Are you sick of hearing about the mosque that's proposed to be built near ground zero? What's your take on the story?

You’re right. It’s irrelevant. And it would be discrimination if they weren’t allowed to do it. Being Muslim doesn’t automatically mean you had something to do with 9/11. Dear God…

No, it wouldn’t bother me, in any way or manner, if a mosque were to be built near ground zero. September 11th was the work of terrorist extremists, not of the Islamic faith. Islam is one of the great religions of the world, and it teaches peace and humility. (I believe that “Islam” translates literally to “submission.”)

A couple of weeks ago, I stayed at a hotel located ½ block from ground zero. There’s a great deal of construction going on at the site, but I don’t know what’s being built. The mosque idea could be a rumor, designed to cause angst and outrage, that’s gone viral on the internet.

To anyone reading this—please direct your anger toward murderers, not toward the millions of people worldwide who practice Islam.

I disagree with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach in his Ha’aretz article, where he condemns people who blame America’s policies for being a part if Islamic fanaticism. I think the policies are very much connected, in a causal way, to the dangerous fanaticism we face.

However, i completely agree with the rabbi at the bottom of his column, where he says:

“Let the Islamic Cultural Center be built. Let the mosque be included. But, the Muslim organizations building it should commit right now to making the principal focus of the building a museum depicting the rise of Islamic extremism, its hate-based agenda, and how it is an abomination to Islam.”

Personally, I see it as a phoenix rising from the ashes. A beautiful lack of discrimination, built upon burnt-out greed & hatred. Through suffering, the world will become whole again.

I read an article about this a week or so ago, and I can see why some people are reacting negatively to the idea of an Islamic building so close to the WTC site. I don’t agree, but I can imagine that being a New Yorker and knowing people who died on 9/11 would make it very difficult to use logic over emotion in this case.

What really bothers me is when people (or the media) purposely put an outraged spin on the concept. When I first heard of the mosque, it was because someone on Facebook posted one of those idiotic polls: “Do you think Muslims should be allowed to build a mosque at Ground Zero?” I looked it up, and “at” Ground Zero isn’t quite the same thing as “near” Ground Zero. It’s also so much more than just a mosque, and I was really impressed with the statements given by the coordinators and planners of the building. If they achieve their vision, it will be a wonderful example of moderation over extremism. Maybe they can offer free tours to Tea Party members!

I haven’t heard anything about this story. I don’t care that it’s being built there – it has nothing to do with anything though I can see where stupid people would get uppity about it.

I am struggling with this.
I want to be fair. I don’t want to be racist, bigoted, or intolerant.
But this is fucking ground zero.

If someone were to fly a confederate flag across the street from where Martin Luther King was shot, it might be considered hate-baiting. I think that applies here as well.

30 years ago, a japanese VCR manufacturer included instructions on how to set your VCR clock. The date they used as an example was December 7th.
That kind of shit is just unnecessary.

@filmfann I can see your point, and why others would feel the same way. Reading the purpose of the mosque/community center and what the founders had planned for the facility made me look at it in a different light. It isn’t just Muslims who approved the project and its mission, but also the community board leaders. In this case, I think intentions make all the difference in the world. The intention is not to provoke or inflame, or even get a little dig in at the expense of 9/11 victims.

From what I’ve read, it seems like the building will be available to the public, not just a place of worship for Muslims. This article is one of the first I read about the plans. Now I’m seeing articles giving the opening date of the center as 9/11/2011, which I do think is rather insensitive. I hope that changes, just because that date is always reserved for memorials to the victims. I’d like confirmation of that date before I make up my mind though. Sometimes it’s really hard to tell what is factual information, and it’s half the reason why I usually keep my opinions to myself. :(

I’m not among them but I can see why some people are upset about it but then I don’t live in Manhattan.

Somehow there is the expectation that every single American should be understanding about all of the Muslims various sensibilities (for example forbidding ANY depiction of Mohammad)

I’m not referring to some of the hateful spiteful extreme depiction suggested by some in response to Everybody Draw Mohammad. The ORIGINAL poster for it was not the least bit hateful, merely playful. Have any of you actually seen it? One drawing was of a
spool of thread labeled Mohmad. Likewise for a cup of tea and similar mundane objects. I thought it was kind of cute.

