• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Mosque Being Built 2 Blocks Away From Ground Zero... What Do You Think?

SamsungVibrant said:
There is a level of tact that Muslims which insist on this mosque being so close are missing. A level of sensitivity that is absent. A brash strong persistence, that honestly is somewhat scary. A persistence that makes me sit back and reflect for a moment, is there an ulterior motive? Is there some kind of statement being made? A hidden agenda? A hidden message? We will build this mosque here no matter what, our mosque will serve as a symbol, a symbol that 911 ended in victory after all? These questions must be asked, when the insistence to build is so strong, especially amongst a city, a community, a country that says please take it somewhere else.
Click to expand...

So by this same logic, are you opposed to Christian churches being built anywhere near the Oklahoma City bombing site? After all, McVeigh was a Christian terrorist.
 
Hangdog42 said:
So by this same logic, are you opposed to Christian churches being built anywhere near the Oklahoma City bombing site? After all, McVeigh was a Christian terrorist.
Click to expand...

The Timothy McVeigh Christian terrorist angle has never been proven, there has never been any definitive evidence that his actions were driven by any Christian convictions. Actually, evidence points to the opposite, that Christianity played no role in his actions, that he wasn't even a very religious person. So, I'm not even going to entertain your statement about McVeigh being a "christian terrorist," that sounds like one of the conspiracy theories, like our government planned 911, give me a break.

However, unlike the poor McVeigh analogy you made, what is undeniable, and 100 percent certain, the actions on 911 were definitely driven by Muslim radical religious convictions.
 
SamsungVibrant said:
The Timothy McVeigh Christian terrorist angle has never been proven, there has never been any definitive evidence that his actions were driven by any Christian convictions. Actually, evidence points to the opposite, that Christianity played no role in his actions, that he wasn't even a very religious person. So, I'm not even going to entertain your statement about McVeigh being a "christian terrorist," that sounds like one of the conspiracy theories, like our government planned 911, give me a break.

However, unlike the poor McVeigh analogy you made, what is undeniable, and 100 percent certain, the actions on 911 were definitely driven by Muslim radical religious convictions.
Click to expand...


You might want to do some research before spouting off. McVeigh was highly influenced by a book called the Turner Diaries (he actually sold and promoted it at gun shows), which uses a highly twisted version of Christianity to advocate the extermination of Jews and non-white races. It's Christianity is every bit as twisted as bin Laden's version of Islam, but it served as the underpinnings for McVeigh's hate, just like the twisted version of Islam serves for bin Laden.
 
Hangdog42 said:
You might want to do some research before spouting off. McVeigh was highly influenced by a book called the Turner Diaries (he actually sold and promoted it at gun shows), which uses a highly twisted version of Christianity to advocate the extermination of Jews and non-white races. It's Christianity is every bit as twisted as bin Laden's version of Islam, but it served as the underpinnings for McVeigh's hate, just like the twisted version of Islam serves for bin Laden.
Click to expand...

*shudders*, that book...is...insane...
 
THANK YOU!!!! I couldn't remember the name and didn't want to reference it without that. I did loose friends in OKC, and that is once again, a case of an extremist who doesn't speak for an entire religion.

As i've said above a few times, building close to and building at are 2 totally different things.

I dont think anyone who supports the first amendment can say they object based on the perpetrators of the attacks that they dont think a house of worship for a given religion shouldn't be placed somewhere.

Thousands of metaphors could be used, No churches in hiroshima and nagasaki shouldnt be built because a primarily christian military nuked em?

No asian religious (Shinto, Taoism etc) temples in hawaii because of pearl harbor?

To me this is another form of bigotry, allowing a few extremists to color a view about an entire religion.
 
Hangdog42 said:
You might want to do some research before spouting off. McVeigh was highly influenced by a book called the Turner Diaries (he actually sold and promoted it at gun shows), which uses a highly twisted version of Christianity to advocate the extermination of Jews and non-white races. It's Christianity is every bit as twisted as bin Laden's version of Islam, but it served as the underpinnings for McVeigh's hate, just like the twisted version of Islam serves for bin Laden.
Click to expand...


dang, you beat me to it.
 
infil said:
THANK YOU!!!! I couldn't remember the name and didn't want to reference it without that. I did loose friends in OKC, and that is once again, a case of an extremist who doesn't speak for an entire religion.

As i've said above a few times, building close to and building at are 2 totally different things.
Click to expand...

