News No Mosque at Ground Zero, But a Prayer Room?

[vertices]

Don't they have head clerics? Do they have a figurehead similar to the Pope, or are they decentralized like all of the thousands of protestant groups? They all consider themselves christians but there is no leader.

I don't think so..

As regards your previous point:

Then, yeah, if you choose to be part of that religion, you are agreeing with that stand, if only passively.

So all of the 1 billion muslims (a pluralistic bunch, may I add) 'passively' agreed with the motives and are 'responsible for the actions' of the 9/11 terrorists?

There are extremists in all religions - why should ordinary followers of any faith have to defend themselves against these nutcases? Erm, maybe because it would be a bit undignifying for them to so?!

More on topic - it pays to remember, we're talking about a cultural centre (for all communities), not a mosque. Furthermore, this cultural centre is not being built on Ground Zero. You can always trust the right wing media to ignore or misrepresent inconvenient facts..

 

[drizzle]

Maybe. All I see is this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center_site_2010.jpg

Sorry I misunderstood you. Though, I'm curious to know what exactly do you mean by that, victims?!

 

[Evo]

I guess this answers the question.

"The Taliban are saying they are religious people, but they are using force to get their aims and are using the cover of Islam," Maulavi Khattib said. "But we say this is not Islam. Islam does not support the use of force, and we are telling people not to fight."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/04/international/asia/04AFGH.html

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

Sorry I misunderstood you. Though, I'm curious to know what exactly do you mean by that, victims?!

I just mean that the picture doesn't show a mosque or a cultural center. The relevant site is definitely occupied by non-religious constructions which will surely overshadow anything that is near.

But I am also a bit disappointed that the new WTC is slower to be constructed than expected. Perhaps if they'd been faster, the media would have never noticed nearby constructions. But who am I to judge the work of surely hundreds of people more involved -and certainly more knowledgeable- than I in the project.

 

[Cyrus]

you do realize how absurd this statement is?

If one chooses to be a Muslim, and said members of the Muslim faith commits acts of terrorism and violence, then that person, along with their fellow Muslims, are responsible for both condemnation, and stomping out such members of its faith. Otherwise, one is simply an arm chair apologetic. The only absurdity here is your comment above.

 

[Cyrus]

So all of the 1 billion muslims (a pluralistic bunch, may I add) 'passively' agreed with the motives and are 'responsible for the actions' of the 9/11 terrorists?

Yep.

There are extremists in all religions - why should ordinary followers of any faith have to defend themselves against these nutcases? Erm, maybe because it would be a bit undignifying for them to so?!

Because those nutcases give them horrible PR, and more to the point - there are far too many of these nutcases running around. It's not a small 'fringe'.

More on topic - it pays to remember, we're talking about a cultural centre (for all communities), not a mosque. Furthermore, this cultural centre is not being built on Ground Zero. You can always trust the right wing media to ignore or misrepresent inconvenient facts..

I don't think this has to do with 'right wing media'... it has to do with upset Americans.

 

[ThomasT]

If one chooses to be a Muslim, and said members of the Muslim faith commits acts of terrorism and violence, then that person, along with their fellow Muslims, are responsible for both condemnation, and stomping out such members of its faith. Otherwise, one is simply an arm chair apologetic. The only absurdity here is your comment above.

This really makes no sense. If it was that easy for Muslims, in general, to just "stomp out" people who, it's assumed, they would, mostly, agree are doing bad things, then why don't they just get to stomping them out? Hmmm, let's see, might it have something to do with the 'bad guys' having more guns and money and being more organized and ruthless, and etc., etc. than the average, nonviolent, Muslim? Yes, I think that might have something to do with it.

Might it also have something to do with the fact that 9/11 was a drop in the bucket compared to the atrocities that we've visited on hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Should that make anybody feel any better?

This doesn't mean that I respect the 'religious' beliefs of people who've been acculturated as Muslims (or Christians or Jews for that matter). But I would argue that most of these people are not interested in unduly harming anyone. Of course, I could be wrong about that. However, as far as I know, their 'religions' don't require it.

And if all Muslims are responsible for the violent actions of a few, then are all Americans responsible for the war crimes of the Bush and Obama administrations? But then maybe you're ok with our government's actions. As are, apparently, most American people -- at least the minority who bother to vote.