But evidently this was deemed so offensive to Muslim sensibilities as to warrant death threats and the notion that even the most peaceful Muslims would be so deeply offended that they must be catered to.

Shouldn’t there be even a semblance of reciprocity here on the part of peaceful Muslims toward the sensibilities of those who lost family and friends on 9/11 ?

Why is that so wrong an expectation ? I’m not suggesting that they should be forbidden to build, it but what’s wrong with expecting them to VOLUNTARILY exhibit a little of the exact same consideration and graciously withdraw out of consideration for the survivors of 9/11?

Why is it only a one way street here?

Even with the Mohammad drawings, ANYONE was free to ignore them altogether. This was a small grassroots project with no plans to force feed it to ordinary peaceful Muslims. It was being done to stand up to murderous bullies.

Any Muslim was free to ignore it totally. No one was shoving it under their noses.

That’s not quite the same as a thirteen story building (and Mosques usually have distinct architectural features.) It won’t be just another skyscraper blending into the scenery.

How do grieving survivors working in the area ignore that? Find another job somewhere else?

Their choice of location does offend survivors who cannot avoid seeing it on a daily basis. Why can’t the Muslims graciously exhibit the same sensitivity and respect which they expect from Americans (and SOME DEMAND under literal threat of death) and graciously build it in a less painful location ?

I really don’t get that. If they want to be taken seriously as a religion of peace, then why not peacefully and respectfully withdraw to a different location?

Why are Americans the ONLY ones who are expected to be sensitive to ridiculous extremes?

A drawing of a spool of thread hurtful? Really? Really?

Try being reminded of 9/11 every single working day of your life? That’s not supposed to be hurtful for people?

Why is expecting them to act in the same manner in which they portray their religion and have a bit of compassion and common sense ? Why choose that location?

@Buttonstc Everything you said makes sense, but honestly, walking by a Mosque isn’t going to be anymore of a reminder for people than walking by Ground Zero is. The absence of those towers is a huge reminder that will always be there.

I have no problem with the building the Mosque. They already own the current building and I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be able to update their own property.

@SOC

How could you possibly know that walking by a Mosque will not be troubling to relatives of those killed?

Two of them, that i know of, have spoken out that this is a “slap in the face”. Rosemary Cain and Bill Doyle each lost a son there. I’m sure there are many more.

I’m not saying they don’t have a right to build it. I’m saying that they have a responsibility to use some compassion and common sense and build it elsewhere if they expect to convince me and a lot of other people of their “peaceful intentions”.

And yes, the date for construction to begin is a fact. It is Sept. 11.

Is it possible to be any more disingenuous.

Symbolism is hugely important in many many things. Just to use a parallel analogy here, Even tho the Nazis are no longer in power and Germany is a peaceful country, they have enough common sense to understand the symbolism of attempting to build a cultural center near Auschwiz, for example. Wisely they have never had the temerity to consider it altho I’m sure the land would be cheap enough.

It isn’t as if this Mosque had been there all along and managed to weather the 9/11 attack. This was the former Burlington Coat Factory store, into which plunged a huge portion of one of the planes.

It was purchased shortly afterwards (and trying to follow THAT money trail is another story) and kept unobtrusive until now.

But now construction is slated to begin on the exact day of the 10th anniversary and we’re expected to believe there is no significance to that ? Please.

I was born at night, but it wasn’t yesterday night. I’m amazed that so many people are apparently blasé about it.

But the relatives of survivors are anything but. I don’t think it’s just the media trying to drum up a story. I think it’s the relatives and survivors of this horror trying to get the word out. The more facts I read about this, the more I understand why they feel that this is “Adding Insult to Agony”

Because that is precisely what it is. If they had the peaceful intentions they proclaim, they would build it elsewhere in deference to the feelings of all those relatives of the deceased. In this economy, there is certainly no lack of properties for sale in the NY area.

Does anyone think that this hasn’t been in the works since ten years ago when they bought the building? If you believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I could sell you. They could have embarked on this massive construction project shortly after purchase. But they knew that nobody would stand for that. But now it’s all hunky-dory and everythings fine? Well it’s far from fine for those who lost loved ones.

If the intentions of benign assimilation (as they state) were sincere they would have found a different location AND MOST IMPORTANTLY chosen a different date.

That date says it all. Just like the VCR blinking Dec 7th.

Symbolism is important. And if they had even a smidgen of the consideration that they expect from others, they would act differently.