Obviously not, as some victims have been clear it's hurtful. We don't get to decide what's hurtful to the victims.

infil said:
I dont think anyone who supports the first amendment can say they object based on the perpetrators of the attacks that they dont think a house of worship for a given religion shouldn't be placed somewhere.
Click to expand...

I support the first amendment, I object to them building it there, And I will fight for their right to do so. How's that for contradictory.

It doesn't matter if I agree with it. They have the right. Whether I like it or not, doesn't really matter.

infil said:
Thousands of metaphors could be used, No churches in hiroshima and nagasaki shouldnt be built because a primarily christian military nuked em?
Click to expand...

Could you imagine the response, if we tried to build a Christian church near either of those sites within the first 10 years after we dropped those bombs?

Obviously, it's a different story NOW, but a mere 10 years afterwards? No, it would have been received worse than this is.

infil said:
No asian religious (Shinto, Taoism etc) temples in hawaii because of pearl harbor?
Click to expand...

Pearl Harbor has mainly been put behind the Hawaiian society (used to live there for half a decade). However, within 10 years of Pearl Harbor? No, I don't think that would have gone over well either.

infil said:
To me this is another form of bigotry, allowing a few extremists to color a view about an entire religion.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you can't understand that this is hurtful to many who survived 9/11 and many who lost loved ones in 9/11.

In time, it won't be a big deal. In time, no one will really care. It's just not that time yet.

It is easy to dismiss opinions that you don't understand as bigotry. It is far more difficult to make an effort to understand those opinions. Which is kind of ironic. The VERY behavior needed to end bigotry, is the very behavior that is also need for people to stop calling others bigots unnecessarily.
 
infil said:
I dont think anyone who supports the first amendment can say they object based on the perpetrators of the attacks that they dont think a house of worship for a given religion shouldn't be placed somewhere.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this!

I fully support the first amendment, but there is a difference between saying something you believe and doing something many find offensive simply because you can!

As I have said before, if the stated intent of something is to promote healing and relationship building but the very something being done is upsetting or offensive to those you wish to build a relationship with and you insist on doing it anyway, is continuing to do that something a good idea?

Just because something is legal or allowed does not mean it is not offensive or hurtful!

I've asked others to answer this question, and nobody seems able to give an answer:

We have heard from the anti-mosque contingent many times, stating many reasons why they don't want this mosque built...fine! Other than the obvious (and quite vacant) "because they can" answer, can you give me a solid reason it needs to be in that spot? You are as close to Manhattan as I am and might have even been personally touched by 9/11 as I have unlike most people from other countries or overseas who seem so opinionated on this.

Instead of mentioning their right to do so, do you have a firm and cogent case for building it in that spot?
 
Other than the obvious (and quite vacant) "because they can" answer
Click to expand...

vacant? are you freaking serious? we have fundamental rights and liberties here, unlike much of the world.

can our fundamental rights and liberties put people in danger? yes. are you willing to lose those fundamental rights and liberties for a chance of saftey?

i should hope not. if you do not have a problem losing those fundamental rights and liberties, you failed at being an American.

it is what we are. it is what this country exists for.
 
batgeek said:
vacant? are you freaking serious? we have fundamental rights and liberties here, unlike much of the world.

can our fundamental rights and liberties put people in danger? yes. are you willing to lose those fundamental rights and liberties for a chance of saftey?

i should hope not. if you do not have a problem losing those fundamental rights and liberties, you failed at being an American.

it is what we are. it is what this country exists for.
Click to expand...

Whoa, hold your horses!
In the context of a discussion of the topic, simply stating the reason as "because they can" takes no thought or incite, we already know that they can or that they are allowed to.

I am the last person to say freedom of speech or any of our fundamental rights (especially the 1st and 2nd amendment) is vacant batgeek. The point is for someone to give a reason other than the right to do so!

Easy killer!! :p
 
batgeek said:
there are no other reason that equate or trump the right to do so, so any other given reason is moot.
Click to expand...

So are you ok with burning the flag or religious books because its allowed?
I'm not, but there is nothing I can do about it...does that mean I cannot object to it for any number of reasons? See that is the very freedom of speech you are using for your argument!

I'll reiterate, I am not disputing any rights under law but rather trying to have a discussion and hear reasons in addition to rights to do something.

