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

[Isthmus]

I have debated whether or not to chime in on this issue for weeks for a number of reasons. To begin with, I have been touched personally by the events of 9/11 (as were many thousands of other people where I'm from) several times over. I also witnessed that attack first hand and quite helplessly from across the river in an office in Jersey City. I've always worried that my feelings would affect my judgment when talking about it.

I have listened to both side of this debate here and one thing I seem to keep noticing is that there are those that are against it and those that just seem to be not opposed to it! What I mean is I have a hard time recognizing anyone who is actually "pro-mosque"! Now this is just my opinion of course and I do not want to put words in anyone's mouth, but it seems like the viewpoint of those not opposed to the mosque are more about what the rights of the group proposing it are. I find that interesting as it seems more a case of what is right vs. the rights of others.

While I applaud those concerned about the rights of others, I am curious to hear what you feel is going to be beneficial about the mosque at that specific location. What are your thoughts on positives to the local community? What are your thoughts on its leading to a coming together of people? How will the presence of this mosque aid in the healing process? Now before anyone gets flustered by these questions, these questions point to the very reasons stated by those wanting to build it. I am curious to see what those defending it think.

Now I am not going to sit here and even attempt to guess at the motivations of the mosque developers, but I suspect that if they wanted to foster good will with the people of the community and other faiths and even the families of the victims of those attacks as they have stated, that they would be VERY anxious to work with that community to find a solution that is acceptable to the very people they wish to build bridges with.

I would imagine if their intent was to build bridges they would not get angry and frustrated about what they want or what they feel they are entitled to and push for a location that so many find offensive. What adult here can tell me that they have a healthy relationship with anyone who they bullied? What adult here has had a healthy relationship with anyone that has not contained compromise?

Excellent post!

Great point about most of the replies being either against the mosque or for constitutionally guaranteed rights. You are right, there has been precious little argument anywhere from the pro-mosque camp.

 

[byteware]

Do not put words in my mouth. I never said the gays should not have a bar. Go back and read what I said again.

No, you said (and I paraphrase) that you believe that if we don't stop the gay bar, then the Muslim's will get angry and likely violent.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[jayjay1122]

Smacky, please correct me if I am wrong, but are you pointing out that the people from the mosque are being hypocritical by arguing their entitlement to build wherever they want no matter how offensive while at the same time ridiculing or complaining about a gay bar down the street?

 

[smacky]

No, you said (and I paraphrase) that you believe that if we don't stop the gay bar, then the Muslim's will get angry and likely violent.

Right. But I'm not saying to stop the gay bar. I'm saying it could be a slippery slope if we use the reasoning of some of the members in here.

It's true that you've not specifically said that you the gays shouldn't be allowed in the bar, but what I'm saying in my post is a paraphrase of what you've said over a number of posts.

You keep bringing the gay bar, and the Muslim objection to it up in your argument. Seemingly saying that to allow the Muslim centre to be built would be wrong because then there'll be violence if their objections to the bar aren't also given in to. This you seem to be using as part of your reasoning for not allowing the centre to be built, seemingly because you think that if the Muslims views aren't listened to in the first instance, then they would have less of an issue with not being listened to in the second instance.

You're simply not making much coherent or consistant sense to me.

I'm pretty sure I'm being consistent in saying that Muslims will cause problems once they have their grip on the land the Mosque is built on. They will become territorial and any demand of theirs that is not met will result in a jihad by the clerics. This is my prediction. I am being consistent in saying that we need to think long and hard about the repercussions of assuaging a few NYC Muslims' requests over vs. listening to American citizens and their feelings, and you're being a ponce in constantly asking for clarification of everyone's posts.

Smacky, please correct me if I am wrong, but are you pointing out that the people from the mosque are being hypocritical by arguing their entitlement to build wherever they want no matter how offensive while at the same time ridiculing or complaining about a gay bar down the street?

I mentioned it earlier, that it could be a slippery slope in demands by the Muslims after that. If they object to gay bars because they think homosexuality is sinful, well, let's what else Muslims can't do.

They are not allowed to drink alcohol. They are not allowed to eat meat from a pig. They are not big fans of dogs. To some Muslims, music is haram.

You know what that means? No butchers nearby that have pigs, your dog can't shit where it wants (possibly) or it at least won't be allowed within a certain radius of the mosque, no liquor stores anywhere near it, and if you have a party, "keeping it down" is not an option you can't have music.

I'm not these WILL happen. But they could. Technically, it would be insensitive for non-Muslims to do all these things around Muslims in the area where the mosque is. But who do we favor at this point? The residents near the mosque that live there, or the Muslims that spend Friday night prayers at the mosque and that's it? These are possible problems that may arise. And I think it will be a slippery slope.