I dont know about you, but that date alone speaks volumes to me.

Combine it with the money trail and the significance of it’s name, Cordoba, in history, and I’m just not quite so willing to accept their intentions. A little reciprocal common consideration would go a lot farther with me.

@Buttonstc There were Muslims killed in the towers. I don’t know why the assumption is made that everyone that died were white and Christian.

@Buttonstc I didn’t say it wouldn’t be troubling. I said it wouldn’t be any more of a reminder of what happened than the absence of the towers already is.

There are using the current building there as a mosque already. I lost a close friend on 9/11 too, so I know how some of the families and friends of the victims feel, and they aren’t all against it.

@Simone

Where did I say anything like that? There were people of EVERY nationality and faith killed.

But the vast majority were Americans (of all faiths or none at all) whose family and friends are still live there and in many other places as well.

There is a huge symbolism to building there. If they didn’t have a clue about that (which is hardly credible) they certainly do now. Why not respect the feelings of those who lost loved ones and back off. Why choose THAT date.

They want us to respect their sensibilities around images of their founder. How about respecting the feelings of all those still mourning their dead who regard this area (rightly or wrongly) as sacred ground. The term sacred ground was uttered by one of the mothers of a dead firefighter, btw.

It has absolutely nothing to do with white and Christian and I don’t recall ever saying that it did.

One may disagree with the mourners assertions that this ground is sacred in the same way that one may disagree with those who assert that an absurd drawing of a teacup to represent their founder is sacreligious. But if one group has the right to assert that their perceptions be respected, why does that not apply to the other group as well?

I’m not debating the rightness or wrongness of the two sets of assertions. I’m asking why the respect doesn’t seem to be going both ways here.

If an American draws a teacup and labels it Mohammad, they receive death threats. But it’s perfectly fine to ignore the grief of almost 3,000 people and put up your building and set construction start for the anniversary of their death.

Something is askew here. Afaik there haven’t been any credible death threats against the Muslims for this.

Otoh, the woman who started the Draw Mohammad project dissociated herself from it since she seems to enjoy living.

Yea that’s really peaceful isn’t it~~

@Buttonstc It’s hard for me to make any of this about ‘us v. them’. It was always hard for me to do this because I understand the political history that led up to this singular event that began to represent much to many people but there have been events and symbols prior to 9/11 that, when compounded, were the spark for the match – I will never view the US as the innocent party in any of this. I mourn as I did for the lives of people lost but will not continue to perpetuate the kind of thinking against ‘them’ that makes for a hopeless future.

I’m certainly no defender of US foreign policy. That’s for sure.

And I agree with you about the complexity of things leading up to this. Our own CIA literally created the monster which became Bin Laden.

Like you, my sympathies are with the innocent civilians killed there. And the only reason I refer to “them” in this particular case is because I find it offensive beyond belief that they are willing to trample upon the grave with impunity on the exact day of the 10th Anniversary.

They expect us to bend over backwards for their “offense” at depicting their founder in even the most unmalicious way (a teacup. Oh the horror! Bring out the swords) but then turn around and add insult to agony and pretend it’s in the interests of peace to build on “sacred ground” on the very anniversary date.

The sheer hypocrisy makes it impossible not to see those behind this whole thing as them. I’m not referring to all Muslims by any means. But these particular ones I refuse to be gullible about.

As I said, if you want to convince me and many in this country of your sincerity, then pick a different location and pick a different day.

Don’t the relatives of the deceased deserve to have their sacred ground respected regardless of whether one agrees with that perception? Aren’t the ones who paid with their lives entitled to at least that degree of respect.?

@Buttonstc Well…again, the ‘they’ upset over cartoon and the ‘they’ putting this building up may not be (and probably aren’t) the same people. We can never know what they’re thinking but I will not assume they’re doing this to be insensitive. Perhaps, to build a mosque near the fallen WTC represents the kind of Islam they want people to see, one representing peace, as it should have always been interpreted. Perhaps, it represents something else. Correct me if I’m wrong but they’re not doing it ‘on the grave’ and after all, not even the people supposed to be helping the victims’ families are doing much these days – there are health concerns up to the wazoo and nothing’s being done. Not to mention all the consumerist insanity that took advantage of what happened for money and manipulated people’s emotions. Nothing’s black and white.

