Mosque at Ground Zero

[Cybrweez]

So what do you guys think? Big deal? $100 million, 15 story mosque given initial approval to be built at ground zero.

A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that New York City voters overwhelmingly oppose the mosque – 52%-to-31% – even while those same voters express generally positive opinions of Islam. Opposition cuts across demographic lines with blacks opposed by 11 points, Catholics opposed by 10 points, Jews opposed by 42 points and Hispanics opposed by 41 points.

Not sure why the Hispanic vote is as high as the Jewish (which is pretty easy to understand).

[Prebe]

I think that in principle it is not a big deal. However, from a pragmatic point of view, I get the feeling that such a building would stir up emotions that the US was better of without.

Think of it as a reversed Muhamed cartoon.

As for the hispanics, well, a demographic group with a lower level of education is usually less tolerant of other cultures. The reason blacks do not hit the same numbers, I'd ascribe to the muslim faith being rather well established among blacks. Btw. I find the comparison of ethnic AND religious groupings a little disturbing/inflamatory. Or at best, apples and oranges.

[SerScot]

The construction of the mosque near Ground Zero rouses a tremendous, "Meh" from me.

I do see how some might be put out by the construction. However, if we stop it the Terrorists really have won. We are a nations of many faiths. I think the construction of the Mosque could be seen as an affirmation of our commitment to free exercise of religious faith.

[Zarathustra]

We can tolerate a faith without rubbing America's nose in a symbolic victory of Islam over our Western culture. Muslims can still practice their faith without a mosque at ground zero.

If the Catholics had reduced the Pentagon to rubble, I wouldn't want a cathedral built on the ruins, either. Nor do I want a Neo-nazi building built over the ruins of the Holocaust museum, or a KKK building erected over Martin Luther King Jr's grave, or a Black Panther headquarters built over the site of a black-on-white hate crime.

Being against the placement of a building isn't the same as being intolerant of a religion or ideology.

Build it somewhere else, I say.

[wayfriend]

But "the Muslims" aren't responsible for 9/11.

I think the mosque would be a good idea if it was dedicated to peace in some way, or if the people who used it undertook some sort of mission for peace. (Not thinking of anything specific at the moment.) Something which is a constructive response to the events that occurred there.

Just sitting there doesn't seem very useful to anyone.

[Prebe]

I think that in principle it is not a big deal. However, from a pragmatic point of view, I get the feeling that such a building would stir up emotions that the US was better of without.

We can tolerate a faith without rubbing America's nose in a symbolic victory of Islam over our Western culture.

QED, I should say

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

We can tolerate a faith without rubbing America's nose in a symbolic victory of Islam over our Western culture. Muslims can still practice their faith without a mosque at ground zero.

If the Catholics had reduced the Pentagon to rubble, I wouldn't want a cathedral built on the ruins, either. Nor do I want a Neo-nazi building built over the ruins of the Holocaust museum, or a KKK building erected over Martin Luther King Jr's grave, or a Black Panther headquarters built over the site of a black-on-white hate crime.

Being against the placement of a building isn't the same as being intolerant of a religion or ideology.

Build it somewhere else, I say.

Using your logic couldn't adovcates for Secular government attempt to argue that any churches in the District of Columbia show the U.S. Government's tacit endorsement of religion over non-religion? After all they aren't saying people can't worship just that they need to do their worshiping outside of the Federal District that houses our National government.

You can dislike the placement of this mosque but attempting to say they may not build there is an infringment upon these people's freedom to practice their chosen religious faith.

[Prebe]

I see nothing that can forbid it. I see (peacefull) muslims seeing this as a symbolic gesture which is the exact oposite of what Zar suggests.
However, zar's reaction (and I'm sure the reaction of a lot of other people) should tell sensitive peacefull muslims that it is probably not a good idea.

Again, the Muhamed cartoons reversed.

[aliantha]

This proposal reminds me of the mosque built atop Temple Mount in Jerusalem...*and* the cathedrals built atop sacred pagan sites. Ground Zero may not have been the site of a church, but it has been sanctified, in a way. America has certainly been treating the site like a shrine.

I'm not saying it's good or bad. And I'm ambivalent about the prospect of a mosque there -- as, I suspect, I would be ambivalent about the prospect of a cathedral there. I guess maybe what I'm saying is that I'm not surprised.

I dunno. What do you guys think: Is Ground Zero holy ground?

Would you feel better about the presence of a mosque there if a Christian church were built next to it?