I'm not so hung up on the gay bar thing regarding Muslims. It is just an example of one thing that they don't condone. I listed a few others. If they don't get pissed at it, fine, great. "They" meaning every single Muslim that goes there. Because it takes just one person, regardless of faith, to commit an act or vandalism. Will every muslim be ok if certain businesses were to arise around their mosque, in addition to the already-built gay bar?


My main concern is someone will do something that will set the city on fire. Muslim or non-Muslim. Something will be said or done to either side and because religion is the core concern of the issue, it will spread much beyond just the city. It will be worldwide and the US will have a big problem on its hands.

 

[Isthmus]

so are you proposing then that we ignore our own laws and deprive a specific group of their guaranteed rights, because we are essentially afraid?

Wait, didn't we do that with Japanese americans (and japanese latin americans) during WWII? I understand the security concerns, but there really should be a better way to solve the issue, preferably one that upholds and helps preserve our hard fought liberties.

 

[smacky]

so are you proposing then that we ignore our own laws and deprive a specific group of their guaranteed rights, because we are essentially afraid?

Wait, didn't we do that with Japanese americans (and japanese latin americans) during WWII? I understand the security concerns, but there really should be a better way to solve the issue, preferably one that upholds and helps preserve our hard fought liberties.

So are you saying we honor our laws or The Constitution? Because if we're talking "hard-fought liberties" we begin with The Constitution. That and "the law" are not always the same thing.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[smacky]

I can't prove they will do those things and you can't prove that they won't. We're at a crossroads.

Paranoid fear? Paranoid fear is what makes you stand outside the bathroom when your six year old goes in to take a piss. You assume that of all the places for a pedo to be lurking, he's in the stall waiting for your child. Paranoid fear is also what prevents your child from being kidnapped and abused. If paranoid fear is "bad," then enjoy your schizophrenic gay son in a few years.

If we're going to keep going in circles over "not jumping to conclusions" and "assumptions" about what the Muslims will actually do, then we're not getting anywhere. You can place all the emphasis on rights and liberties you want but no one talks more passionately about his rights than he who in the depths of his soul doubts whether he has any.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[smacky]

I guess we are; we either go down the route of presumed innocent until proven guilty, freedom and justice; or the route of presumed guilt, prejudice and in-justice.


When you're waiting outside the bathroom for your child, do you stop access to others wanting to use the bathroom innocently, telling them that they can't go in yet because your child is using it and that you think they might be a paedophile?

That's one way to prevent it from happening. It's more radical. But just because it's more radical than the other doesn't change the fact that they both are things people do to ensure the safety of their children. "Presumed guilt and prejudice" are what saves your child. Injustice? The world is full of them. It's a lot harder to stop injustice when religion is at stake. One, it's heavily tied to the Constitution and two lives are lost daily over religion and even more can be lost in the blink of an eye.

Which brings us back to the original question: two blocks away, is it insensitive to continue despite all the backlash against it? And because hundreds of posts later, there is no solution, the best thing to do would be nothing.

Not that we're experts and diplomats, but most of us in this thread live in the States and the events mean quite a bit to some of us. I think this forum is a relatively good gauge on the views of the nation, and it appears to be, like I said, at a crossroads. Do nothing.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[Isthmus]

So are you saying we honor our laws or The Constitution? Because if we're talking "hard-fought liberties" we begin with The Constitution. That and "the law" are not always the same thing.

Then I suggest you go take a few legal courses, because they are one and the same. The constitution is a subset of the many different laws and types of laws that make up our federal, state and local legal system. in fact there is an entire practice field dedicated to it called Constitutional Law.

BTW, you didn't answer my question, and the answer to yours was in my prior post.

 

[byteware]

Right. But I'm not saying to stop the gay bar. I'm saying it could be a slippery slope if we use the reasoning of some of the members in here.

You honestly think upholding the constitution is a slippery slope?

Let me tell you,undermining the constitution, FOR ANY REASON is a slippery slope.

 

[smacky]

That's your answer to my question? seems that you've decided to evade really answering the question.

But in doing so you've admitted that you're happy doing away with the rights of others in your interest.


Well if the mood of the nation is to do away with freedom, then maybe it's time to ditch your constitution; the new one written today by the likes of you and others you agree with on these forums should make for scary, sad reading!


That would be the easiest option I guess, and I'm sure you'll agree that the easy option is all part of the 'American way'(under your new constitution that is)
Time to do away with un-American ideas like; "...not because they are easy, but because they are hard..." I guess.


Maybe, depends on your POV; I think it could not be, you seem certain it is. Is it insensitive to be prejudice against all Muslims because of the actions of a tiny minority?

It's "scary" because I'm not for society to sit on its nuts and dig itself into a hole. This crock you bring up for "freedom" and "rights" is all just theoretical. The fact that you want each and every person to be happy and not have their rights violated may work in whatever country you're in, but when there is as diverse a population as the US, never wil everyone be completely satisfied.