When you say "just because I can", its really a cop out!
 
mpw said:
If you were a downtown Manhattan muslim, and you felt that the community in which you lived had grown to distrust you because of misconceptions arisen(understandably) from the events of 9/11, an attack on YOUR community, and you were in a position, financially, to develop a community centre; wherein you wanted to promote multi-cultural learning and understanding, an environment in which education, arts, and community spirit could thrive in the community in which you live (downtown Manhattan): would it make any sense to build it any place else?
Click to expand...

Well now, THAT'S a reason!! Thank You for a thought out response!!!
 
mpw said:
I think I see what you're getting at, but try this slight, but significant amendment to your question:
Could you imagine the response, if they tried to build a Christian church near either of those sites within the first 10 years after we dropped those bombs?

As I understand it the organisation wanting to undertake the development is US based, wanting to build on land in the US that it owns.

It's the them and us attitude that is doing the damage; people need to accept that the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 were not representatives of all Muslims.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that even if THEY tried to build a Christian church near either of those sites within the first 10 years after we dropped those bombs, that the people trying would likely have been killed.

Japanese back then would not have taken kindly to someone doing that.

mpw said:
If you were a downtown Manhattan muslim, and you felt that the community in which you lived had grown to distrust you because of misconceptions arisen(understandably) from the events of 9/11, an attack on YOUR community, and you were in a position, financially, to develop a community centre; wherein you wanted to promote multi-cultural learning and understanding, an environment in which education, arts, and community spirit could thrive in the community in which you live (downtown Manhattan): would it make any sense to build it any place else?
Click to expand...

I don't think two or three blocks away would make that big a difference.

And if THAT was your true goal, don't you think that it would go a lot farther to promoting unity to sit down with the leaders of the opposition to your location, and work out some kind of compromise so that everyone is happy?

Don't you think THAT would go a lot more towards community unity and multi-cultural learning?

I do.
 
batgeek said:
yes i am.

listen to all the "reasons" you wish, and make your justifications why they are correct or incorrect. reasons do not matter, rights and law do.
Click to expand...

I think you fail to make a certain distinction. Just because someone has the RIGHT to do something, doesn't mean you have to be ok with it.

I object to the Mosque's location. However, I will fight to the death to ensure that their rights aren't taken away.

I understand you want to cut off discussion by using the "They have a right" statement, but that isn't what is being asked here. That they have a right has been established. We've moved to, justification for exercising that right. If you can't provide any, that's fine. They don't need to justify exercising their right. However, that's what the question was. If you don't want to answer it, then by all means don't.
 
The developer of the mosque said that he got his inspiration from a Jewish community center doing the same thing that he is planning to do with regards to what the Community Centre will be.
 
mpw said:
Try 1949, Resurrection Church Hiroshima, Chapel of St. Monica, still going strong; and that's just one, I wouldn't be surprised if there were others built earlier.

Maybe people weren't quite as violently opposed to reconciliation and understanding as you imagine?
Click to expand...

What is currently considered the city of Hiroshima is 30 miles from where the "bomb" was dropped. There are none on Nagasaki.

I don't hear anyone complaining about the idea of them building a mosque 30 miles from the Twin Towers.


mpw said:
Maybe, but moving a couple of blocks may not be an option for financial or planning reasons(I don't know),
Click to expand...

I would imagine that if peace and harmony were your goal, and your location was causing this kind of disruption... you would announce WHY you weren't going to move.

mpw said:
I do know that the developers have said they are open to discussion with anybody regarding the project, stressing that the community centre will be, with the exception of a prayer space for Muslims, non-sectarian. They've welcomed input from the community they hope will eventually use the centre, I wonder if anybody from any other religion with a congregation in the area has contacted them with the idea of a dedicated area for prayer for other religions too, and if not I wonder why not? Surely such a compromise would eliminate any concerns over the community centre being just a Muslim centre?
Click to expand...

If they were open to moving, that would be one thing... but they have expressed no such openness. So, then what is the point of sitting down with them and talking about it?
 
As for 30km, remember compared to Twin Towers which was a localized attack, Hiroshima was on a much greater scale.

If you looked at that flash several km away you could be blinded, as many were
 
Hangdog42 said:
You might want to do some research before spouting off. McVeigh was highly influenced by a book called the Turner Diaries (he actually sold and promoted it at gun shows), which uses a highly twisted version of Christianity to advocate the extermination of Jews and non-white races. It's Christianity is every bit as twisted as bin Laden's version of Islam, but it served as the underpinnings for McVeigh's hate, just like the twisted version of Islam serves for bin Laden.
Click to expand...
He also claimed the government carried out the operation.. and forensic evidence showed it was not a fertilizer bomb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom