Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Aug 16, 2010 18:27:04 GMT -5
a German Bund museum next to Dachau. What do you think? no problem, right?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 16, 2010 18:36:40 GMT -5
a German Bund museum next to Dachau. What do you think? no problem, right? Can you do it? Yes. Should you do it? No. That's the whole point. Oh, and that Barry can't decide what his position is. Maybe his teleprompter was on the fritz. Perhaps it got wet during that incredibly long 26 hour trip to the Gulf. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 16, 2010 19:00:07 GMT -5
Obama has been clear enough IMO but I don't think he should have weighed in. Local zoning/construction issues should not be taken up in DC, much less by a provincial from Georgia or Wasilla who comes to NY for fundraisers, shopping, and 9/11 memorials only.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 16, 2010 19:09:29 GMT -5
Obama was very clear he thought they should be allowed to build at the site but he took so much flak for that position he started parsing what he said to backtrack as gracefully as possible. Most people, lawyers not included, know he changed his position.
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289 
|
Post by afirth on Aug 16, 2010 19:11:37 GMT -5
a German Bund museum next to Dachau. What do you think? no problem, right? How is this even a close analogy? Maybe if they were building an Al Qaeda museum next to Ground Zero. Also, isn't there already a mosque 4 blocks away or something? I fail to understand the outrage over this. That being said, I agree that Obama never should have gotten involved. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 16, 2010 19:23:55 GMT -5
One element of the debate that is highly disturbing is that we are not at war with Islam, but the noise machine on the right would not have it any other way apparently. This kind of debate IMO makes us more vulnerable to terrorism and encourages Muslims to defend their faith against "us" even when they may otherwise be peaceful folks just as we claim to be. The debate also makes clear that some folks view our Constitution as valuable until they hit the First Amendment.
I am interested to know where the line should be drawn. Should we enter apartments near Ground Zero and remove prayer rugs? Close down post-9/11 facilities/programs for Muslims at the Pentagon? Are we to believe that a prayer center 10 blocks away from Ground Zero is ok?
|
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Aug 16, 2010 19:47:52 GMT -5
This is not an issue of the "noise machine on the right". Polls are saying 60+ % of democrats say the Mosque shouldn't be built there. Not that they don't have a right to but that it shouldn't be built there. Unless 60+ % of democrats are part of the noise machine of the right that is not correct.
There was a parallell several years ago at Auschwitz when a group of Catholic nuns wanted to build or rather use a building on the outskirts of one of the Auschwitz camps as a convent devoted to praying for the victims - especially Catholic victims - of Auschwitz. After several years of uproar from the Jewish part of Auschwitz who felt this was inappropriate at the site of a major part of the Jewish holocaust. The Pope eventually stepped in and said (correctly IMHO) that while there were a lot of Catholics who died there it was inappropriate to build the convent there.
Same holds here. If you really are for bringing healing and a multi ethnic approach to this you don't build a mosque where you Edited off all of NY and the folks who lost friends and family there. You are sensitive to their concerns/feelings and build a multicultural facility away from ground zero. If instead you want to shove it up their posterior you hide behind your legal right (which they have) and don't worry about the damage you are doing to your stated goal of bringing folks together. Mainly because you don't care about your stated goal.
The Pope got it. This Imam either doesn't get it or doesn't care.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,743
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 16, 2010 20:01:43 GMT -5
Isn't this mosque actually a mosque that openly decries the violence? It's more like building a church next to Dachau. Here's the group's website: Cordoba Initiaive. It's a group specifically trying to improve Muslim-West relations. There will be a mosque, but the building is multi-purpose use and looks like a skyscraper. Even better -- why do so many of you want government interference now? I thought less government was better? 538 |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 16, 2010 20:04:12 GMT -5
watcher - interesting perspective and valid points. There are also some counterexamples. There are indeed churches near the OKC bombing site. Timothy McVeigh attended church regularly and was apparently a practicing Catholic even if, like the 9/11 hijackers, he sullied his faith. There is now a Catholic statue across the street from the bombing site, not to mention other churches in the area. I have no problem with that either and hope others agree, but it just brings up the issue of where the line is drawn and why.
There are also mosques in Israel, and Israelis have been victimized by terrorism more than anyone else. We also frequently memorialize the Confederacy even though it posed a bigger threat to the United States than any other group, including the 9/11 terrorists.
