Muslim cultural center near 9/11 site causes distress

[Pandaemoni]

Well. It's incredibly insensitive to try to build an Islamic cultural centre on the site of the 9/11 attacks.

Would you think it insensitive for an airline to have it HQ in the new buildings? "Islam" did not attack us on 9/11, any more than the airlines did, so it is not insensitive for believers in that religion to have a presence in the area. The terrorists were Muslims, to be sure, but what is the ethical difference between excluding an Islamic center and excluding all Muslims from the area, if the appearance of their religion there is so offensive? (it wasn't mosques that attacked us on 9/11, it was muslims, so therefore if you want to ban something because it reminds you of or seems to recall the attacks, then surely mosques are one step removed, and muslims should be the true object of the ban).

Although, recall, there were muslim *victims* in those attacks, you know.

 

[quadraphonics]

"ground zero" is the site of the towers, the "ground zero" of the oklahoma bombing is the site of THAT building. You can bleat all you want but you cant change the termonology to suit your own bigotry.

The technical definition of the term "ground zero" is the point on the surface of the Earth directly below where a bomb (specifically a nuclear bomb) is detonated. Since there were no bombs in the 9/11 attacks there is, technically, no actual "ground zero" there. Instead, the term is typically capitalized as Ground Zero when referring to that site, to indicate that the technical definition is not in force, and that it refers instead to the disaster site as a whole. This seems to refer to the wave of terror that spread from the attacks, in analogy to the wave of pressure that spreads from an explosion.

Ground zero at Oklahoma City is actually on the street in front of where the building was. Bear in mind that it's a point, not an area - it's for pinning down blast effects which depend on radial distance from the point of explosion.

 

[superluminal]

I'm getting great amusement out of the ad nauseum refinement of the concept of "Ground Zero".

 

[John99]

The irony is that it is also very hypocritical. I mean, think about the news letters the Catholic Church and schools send out asking parents to let their children be altar boys.. while the news is rife with the sexual abuse of altar boys and students by priests...

The news played it over and over, but people like you enjoy reading about it and the incidence is lower than in many other fields. That is like asking would you not send your kids to school because teachers sexually abused kids? OR would you send your kid to a doctor because some doctor molested over 100 kids or so many have in the past?

In the u.s there are giant Scientology centers too and many Mosques i really dont see much of an issue here.

 

[Michael]

you do know that for a while Islamic Iberia was one of the most prosperous and tolerant societies in the world. I would thin that would be something to echo.

Was it? I think the Chinese were much more prosperous and tolerant. Perhaps it wasn't that bad as a colonial power? I think the English weren't all THAT bad in India? Were they? Hmmmmm.....????

Yes, but do you really suppose it will?

No, I don't suppose they will.

it must be jusged with in its historical era.

Perhaps but if it was so great then why did the Spanish support the expulsion of Muslims from Spain after nearly 400 years of Muslim colonial occupation? Do Muslim's even realize they were on the wrong side of history here? THEY invaded and colonized Spain. Surely such an act of aggression is not a high point in Islamic history is it???

challange for you, go to the nearest catholic church and OPENLY try film a service. I can GARENTIEE they wont alow it (even batisims and wedings will only alow filming of very specific sections and not the service itself) and you will be thrown off the property for tresspass because its private property.

They don't HAVE to do anything. I'm just suggesting that IF they were to do that, THEN they may be more accepted into the local community.

People fear what they do not know. Most Christians are worried that Muslims are saying negative things about their religion. Things like this:
- the Bible is corrupted.
- Christians are infidels and can sometimes be killed.
- America and the World would be a better place if it were all under Islam.
- Jesus was not the Son of God.
- The Qur'an is the only True revelation of God.
As soon as they record and broadcast their sermons translated in English then Christians in NY (hell the WHOLE WORLD) will see that this isn't the case - then things will get much better.

Anyway, many Christian sermons are televised. It's perfectly normal in the USA. Usually complete with a 1-800-I-LOVE-JESUS donation hot-line for when you feel the Holy Ghost enter your wallet. :shrug:

I still think an inter-faith center were all religions are represented on equal footing would be a HUGE HUGE step forward. Hell, from a monetary point of view I think it could be a great investment opportunity. I'm 100% positive we can find Buddhists and Shinto, Hindu and Scientologists that will come to the party, now we just need to find an open minded liberal Shina and Sunni Imams, a Catholic Priest and Protestant or Baptist Minister.

What a load of philosophical twaddle.