Dodging you questions? Your purpose on this board is just to ask trivial questions for clarity. I ignore most of your questions because I think they go beyond questioning someone's stance and instead indicate you don't have a stance of your own. I certainly haven't read it. I've read countless posts and about "freedom" and even gave you my take on it. You haven't responded to that. You do this in every thread.

Then I suggest you go take a few legal courses, because they are one and the same. The constitution is a subset of the many different laws and types of laws that make up our federal, state and local legal system. in fact there is an entire practice field dedicated to it called Constitutional Law.



BTW, you didn't answer my question, and the answer to yours was in my prior post.

Patriot Act. Constitutional? I dunno, I'm no poli-sci major. I actually don't give one hoot about politics. When I speak on this issue I speak with personal experience with Muslims as well as my ancestors' experience with them.

You honestly think upholding the constitution is a slippery slope?

Let me tell you,undermining the constitution, FOR ANY REASON is a slippery slope.

Mmmm. No. It can be, but I never said that. Build this mosque and I'll build a church for trannies across the street. Practicing my religion, right?


I told you, the nation is in a stalemate on this issue and I even said there is no clear-cut answer. I said what I thought should be done, but yes, I know it won't be without repercussions. I never said to undermine the Constitution. The problem is that it's like the Bible for Christians. We have the Protestants and the Catholics arguing over the interpretation of the text (The Constitution) and whether to take something written over 200 years ago literally or be a bit more loose with it.

 

[Isthmus]

Patriot Act. Constitutional? I dunno, I'm no poli-sci major. I actually don't give one hoot about politics. When I speak on this issue I speak with personal experience with Muslims as well as my ancestors' experience with them.

So then you are speaking from the point of view of a grudge or personal grievance. While that might influence public opinion, it is not what influences the application of the law - and thankfully, this is a country of laws and not one capricious dictate.

I said what I thought should be done, but yes, I know it won't be without repercussions. I never said to undermine the Constitution.

the problem is that your suggestions would do exactly that.

The problem is that it's like the Bible for Christians. We have the Protestants and the Catholics arguing over the interpretation of the text (The Constitution) and whether to take something written over 200 years ago literally or be a bit more loose with it.

Actually there you are completely wrong. The arguing might be going on by folks who don't have a voice in it's interpretation. the courts and ultimately the supreme court of the united states, very clearly define and apply constitutional law as it develops. The US constitution is not and has never been a rigid document to be taken 100% literally. That's not opinion, BTW, that is in the very structure of the constitution and in over 200 years of legal precedent and practice.

 

[smacky]

So then you are speaking from the point of view of a grudge or personal grievance. While that might influence public opinion, it is not what influences the application of the law - and thankfully, this is a country of laws and not one capricious dictate.


the problem is that your suggestions would do exactly that.


Actually there you are completely wrong. The arguing might be going on by folks who don't have a voice in it's interpretation. the courts and ultimately the supreme court of the united states, very clearly define and apply constitutional law as it develops. The US constitution is not and has never been a rigid document to be taken 100% literally. That's not opinion, BTW, that is in the very structure of the constitution and in over 200 years of legal precedent and practice.

God forbid we undermine something that isn't to be taken 100% literally.

 

[Isthmus]

God forbid we undermine something that isn't to be taken 100% literally.

I'm not sure I understand the snarky remark. Please elaborate.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[Frisco]

Nice post.. well said, mpw.

 

[byteware]

It's "scary" because I'm not for society to sit on its nuts and dig itself into a hole. This crock you bring up for "freedom" and "rights" is all just theoretical. The fact that you want each and every person to be happy and not have their rights violated may work in whatever country you're in, but when there is as diverse a population as the US, never wil everyone be completely satisfied.

Freedom and Rights are theoretical? You don't deserve either. You deserve to have the FBI search your residence and vehicles for no reason. You deserve to have your property (including phone and computer) confiscated for no reason and searched routinely. You deserve to be banned from voting. You deserve to never be allowed to contact our government in any way to voice your beliefs. You don't deserve the rights and the freedoms that you have.

You deserve to lose your Civil Rights as you want to take them from someone else.

It won't happen, because I and others won't let it happen. Too many people have shed their blood and given their lives for you, and the Muslims, to have those rights. It is disgusting to see you talk about this in such a manner.

Mmmm. No. It can be, but I never said that. Build this mosque and I'll build a church for trannies across the street. Practicing my religion, right?

I'm guessing your being sarcastic, but yes. If you want to build a church for trannies across the street, then you have a right to do so (disclaimer: "IF" you own the property and get the proper licenses AND it is zoned to allow for such construction).

The Muslims don't have to like it. There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees happiness.

