Does anyone get it that if you don't want to start a firestorm by burning the Quran, it's likewise a lousy idea to build a mosque next to Ground Zero? How can you promote good will by doing either activity?

They aren’t the same thing.

The community center is being built with the hopes of bridging the gaps in the community. It will be open to everyone.

Burning the Quran would have served no purpose other than insulting Muslims.

Will there be a mosque there? You bet. And we already know there will be a firestorm of violence if they build it.

@snowberry If there is a firestorm of violence because of it, then the people being violent are no better than the extremists that attacked us on 9/11. Violence is not the answer and will do nothing to help us move on.

Park 51 is a community center with a prayer room, not a Mosque. It is also scheduled to be built four blocks away from Ground Zero, which isn’t very close at all. The property was privately and legally acquired. If I lived in New York, I would be eager for it to be built so that I could visit. C’est la vie.

I am not against Park 51. I would not object to an actual Mosque being built either. I don’t understand how the existence of a community center or Mosque would be offensive in any manner whatsoever. They are buildings not weapons.

If we accept this line of thinking, though, then it really is the blacks fault for that church bombing in Alabama.

Although controversial, this is exactly where we need such a place. As a New Yorker, I would be ashamed if this line of thought prevented the community center from being built.

Why do something that will promote violence? And then do it in the name of good will? I definitely don’t get that logic.

How can Americans be surprised they inspire extremism? Your country is full of guns and every few years you start a war to let the rest of the world know you’re hip and armed to the teeth. You get all insane about freedom but your pure capitalism can result in nothing but a brutal hierarchy.

You should be able to say whatever you want without anyone going on a killing spree or half the world wondering whether or not saying such a thing is proper.

What happened on 9/11 is a horrible tragedy. I do not blame Muslims for what happened anymore than I blame Christians for the things some of them were responsible for in the past. They are not the same thing. The intentions for building the mosque are not the same as the intentions behind burning the Qur’an. What if people burn the bible? They have. There was this and check out this. It’s stupidity. I do not believe in god but I have no desire to burn the bible in any of its forms. It incites rage and has no positive consequences. Building the mosque is not destroying anything. It is helping to build something. You cannot blame all Muslims for 9/11. That is just absurd so don’t take out your rage on them.

So many supposed Christians obviously have forgotten the true nature of god and the bible. I’ve read it. A few times. Have you? The bottom line is to treat each other with respect, try your best to never judge and always love thy enemy the same as you do your neighbor.

Building a community center does not promote violence.

The OP asked a simple question, which most of the answers did not adress. It’s obvious to anyone who has an exposure to public sentiment, and we all know it’s obvious to the individuals who have planned this project, that there are very mixed reactions to the plans.

If, as these people have stated, they wish to build bridges, why would they be so determined to continue with a project which is clearly so devisive? This is not about their rights, or the legality. The question some people have is simply the wisdom, or the actual agenda, of those who persist in this project. This is what makes the two scenarios similar, each of the organizers appear to be acting in a manner which will certainly cause great negative backlash.

Why are some people unable to be objective about this?

Apparently there is already a mosque there. What they are building is a community center. For christians and moslems and anyone.

They could have built it anywhere, and people would have been against it. It was August, Fox News had been going 2 months on no news, they needed something to talk about. The community center has nothing to do with the victims of 9/11. Burning the Quran has everything to do with hurting Muslims. They really aren’t comparable.

@eden2eve If you had already bought the property and been using it for your prayers, would you suddenly stop just because some people didn’t like it? Would you willing leave a place you already owned because your neighbors didn’t like you? Like @papayalily said, no matter where they build it, people are going to complain about it.

The motivation behind the two acts is very different and that is why they are not the same.

1. It isn’t a mosque.
2. It isn’t remotely visible from Ground Zero.
3. There is already a Muslim prayer room much closer to Ground Zero. It has been there for decades.
4. This is a non-issue that has been nastily spun in the media, with misconceptions and downright false information fueling the fire.

The negative backlash is misplaced and based on misinformation. History is full of examples of people who persisted in what they wanted to do, regardless of the consequences because it was for the betterment of others. How many black Americans suffered during the Civil Rights movement? Should they have given up and not protested because of the risk of inciting violence? Shouldn’t American Muslims also be able to exercise their Constitutional right to Freedom of Religion without the threat of violence? It’s a sick, sad shame that the community center has been given so much attention and the majority of people still believe it is a “Mosque at Ground Zero.”