Some humans, in the name of their god, destroyed nearly 3000 other humans of all kinds at this site. They forever cemented (as if more were needed) the image of religion - and particularly islam - as the ignorant and backward practice that it is, in the minds of millions of rational humans.

Yeah, but most people still believe in the Gods and the best way to correct this isn't to get them to think logically, but instead to think tolerantly of one another. Tolerance, hopefully leads to prosperity, prosperity ro education, education to agnosticism.

Here's an idea. Lets propose a monument in the form of a nuclear warhead be erected at the site of Hiroshima ground zero. Just to remind us how tolerant we are of nuclear scientists. They're not all evil, right? And the harnessing of the atom was a great achievement of science, right? Why don't the Japanese show a little more tolerance here?

They do have a ceremony and monuments there. AND not just to lament the fact that they were nuked. But to reflect on war - including the part they played in starting it.



That aside, I'm still wondering why the USA, with it's HUGE amount of money and power, isn't training reeducating Imam's to be tolerant and teach Western morals? That's usually the way it was done in the past 5000 years isn't it? (I mean, aside from wiping them out) Wage the ideological war from within. Duhhhh..... Most Muslims WANT to be Western, at least as much as Asians. It's because Western culture is one of the individual. Personal freedom appeals to a large segment of any population.

 

[Asguard]

many christan services true but NOT catholic ones, the catholic church specifically bans filming ESPECIALLY of the eucurist (BTW religions arnt the only ones, when was the last time a freemasons gathering was filmed and shown to the public?). I belive anglicans follow suit but im not 100% sure of that

 

[GeoffP]

Would you think it insensitive for an airline to have it HQ in the new buildings?

Only if the airlines attacked the buildings. I don't think you could argue the airlines were somehow complicit in the attacks, or that there was any part or interpretation of airline ideology that would predispose the planes to be used in such a manner. There is an interpretation of Islam that does predispose such attacks, which is what Islamic extremists base their violence upon. (We could pretend it was unconnected, but that would be silly.)

"Islam" did not attack us on 9/11, any more than the airlines did, so it is not insensitive for believers in that religion to have a presence in the area.

Well, there's a difference between a presence and a mega-centre. Mosques (and churches, for that matter) have been used as triumphalist sites over other religions, societies and memes; the connection of the builders to some extremist organizations suggests that it's something similar here, although unconfirmed.

The terrorists were Muslims, to be sure, but what is the ethical difference between excluding an Islamic center and excluding all Muslims from the area, if the appearance of their religion there is so offensive? (it wasn't mosques that attacked us on 9/11, it was muslims, so therefore if you want to ban something because it reminds you of or seems to recall the attacks, then surely mosques are one step removed, and muslims should be the true object of the ban).

Yeees - but the issue is that of the organizers and their motivations. Further, an edifice is a different beast than a person. By the same token, it would be insensitive to set up a new church on top of the Murrah building monument. (The St. Joseph's case is particular in that it was a pre-existing structure. The "facepalm Jesus" that was set up at the corner of W 5th in Oklahoma City might be questionable, but it does also exert an innate sense of guilt and sorrow, or perhaps shame.)

Although, recall, there were muslim *victims* in those attacks, you know.

I do. I mentioned that. Now consider the organizers: do you think the Muslim victims of Islamic extremists would much appreciate Islamic extremists - if extremists they are - setting up a mosque on the site of their deaths? And is this the kind of thing a real Sufi would do? Why not a homeless shelter, or any other kind of social outreach building, if the objective is the public good rather than dawah? Suleyman Schwarz seems to have their number, if you ask me.

 

[Bells]

The news played it over and over, but people like you enjoy reading about it and the incidence is lower than in many other fields. That is like asking would you not send your kids to school because teachers sexually abused kids? OR would you send your kid to a doctor because some doctor molested over 100 kids or so many have in the past?

The issue, which you seem to simply have missed, is that the Church spent years, decades, turning its eyes away and ignoring the problem. They also defended and moved them around and kept putting them in contact with more children. To top it off, they then attempted to blame homosexuality for it.

Now, do we blame all Catholics for what happened? No. The corruption there lies in the top hierarchy of the Church who are too busy trying to come across as sincere and caring while in the background letters and memos demanding that local parishes deny and ignore the pleas from abused parishioners are sent.. Should we blame all Muslims and Islam for 9/11? No. Should we make them pay for it and keep paying for it with bigotry? No. But that is what is happening in this instance and continues to happen. Yes, the terrorists were Muslim. But do they represent all Muslims? No.