[SerScot]

Aliantha,

The Al-Asqa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock have been on the Temple mount for more than a thousand years. FYI.

[aliantha]

And Christianity has been building churches atop pagan sacred sites for 2,000 years. I'm just saying there may be a parallel: a religious group finds a previously sanctified spot and "re-purposes" it.

[SerScot]

Aliantha,

Gotcha. I think we agree on this one.

[aliantha]

Yup. Question is, which religion ought to get to build there?

[SerScot]

Aliantha,

My position is that any religion ought to get the opportunity to build there if we are serious about our promise to protect free exercise of religious faith.

[aliantha]

Works for me. In fact I would change your "any" to "all". We can stack 'em up like a totem pole and make a World Faith Center to replace the World Trade Center.

[Vraith]

I am extremely wary of calling it a "holy" site, or "holy" ground.
I know there are some non-religious connotations/contexts for "holy," but designating it this way risks justifying those extremists on both sides that this really is a "Holy War," [a battle between all members of another faith, no matter which side you happen to be on], and not a fight against terrorist fanatics that are a sub-set of a faith.

On the issue, though, it's a tough call for me. I understand the reasons some want it, and the offended sensibilities of some who oppose it...

[Lord Mhoram]

No religious site should be built on Ground Zero, and I even would go so far as to say that Islam would be a particularly ill-advised religion to be housed there. I like the idea of the site as "holy" -- in the same sense that the Lincoln Memorial and the Capitol and the Washington Monument and other national sites of import are "holy," that is, cherished and shared by the nation.

But let's be clear: nobody has proposed a mosque on Ground Zero, but near it:

The project calls for a 13-story community center including a mosque, performing art center, gym, swimming pool and other public spaces.

It is a collaboration between the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative.

The Cordoba Initiative aims to improve relations between Muslims and the West.

"The Cordoba Initiative hopes to build a $100 million, 13-story community center with Islamic, interfaith and secular programming, similar to the 92nd Street Y," its website says, referring to the cultural institution on the upper East side of Manhattan.

Prima facie this is an admirable idea. Improving relations between Islam and the United States near a site of such tragedy and terror at the hands of those who purported themselves to speak for Islam should be commended by those who value reconciliation and the marketplace of ideas.

I should add that my initial reaction to the idea of a "Mosque at Gound Zero" is revulsion and distaste, despite the fact that I categorically reject the "Neo-nazi building built over the ruins of the Holocaust museum" analogy. (For a simple reason: extermination of the Jews is an explicit and central aspect of Nazi ideology; flying planes into buildings and killing Americans isn't a Muslim tenet.)

But the actual details of the plan make it sound more felicitous to me. But ultimately I'd leave this one up to the city: building rights shouldn't be subject to a plebiscite all the time, but the trauma New York suffered makes this an exceptional case. I don't know by what instrument the city should decide, but if the outrage is palatable enough, don't build it there.

[wayfriend]

flying planes into buildings and killing Americans isn't a Muslim tenet.

Certainly if we're still clinging to the nobel-peace-prize-worthy notion that "Muslims attacked America", a mosque is not only acceptible but worthy and laudible.

I would not object to a globe on the site on the basis that it makes people who believe the earth is flat upset. And I would not object to a mosque on the site on the basis that it makes people who believe "Muslims attacked America" upset. Such ideas don't deserve merit.

[Holsety]

So what do you guys think? Big deal? $100 million, 15 story mosque given initial approval to be built at ground zero.

A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that New York City voters overwhelmingly oppose the mosque – 52%-to-31% – even while those same voters express generally positive opinions of Islam. Opposition cuts across demographic lines with blacks opposed by 11 points, Catholics opposed by 10 points, Jews opposed by 42 points and Hispanics opposed by 41 points.

Not sure why the Hispanic vote is as high as the Jewish (which is pretty easy to understand).

Well, I do know that South American countries have fairly good ties with Israel, and are pretty big customers of Israeli arms dealers, and have (from what I know) always supported Israel in the UN. I'm not sure if this applies to mexico but I believe it applies to central and south america. Perhaps this contributes.

I wish the various memorial-ish buildings built at ground zero would be nondenominational, of course. But it's not a strong concern of mine.

However, zar's reaction (and I'm sure the reaction of a lot of other people) should tell sensitive peacefull muslims that it is probably not a good idea.

