Mosque

[Jarochai Alabaster]

If seeing a peaceful Muslim community center (Or Mosque, for that matter) is enough to open wounds for someone, I submit they've made an erroneous association between Muslims as a whole and the extremist group that attacked us (Which, I'll point out, is a stereotype. Stereotypes are a form of bigotry). Why should a peaceful group of people be forced to submit to that? And why should they abandon all plans a year in the works over someone else's misplaced blame? If the proximity is an issue, why is there no outrage over the nearby functioning Mosque and other Muslim centers?

Is it legal? Absolutely. Is it smart? There was no problem with it for a year, so as far as I'm concerned any current complaints are little more than posturing and ignorance-fueled hype. There was nothing "dumb" about it until a handful of people who can't tell Group A from Group B decided to stir up shit. So yes, fuck them and their feelings on this. They're either too stupid to clearly examine the issue or too caught up in the feeding frenzy to care.

[Ddrak]

Riggen,

Your map is incorrect. The actual site is 51 Park Place, which isn't on the corner and has no line of sight to the WTC. In fact, even when the WTC was still standing you'd basically have to look straight up just to see the tops of them.

Street View
Slide Show (the comments are entertaining drivel too)

It should also be noted that the "mosque" is a Sufi center, and blaming the Sufi as being associated with 9/11 is about as intelligent as blaming the Mormons for the Crusades. The denominations are literally that far apart.

Dd

[Lurker]

Riggen, that was more a rephrasing of your "it's offensive" statement than an explanation for why it's offensive.

I agree with everything Ddrak and Jarochai said. Jarochai did a great job explaining how opposition from people hurt by the location is nothing more than a subtle form of bigotry, and I think that's why nobody is able to put forward a rational argument for why the proximity to the WTC site is offensive. It always boils down to attacks against Islam as a whole or the sort of weak guilt by association smear of the Imam Embar engaged in in his last post.

For anyone who cares, Media Matters did a great job compiling information about Imam Rauf. It's a partisan site but the information is sourced and in context. Time Magazine also ran an opinion piece about the Rauf that I think is thoughtful. The people exploiting this situation and trying to portray a moderate as an extremist are really shameless. We saw the same crowd engaging in the same type of hate and misinformation during the presidential campaign and every day since. They really don't give a crap about the damage they cause as long as it furthers their political or television careers.

[Riggen]

Riggen, that was more a rephrasing of your "it's offensive" statement than an explanation for why it's offensive.

Offensive was your choice of words, not mine. I would stop short of calling it offensive. (Caught your pre-edit version of this post, btw. Thanks for taking the time to reconsider your words.) I'm seeing argument after argument against a position that I do not hold. It's like you're not really arguing with me, but who you imagine me to be.

I agree with everything Ddrak and Jarochai said.

Sigh. Of course you do. But I'm not going to carry on a debate with them by proxy. If you want to present your own arguments I'd be glad to speak to them.

Ddrak, I looked into it and you're correct. The center/mosque is in the section immediately adjacent to the one highlighted on the map. I'm not sure the distinction is significant. As for other mosques in the area, they predated the attack, right? I expect that explains lack of controversy. Regarding the timing of the controversy, part of my point is that it was inevitable. Very. Predictably. Inevitable. If not this wingnut, then that one, or some other simply concerned party would have eventually brought the matter into the public eye.

I don't recall Timothy McVeigh making the OKC bombing a religious crusade. Nor do I recall his actions as representative any kind of movement within the Church. Not that I particularly care about defending the Church. I'm sure it can take care of itself. it just seems like a poor analogy to me. I already cited a better one--it would be kind of ignorant to wear clothing decked out with American flags and sing the National Anthem at the Peace Museum in Hiroshima, even though the event is long past and many Americans abhor the use of nukes and would never condone our use of them on Japan.