 

[GeoffP]

Now, do we blame all Catholics for what happened? No.

Actually, you blamed me for it. You told me to leave the Church. :shrug:

Back to the issue, though: this isn't about all Muslims, but about the powers moving behind the construction. The suspicion was that they were shady; and they seem to be.

 

[John99]

The issue, which you seem to simply have missed, is that the Church spent years, decades, turning its eyes away and ignoring the problem. They also defended and moved them around and kept putting them in contact with more children. To top it off, they then attempted to blame homosexuality for it.

I didn't miss anything. The truth is that was common practice 20-30-50 years ago, even when accusations where made against teachers. The truth is that if something like that happens then law enforcement should be notified by the victim or their family. Even still, these people even after convictions are let back out on the street and evidence shows that they re-offend at a very high rate. The catholic church, from what i have read, stated that many of these were homosexual relationships because the age of many victims was just below age of consent but that is beside the point because in the countries involved the age of consent is clearly defined. On the other hand many were true child molestation but the percentage of Priests involved is lower than similar professions and is around .4%. This you can check on.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/07/mean-men.html

You said:

Originally Posted by Bells
The irony is that it is also very hypocritical. I mean, think about the news letters the Catholic Church and schools send out asking parents to let their children be altar boys.. while the news is rife with the sexual abuse of altar boys and students by priests...


To which i responded:

Originally Posted by John99
The news played it over and over, but people like you enjoy reading about it and the incidence is lower than in many other fields. That is like asking would you not send your kids to school because teachers sexually abused kids? OR would you send your kid to a doctor because some doctor molested over 100 kids or so many have in the past?


I am not a Catholic so wouldn't impose beliefs on my children but if i married a Catholic woman i would have no problem with my children being alter boys because the chance of them getting molested elsewhere is statistically higher anyway. That can be verified from nearly any law enforcement agency. I was in a serious relationship with a Jewish woman and it was discussed about our kids being raised Jewish and i could care less. But my response above is based on facts so then i would have to conclude that my children would not go to school and to take it further, according to your logic, children should be taken away from their parents because the incidence of family members even surpasses that of outside molesters. Again this can be verified and is not limited to any specific culture or group of people.

Doctors? Why would i let my child go to a doctor if i used your logic? Only recently it was in the news of a doctor molesting 100's of children. Again taking your position, in Islamic countries and according to Sharia law it is acceptable for children to marry older men where the girl is even under 12 and the male is MUCH older. From my understanding this is common and the truth is that in the U.S law enforcement goes after any religions who practice that because the age of consent is 18 and these occurrences were not Catholic. But then the overwhelming majority of children sexually abused is not limited to religion and may be higher where religion is no issue if you look at statistics.

Now, do we blame all Catholics for what happened? No. The corruption there lies in the top hierarchy of the Church who are too busy trying to come across as sincere and caring while in the background letters and memos demanding that local parishes deny and ignore the pleas from abused parishioners are sent..

I think the problem lies in the way children are perceived and this is a problem all over the world. Only speaking for western societies, any child abused needs to go straight to law enforcement and there is no reason to tell anyone else except for their parents and the police. This is pretty much common knowledge though and like i said going back to the VAST majority of these crimes that was fairly common and there are cases where people were accused in other professions were just moved around.

Should we blame all Muslims and Islam for 9/11? No. Should we make them pay for it and keep paying for it with bigotry? No. But that is what is happening in this instance and continues to happen. Yes, the terrorists were Muslim. But do they represent all Muslims? No.

First of all, i don't question the motivations of the people involved in this particular Mosque because from what i have read their intentions are just like anyone else's who bought the property and there are so many buildings in the area that it is hardly an issue and it was approved by the mayor and other agencies involved. You can walk down blocks in the u.s where there are churches of all kinds of denominations right next to any other religion you can imagine so it is not going to change anything.

Every day i pass i giant Scientologist center and it means nothing to me or the fact that before Charles Manson became a complete sociopath that he was not only a Scientologist but at the highest level has no bearing on what he did.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Aside from the gigantic size image of Jesus that just burnt into my eyeballs from the individual who obviously has reading and comprehension issues with an obvious fetish for conspiracy theories..