Good point. If whites remain guarded about the use of certain language - for instance the n-word - for such reasons, it makes sense to extrapolate that to other cultures acting in similarly sensitive ways.

[Zarathustra]

I would not object to a mosque on the site on the basis that it makes people who believe "Muslims attacked America" upset. Such ideas don't deserve merit.

Oh, how thoughtless of me. I forgot that it's only acceptable to generalize about white people, corporations, southerns, the Tea Party, or the religious right. All other groups must be treated like distinct individuals.

Wayfriend, whites enslaved the blacks. Christians try to get creationism taught in public schools. And Muslims attacked us on 9/11 (and several times after that, under Obama's watch). These are facts. Just because there are some whites who didn't enslave anyone, or some Christians who realize creationism is religion and not science, or some Muslims who don't want any part of the Jihad, doesn't make these statements untrue. I never meant to imply 100% participation with my statement. But without a doubt there are 10s of 1000s of Muslims actively trying to bring this country down as we speak. And the fact that the "peace loving" Muslims want to build a giant mosque at (or near) ground zero doesn't speak much for their sensitivity on this issue. Seems more like a symbol of victory, than anything else. But if you want to believe their propaganda, go right on believing it. I'm comfortable with my suspicion.

However, zar's reaction (and I'm sure the reaction of a lot of other people) should tell sensitive peacefull muslims that it is probably not a good idea.

No rational person needs my reaction to realize that this is a tasteless, insensitive, and quite possibily malicious act of symbolic conquering.

I see (peacefull) muslims seeing this as a symbolic gesture which is the exact oposite of what Zar suggests.

You see them seeing this ... that's quite a crystal ball into millions of people's souls you have there. Well, I have one, too. I can't imagine anyone with peaceful intentions thinking this is a good idea. What exactly is the "peaceful" message? How does this build a bridge?

If some freemarket nutjobs blew up Mecca, and then we decided to build a Walmart there for "peaceful" reasons of outreach and bridge-building, I wouldn't be surprised if some Muslims got upset about it, nor would I blame their reaction on *sensitivity,* ... despite the fact that not all capitalists or Walmart shoppers yearn for the destruction of Mecca. Would that Walmart be a bridge to the Muslim culture? I think not. Hell, we get accused of imperialism simply for building McDonalds restaurants around the world, even in places where 1000s of innocent citizens weren't slaughtered. But when Muslims want to build a mosque on ground zero, it's a bridge of understanding. Got it.

LM pointed out that this is "... a collaboration between the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative. The Cordoba Initiative aims to improve relations between Muslims and the West." And no one is suspicious at all? Everyone just accepts that at face value? Have we really become that complacent since 9/11?

You know what would improve relations between Muslims and the West? For Muslims to stop blowing up Westerners!! And perhaps for Muslims to stop trying to build their temples of intolerance at ground zero. That would help a lot to improve relations.

A quick Google search turned this up:

ASMA: American Society for the Advancement of Muslims- faux moderates promoting Islamisation by "Muslim Leaders of Tommorrow"
May 2, 2007

MIM:The American Society for the Advancement of Muslims proclaims their Islamism by name. ASMA promotes jihad through da'wa and the Islamisation of the West by grooming "Muslim Leaders of Tommorrow". At the Saudi backed 2006 MLT conference in Denmark "moderate"Islamists discussions of how to increase Muslim political and social influence was euphemistically termed "bridge building".

The Cordoba Initiative /Islamic Dialogue is lead by ASMA and is also headed by the Imam of the New York Masjid Al Farah. Together with his wife Daisy Khan are trying to put a yuppie face on Islamism. ASMA can be viewed as an American version of Hizb ut Tahrir after an "extremist makeover" where the khalifate idea is has been couched in kumbaya. ASMA's young and contemporary facade makes their radical ideology harder to detect, which poses more of a threat then an overtly aggressive organisation which refers to non Muslims as kuffars. In reality, ASMA members share the same hard line as the radicals and their use of legal and stealth Islamist strategies makes it difficult to thwart their da'wa attempts which are made under the guise of interfaith and tolerance but are actually pushing Islam as the only true religion .

www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2860

Wikipedia had this:

The building of the mosque, as well as the initiative itself, was criticized by other Muslims, such as Sufi mysticist Suleiman Schwartz, who says that a garish building built by Rauf barely two blocks from ground zero, is inconsistent with Sufi philosophy of simplicity of faith and sensitivity towards others.