 

[Cyrus]

This really makes no sense. If it was that easy for Muslims, in general, to just "stomp out" people who, it's assumed, they would, mostly, agree are doing bad things, then why don't they just get to stomping them out?

How am I supposed to know, go ask them why they are not actively doing this.

Hmmm, let's see, might it have something to do with the 'bad guys' having more guns and money and being more organized and ruthless, and etc., etc. than the average, nonviolent, Muslim. Yes, I think that might have something to do with it.

Do you have any basis for this statement of fact?

Might it also have something to do with the fact that 9/11 was a drop in the bucket compared to the atrocities that we've visited on hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Should that make anybody feel any better?

So you're a terrorist sympathizer? ...this is an appalling justification.

 

[vertices]

Yep.

If you seriously think all of the 1 billion muslims are responsible for the actions of the 9/11 terrorists, there is no point discussing this any further. I'm sure you misread my post so I'll give you the benefit of doubt..

Because those nutcases give them horrible PR, and more to the point

Why are you so very anxious about the 'horrible PR' Muslims receive? Most are secure enough in what they believe and have no interest in justifying anything to anyone, least of all to gormless, bigoted idiots who think that all muslims are "responsible for the actions" of terrorists who claim to have the same faith?

there are far too many of these nutcases running around. It's not a small 'fringe'.

Would you care to substantiate this claim?

I don't think this has to do with 'right wing media'... it has to do with upset Americans.

The lies being pedalled by Fox New et al has to do with "upset Americans"?

 

[ThomasT]

How am I supposed to know, go ask them why they are not actively doing this.

Maybe it's for many of the same reasons that you're not "stomping out" bad guys instead of posting here at PF.

Do you have any basis for this statement of fact?

The basis of statements of facts is, well, facts. And the basis of facts is reality. Now, do you think it's a fact that there are Muslims, and Christians and Jews in the world who are armed, and more organized, and who have more money, and are more ruthless, and are more able, and more willing to do violence than most of us regular folks? I think that if you don't think that, then maybe you haven't been paying close enough attention.

So you're a terrorist sympathizer?

I said that 9/11 was a drop in the bucket to the havoc that we've wreaked on Islamic people. Do you doubt this? Want to compare some numbers?

...this is an appalling justification.

If it was meant as a 'justification' for anything, then, yes, that would be appalling. Just putting things into perspective. If you think that the US invasion and ruination and occupation of Iraq, based on lies and deceit, is any less appalling than the destruction of the twin towers, then I think that maybe you're one of the bad guys.

 

[Tobias Funke]

So will anything happen to Cyrus after he said that all Muslims (or rather, I have to be careful here since I know how Cyrus operates, the subset of 1 billion Muslims vertices is talking about) are responsible for 9/11?

Posters are asked for "citations" of clearly personal opinions, but stuff like this is ok because Cyrus is pals with mods here? I couldn't care less what happens, but this section of the site is fast becoming (or already is?) a joke.

edit: Just before this gets locked for turning into a personal flamewar, I just want to clarify that I actually don't want Cyrus to get a ban or even an infraction. I just don't like the seemingly arbitrary standards that I've seen. That thread about the NK torpedo was interesting, cited (although poorly), and was very quickly locked because it's a conspiracy theory. But all Muslims secretly being terrorists and supporting 9/11 is just a fine and dandy theory which I've seen more than a few times here.

 

[zomgwtf]

So you're a terrorist sympathizer? ...this is an appalling justification.

Honestly everything you've said in my opinion has been appalling justification for bigotry.

You can't hate 1 billion Muslims becase a few million (that's a VERY small amount relative) are nutcases.

As has been stated previously in the thread most Muslims are not supportive of terrorism or violence for 'no good reason'. You've admitted that you have no idea how many support violence and you have also admitted that you've never gone out to look for this information. So what you are is bigot and I have a feeling that no amount of reasoning will make you see things differently.

I love how when someone brings up how YOU should be responsible for the war crimes committed under the the president of the USA you just ignore that part of the post completely. I doubt that you feel you should be responsible as a collective group for war crimes committed by your nation. Or if me as a Canadian said you're responsible for Westboro Baptist Church because they are American like yourself... this is stupid. You learn not to make such vague and general categories of people in what grade 2? 3?