Whether or not there may be a violent reaction seems beside the point. We can’t compare it to burning Korans because that is an act meant to intimidate a group, rather than this which is meant to expose and educate, as well as foster a sense of community in the end. Sure, we may have gut reactions against it…but again, it’s that type of thinking that promotes narrow-mindedness, and which prevents us from expressing ourselves and learning from each other.

It’s us demanding, in essence, that we limit our own first amendment rights – and to use 9/11 rhetoric, for me that’s “letting the terrorists win.”

Equating burning the Quran with building a mosque near Ground Zero is kind of like equating lynching blacks with legalizing interracial marriage…

I know, let’s burn the Qur’an and show them who’s the boss.

I choose to see it as replacing a mosque, since there was a well used muslim prayer room on the 16th floor of one of the World Trade Center towers.
I wish people who have NOTHING to do with my city would stay the fuck out of it’s issues. As far as I’m concerned you don’t get a vote.

@breedmitch – I’m with you there – I like hearing the general opinion, but I feel as if they don’t really know when to step aside and let Manhattan deal with Manhattan

@breedmitch With you there for the most part, as well. Coming from a place that has voted things in multiple times, only for people from other states and the government to come in and ban it… It’s infuriatnig.

@iamthemob: Right? These flyover folks dont understand that we live in the most culturally diverse place on the earth. We like it that way. We respect each other just fine until they come in and stir up trouble. I hear dozens of different languages each day. Can Mrs. Iowa say the same? They should worry about their pregnant crystal methed kids and stay out of it. end rant.

@breedmitch Tone it down, son! ;-) But I get where you’re coming from.

You premise is the problem – the building of this community center wasn’t supposed to provoke these ridiculous over-reactions – there is NO reason why it can not be built and include a mosque in it – the logic (since you asked for some) wasn’t to ‘provoke violence’ and I wholeheartedly agree with @Seaofclouds – if this is the reaction of the lowest common denominator, they’re no better than terrorists.

@eden2eve Thanks for your comments. I was wondering if anyone who understood my question would show up! The fact is that Muslims themselves are divided about the proposal . Since the idea of this “community center/mosque” was first generated, Muslims across the nation have witnessed an increase of violence against themselves and their properties. They are scared. My question is a relevant one, even if most of the posters here don’t seem to get the concept.

I happen to love my Muslim friends. I care about them, I have been to their mosque, and I have been treated very well by all that I know, AND I don’t want anyone hurt.

In an attempt to re-direct the question, That pastor was within his legal rights to burn the Qu’ran, but was it wise? NO!

I also support Muslims being able to build what they want where they want (edit: we all know it’s legal to do so), but considering the backlash, IS IT WISE?

Let me start by saying that I’m sorry but I haven’t read the entire thread, so forgive me if I’m repeating anything.

1. Freedom of speech, including burning books and flags, is guarantied by the 1st Amendment. Regardless of whom it offends, it should have been allowed.

2. Freedom of religion means that the government cannot dictate where anyone builds a place of worship. It shouldn’t be an issue.

The difference is there should not be backlash about the building. Whereas a lack of backlash against the burning of holy texts would be appalling.

@snowberry

I think we all understand the concept of your question. I think that I personally think it’s problematic to compare the two instances because one is an act of hate, and therefore backlash is appropriate (I personally would support him burning the Koran, but that’s because I think that kind of stupid is a great counter-example). And I think that my responses (I won’t include others here) have been based on the fact that it IS wise because in the long run it will promote tolerance. The line of thinking that would prevent the center from being built can only promote intolerance.

Any violent reaction against such a place cannot, and will not be tolerated. I think that the frenzy that has developed is both disturbing and unnatural, and has been fed by the media. Therefore, these are different situations, and it’s perhaps more important that the center be built now that hate-mongers (many of whom – perhaps most – don’t even live here) are pointing their fingers and saying “We don’t want you here.”

What a horrifying message.

I think that the frenzy that has developed is both disturbing and unnatural, and has been fed by the media
Yes, thanks for the circus. Now, where’s the bread?

Just because there’s backlash doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do something. Rosa Parks got a buttload of backlash for refusing to give up her seat on the bus – do you think it would have been wise for her to not take a stand? Do you think it unwise for a child to stand up to the playground bully simply because there may be a temporary backlash?

I think it is a wise decision because it could build better relations between the Muslims and everyone else. It’s wise because people need to see that not all Muslims are terrorists (because for some reason some people can’t seem to understand that).

