so vehemently defend for the Muslims at issue. Never"

welp, i don't post that often, so it should be pretty easy for you to find an example of my anti-christianity. unless you are (ironically/brilliantly) associating me with others who post on here and are just assuming that i hold the exact same sentiments as they do. at least that would be consistent with your short-sighted analysis.

8/6/2010 6:00:46 PM

Quote :

"2. nobody has to like it. also, people can hate it without being a racist or a bigot."

lmao on what fucking grounds?

8/6/2010 6:01:53 PM

^^^ It's no surprise that you agree with the imam in question. No surprise at all.

Quote :

"'I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.'"

--Abdul Rauf

Quote :

"Abdurahman Alamoudi, the president of the American Muslim Council, told a rally in Washington last year: 'Hear that, Bill Clinton: We are all supporters of Hamas. Allahu akbar. I wish to add that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah.' [This was three days after 9/11]"

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/News/911rauch.html

Rauf, too, has refused to condemn Hamas. This is well-known.

And if I repeatedly failed to condemn, say, the KKK when presented with mulitiple opportunities, I'm sure you'd be just as forgiving.

^^ So, you haven't condemned or defended Christians here? Yet, you appear multiple times for the vigorous defense of the Muslim facility in question. Curious.

^ Zoning?

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 6:07 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2010 6:03:30 PM

You feel hatred over arbitrary zoning laws?

8/6/2010 6:07:29 PM

^^so it really is just a religious war with you, isn't it?

i mean, in this thread alone, i said that i would respect the right for westboro baptist church to exist (even though i disagree with everything they stand for). i also said that i wouldn't hold all catholic priests accountable for the actions of a few. i don't know why you feel obligated or compelled to paint me as a "muslim sympathizer." i'm not. i'm far from religious, but i respect the need for religious tolerance.

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 6:10 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2010 6:08:31 PM

Basically this boils down to the fact that liberals have a knee jerk desire to defend things that conservatives dislike

So they are defending this imam and posting nice heart warming sentiments about him despite the fact that he is as intolerant as any baptist or conservative they would shower with vitriol.

8/6/2010 6:09:32 PM

^^^ I didn't say I did. But I have some experience with and graduate coursework in municipal planning--zoning issues are often very contentious and emotional for a variety of reasons.

^^ It's a "war" against Islamofascism and any who support it. I have nothing against anyone who would live in peaceful coexistence.

You're just about ready to call me a bigot, though, aren't you? I can see it coming.

Those Muslims who want to build the mosque/center in question aren't showing "religious tolerance" or even sensitivity--it amazes me that some of you can't/won't see this. Make it a truly interfaith center and then we'll talk about religious tolerance.

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 6:15 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2010 6:10:09 PM

Quote :

"Basically this boils down to the fact that liberals have a knee jerk desire to defend things that conservatives dislike So they are defending this imam and posting nice heart warming sentiments about him despite the fact that he is as intolerant as any baptist or conservative they would shower with vitriol."

Dude please if this were the case we'd try to ban all Christian churches from the South, especially Baptist ones, as many churches are near a site where unreal cruelty was perpetrated against blacks.

8/6/2010 6:11:28 PM

Quote :

"Those Muslims who want to build the mosque/center in question aren't showing "religious tolerance" or even sensitivity--it amazes me that some of you can't/won't see this. Make it a truly interfaith center and then we'll talk about religious tolerance."

i was hoping you'd come back to this. why does it have to be interfaith? they want to build a mosque, what's wrong with that? they're protected by the first amendment to build a house of worship to the faith of their choosing. would you put the burden of any other religion to make an interfaith building there? no, but because you associate the act of a few radicals to an entire religion, they should have to play by a separate set of rules?

Quote :

" * fitness facilities (swimming pool, gym, basketball court) * a 500-seat auditorium * a restaurant and culinary school * cultural amenities including exhibitions * education programs * a library and art studios * childcare services * a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community * dedicated meditation rooms "

http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm

that's from the webpage you posted on the last page of this thread. does that really seem threatening? if anything, the program listed seems like a genuine outreach to the community to share their building for a myriad of activities. they're not obligated in any way to build a community center, but they are, and yet you want to attack them for not altering their one dedicated space to accommodate your sensibilities.

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 6:24 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2010 6:20:36 PM

Quote :

"lmao on what fucking grounds?"

you are a troll.

on the grounds for no other reason than its my opinion it is an inappropriate location
on the grounds of pure emotion
on the grounds that I dont like religious zealots
on the grounds that I dont think this Imam is as holy as he proclaims he is
on the grounds that it irritates the bed wetters like you

need more?

8/6/2010 6:21:35 PM

^^^ You have a point, but so does Solinari. And let's not pretend an atrocity that happened about ten years ago is treated exactly the same as one (or more) that happened about 150 years ago.

This is a bit disingenuous and I think you know it.

^^ Because it's not in keeping with Park 51's posted mission and vision statements. . .

http://www.park51.org/vision.htm

http://www.park51.org/mission.htm

. . .or fundamental sensitivity, among other reasons.