The point is that the people who own the land, didn't even have to seek permission to build it. That they did shows that they want the locals to have a say. They were given permission to build a place of worship and a cultural and education centre on the land they own. They are not doing anything wrong. I mean for goodness sake, the statue of Jesus was not 'rebuilt'. It was added in after the Oklahoma bombing. No one protested it, even though McVeigh was a Christian and has professed to having core beliefs in the Catholic religion. Did he represent all Catholics? No. The owners who want to build this mosque and cultural centre are not terrorists. They haven't done anything wrong. They were not involved with the people who flew those planes. So why punish all Muslims who live in the city and who may use the Mosque because some other Muslims committed a horrid crime down the road?

Radicalism exists amongst all groups. You can't punish the whole for the actions of the very few. There were Muslims in those buildings as well who also perished. What of them? Don't they count for anything? What of the Muslims who live in the US? How insulting is it to them to have this kind of reaction to a Mosque being built?

I don't think you are looking at this correctly. There are mosques all over NY, no one cares. No one cares about muslims and mosques in NY. So no one is 'blaming the whole'. There is no outcry to remove mosques in NY. Its the idea of THIS center on THAT location that made some of the family members who lost loved ones in the twin towers that find this inappropriate. Like I said if they had moved it two or three blocks further uptown no one would even have mentioned it because it wouldn't be worthy of comment. Its the symbolic value of the center's location that some find disturbing and insensitive. I do kind of find it interesting that they decided to put the center in that particular spot.

 

[Bells]

Its the idea of THIS center on THAT location that made some of the family members who lost loved ones in the twin towers that find this inappropriate.

And why do they find it inappropriate? Because the terrorists were Muslims. And yet, no one batted an eyelid when the Catholic Church erected a statue of Jesus weeping right near the site of the Oklahoma bombing.

What kind of message does this send to the Muslims who live in New York?

Personally I think the whole site should be made into a park with trees planted to mark the number of people who died on the site. But that's just me.

The objection to this is based solely on the fact that it will be a mosque.. an area assigned to mostly Muslims or anyone who wishes to visit the centre.. If it was a church of any other denomination, there would be no problems at all. And that is the telling factor.

 

[John99]

And why do they find it inappropriate? Because the terrorists were Muslims. And yet, no one batted an eyelid when the Catholic Church erected a statue of Jesus weeping right near the site of the Oklahoma bombing.
.

Timothy McVeigh was not motivated by religion at all though. You may have him confused with Eric Rudolph.

 

[pjdude1219]

And why do they find it inappropriate? Because the terrorists were Muslims. And yet, no one batted an eyelid when the Catholic Church erected a statue of Jesus weeping right near the site of the Oklahoma bombing.

What kind of message does this send to the Muslims who live in New York?

Personally I think the whole site should be made into a park with trees planted to mark the number of people who died on the site. But that's just me.

The objection to this is based solely on the fact that it will be a mosque.. an area assigned to mostly Muslims or anyone who wishes to visit the centre.. If it was a church of any other denomination, there would be no problems at all. And that is the telling factor.

what a rather ... Wiccan solution?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

And why do they find it inappropriate? Because the terrorists were Muslims. And yet, no one batted an eyelid when the Catholic Church erected a statue of Jesus weeping right near the site of the Oklahoma bombing.

What kind of message does this send to the Muslims who live in New York?

Personally I think the whole site should be made into a park with trees planted to mark the number of people who died on the site. But that's just me.

The objection to this is based solely on the fact that it will be a mosque.. an area assigned to mostly Muslims or anyone who wishes to visit the centre.. If it was a church of any other denomination, there would be no problems at all. And that is the telling factor.

No no one would bat an eye of a statue of jesus which is completely besides the point. It upsets the family because of the symbolic value of the site. These towers were brought down by radical muslim fundie martyrs, so I find it understandable that they would feel miffed at having a muslim center in that area. Like I said we have these centers all throughout the city and no one cares about it so your call of 'bigotry' holds no ground, not in NY.

Of course there would be no problems if it was of a different denomination but it wasn't radical sufis that brought down those towers attacking the country. The Oklahoma bombing of the FBI building wasn't done out of radical religious fervor so you would hardly find anyone caring about jesus in the corner.

Think of it like this. Protestant's decide to build their church in the Bogside area of Derry. Would you have found that a little odd? What if the British had erected a center devoted to her majesty and the history of the british monarchy? Should some of the catholics in the area feel affronted would you blame them? :shrug:

 

[Michael]

I think it's more than just Muslim's are Terrorists but that's a good start. Non-Muslims in New York, and Americans in general, simply don't like Islam. Never had and probably never will. I'm pretty sure most non-Muslim Americans would be happier if there were no Islam at all in the USA. I've never heard of any American suggesting it value-adds. I mean, if anything Americans are thinking to themselves: What can we do to fix this f*cked religion?