@Seaofclouds

YES! This is the potential long-term benefit. (also good on @papayalily)

Where do you draw the line? OK, fine, maybe they shouldn’t build it two blocks over. Where can they put a mosque or anything remotely related to Islam that would be considered “wise”? 3 blocks? 4 blocks? Or is NYC now completely sacrosanct? Maybe we should exclude the entire Eastern Seaboard? Who gets to decide? You? That pastor? The families of 9/11 victims? The media? The mob? Who? If you’re going to demand that they conform their behaviors to some kind of “code of conduct,” it is only fair that you give them a clear guideline as to where it is wise to build.

The fundamental issue underlying your question is this: fine, they can’t build there. So where can they build w/out offending? They clearly can’t build on any property that they own.

Things are seldom as simple as they seem.

It appears that this property is not entirely dedicated to the proposed project yet. This may all be a moot point.

Isn’t the difference between these two actions: building a center and burning books—pretty clear? One is building up, a place for learning, growth, interchange of ideas and the other is destruction and not just random destruction, but destruction of a holy book. Two very different acts with very different motivations.

Burning bibles is just like building churches too, isn’t it? No! Burning things isn;t the same as building things. It is as opposite as you can get. Personalize it, and you will see why. Which would you rather have me do for you, burn your hose down, or build you a house?

Did you know that there was a mosque in the World Trade Center, on the 17th floor of the South Tower. Did you know there was also a Muslim prayer room on the 107th floor of the North tower. Muslims died in those towers too.

I suspect the project will get moved. But the xenophobia that self-serving politicians touched off just to grab power for themselves has already done enormous damage to our efforts to convince the Islamic world that bin Laden is lying and that we do not hate Islam.

OP says this is about what is prudent and wise. In OP’s opinion, the wise thing to do is to avoid any possible provocation for protest or violence.

This position suggests that people should back down at the threat of violence. It’s an interesting idea, especially coming from a Christian. Perhaps it is a form of “turn the other cheek” thinking. Problematic issue: when to turn the other cheek and when not to.

It think that if people backed down every time someone else threatened violence at their expression of an idea, there would be significant long term consequences. It would pretty much be giving into whoever threatens the most violence. I doubt if the OP would really support this.

What is the underlying issue here? I think the issue is that people are mad and upset and hurt and feel unable to hit their enemy where the enemy lives, so they set up proxy enemies at home and try to hit them. They dress it in the cloak of “respect,” but respect, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder.

This isn’t about respect, either. It’s about feelings. Hurt feelings and righteous feelings. There is righteousness all over the place—the people who say the community center is disrespectful; the people who say that the law should be followed; the people that point out this makes no sense legally or in reality—it’s just symbolic; and the interested and uninterested bystanders also have righteousness, too.

It’s symbolism. It’s speech. The Muslims become proxies for the terrorists. Why? Because it’s convenient. The Koran is a proxy for the Muslims. Why? Again, it is convenient.

It constantly amazes me that people are willing to fight and die over symbols, without even understanding what those symbols do or do not represent. A flag is not a country. A book is not a religion. A building is not an insult. They just aren’t.

People should grow up. This is playground bullying. It is beneath us. It is stupid. And it is meaningless… or will be meaningless in a few months or years.

Thank you, @wundayatta! Yep, I agree. These people need to understand that if they choose to go ahead with their right to build a Mosque/community center there, there will be a backlash. Are they ready for that? It’s ALWAYS wise to consider the consequences of your actions.

If their true motive is to reach out by building a community center there, it seems like an odd way to reach out. Had they chosen a less volatile site, I doubt their efforts would be as poorly received. But now after all the media hype and so on, it’s possible that any large community center put anywhere would be met with less than enthusiasm by the people who would do them harm.

I will add in passing that historically, the followers of Islam have always built a shrine at the location of a great victory. I’m not saying that this is the motive of the people who would build it, or that such a facility would technically be a shrine, but there are many (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) who would not miss that connection.

These people need to understand that if they choose to go ahead with their right to build a Mosque/community center there, there will be a backlash. Are they ready for that? It’s ALWAYS wise to consider the consequences of your actions.

Are you saying that harm will come to “these people”? Because we have laws and courts to take care of that. What I think you’re missing is that the threat of violence should not deter “these people” from living their lives or worshipping where they choose.

And your last paragraph is such a fucked up-Faux News-bullshit talking point-made up issue. Gag!

@snowberry But the backlash is only this past month or two. This has been planned for well over a year.

I’d just like to say in passing that historically, followers of Christianity have been xenophobic and close-minded. See how that works?

@snowberry Your “points” are essentially blaming any Muslims for the violence done against them. That’s like blaming a rape victim for getting raped for what she wears. Give me a fucking break.