Do a little research about the money trail and you may find quite a bit of congruence between the two “theys”.

And let me be a little more specific about what “they” represent. Those who subscribe to a radical Islamist philosophy and very much see most things in “us vs them” terms. There is no assimilation, no compromise with the “infidel” which can include their own countrymen and even blood relatives who are not towing the line strictly enough.

They have no compunctions about using the more idealistic peaceful Muslims as a front or to lie through their teeth to accomplish their goals.

These are the ones bankrolling behind the scenes. They know exactly how symbolic the 10th anniversary is. They are the ones pulling the puppet strings because it’s difficult to imagine anyone (Muslim or otherwise) who would totally turn a deaf ear to the pain of those still grieving.

Even if they totally disagreed with the sacred ground principle, just out of sheer decency and compassion and humanity, they would listen to those who have been wounded so and err on the side of compassion.

There were tons of people on this site (some proudly nonreligious) and all over the place who were appalled by the insensitivity shown from some of the people responding to Draw Mohammad with truly nasty vile stuff. The concept of simple respect, even if disagreeing with the principle of no depictions of M in any way, wasn’t all that difficult to grasp.

So why is there no reciprocity here?

I realize that there are many issues in life which are not all black and white and I guess you and I just have different ways of viewing this particular one.

But trying to research the funding sources for this ( or the reasons for their obscurity ) may make a difference.

…or maybe not…

@Buttonstc I know about the radical minority holding the cards. I hate them no more than I hate their counterparts in the U.S. I will say I have NOT researched who is behind this project.

During the life of this question I had a few moments of feeling sick over hearing about this mosque.

@liminal

Why? I’m not sure precisely what you are getting at.

For the record, I was totally unaware of that question as I was taking a break from Fluther when that was up.

That’s a really long thread and I’ve so far only read about a third of it so that’s why I’m unsure of why you felt that way.

Rather than assume something about another’s feelings I’d rather go to the source.

@Buttonstc There were a few moments on that thread where it seemed, to me, that we were going around in circles and getting stuck in ruts, it was a bit dizzying for me. I haven’t read this thread, I was just having an after-midnight direct and visceral response to kevbo’s question.

I made this suggestion in the other thread:

At ground zero we should build a mosque right next to a church, a synagoge, a mandir, and a pagoda. It would send an important signal. The radical Muslims want the Christians and Jews to hate Muslims. That way they stay in business. I didn’t say such an ensemble of holy buildings should be the only part. Of course a memorial site should also have a statement of support for the victims.

Imagine the impact on the 1 billion moderate Muslims around a world. A mosque at the 911 memorial site. Right next to a church, a synagoge, a mandir, and a pagoda. What a powerful message that would be! But I know that radical Christians don’t like this either. They want the Muslims and Jews to hate Christians. That way they stay in business too.

Oh irony… your well never runs dry.

From the wikipedia page about the spherical caryatid, known as “The Sphere”—the orb sculpture that once stood in the WTC plaza.

It was meant to symbolize world peace through world trade, and was placed at the center of a ring of fountains and other decorative touches designed by trade center architect Minosoru Yamasaki to mimic the Grand Mosque of Mecca, Masjid al-Haram, in which The Sphere stood at the place of the Kaaba.

God damn the world is weird.

Wikipedia footnotes say the darndest things.

This problem is in the news again today. Local residents are protesting building a mosque in that area also. I tend to agree, but not for all of their reasons. I would protest putting a religious institution on any valuable commercial ground because it does not help the tax base. To me, that is immoral because you are asking non-members of your particular cult to help foot the bill caused by your tax exemption.

Further, since the attack was carried out in the name of a religion, it would be disrespectful to put either a Muslim or Christian building in that site. If they insist that it be religious I suggest a neutral religion like Buddhism or Hindu. Of course if any religious group builds there I would insist that they renounce their tax exemption before the building permit is issued.

I don’t have a TV, but this seems like one of those issues that Fox wouldn’t hesitate to over-report on and over-analyze, and over-debate.

I’ve seen recent reports about this issue on NBC, ABC, CBS, as well as CNN and MSNBC.

I’m assuming if it were being just trumped up by Fox that the others wouldn’t be so quick to follow in their footsteps since they all do their own verifications. There is certainly no love lost between particularly concerning NBC and MSNBC and the ongoing feud with Olberman and Fox.

CNN isn’t too fond of them either.