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Aug 16, 2010 20:16:38 GMT -5
it just brings up the issue of where the line is drawn and why. Which is exactly why I'd like to know why no one is outraged that there is already a mosque 4 blocks from Ground Zero, but completely up in arms over a Muslim community center (which contains a mosque among many many other things) 2 blocks away. Where is the line? |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 16, 2010 20:22:51 GMT -5
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,599
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Aug 16, 2010 20:37:44 GMT -5
There was a parallell several years ago at Auschwitz when a group of Catholic nuns wanted to build or rather use a building on the outskirts of one of the Auschwitz camps as a convent devoted to praying for the victims - especially Catholic victims - of Auschwitz. After several years of uproar from the Jewish part of Auschwitz who felt this was inappropriate at the site of a major part of the Jewish holocaust. The Pope eventually stepped in and said (correctly IMHO) that while there were a lot of Catholics who died there it was inappropriate to build the convent there. Same holds here. If you really are for bringing healing and a multi ethnic approach to this you don't build a mosque where you Edited off all of NY and the folks who lost friends and family there. You are sensitive to their concerns/feelings and build a multicultural facility away from ground zero. If instead you want to shove it up their posterior you hide behind your legal right (which they have) and don't worry about the damage you are doing to your stated goal of bringing folks together. Mainly because you don't care about your stated goal. The Pope got it. This Imam either doesn't get it or doesn't care. I would suggest that the objections to the convent had 'more than a little' to do with the wide-scale complicity (tacit and otherwise) with the Holocaust by agents and followers of the Catholic Church, and the perception thereof. Of particular note is the fact that Pius XII appointed several German apostolic administrators to oversee Polish dioceses and German bishops to fill Polish bishoprics, a move that led to the recognized Polish government in exile declaring that the Vatican had broken the Concordat of 1925. On top of this is the long history of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic violence in Poland, in which the Catholic church bears more than a little blame. The resulting wary relationship between Polish Jews and the Catholic church, which extended through the post-war period, had a major impact on the convent issue. Islam is not a hierarchical organization like the Catholic Church, so guilt by religious association is on very shaky ground. Nonetheless, if a militant salafist or Wahhabist organization was involved, that would be troubling. The Cordoba Initiative is about as far from that as Unitarians are from the Spanish Inquisition.P.S. Anyone seriously comparing 9/11 with the Holocaust, or even a specific concentration camp like Auschwitz or Dachau, should be ashamed of themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Aug 16, 2010 21:16:34 GMT -5
P.S. Anyone seriously comparing 9/11 with the Holocaust, or even a specific concentration camp like Auschwitz or Dachau, should be ashamed of themselves. Where the hadies did I compare the Holocaust to 9/11? You are reaching if what I wrote offends you or gives you a reason to be offended. It goes to propriety and having someone understand sensitivities. If you want to say where is the line - fine. Polls are saying appx 70% of Americans think this crosses the propriety line (not the legal line). IMHO the Imam doesn't care about sensitivities or if he did he would back off as the Pope did. The fact that Catholicism is a hierarchical religion while Islam is much more diffuse is not relevant either. The Imam in NY is in charge of this project and should be held to account of whether he really is looking for healing or making a show. And while your point about Catholicism having some dirt on its hands in WWII is true, the corollary would be the broader Islam antagonism, intimidation and violence against many Jewish and Christian entities in the middle east. But again, neither is relevant. And the Imam in NY for sure doesn't get a free pass to shove this building down the throats of 9/11 victims and the city of NY because of some dirt in the Catholic church 60 years ago. This is about whether the Imam in NY really means what he says. If he does he will respond. If he doesn't then he is in deed adhering to the more radical and aggressive themes of Islam. |
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,599
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Aug 16, 2010 21:46:53 GMT -5
Where the hadies did I compare the Holocaust to 9/11? You are reaching if what I wrote offends you or gives you a reason to be offended. The convent/Auschwitz and Bund museum/Dachau scenarios are comparisons in which 9/11 is compared to a concentration camp/the Holocaust. There is no other possible meaning It goes to propriety and having someone understand sensitivities. If you want to say where is the line - fine. Polls are saying appx 70% of Americans think this crosses the propriety line (not the legal line). IMHO the Imam doesn't care about sensitivities or if he did he would back off as the Pope did. The fact that Catholicism is a hierarchical religion while Islam is much more diffuse is not relevant either. The Imam in NY is in charge of this project and should be held to account of whether he really is looking for healing or making a show. And while your point about Catholicism having some dirt on its hands in WWII is true, the corollary would be the broader Islam antagonism, intimidation and violence against many Jewish and Christian entities in the middle east. But again, neither is relevant. And the Imam in NY for sure doesn't get a free pass to shove this building down the throats of 9/11 victims and the city of NY because of some dirt in the Catholic church 60 years ago. This is about whether the Imam in NY really means what he says. If he does he will respond. If he doesn't then he is in deed adhering to the more radical and aggressive themes of Islam. The Imam is trying to shove this down the throat of the City of New York? Someone alert Mayor Bloomberg immediately! The logical end of your argument would be that no one should do anything that is unpopular or may offend some. But clearly that's not right. So is it because some people's sensibilities are privileged in this case due to the trauma of 9/11? Well, a majority of polled Manhattan residents support the mosque. But this is all dancing around the crux of the matter: opposition to this project - those "sensibilities" - stems from a conflation of al-Qaeda and the Cordoba Initiative/Muslims as a whole. It is a groundless conflation, and giving it deference legitimizes it in a way that it utterly does not deserve. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Aug 16, 2010 22:02:45 GMT -5
If your stated purpose in pursuing a Mosque / Cultural Center is to bring a greater understanding to Islam and "bring people together" as the Imam has stated then yea I have this strange idea you don't Edited a large percentage of people off by insisting on having the Mosque in the shadow of the towers. Especially when you can move the project a couple/several blocks and become a hero. It all depends on whether you actually believe your stated purpose or not.