Yep, harm has already come to some of the most innocent, and many/most of them are not even on the East Coast. Read your newspaper. All the laws in the world aren’t going to restore a life that’s lost or a career that’s destroyed by a criminal.

@DrasticDreamer, Nope, I’m not blaming the Muslims. As stated in my question and previous posts, I have CLOSE FRIENDS WHO ARE VERY SERIOUS MUSLIMS. But as mentioned before, it’s wise to consider the outcome of your actions. To do otherwise is insane.

@papayalily Seems to me human nature is to be xenophobic. We are cliquish: “Our state/sex/school/race/club/religion is the best!” Let’s be fair now. We’ve all heard that in one form or another.

@breedmitch You don’t know your Qu’ran or your history.
The Koran (018:021) states: ‘Build a building over them, their Lord knows best about them;’ and those who prevailed in their affair said, ‘We will surely make a mosque over them.’

@snowberry If building a mosque over ground zero was their intent, they will obviously fail in it. The planned building is 2 New York blocks away around a corner from one edge of the WTC property. It is not in the shadow. It isn’t even within sight of ground zero. And while there was a mosque in the original World Trade Center, none is planned for the new construction. But those are just details that never get in the way of the talking points hate mongers latch on to.

It’s close enough. And there is no reasoning with crazies.

If the site was five blocks or ten blocks away, people would still find an excuse to bash muslims and protest against the project. They chose a site that was available and of a suitable size and at an acceptable price. That’s how people buy properties!

@snowberry Because there is no reasoning with some people, we have laws and police to step in and force reason to prevail.

My hunch is Republicans realized after all the demonization of illegal aliens they had been doing for the last several years that they were at risk of permanently alienating a significant and growing voting block. So they manufactured a new target to demonize around the Park51 project. And the more cowardly Democrats piled on the hate train lest their “conservative” constituents see them as Islam lovers. As @papayalily noted, the project had been in the works for nearly a year when suddenly the vast right-wing noise machine began blaring about the utter outrage being committed on hallowed ground.

Was it just that they knew nothing of it till August, or that an election was approaching and making Latinos scapegoats for frustrations with a lousy economy looked riskier than shifting gears and demonizing Muslims? There are less than a million of them in the US, so who cares how they vote?

Are you saying that harm will come to “these people”? Because we have laws and courts to take care of that. What I think you’re missing is that the threat of violence should not deter “these people” from living their lives or worshipping where they choose.

But then you quote the Koran, stating (now more than in passing) that a reason for this being built in NYC, close to the WTC site (and not on it) is that Muslims would want to declare a victory on the site.

Although you initially say that you don’t claim this as part of the motivation, you reemphasize it with your claim that @breedmitch doesn’t know history. Unless such a motivation is declared as a reason for building the site, it’s bordering on hateful to say that it exists.

The point is still the same – you keep saying that we would be wise to consider the harm that could be caused by the building. The wild media backlash against Park51 (please refer to it by its complete or proper name and stop characterizing it as a “mosque” as that just contributes to such backlash, wouldn’t you say?) is what is suggesting the harm. Sure, we can’t stop the crazies – but they’re CRAZY. Specific threats can be dealt with as they arise. But by not building the center, the crazies win. If the site is not built, we are admitting that we think Islam is to blame, when it is not – extremism is to blame. If the site is not built, we are dishonoring people who put themselves at risk during the Civil War (those who were fighting for freedom, and less for the other complex economic and social reasons); and those who fought during the Civil Rights movement; and Christian Missionaries who went into (and continue to go into) dangerous and unfriendly territories to help with medicine and try to spread the message of Jesus Christ. They knew the risks, and we are better off for the risks they took.

The difference there is that they faced opposing ARMIES, GOVERNMENTS, and SOCIETIES OPENLY hostile to their efforts. Here, we have grumbling and unorganized individuals for the most part (I don’t mean to diminish the personal hurt some families of 9/11 victims feel – but as a friend and family member of 9/11 victims myself, I can say that they don’t speak for all of us for sure), and no such real and open threat.

That should silence us? When the benefit of Park51 may very well be a greater understanding of a religion that has been demonized because of the actions of some “crazies”? I thought we were a stronger people than that.

So to answer your question – obviously and publicly, the ramifications of building Park51 have been considered. They are being considered. And the only reason against is that somehow, the crazies might act up. The answer should be that it is wiser to put aside these concerns for the long-term benefits of Park51 – even the symbolic statement of moving forward with it is a step in the right direction. I’d rather have faith in the American people than submit to the lowest common denominator – and the effects, I assure you, of me being wrong will be felt in my home town significantly if I’m wrong. But, you know, I like my freedom and admire those who fight for it.