Jarochai, I'm not talking about blame for the attacks. I no more blame the Imam or organizers for the 9/11 attacks than I would blame anyone here for the institution of slavery in the US. I see in your argument a refusal to acknowledge the substantial overlap in symbolism (***NOT TENETS***) of Islam's various sects. In this case it's unfortunate, but it's there. Ask any psychologist about the power of symbols.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

This building, so far as I understand, will have no discernible Islamic symbols. I understand the overlap, and I find it irrelevant. I no more associate your average Christian with the the Army of God than I do your average Muslim with Al Qaeda, despite "substantial overlap in symbolism" in both pairs. Religious tolerance has to extend in all directions, and the moment any group seeks to restrict another group's activities or gathering places while the majority of the country stands by and says it's justified is the moment we cease to believe in a free nation.

This isn't just loony, it's fucking scary.

[Ddrak]

Riggen,

I made the distinction on the location of the mosque because you seem to be talking a lot about visibility and symbology. The symbology of having something in direct line of sight compared to tucked around a corner with no commanding/victorious/whatever views is fairly obvious. The additional symbology of not marking the center with any of the traditional markings of Islam is also significant and shows that the center's architects were being sensitive to the significance of the area, but to deny the entirety of Downtown Manhattan to a group of people that are over 10% of the local population because some people assume Muslim = Terrorist.

Now, about analogies:

i) McVeigh was campaigning against what the government did to David Koresh in Waco. He saw himself as taking revenge on the US Government by taking out a public building. He was a terrorist motivated by a previous government-religion conflict.
ii) The United States Air Force bombed Hiroshima as the closing act of a very bloody war to hasten the Japanese surrender. They were a nation motivated by ending a war.
iii) Bin Laden was campaigning against what the government did in Saudi Arabia. He saw himself as taking revenge on the US government by taking out a public building. He was a terrorist motivated by a previous government-religion conflict.

Two of those acts are extremely similar. One is extremely different.

i) The community center has no visible markings or symbology. The owners are in no way associated with the acts of 9/11. The only offense it would cause is if someone was going out of their way to look for something to be offended at, or were duped by someone with an ulterior motive.
ii) Wearing a flag and singing the national anthem at the Peace Museum is a highly visible act that someone would notice even if they weren't specifically looking for it.

I think a far closer analogy (if you're desperate to use the tortured one of WW2 to compare to 9/11) would be if someone war stars and stripes underwear to the Peace Museum but was careful not to show anyone, but had a rioting group of Japanese knock him down, strip him to find his underwear and then claim they were in the right because he was obviously causing trouble. It's just nuts when you try to make ANY analogy that actually fits someone taking offense at a building that blends with the surroundings just because they found out what happens inside.

If you really want analogies:

It's no different to telling that uppity black kid he can't come to an all-white school because it's going to cause trouble. Sure, you believe in his *right* to go to the school but he shouldn't do it anyway.

It's no different to telling a homosexual he can't be a schoolteacher because it's going to cause trouble. Sure, you believe in his *right* to work but he shouldn't do it anyway.

It's no different to telling a woman she shouldn't run for President because it's going to cause trouble. Sure, you believe in her *right* to do it but she shouldn't do it anyway.

It's no different to telling the Mexican family they shouldn't buy that house in the white neighborhood because it will devalue everyone's property. Sure, you believe they have the *right* to do it, but they shouldn't do it anyway.

All reasonable arguments, right? After all, minorities should give way to the community opinion because that's the right thing?

Dd

[Lurker]

Offensive was your choice of words, not mine. I would stop short of calling it offensive. (Caught your pre-edit version of this post, btw. Thanks for taking the time to reconsider your words.) I'm seeing argument after argument against a position that I do not hold. It's like you're not really arguing with me, but who you imagine me to be.

You're discussing in good faith so I removed the snipe. It added nothing.

I certainly don't mean to put words in your mouth. You started off saying that the people trying to build a community center were deliberately trying to rub salt in our wounds and create divisiveness and controversy. You compared them to people celebrating the deaths of soldiers at funerals and called them insensitive assholes. According to you, building a community center was a dick move sure to anger people and reopen wounds.