And not my sensibilities, but those of the interfaith community that the proponents of the center in question claim would be represented.

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 6:33 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2010 6:22:29 PM

Quote :

"you are a troll. on the grounds for no other reason than its my opinion it is an inappropriate location on the grounds of pure emotion on the grounds that I dont like religious zealots on the grounds that I dont think this Imam is as holy as he proclaims he is on the grounds that it irritates the bed wetters like you need more?"

Yeah I'm a bed wetter dude

All because I'm not a drooling racist with missing teeth like the majority of your stock

8/6/2010 6:26:46 PM

Quote :

"* fitness facilities (swimming pool, gym, basketball court) - TERRORIST TRAINING * a 500-seat auditorium - TERRORIST LEARNING * a restaurant and culinary school - TERRORIST EATING * cultural amenities including exhibitions - TERRORIST LEARNING * education programs - TERRORIST LEARNING TO KILL * a library and art studios - TERRORIST HISTORY TEACHINGS * childcare services - INFANT MILITARY TERRORIST TRAINING * a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community - TERRORIST BRAINWASHING * dedicated meditation rooms - TERRORIST RELAXING does that really seem threatening?"

8/6/2010 6:28:03 PM

haha. i laughed at "terrorist eating"

8/6/2010 6:29:11 PM

Quote :

"All because I'm not a drooling racist with missing teeth like the majority of your stock"

your game is tired, son. the racist card is well over-played and the last resort of a desperate partisan, such as yourself.

8/6/2010 6:33:30 PM

"I just don't trust him."

"I just don't feel it's right."

Yeah doesn't sound racially motivated at all. I guess there's some MYSTERIOUS ELEMENT to your feelings.

8/6/2010 6:44:22 PM

Quote :

"It's a "war" against Islamofascism and any who support it. I have nothing against anyone who would live in peaceful coexistence."

Quote :

" *Uphold respect for the diversity of expression and ideas between all people * Cultivate and embrace neighborly relations between all New Yorkers, fostering a spirit of civic participation and an awareness of common needs and opportunities * Encourage open discussion and dialogue on issues of relevance to New Yorkers, Americans and the international reality of our interconnected planet"

that's from the very same mission statement that you keep posting. you say you have nothing against people who would want to live peacefully, yet you oppose a building that aims to promote that exact same sentiment. their mission statement is far from radical, "islamofascism." what exactly are you so afraid of? if you feel that the one dedicated space for muslim worship should conform to be some nebulous or vague room of worship, then you really sound like you just want to strip the mosque of precisely the quality that makes it a mosque.

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 7:15 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2010 6:57:57 PM

Quote :

""I just don't trust him." "I just don't feel it's right." Yeah doesn't sound racially motivated at all. I guess there's some MYSTERIOUS ELEMENT to your feelings."

I dont feel it is right. I feel like it is an insensitive, inflammatory act. thats racist?

I dont trust his motives. He isnt stupid. He knows how Americans would and will react. thats racist?

you are stupid and you are trolling. I am done with you.

8/6/2010 9:04:35 PM

These damn sand niggers are doing nothing more than building a victory mosque.

Sand niggers and queers...this country is shit...

8/6/2010 10:36:12 PM

Quote :

"I dont feel it is right. I feel like it is an insensitive, inflammatory act. thats racist? I dont trust his motives."

Until you can identify a legitimate attribute of this guy that makes you not trust him (other than being a Muslim), it's safe to assume you're a bigot.

Quote :

"He isnt stupid. He knows how Americans would and will react."

I wouldn't have thought people would've lost their collective shit over this. Or at least I would've hoped they wouldn't be this dumb.

But anyway-- is perception now reality? He's inflammatory because he did something that a bunch of rubes think is inflammatory?

8/7/2010 12:09:10 AM

8/7/2010 12:10:46 AM

Accusations of racism or bigotry are only a distortion of the argument. You call for 'facts' to support opinions and reactions that stem from emotion. It is asinine. You cannot find one post from me that comments on skin color, nationality or ethnicity in the entire 10 years I have been posting on TWW. This is about religious zealotry. I have a staunch opposition to that.

I have already said I believe they should be allowed to build but I dont have to like it. That is my stance.

Your simple mind needs to demonize those who have a contrasting opinion to you. This comes out in any and every debate that is carried on this forum. I feel sorry for you.

8/7/2010 10:47:27 AM

I'll stop thinking it as soon as you give me a non bigoted justification for your emotions.

This mosque isn't an example of religious zealotry anymore than any other religious building is. In fact, given this particular sect's mission statement, it's much less so.

So we're still left with you having a gut reaction against people who are different. And then a feeling of indignation that these different people have the nerve to coexist with others.