If it weren’t genuine and only being trumped up by Fox it would doubtlessly be studiously ignored or downright ridiculed by the rest with Olberman leading the charge.

I love Keith and watch him on a regular basis but it’s kind of bordering on obsession for him :)

Fox people are regularly featured in his list of (booming voice) “Worst Persons in the World.”

Fox were blowing it out of proportion, his satire would be all over it. You can count on Keith for that :D

It was definitely NOT Fox on which I heard the first of the more recent reports since I don’t really watch Fox at all (with the only exception being Mornings on Fox BUSINESS Network)

It’s the very definition of conflict of interest. It’s offensive and inappropriate in the extreme.

I would like to know the thinking process for New York city putting a tax exempt building on some of the most expensive real estate in the world. How does the city intend to recoup the loss to the tax base?

Maybe the presence of the mosque is supposed to be insurance against another attack from retarded islamic fundies of the sort who did the last attack.

I think the bigger question is:

Should America become predominately Muslim and change in culture and law, will it still be fundamentally American?

@MeinTeil I would fight Muslim law as much as I fight Christian law. This is a secular country and we have no legal or moral right to consider the religious predilections of the citizens when we write those laws. We don’t need religion, we have a Constitution.

Yes, I am sick of hearing about this. If its not a horde of Lazy, Violent, Drug Dealing Mexicans invading our land to bankrupt our public services, change our language, enslave our children with their narcotics and rape our women, then it is a sinister jihadist fifth-column hiding among us disguised as moderate, god-fearing Muslims ready to rise up at a given signal to bomb our buildings, change our religion, bring down our government, convert it into an insane Islamic theocracy, murder our children and rape our women.

Don’t any of you see a pattern here? Let me help: WMDs, death panels, teabaggers, “Keep the Government out of My Medicare,” Marauding Mexicans taking over the land, and now our very own Jihad. How many outright lies, how many half-truths, how much hyperbole, how many times do you have to be duped before you realize that these are bloody sideshows to keep you alternatively wringing your hands in fear or wishing to strike out in anger on an emotional roller coaster designed to keep you from addressing the real issues at hand?

We can afford to be tolerant, we can afford to give the benefit of the doubt, we can even afford to extend the same rights and priviliges to all Americans, because we have a BIG STICK.

As Ron_C stated above: We have a Constitution that guarratees separation of church and state—and guess what? We have a National Guard backed by the most effective military force in the world that are sworn to defend that Constitution on the field—so you don’t have to.

These people bought the land and they can use it for whatever they wish within the guidelines of that specific neighborhood’s codes. That’s the law.

The Islam I Left Behind
Even more distressing are those good-hearted simpleton non-Muslims who are up in arms defending the rights of Muslims to practice their religion in free societies such as the United States of America. These well-meaning, badly misguided folks don’t realize that practicing Islam requires subverting and destroying any and all non-Islamic beliefs and practices. All one needs to see this deadly aspect of Islam is to examine how Islam is practiced in places such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, and even the so-called more moderate Islamic states such as Egypt

@Ron_C I would fight Muslim law as much as I fight Christian law

If you are going to fight Islamic sharia law, you should get your will in order. Islamic militants will kill you for fighting their laws, without a trial. You will likely be beheaded, if you are lucky. Or perhaps it’ll be worse. Perhaps you will be dragged alive through the filthy streets until you die.

I don’t think Christians are quite so blood thirsty. Nor do they impose laws on you. They try to persuade the populace to pass laws, the same way any other constituency does, including the left wing liberal element. Its the democratic way.

@plethora Muslims have a relatively new religion and like little kids they are unsure of their facts, therefore take extreme measures to defend themselves. In the middle ages, the Catholic (christian) church was in about the same stage of growth. There response was beheading, burning at the stake, and crusades. They were more powerful and even bloodier than the current day Muslims.

The best way to deal with zealots is to ignore them and deal with the more reasonable members of the cult (All religions, to me, are cults). Eventually, like the Church of England, they will become innocuous and easily ignored. The last, very last thing you want to do is create martyrs. We have seen this movie before. If the Romans didn’t create christian martyrs, Rome would probably remained a secular empire.

@Ron_C Well, damn, Ron. I know time goes by fast, but I just hadn’t realized that Abraham, Moses and Jesus were still considered newcomers on the block. I guess those Muslim and Jihadist kinda guys are new at it and just haven’t had time to pin down all the specifics.

