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

[Bobbywhy]

There will be no mosque built at Ground Zero in New York City. Two blocks away from where the World Trade Center stood is The Cordoba Center, a multicultural activity center. What is being proposed there is a “prayer room” for Moslems wishing to pray. A prayer room is similar to a Christian “chapel”, which is not a church. A Mosque has a dome, minaret towers, and a muzzein who calls the faithful to prayers five times a day. Recently there was a Jewish event held there and no one is calling it a Synagogue.

The following two news items are the references used for the above. I urge those interested in this controversy to read them.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/07/27/Ground-Zero-mosque-an-issue-beyond-NY/UPI-37171280275523/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-sledge/just-how-far-is-the-groun_b_660585.html

As an American citizen I am proud of my country, and am especially proud of our Constitution and its Bill of Rights. I have defended these my entire life both here and abroad. Here is one quotation that seems relevant now:
Amendment I.: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...”
That means to me that anyone, of any faith, has the right to exercise his/her religious beliefs here in our free country. Who out there is afraid of this?

 

[Pengwuino]

Amendment I.: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...”
That means to me that anyone, of any faith, has the right to exercise his/her religious beliefs here in our free country. Who out there is afraid of this?

Not that I disagree with the idea of a prayer center near Ground Zero if that is what is planned ( I really have no interest in the argument either way ), "but Congress making no law... etc etc..." is different from a city saying something can't be placed in a certain area.

 

[Alfi]

Ground Zero !

What a despicable description. In my opinion, a load of media sensationalism.

 

[Jack21222]

Not that I disagree with the idea of a prayer center near Ground Zero if that is what is planned ( I really have no interest in the argument either way ), "but Congress making no law... etc etc..." is different from a city saying something can't be placed in a certain area.

The 14th amendment expands the 1st to apply to states, and by extension, cities. If NYC prevented a Muslim prayer room from being built in a certain area, but allowed a Christian chapel at the same or similar place, that would be in violation of the establishment clause.

I'm no zoning lawyer (or any type of lawyer for that matter), but if the land is currently zoned to allow a church or mosque or whatever, I don't see how the city is allowed to say "no."

 

[heusdens]

This is typical a non-issue. Moslims like any other believers are allowed to pray. Even near ground zero.

 

[waht]

If it's on private property they can do anything they want.

 

[ThomasT]

There will be no mosque built at Ground Zero in New York City. Two blocks away from where the World Trade Center stood is The Cordoba Center, a multicultural activity center. What is being proposed there is a “prayer room” for Moslems wishing to pray. A prayer room is similar to a Christian “chapel”, which is not a church. A Mosque has a dome, minaret towers, and a muzzein who calls the faithful to prayers five times a day. Recently there was a Jewish event held there and no one is calling it a Synagogue.

The following two news items are the references used for the above. I urge those interested in this controversy to read them.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/07/27/Ground-Zero-mosque-an-issue-beyond-NY/UPI-37171280275523/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-sledge/just-how-far-is-the-groun_b_660585.html

As an American citizen I am proud of my country, and am especially proud of our Constitution and its Bill of Rights. I have defended these my entire life both here and abroad. Here is one quotation that seems relevant now:
Amendment I.: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...”
That means to me that anyone, of any faith, has the right to exercise his/her religious beliefs here in our free country. Who out there is afraid of this?

To me it means that we're allowed, by the Constitution, to be as foolish in our beliefs as we like -- and no one is allowed to persecute us for that. A silly amendment imho. But then, there were, and are, lots of religious folks to appease.

Anyway, I'm generally afraid of the 'faithful'. Of any faith. I think they, in all their guises, represent a genuine threat to humanity.

What's eventually built on that site 'ground zero' will be, hopefully, just about business. I don't know who owns it, but I'm sure that they'll most likely develop it in accordance with some model that promises to make them a significant amount of money. A 'mosque' is probably not going to cut it. Or a 'church' or a 'temple'. A McDonald's? Maybe. A gigantic 3D cinema? Better.