Now obviously you'll say: well I don't support those things! So what I have no idea if you do or not and I don't know how to find out if you do or not, so I'm just going to assume that you do because I'm a bigot too! Great joy!

BY THE WAY: In no way have any posts in this thread lead to a logical conclussion that any poster on these forums is a terrorist sympathizer. That is really intellectually dishonest and you should feel ashamed for attempting to label someone that Cyrus. I seriously feel disappointed by you as a person.

 

[zomgwtf]

I said that 9/11 was a drop in the bucket to the havoc that we've wreaked on Islamic people. Do you doubt this? Want to compare some numbers?

Not only that but it's a relatively small incident compared to what these same groups inflict upon their own population.

It's completely bogus to expect all these people to speak out on the basis of protecting their religious views. They will most likely be killed at some point in time, they aren't fortunate enough to live in a country where you can say what you want when you want to. Now if you are talking about only muslims in America then you have to think about their families they may have left behind, and you have to think about those people who HAVE and continually DO (which is a vast majority by the way) condeme violence in the name of Allah.

 

[mheslep]

Not sure if I missed this view from someone else earlier:

Simply declaring a building a mosque does not seem adequate justification for coverage by US religous freedom protections, as the building in reality may have little or nothing to do with religion. The building may actually be simply a political statement, and in this case I see persuasive evidence that this proposed ground zero building is just that. If this 'mosque' is in fact a political statement, its backers are entitled to neither legal protection or social sympathy.

 

[zomgwtf]

Not sure if I missed this view from someone else earlier:

Simply declaring a building a mosque does not seem adequate justification for coverage by US religous freedom protections, as the building in reality may have little or nothing to do with religion. The building may actually be simply a political statement, and in this case I see persuasive evidence that this proposed ground zero building is just that. If this 'mosque' is in fact a political statement, its backers are entitled to neither legal protection or social sympathy.

I guess all Muslim projects are political statements in America now?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38612000/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times

Would it be fair of me to use Cyrus's logic and say this is conclusive that ALL Americans are simple minded and intolerant?

 

[turbo]

A two year study by a team led by a Duke sociologist concludes that contemporary mosques in the US are instrumental in preventing radicalization of Muslim-Americans. I read summaries in the NYT and other places, but I have been unable to open the PDF detailing the study. If I can find a non-PDF version of the study, I will post a link with quotes.

 

[mheslep]

I guess all Muslim projects are political statements in America now?

False dilemma falacy, which should be clear from the approximately http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_numb.htm" mosques and 7 million Muslims in the US.

 

[Gokul43201]

Simply declaring a building a mosque does not seem adequate justification for coverage by US religous freedom protections, as the building in reality may have little or nothing to do with religion.

What do you propose the builders should have to do in order to demonstrate that their proposed construction is indeed for religious purposes?

The building may actually be simply a political statement, and in this case I see persuasive evidence that this proposed ground zero building is just that.

I haven't followed either the thread or the original story very closely, and have no position one way or the other on this, nor do I doubt the possibility that a religious monument could be constructed as a political statement. Can you show us the evidence you mention?

 

[mheslep]

What do you propose the builders should have to do in order to demonstrate that their proposed construction is indeed for religious purposes?

I haven't followed either the thread or the original story very closely, and have no position one way or the other on this, nor do I doubt the possibility that a religious monument could be constructed as a political statement. Can you show us the evidence you mention?

First of course is the choice of the site, hotly political. Second, political statements like these from one of the (leading?) Imam's pushing the project, Rauf:

BRADLEY: Are — are — are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.

BRADLEY: OK. You say that we’re an accessory?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: Yes.
BRADLEY: How?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/2/

I don't contend this proves the Ground Zero mosque is a political ruse, but in does tip the scale from religious motives to political in my view.

 

[zomgwtf]

False dilemma falacy, which should be clear from the approximately http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_numb.htm" mosques and 7 million Muslims in the US.

What does that have to do with PROJECTS? You're talking about something already existing, I'm talking about new projects which have yet to be built. Completely different and I don't see how you can make a comparison. It is clear, in my mind, that social ideas change over time so it makes complete sense that at one point in time muslims were not opposed or opposed very little but are facing greater opposition now.

I guess it is a false dilemma as just because many projects are being opposed in America based on intolerance doesn't mean this one is... So I'll make it clear: I think that this is being opposed on grounds of intolerance and not to combat some political statement the mosque may or may not be trying to make.