I told you, the nation is in a stalemate on this issue and I even said there is no clear-cut answer. I said what I thought should be done, but yes, I know it won't be without repercussions. I never said to undermine the Constitution. The problem is that it's like the Bible for Christians. We have the Protestants and the Catholics arguing over the interpretation of the text (The Constitution) and whether to take something written over 200 years ago literally or be a bit more loose with it.

Have you read the Bill of Rights? It is nothing like the Bible.

The Freedom of religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

It's that Simple. One Sentence.

no establishing a religion. No prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Let me be clearer. Any right you take away from someone else, can be taken away from you.




Let me reiterate my stance one more time.

I don't like the mosque being built there.


BUT I GIVE MY LIFE TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO

 

[smacky]

That's not quite what I was getting at when I said 'scary', I meant it was scary to think that a new constitution could be written by people with views like yours, because you clearly don't give a damn about freedom, justice, equality etc., all attributes/ideals any nation or person should aspire to.



Theoretical?? and you predictions of violence are what? Stone-cold-fact?


?? I'm sorry if I've failed to respond, please direct me to what you wanted response on.

You don't think I have a stance on the issue? WTF have you been reading??


If that's what you want to do then I'd support you equally to my support for this community centre.

I still disagree with your beliefs, but I'd still treat you the same, something you can't seem to understand is a good thing.

It's all theoretical. It's all talk. Until we see it in play, I don't believe it for a second.

I'm not going through all your posts in this thread so I can do what you do and ask for clarification of your posts.

Your stance? Your posts have all been quoting members' posts and questioning them. The odd-ball declarative here and there, but they're mostly just like a five year-old that asks "why?" to everything you say.


Make a post and state your case. Don't trickle it out slowly, throwing in the random jab after each question.

 

[smacky]

Freedom and Rights are theoretical? You don't deserve either. You deserve to have the FBI search your residence and vehicles for no reason. You deserve to have your property (including phone and computer) confiscated for no reason and searched routinely. You deserve to be banned from voting. You deserve to never be allowed to contact our government in any way to voice your beliefs. You don't deserve the rights and the freedoms that you have.

You deserve to lose your Civil Rights as you want to take them from someone else.

It won't happen, because I and others won't let it happen. Too many people have shed their blood and given their lives for you, and the Muslims, to have those rights. It is disgusting to see you talk about this in such a manner.




I'm guessing your being sarcastic, but yes. If you want to build a church for trannies across the street, then you have a right to do so (disclaimer: "IF" you own the property and get the proper licenses AND it is zoned to allow for such construction).

The Muslims don't have to like it. There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees happiness.



Have you read the Bill of Rights? It is nothing like the Bible.

The Freedom of religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

It's that Simple. One Sentence.

no establishing a religion. No prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Let me be clearer. Any right you take away from someone else, can be taken away from you.




Let me reiterate my stance one more time.

I don't like the mosque being built there.


BUT I GIVE MY LIFE TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO

You keep giving your and shedding your blood. Because if you don't, extremists have shown they'll do it for you.

I don't know why this point is lost upon all of you: if the Muslims don't like it, they will...****...you..up. 9/11 was a pretty extravagant display of a "**** you" shit-show. You're saying if the Muslims have a problem that can't be fixed they'll just "deal with it?" Ok. We'll see.


I'll visit this thread again once the mosque is built and has been standing for a few months. We'll see what comes of it then. I feel I am too heated in a discussion about an event that I lost no one in, yet others have. If they aren't as heated as I am about it, then I should simmer down a bit. Problem is, they are. But that's for another day.

 

[Isthmus]

I feel I am too heated in a discussion about an event that I lost no one in, yet others have. If they aren't as heated as I am about it, then I should simmer down a bit. Problem is, they are. But that's for another day.

I was there, I lost friends and colleagues, I was also trapped in manhattan most of that day unable to get off the island while fighter planes continuously buzzed the city (very scary seeing hundreds of people all over suddenly duck and look up when they hear a jet roar overhead). I don't like the idea of the mosque, and strongly support having it built elsewhere. HOWEVER, such a move should be done in accordance with our laws and in respect of our rights as American citizens (and yes that includes the muslims). And no, I'm not heated about the subject.

 

[byteware]

I don't know why this point is lost upon all of you: if the Muslims don't like it, they will...****...you..up. 9/11 was a pretty extravagant display of a "**** you" shit-show. You're saying if the Muslims have a problem that can't be fixed they'll just "deal with it?" Ok. We'll see.

Well, I think it's obvious why we've reached this disconnect.

It's a plain case of racism.

Are there Muslims who will do that (or try to). Absolutely. Just as there are Christians who will bomb abortion clinics and kill abortion doctors.

Does that mean that ALL Muslims will? Not any more than it means ALL Christians will.

Does it mean we should curtail ALL Muslims right? No more than it means we should curtail ALL Christians rights.