And this:

In a 60 Minutes interview shortly after the September 11 attacks Imam Rauf [founder of ASMA] said, "Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam" and went on to say, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."[3]

That's bridge building? The man who wants to build this mosque on ground zero thinks that America was an accessory to the crime? No, this isn't a bridge. It's vindication for him.

Biggovernment.com had this:

The Center organizers, the America Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), have worked hard in the media to portray themselves as Islamic moderates working for peace on the exact spot where their belligerent coreligionists perpetrated murder and mayhem in the name of their religion. But the words and deeds of the leader of the effort, the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, suggests a more ominous reality: Abdul Rauf is a master of deceptive, Orwellian use of language, manifesting a deep contempt for non-Muslims and full accord with the supremacist goals of the 9/11 hijackers.
...

There is ample support for the idea that this Islamic Center is an insult to the victims of the 9/11 attacks. Throughout Islamic history, wherever they have conquered, Muslims have converted non-Muslim houses of worship into mosques and built mosques on the holy sites of other religions. The Dome of the Rock, built on the site of the Temple in Jerusalem, the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus built over the Church of St. John the Baptist, and the Aya Sofya mosque in Istanbul, formerly the grandest church in Christendom, are three notable examples among a great many. While at Ground Zero the mosque is not being built over the site of a synagogue or church, the same pattern of conquest and supremacism is in evidence: the World Trade Center site was a symbol of American economic power; the 9/11 Mosque is a symbol of the conquest of that power.

Abdul Rauf’s own statements, rather than allay such concerns, actually give credence to this view. He has blamed the West, rather than Islamic jihadists, for terrorism on several occasions. He has said, according to Australia’s Sun-Herald, that “the US and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end.” He has also claimed that “Western active involvement in shaping the internal affairs of Islamic societies have contributed to the creation of terrorism done in the name of Islam.”

So when Muslims try to shape the interal affairs of our society, they are "bridge building." But when we try to shape the interal affairs of their society, we're responsible for terrorism?

The article goes on to point out:

Abdul Rauf has also called Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’ endorsement of the implementation of Sharia courts in Britain “forward thinking” – despite Sharia’s denial of basic freedoms including the freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equality of rights of all people before the law. He has called upon Barack Obama to emphasize “the commonality of Western and Islamic values,” claiming that “if the United States lives up to the values in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and if Muslims can live up to the principles of Islamic law, then we will find we have fewer points of conflict and more common ground.” Then all will be well: “Muslims no longer will fear Western domination and the West no longer will fear Islamic expansion.”

Does Abdul Rauf really think that the devaluation of a woman’s testimony and the institutionalized discrimination against non-Muslims, both mandated by Sharia, are really compatible with the Bill of Rights? Does he really think that stoning people to death for adultery or amputating their hands for theft are compatible with the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments?

This is laughable, the idea that Muslim and American values are in any sense similar. The fact that Abdul Rauf thinks he can fool people with this line of Orwellian sleight-of-hand is unbelievable ... well, it would be unbelievable if I didn't see people falling for it.

And finally, the article ends with:

Abdul Rauf also has unsavory associations with pro-Sharia groups. Journalist Alyssa A. Lappen reports that “whenever Feisal first considered building a mosque across from Ground Zero, he had the idea firmly in mind by 2004, when he wrote What’s Right with Islam. The book was translated into many languages. In Indonesia’s Bahasa, its title translates as “The Call from the WTC Rubble.” Rauf promoted the book in December 2007 at a Kuala Lumpur gathering of Hizb ut Tahrir — an organization banned in Germany since 2003, and also outlawed in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, among other places — and ideologically akin to the MB. Both seek to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law (sharia), and eventually impose Islam and sharia law worldwide.” The “MB” is the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Islamic organization from which come Al-Qaeda and Hamas. The Brotherhood is dedicated in its own words, according to a captured internal document, to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.”

Is that Feisal Abdul Rauf’s agenda as he works to build his massive Islamic Center at Ground Zero? It certainly seems so. That’s why our new group, Stop Islamization of America, is holding a rally against the 9/11 Mosque on June 6 in lower Manhattan. 9/11 families and freedom fighters including ex-Muslim human rights crusader Nonie Darwish and ex-slave Simon Deng will be speaking – and stating matters more honestly than Feisal Abdul Rauf ever has.

The guy is promoting his ideology to groups who want to replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia law, and to destroy America from within, and the rest of you honestly think he's only interested in bridge building???

They want to take over the world. And it will be complacency which allows it to happen.