Even if it WERE making a political statement is it such a negative one? I don't think so I tend to think it would show more of a 'we as Americans can put aside intolerance and move forward and continue to be accepting'.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Simply declaring a building a mosque does not seem adequate justification for coverage by US religous freedom protections, as the building in reality may have little or nothing to do with religion. The building may actually be simply a political statement, and in this case I see persuasive evidence that this proposed ground zero building is just that. If this 'mosque' is in fact a political statement, its backers are entitled to neither legal protection or social sympathy.

1) Sure it's making a political statement. Allowing a Mosque to be built a few blocks from ground zero would say that America is not at war with Islam. It would reaffirm that America is an open-minded society and a nation that accepts people of all faiths.

2) Political speech is protected by the first amendment. It may not be covered by the freedom of religion clause, but it is certainly covered by the freedom of speech clause. Certainly those engaging in political speech certainly do not deserve social sympathy from everyone, but it is a fundamental constitutional value that those engaging in peaceful political speech are entitled to legal protection. To believe otherwise is simply unamerican.

 

[Gokul43201]

First of course is the choice of the site, hotly political. Second, political statements like these from one of the (leading?) Imam's pushing the project, Rauf:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/2/

I don't contend this proves the Ground Zero mosque is a political ruse, but in does tip the scale from religious motives to political in my view.

Are you suggesting therefore, that if someone wishes to build say, a church, that the city officials should have to perform extensive background checks to see if any of the backers might have a political motive? (I'm having to guess because you didn't directly answer my first question.) That seems an impractical way to go about things.

PS: Reading the blog cited above, it seems to draw some terribly contrived conclusions, unsupported by the quotes it provides. It would be nicer to get to the original source, but I understand that may be time-consuming and difficult.

 

[Cyrus]

If you seriously think all of the 1 billion muslims are responsible for the actions of the 9/11 terrorists, there is no point discussing this any further. I'm sure you misread my post so I'll give you the benefit of doubt..

I never said any such thing, either you misunderstood or misread what I wrote. What I said was that they are responsible for stopping radicals internal to their organization if they want to claim this has nothing to do with their religion. If they don't then they are guilty by association.

Why are you so very anxious about the 'horrible PR' Muslims receive? Most are secure enough in what they believe and have no interest in justifying anything to anyone, least of all to gormless, bigoted idiots who think that all muslims are "responsible for the actions" of terrorists who claim to have the same faith?

So now your answer is to accuse me of being a bigot, rather than support the nonsense you're spewing.

The lies being pedalled by Fox New et al has to do with "upset Americans"?

I'm sorry, I forgot that critical thinking is beyond your capability, so let me spell it out for you: there are many Americans still mad today at Muslims, both liberal and democrat. If you want to sit here and blame Fox News for all you're woes, it's quite a lacking argument.

 

[Cyrus]

Maybe it's for many of the same reasons that you're not "stomping out" bad guys instead of posting here at PF.

I'm not a Muslim, why would I stomp out bad seeds within their organization? Give me a break with this nonsensical objection.

The basis of statements of facts is, well, facts. And the basis of facts is reality. Now, do you think it's a fact that there are Muslims, and Christians and Jews in the world who are armed, and more organized, and who have more money, and are more ruthless, and are more able, and more willing to do violence than most of us regular folks? I think that if you don't think that, then maybe you haven't been paying close enough attention.

What is your point...?

I said that 9/11 was a drop in the bucket to the havoc that we've wreaked on Islamic people. Do you doubt this? Want to compare some numbers?

This is a disgusting and appalling argument. I don't want to compare body counts, because two wrongs don't make a right.

If it was meant as a 'justification' for anything, then, yes, that would be appalling. Just putting things into perspective. If you think that the US invasion and ruination and occupation of Iraq, based on lies and deceit, is any less appalling than the destruction of the twin towers, then I think that maybe you're one of the bad guys.

You are justifying violence with violence by putting forth that argument. Not only do you put forth this argument, you now want to support Saddam Hussein's former government that gassed and tortured its own people. So, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Cyrus]

So will anything happen to Cyrus after he said that all Muslims (or rather, I have to be careful here since I know how Cyrus operates, the subset of 1 billion Muslims vertices is talking about) are responsible for 9/11?