It has nothing to do with "don't do anything unpopular". If you don't think anyone SHOULD be offended - fine - wellcome to your opinion. Recognize it isn't shared by a large percentage of the population, NY and rest of the country. Don't try to tell them they are not entitled to their sensibilities or opinion - or that they are somehow wrong/groundless/whatever. They and I think you are incorrect and have a huge tin ear in this (at minimum).
If you are truly trying to convert hearts and minds to the stated purpose of this Mosque/Cultural Center you don't go about it by telling the majority or a large percentage of the people you don't care what they think. Strange concept I know.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,746
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 16, 2010 22:08:52 GMT -5
There is an Islamic center four blocks away from the WTC stop already. Apparently, it has been in the neighborhood before the WTC was built. www.masjidmanhattan.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 16, 2010 22:12:15 GMT -5
watcher - at what point is it sufficiently distant from Ground Zero, mind you that it is not even at Ground Zero? That's what I don't get. 2 blocks is bad, but everything is peachy past the manhole near the 4th block?
The folks opposing this plan most vociferously are folks with little connection to NYC except the occasional shopping trip. The plan has the support of Mayor Bloomberg and, now, courageously, of Governor Christie of NJ. Local planners have confirmed that the site is not, in fact, historic. It seems to have cleared the pertinent hurdles on the planning/zoning side.
Fine if the rest of the country does not want a mosque built there. How many of them have mosques in their home towns? There aren't any in Wasilla for example, notwithstanding its sophisticated former mayor. My suspicion is most of them would raise a stink if one was planned given how this appears to be a fight against Islam as much as anything else.
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Aug 16, 2010 22:12:20 GMT -5
Especially when you can move the project a couple/several blocks and become a hero. Again. Can someone PLEASE tell me where the line should be drawn? Are we really saying 2 blocks = bad, 4 blocks = good? Why? |
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Aug 16, 2010 22:12:33 GMT -5
Obama was right the first time he spoke. I didn't realize he was backtracking, and really wish he wouldn't do that. He should know better than that. And the Democrats that undoubtedly encouraged him to walk back over fears of its impact on November should also know better than that.
It is absurd to me that in 2010 we would even -- for a second -- consider telling a bona fide religious group that they cannot locate themselves based on their beliefs.
Moreover, I'm sickened by each and every politican, fear-mongerer, and talking head that insists on equating Islam or Arabs with a bunch of sick demented twisted evil people that want to kill us. Islam does not equal Arab and both do not equal Al Qaeda. Last time I checked, there were plenty of Muslims and Arabs that were either killed or harmed in the 9-11 and subsequent/similar attacks.
This seems so simple and straightforward to me, and I'm honestly flabbergasted that everyone has a hard time calling people out on this one. It's rare that "right" and "wrong" are as clearcut as they are here.
ON EDIT: I suppose I don't have any problem with people expressing their preferences as to whether it should be there or not as a matter of taste -- they are free to do so (and in so doing express what I consider short-sightedness but what they consider to be prudence). And if perhaps they had handled this issue in an appropriate and dignified manner (i.e. through direct discussions with the center suggesting an alternative location, etc etc) that was respectful of the organization's legitimacy and rights, then I would also understand the compromise position. But at this point the issue has become so inflamed that I stubbornly oppose any efforts to compromise because of the message and precedent that it suggests -- that the tyranny of the majority and the court of public opinion can overrule the clear rule of law.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,599
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Aug 16, 2010 22:20:56 GMT -5
If your goal is to bring about a greater understanding of who you are and what you stand for, one of the first things you must do is define who you are and who you are not. In this particular case, that includes making clear that you do not remotely agree with, identify with, or relate to the prominent extremists who also lay claim to your religion.
If you're trying to convince people that you have nothing to do with terrorism and radicalism and are nothing like al-Qaeda, then you don't go about it by accepting being conflated with those terrorists and radicals and told you shouldn't do something because you are somehow like al-Qaeda. Strange concept, I know.
|
|