Shoot, let's just map out your train of thought here:

They're bad because they offend me --> because they're bad --> because they offend me -->

[Edited on August 7, 2010 at 12:40 PM. Reason : ]

8/7/2010 12:33:59 PM

Quote :

"This mosque isn't an example of religious zealotry anymore than any other religious building is. In fact, given this particular sect's mission statement, it's much less so."

you hope, and I tend to agree this is probably the case. it doesnt change the fact that the religion these people share with their fundamentalist brethren perpetrated a massacre within eye shot. no matter how much you want to deny it, they are and will be forever linked, fair or not. just as people have brought up the link between lynchings and southern baptists or every other terrible thing done under the guise of Christianity.

imagine building an American military base at ground zero of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. that would be inappropriate. no matter how benign relations are now between the countries, no matter how 'anti-atomic' the base is. that would rile the same emotion and gut reaction from me, as it would the Japanese as it would yourself. you would lead the charge of how insensitive the American leadership was. yet, if they are Muslim, they are free from having to demonstrate any kind of sensitivity or understanding to this point

by your definition I would be bigoted against Americans too in this example

[Edited on August 7, 2010 at 1:18 PM. Reason : .]

8/7/2010 1:16:30 PM

whoever thought this was a good idea is a complete retard.

8/7/2010 1:28:36 PM

Quote :

"imagine building an American military base at ground zero of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. that would be inappropriate. no matter how benign relations are now between the countries, no matter how 'anti-atomic' the base is. that would rile the same emotion and gut reaction from me, as it would the Japanese as it would yourself. you would lead the charge of how insensitive the American leadership was. yet, if they are Muslim, they are free from having to demonstrate any kind of sensitivity or understanding to this point"

Your analogy fails.

USAF : Hiroshima :: Muslims Al Qaeda : WTC

It would take a pretty simple mind to lump all Muslims together. Your thought process still boils down to circular reasoning. "They're bad because they offend me --> because they're bad --> because they offend me -->"

8/7/2010 1:38:10 PM

^^^ I understand your position regarding the difference between peoples' emotions and what should happen.

But the people who are getting so emotional about this are doing exactly what the 9/11 terrorists want them to do. They're playing out the outcome that terrorists predict when they terrorize. They are letting the terrorists win.

There are lots of reasons the terrorists hate us, but you can't deny that 1 big one is actually because they "hate our freedom" in the sense that our laws allows us to embrace hedonistic, religiously immoral media rampant in our entertainment, among many things. As a country, we don't support or reject any particular religion, because this is not conducive to a free society. When people let their emotions take over, and then when the leadership of a major political party starts to embrace these emotions, then just as the terrorists want, we inch towards a society more like theirs where religion, not reason, guides actions.

It's easy and convenient for our simple human brains to try to frame 9/11 as an Us vs Them religious issue, but it's far more complex than that. You can't help your emotions, but that doesn't mean you have to embrace them when you realize they are irrational.

[Edited on August 7, 2010 at 1:45 PM. Reason : ]

8/7/2010 1:42:02 PM

Quote :

"Your analogy fails. "

no the analogy is fine. you are just too stubborn to admit you understand that point.

Quote :

"But the people who are getting so emotional about this are doing exactly what the 9/11 terrorists want them to do. They're playing out the outcome that terrorists predict when they terrorize. They are letting the terrorists win. There are lots of reasons the terrorists hate us, but you can't deny that 1 big one is actually because they "hate our freedom" in the sense that our laws allows us to embrace hedonistic, religiously immoral media rampant in our entertainment, among many things. As a country, we don't support or reject any particular religion, because this is not conducive to a free society. When people let their emotions take over, and then when the leadership of a major political party starts to embrace these emotions, then just as the terrorists want, we inch towards a society more like theirs where religion, not reason, guides actions. It's easy and convenient for our simple human brains to try to frame 9/11 as an Us vs Them religious issue, but it's far more complex than that. You can't help your emotions, but that doesn't mean you have to embrace them when you realize they are irrational."

I agree and I think you put that well. I feel like I am not embracing "irrational" emotions (as you put it) because I can step back, look at the constitution and laws of this country and be ok with it. I think most Americans, when they step back from emotion, come to same conclusion. they should be allowed to build, I just dont have to like it.

8/7/2010 3:15:55 PM

DaBird:

Quote :

"imagine building an American military base at ground zero of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. that would be inappropriate. no matter how benign relations are now between the countries, no matter how 'anti-atomic' the base is. "

Your point is well made; however, I do wonder whether this sort of emotional attachment to landmarks is ultimately a good thing for society. Chris Matthews made this point on his show last week. He used the Middle East as an example, where it's hard to argue that the presence of "holy sites" and "hold land" has had an overall positive impact on the region. So, while its perfectly understandable that New Yorkers would be emotional about the World Trade Center, I think its probably in the best interest of the city (and the country) to transcend the temptation to fetishize city blocks.

So I can't buy that argument. My problem is that I don't think its a particularly great thing to construct a mosque anywhere, let alone one to be run by an imam who blames the U.S. for 9/11, has an ambiguous stance on Hamas, and whose sources of funding are rather opaque.


[Edited on August 7, 2010 at 4:58 PM. Reason : ]

8/7/2010 4:57:11 PM