I think it's fair to summarize your argument as finding the actions of the Imam offensive, and I'm trying to find out why a community center near the WTC site is offensive. Do you find it personally offensive, is it reopening wounds for you, or are you just empathizing with an argument you heard others make?

[Riggen]

Dd, I think we're looking at analogies from different angles. I probably shouldn't have bothered to highlight differences between the OKC bombing and the 9/11 attacks because it gave the wrong impression as to the direction I was going. For the purposes of my argument, the part of the analogy on which you're focused just doesn't matter. What matters is the injury and triggers that could prod the resulting sore spot.

For instance, I can make an analogy that doesn't involve politics, war, or explosive social issues: Would you have a drink in the presence of a newly recovering alcoholic (assuming you 1. knew the person's delicate condition and 2. were not at a bar or other venue where consumption of alcohol would be reasonably expected)? The situation isn't your fault. It isn't the drink's fault. Hell, it's almost assuredly entirely the alcoholic's own dumb fault. You have every right in the world to have that drink. But it would still be asinine. I'm not sure I'd be able to get to sleep that night if I did something like that, and it would always be a regret.

Basically it's one of the rules that I try to live by: If you see someone with a knife stuck in them, don't twist it.

[Partha]

Unless the alky wants to avoid a lot of human contact, eventually he/she is going to come to a place where there's going to be alcohol, and where a person who doesn't know they're a recovering alky is going to be drinking in front of them. Or should we ban all drinking within near range of all recovering alcoholics?

No one - NO ONE was throwing a shit fit over religious buildings near terrorist sites ever until this one, and this one didn't occur until over a year afterwards. No one was throwing a shit fit over existing buildings or ones being built. This is straight bullshit, and deserves to be treated as such.

[Embar Angylwrath]

No one - NO ONE was throwing a shit fit over religious buildings near terrorist sites ever until this one, and this one didn't occur until over a year afterwards. No one was throwing a shit fit over existing buildings or ones being built. This is straight bullshit, and deserves to be treated as such.

How many "terrorist sites" do we have where we lost more people than we did in the Pearl Harbor attack?

The WTC site is special. Whether you agree or disagree with the siting of the mosque/community center, painting the WTC site as just another piece of land is disingenuous.

[Partha]

Then raze everything within three blocks. Agreed?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Then raze everything within three blocks. Agreed?

Why would you want to do that?

[Partha]

There's a strip club three blocks away from Ground Zero. Aren't you offended?

[Ddrak]

Riggen,

I do understand your analogy, but I'm disagreeing on the way it applies. My take is the project did take into account everyone's feelings and worked hard to not make the building a flash point. What I don't believe is that the outrage is genuine. If there was true outrage then it should have happened when the project was first started, not 12 months later when some nutjob blogger decided to stir up shit. Like I said, I don't buy that the Muslims are "twisting the knife" to use your analogy but that the usual neocon suspects are twisting the knife as hard as they damn well can while screaming "look, it's a muslim knife!"

The whole thing is a pretty shameful exercise in hatemongering as best I can see. I'd draw parallels but it would invoke Godwin.

Dd

[Freecare Spiritwise]

The WTC site is special. Whether you agree or disagree with the siting of the mosque/community center, painting the WTC site as just another piece of land is disingenuous.

It's not just another plot of land. It is special, which makes it that much more important that we send a crystal clear message to the world about who we are and what we stand for. Right now we're sending the world the message that we're a bunch of neanderthals. I'm all for putting the hurt on the bastards who attacked us, but how does showing the world that we're bigots further that goal? It hurts our credibility, and it would be helpful towards that end to have at least a small measure of it.

Sun Tzu, baby. Part of the art of war is winning the hearts and minds. We had that at first and it only took bush a short period of time to fuck that up.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Can anyone submit a protest (Reasonable or otherwise) for the Community Center's location that doesn't involve drawing parallels between peaceful Muslims and Al Qaeda/terrorists/extremists?