Actually, most non-Muslims who give it some thought tend to go in this direction.

I don't think it's all ideology either. I mean, Muslims should, in theory, be closer aligned with Christianity then, say Buddhists. Theologically they should be pretty much in the same boat as Mormons. Sure their prophet was a con, but, their place in hell is no deeper than the next heretic. Yet, Americans like Buddhists but don't like Muslims. WHY? Why are Buddhists held in such lofty esteem but not our fellow monotheists? Why are Buddhists seen as peaceful and Muslims as violent? I mean, most Samurai were Buddhists.... I think the answer is Buddhists normally don't fight in the name of Buddha. Whereas Christians and Muslims do kill in the name of God (another example of a theological flaw IMO). Perhaps Islam is too much of a mirror for Christians to look into and see their own f*cked up religion.

Americans have a LONG LONG LOOOONG history of viewing Muslims as uncouth at best and violent religious nut cases at worse. Read some Victorian descriptions of the Ottomans. It's the same complaints as today. They treat their women like shit and they're too religious and too violent. I'm not saying this is the case, but, that's been the common complaint from way back in the day.

Start with a 1950s cartoon: (note the wacky terrorist holding the big sword who only know's how to say Hussan Chop!

on up to True Lies and beyond: (note the wacky terrorist in the right hand corner).

9/11 and the actions of Muslim Terrorists isn't really ALL that much of a paradigm shift in the minds of Americans. Most Americans already somewhat had a mindset that Muslims are violent, uncouth, dumb, and oh did I mention violent.



That said, most Americans also have a negative mindset about African Americans. But, we were able to elect a Black POTUS. Sure, it's causing some grief in some sectors, but, we did it.





I'd suggest building an interfaith center. I mean, if Muslims really truly wanted to make a statement - then put Islam and the Qur'an on equal footing with Buddhism, Christianity, Mormonism, Hinduism, Shinto, Sceintology. Lay down the smack. Shift the paradigm. Building a Mosque is probably only going to piss off more Americans and I won't be surprised when (if) the economy tanks then even more weirdos don't come out of the woodwork and burn the building down. Everyone takes social stability for granted. But, primates normally don't walk through troupes of other primates without attacking them, we just didn't evolve like that.. . ..


anyway, like I said, if Muslims wanted to make a splash, then take the initiative and build an interfaith center - show everyone the modern tolerant face of Islam. The one where all religions are seen as equal to one another. Where all paths are equally valid and all lead to one paradise or another.

 

[S.A.M.]

9/11 was a result of US policies of more than 60 years duration. Maybe its time there was a Muslim cultural center which explored US policies in the Muslim world. If nothing else, it will be a memorial to all the people who have died in US interventions, including the ones who still continue to die.

Personally I think the whole site should be made into a park with trees planted to mark the number of people who died on the site. But that's just me.

How about a forest with a tree marking all the people who have died since? There is no list of names marking them anywhere

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I think it's more than just Muslim's are Terrorists but that's a good start. Non-Muslims in New York, and Americans in general, simply don't like Islam. Never had and probably never will.

Absolute Bullshit! Never in all my life have I ever come across New Yorkers having a problem with muslims. NEVER! Not before 9/11 and not after.

Show evidence of that off the cuff claim or I will take it as a slander against the city and its people. New Yorkers more than any other people couldn't give a flying fuck about religious affiliation. You have muslim women wearing their veils and they could be wearing prada for all what anyone would care. They don't have an issue with the muslim community in the US particularly NY as they do in European cities at the moment.

I find your assessment of New Yorkers as a sign of complete ignorance of the city's attitude towards diversity.

 

[pjdude1219]

Absolute Bullshit! Never in all my life have I ever come across New Yorkers having a problem with muslims. NEVER! Not before 9/11 and not after.

Show evidence of that off the cuff claim or I will take it as a slander against the city and its people. New Yorkers more than any other people couldn't give a flying fuck about religious affiliation. You have muslim women wearing their veils and they could be wearing prada for all what anyone would care. They don't have an issue with the muslim community in the US particularly NY as they do in European cities at the moment.

I find your assessment of New Yorkers as a sign of complete ignorance of the city's attitude towards diversity.

of course they hate muslims their new yorkers they hate everybody. though in full disclosure I'm originally from out side of chicago and consider my self to be chicagoan at heart so I may be a wee bit biased.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Pj stop trolling. You don't know anything about NY.