Oh well, I’ll check my facts before I shoot off my mouth again.

(Sorry, Ron, I just couldn’t pass on this one…:)

IMO, no mosque should be built in the USA. Even today the German’s announced they shut down the mosque where the 9/11 attackers trained. As I said before, my brother in law spent a great deal of time in Iraq and learned of the big picture of intention. Yes they are coming here and buying property, businesses, appearing to be normal nice little families. The big plan is to get all of them in place and just take over this country. Why would an Iraq worker tell my brother in law this, if it wasn’t true. They have camps all over this country, many of which are in the foothills and mountains. OPEN your eyes folks.
Okay, I’m ready for all the bashing, but lets be nice about it.

@plethora I’m talking about the religions in relative terms. The Muslim situation is analogous to the Christian situation in the middle ages since Islam started in the middle ages.

To me, the damage either religion causes far outweighs the benefits.

Either religion is constantly striving towards conditions which they consider their peak influence. For Christianity, it is when the Pope had the ultimate political power, in Islam, it is when Mohammad was the ultimate political and religious power.

You will notice, that neither religion has much use for democracy.

@Ron_C Islam did not start in the middle ages It’s almost as old as Christianity.

No offense here @Ron_C because this does not apply to just you. It would really help if the atheists on fluther knew just a little bit about Christian history before they started commenting on it. Your comment about the Pope would be heartily endorsed by the leaders of the Protestant Reformation and all of us who have come after. Good to be aware that the Protestant Reformation occurred and the extent and effect of its influence. Knowledge of even the basic history of Christianity among atheists on fluther is abysmal. Not that you need to know anything about if you dont want to. Just stop commenting on it and acting like you do.

Well here’s an interesting addition to what continues to be a dumb debate. The mosque people don’t even own half of the building site that they are supposedly going to build on. Half is currently owned by Con Edison. Source

This is such a bullshit psy op of an issue, I can hardly fathom it.

@kevbo Thanks for this tidbit. Interesting. Also interesting, as @Buttonstc referenced on an earlier post that ABC News refused, in spite of proffered payment, to run an ad opposing the mosque. Why the Hell would ABC refuse an ad for or against the mosque?

Actually, I think this is a pretty interesting thread. I think there is way more than we know behind it. Of course, the promoters and Bloomberg would like us to think its all above board and we should just be nice and not question.

@plethora o.k. they tarted in the 600’s. That is after the Romans lost their empire and the Christians took over what was left and before the reformation.

Christians got a head start on the Muslims because they had a central authority. In effect, the Muslims had a protestant reformation before they were ever able to form a central theme.

Regardless, the only religion, that I know, that didn’t gain influence by conquest is Buddhism. Any religion that gains its followers by threat of death or other punishment is worthless to me. Both of the Judaism’s branches fail. Of course, so was the original premise which has no bearing in this thread.

The real issue is that the fundamentalists of both sides are probably willing to fight to the death over the mosque issue. I, am against any building that does not pay it’s share of taxes. If this building gains tax exempt status, all New Yorkers will pay.

If the building is taxed as if it was a health club for profit, I don’t care who owns or administers it.

Actually, it was CBS :) but that’s a very minor point.

My primary reason for even mentioning goes to the credibility of Leslie Stahl and the reason for doing the interview with the former radical regarding “the narrative”. Obviously the motivation is news, pure and simple.

I’m sick and tired of people refusing to even consider facts and brushing them off as Republican or Fox News talking points.

CBS is quite well known for being criticized of LIBERAL bias. I have little doubt that if the EXACT SAME interview had aired on Fox, it would be dismissed out of hand with that lovely phrase “Republican Talking Points”. Since it aired on CBS that’s more difficult to do, isn’t it now?

I really hate the political polarization on this whole issue because it clouds the real issue, namely the fact that the survivors of those killed are being ignored and have been from day one.

Is that the attitude of any religion proclaiming peaceful intentions regardless of what name it goes by. Peace, love and compassion result in different attitudes and actions.

If peaceful Muslims were TRULY in charge of this project, they would not be this callous toward the feelings expressed by the survivors BEFORE all the publicity and media hungry Republicans jumped in. I’m referring to THAT period of time.