[JecksS]

Can anyone submit a protest (Reasonable or otherwise) for the Community Center's location that doesn't involve drawing parallels between peaceful Muslims and Al Qaeda/terrorists/extremists?

I can take a shot:

The only church that was destroyed on the day of the attacks (St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church) has been in bureaucratic limbo for nearly 10 years with the Port Authority blocking every attempt to rebuild it on the church's own property while Mayor Bloomberg vocally and forcefully pushes for this Mosque to be built.

How is that for a protest?

Let them rebuild their church where it stood without further hassle and I will remove any objection to the Mosque.

[Riggen]

Unless the alky wants to avoid a lot of human contact, eventually he/she is going to come to a place where there's going to be alcohol, and where a person who doesn't know they're a recovering alky is going to be drinking in front of them. Or should we ban all drinking within near range of all recovering alcoholics?

Of course. Clearly they'll need to eventually re-integrate themself into normal social settings, and if an alky goes to a bar then he's putting it on himself. That's why I phrased it the way that I did. Nice how you use almost the exact inversion of what I actually said. And then continued to talk about a ban as if I haven't repeatedly stated that I would be against such a thing.

I believe in most parts they call that a straw man.

How about this one? A woman is brutally raped. As a consequence, she is intimidated by men on the street, and tends to avoid being alone with any man she doesn't know. She especially avoids men who look similar to and dress the same way as her attacker. She doesn't hate men in general. She's just...wounded. Do you, as a man, take offense when she sees you walking in the opposite direction down the sidewalk, doesn't meet your eyes and crosses the street to avoid you? Judging from certain comments I expect some of us would be disgusted by such a blatantly sexist display, and demand that she be more rational and logical. Me, I'd just feel pity for someone in pain.

My take is the project did take into account everyone's feelings and worked hard to not make the building a flash point.

They haven't yet raised the money to really do anything with the building beyond congregate there.

What I don't believe is that the outrage is genuine. If there was true outrage then it should have happened when the project was first started, not 12 months later when some nutjob blogger decided to stir up shit.

While that would be a fair characterization of the blogger and their neocon buds, I'm not sure how you can say that with authority for everyone. It's not reasonable to expect the immediate awareness of everyone that might be affected or even just have a casual opinion.

[Lurker]

RIggen, your analogies are getting worse.

=====

Let them rebuild their church where it stood without further hassle and I will remove any objection to the Mosque.

The archdiocese and Port Authority now offer sharply conflicting accounts of where things went wrong. The Port Authority has claimed the church was making additional demands -- like wanting the $20 million up front and wanting to review plans for the surrounding area. They say the church can still proceed on its own if it wishes.

"St. Nicholas Orthodox Church has always had and will continue to have the right to rebuild on its original location. The question was whether public money would be spent to build a much larger church at a separate location on the site and ensuring that construction wouldn't delay the World Trade Center further," spokesman Stephen Sigmund said in a written statement. "On that question, we worked for many years to reach an agreement and offered up to 60 million dollars of public money to build that much larger new church. After reaching what we believed was an agreement in 2008, representatives of the church wanted even more public commitments, including unacceptable approvals on the design of the Vehicle Security Center that threatened to further delay the construction on the World Trade Center and the potential for another $20 million of public funds."

Sigmund said the "final offer" was made last year, which again included $60 million.

"They rejected that offer," he said.

Guess the story was a little different than Jecks led us to believe. I'm sure he'll remove any objection to the Mosque now that this completely unrelated issue was clarified. I'm sure he doesn't just object to the Mosque because his political party is making an issue out of it.

[JecksS]

Guess the story was a little different than Jecks led us to believe. I'm sure he'll remove any objection to the Mosque now that this completely unrelated issue was clarified. I'm sure he doesn't just object to the Mosque because his political party is making an issue out of it.

And this kind of bullshit where Lurker gets to attribute motivations when and where he pleases without any accountability is why I quit posting to begin with.

Queue Harlowe.....

Ddrak go ahead and delete this leftover account as well. Adios.