I put forth clear conditions as to how they would, or would not, be responsible for 9/11. Go back and reread them.

Posters are asked for "citations" of clearly personal opinions, but stuff like this is ok because Cyrus is pals with mods here? I couldn't care less what happens, but this section of the site is fast becoming (or already is?) a joke.

Sigh...

edit: Just before this gets locked for turning into a personal flamewar, I just want to clarify that I actually don't want Cyrus to get a ban or even an infraction. I just don't like the seemingly arbitrary standards that I've seen. That thread about the NK torpedo was interesting, cited (although poorly), and was very quickly locked because it's a conspiracy theory. But all Muslims secretly being terrorists and supporting 9/11 is just a fine and dandy theory which I've seen more than a few times here.

If you don't want the thread to get locked, don't post this kind of stuff within the thread, make a thread in the feed back forum.

 

[Cyrus]

Let me preface by saying you really need to learn how to pay attention to what I've said. Now, I'll correct the wrong objections you have made below:

Honestly everything you've said in my opinion has been appalling justification for bigotry.

No, it has not. I very clearly did not put blanket blame on anyone group of people, there were clear conditions.

You can't hate 1 billion Muslims becase a few million (that's a VERY small amount relative) are nutcases.

Non sequitur, I never said this. And, more to the point, a few million radical nut cases is a BIG PROBLEM.

As has been stated previously in the thread most Muslims are not supportive of terrorism or violence for 'no good reason'. You've admitted that you have no idea how many support violence and you have also admitted that you've never gone out to look for this information. So what you are is bigot and I have a feeling that no amount of reasoning will make you see things differently.

[PLAIN]http://pewresearch.org/assets/obdeck/26-1.gif [PLAIN]http://pewresearch.org/assets/obdeck/26-2.gif

[PLAIN]http://pewresearch.org/assets/obdeck/26-4.gif

[PLAIN]http://pewresearch.org/assets/obdeck/26-5.gif

Granted, this is a bit dated and I'll see if I can find more recent data, it is, none the less, a significant problem. Source: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/26/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world

I love how when someone brings up how YOU should be responsible for the war crimes committed under the the president of the USA you just ignore that part of the post completely.

Again, this makes no sense. No one in the US is responsible for war crimes. If you think this to be the case, provide me with some form of court findings that say Bush (or whoever you have in mind here) is responsible for a war crime - or maybe you're just talking out of your backside.

I doubt that you feel you should be responsible as a collective group for war crimes committed by your nation.

Again, what war crimes.

Or if me as a Canadian said you're responsible for Westboro Baptist Church because they are American like yourself... this is stupid. You learn not to make such vague and general categories of people in what grade 2? 3?

I clearly said that if I were a member of the Baptist church, then I would be responsible for saying "These guys do not represent us fellow Baptists, and we are kicking them out from being an official part of the Baptist church."

Now obviously you'll say: well I don't support those things! So what I have no idea if you do or not and I don't know how to find out if you do or not, so I'm just going to assume that you do because I'm a bigot too! Great joy!

Don't put words in my mouth, I can speak much more eloquently than you can speaking for me. My answer, which differs from yours, is given above.

BY THE WAY: In no way have any posts in this thread lead to a logical conclussion that any poster on these forums is a terrorist sympathizer. That is really intellectually dishonest and you should feel ashamed for attempting to label someone that Cyrus. I seriously feel disappointed by you as a person.

Yes, they have - by trying to play a body count comparison to excuse 9/11. I'm not worried about what you, zomgwtf, think of me as a person.

 

[Cyrus]

I guess all Muslim projects are political statements in America now?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38612000/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times

Would it be fair of me to use Cyrus's logic and say this is conclusive that ALL Americans are simple minded and intolerant?

Try leaving my name out of things I did not claim or say.

 

[Tobias Funke]

If you don't want the thread to get locked, don't post this kind of stuff within the thread, make a thread in the feed back forum.

Fair enough. I don't plan on doing that, but vertices asked you straight up if all 1 billion Muslims are responsible for the actions of the 9/11 terrorists and you agreed. You quite possibly just misread his question or responded too hastily, but there were no "conditions" given. It's not something you muttered a few months ago and someone overheard. It's one page back...

 

[Evo]

Locked.