There was no consideration for their feelings FROM THE BEGINNING. That is just callous and cynical. There is no other explanation for that. And those attitudes are diametrically opposed to a religion of peace.

@Buttonstc Without a doubt. You could not have said it better.

If peaceful Muslims were TRULY in charge of this project, they would not be this callous toward the feelings expressed by the survivors BEFORE all the publicity and media hungry Republicans jumped in. I’m referring to THAT period of time.

There was no consideration for their feelings FROM THE BEGINNING. That is just callous and cynical. There is no other explanation for that. And those attitudes are diametrically opposed to a religion of peace.

I think it’s an insensitive choice. As someone sorta said, if someone built a KKK meeting hall across the street from the hotel where MLK was murdered, just 10 years after he died, it would be insensitive.

I like Matt’s suggestion. Build places of worship from all over the world near ground zero. Perfect.

I found this segment with Keith Olbermann very interesting. He discusses misconceptions, like the actual location of the building (I can’t call it a mosque anymore, since it really isn’t even a mosque) and the false information about the previous name of the community center. I know the idea of a mosque at Ground Zero is upsetting, but I also don’t understand the media frenzy to make it out to be much worse than it actually is. Why purposely upset people? What possible good does it do?

I suppose saying a Muslim Community Center is being built five blocks from Ground Zero, open to the public and not visible at all from Ground Zero, isn’t nearly as news-worthy. I particularly found it interesting that there is already a small Muslim prayer space much close to Ground Zero. It’s been there for decades. This is mentioned at the end of the video, and I want to say it’s right across the street from Ground Zero, but I’m not sure if that is correct.

He even goes so far as to say that Muslims in America are in greater danger from American terrorists than Americans are from Muslim terrorists. With nothing to back this up other than a failed bombing at a Muslim community center in Florida, I’m a little skeptical. A claim like that should be backed up by more information. I’d be interested to hear what others think of this video, and if it changes their thinking at all on the issue.

@MissAusten It’s just media hype. Like the stewardess that supposedly “took” the baby away from the mom that slapped it. The truth is, Mom was stressing, the stewardess offered to take the baby for her to give her a break, mom agreed, and furthermore, Dad sat with the stewardess and the baby. But all that really grabs you is the headline “Stewardess Takes Baby From Mother,” and then in the body all you get is the fact that she slapped the baby. No other real details. The media just loves a flame war.

The media wouldn’t last two seconds on Fluther. Not with Auggie on the line!

The solution is as follows:

Sell the mosque site to a private enterprise.

Disband the United Nations

Donate the UN building to American businsses that lost their headquarters on 9/ 11

I find it more offensive that the Ambassador from Saudi Arabia can park anywhere he want because he has diplomatic plates. Of course I find parking fees and fines in New York offensive.

If a group of Muslims want so renovate an old building to create a recreation center, it seems right to me. I don’t believe that there is any such thing as sacred ground. I object to “tax exempt” ground. If these guys pay taxes and do a nice job on the building, who are we non-New Yorkers to object. It is definitely none of my business.

A city block in New York is like an eighth of a mile. has any of you ever walked in New York? Did you know that there was a Greek orthodox chuch destroyed on 9/11 yet they cannot rebuild. Why is noone screaming about that. Cause Greeks won’t help you win an election.

@thekoukoureport They are having issues rebuilding the Greek Orthodox Church because of the port authority because it was actually at ground zero. No one is telling them they can’t rebuild because of it being a religious institution. They haven’t been rebuilt because the port authority is still trying to figure out where they will rebuild and working on the finance part of it (the port authority is suppose to be helping with some of the costs of the rebuild and the church and the port authority haven’t been able to come to an agreement on just how much the port authority is suppose to be helping). It’s a different issue.

Nice spin. But it still cant be rebuilt there.

@thekoukoureport It depends on how you look at it. According to this article the port authority said they could rebuild on their original site, but they don’t want to. The church was offered $60 million (of public money) to help rebuild and they refused the offer. So, it’s not that it can’t do it, it’s that they don’t like the last offer they were given. It’s a different situation.

thank you for the info. It’s clearly my mistake.

Completely sick of hearing about it. It’s only “news” in the sense that people are still worked up about it (and unnecessarily so). It matters to me not at all.

The misguided individuals who wish to engage in this excercise in conflict of interest and poor taste will reconsider when they realize the protests won’t stop just because the building is finished and occupied.