 

[Char. Limit]

God damn, conservatives will hate everything Muslim, won't they? From the Obamuslim "controversy" that our President followed Islam (somehow, to them a bad thing), to the "why are there mosques in my community" thing, call it Mosquegate, to this!

I want to see what would happen if Christianity were declared as evil as they make Islam out to be. There's precedent: the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.

 

[BobG]

God damn, conservatives will hate everything Muslim, won't they?

1) Hating Muslims has nothing to do with being conservative.

2) Republicans hate more than just Muslims - they also hate Mexicans.

3) Being conservative has little to do with being Republican nowadays.

This is a party gone adrift in an even worse way than Democrats less than a decade ago.

 

[Char. Limit]

1) Hating Muslims has nothing to do with being conservative.

2) Republicans hate more than just Muslims - they also hate Mexicans.

3) Being conservative has little to do with being Republican nowadays.

This is a party gone adrift in an even worse way than Democrats less than a decade ago.

Granted, I should have said Republicans instead of conservatives... I'm just getting tired of this kind of news.

 

[turbo]

The community center is more than 2 blocks away from "ground zero" and is sponsored by very moderate muslims. Get a clue, people!

Unless you are a Palinite that demands that peace-loving people "refudiate" the construction of such a center, you probably should learn a bit about the project, from normal news (not FOX faux news) and approach the project as something that can be a positive project supporting peace for all.

 

[Evo]

It's a non-issue.

Landmarks Commission Vote Clears Path for Islamic Prayer Center

The city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission unanimously voted Tuesday morning not to grant protected status to a 152-year-old building near the World Trade Center site, clearing the way for an Islamic group’s plan to demolish the building and construct a community center and mosque in its place.

The commission decreed that 45-47 Park Place—a five-story, Italian Renaissance palazzo-style warehouse two blocks north of the former Twin Towers—was unworthy of designation as an individual city landmark, but some commissioners said it probably would have contributed to a historic district if one existed on the block.

http://www.tribecatrib.com/news/2010/august/688_landmarks-commission-vote-paves-the-way-for-mosque-community-center-.html

 

[CRGreathouse]

Interesting, Evo... seems to contradict the OP's claim.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

I live NEAR a church, does that mean there is a relation? I shared an office with a muslim and took courses with a jew. No one made any fuss over it. Many things are near each other.

This might have been interesting if it had been ON the site. But it's not.

 

[drizzle]

...This might have been interesting if it had been ON the site. But it's not.

HAHAHAAAAAAAAAaaai... Are you blind?!

 

[Mu naught]

I don't support building new religious structures anywhere... but that doesn't mean I'm going to try and prevent it.

Let people believe their fables...

 

[turbo]

Here is a fair and balanced story about the imam behind the community center, and his wife.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100804/us_time/08599200843200;_ylt=AjoHwV2JEMeSkYae1JmBOBCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFpMXQ1aXJrBHBvcwMzNgRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX21vc3RfcG9wdWxhcgRzbGsDZmVpc2FsYWJkdWxy

 

[skippy1729]

Mosque or prayer room? Let's not split hairs. In the eyes of the American public, in the eyes of the world it is a Mosque. It has nothing to do with religious freedom. By the choice of the location it is a POLITICAL ACT.

Muslims are acutely sensitive when it comes to portrayals of themselves and incredibly insensitive when it comes to portrayals of others. We are expected not to offend Muslims in our movies, tv and cartoons. Remember the scenes of the Vatican and the statue in Rio demolished in "The Day the Earth Stood Still"? No such shots of the Dome of the Rock or Mecca being destroyed. But these moderate muslims are going to build a mosque at Ground Zero. I have heard (but not been able to confirm) that the grand opening is scheduled for September 11th 2011. Does anyone know if that is true?

Who is paying for the 100 million dollar project. Manhattan Muslims? Yeah, all the cab drivers and bodega owners passed the hat. Follow the money. Why won't they release this information?

The silence of our leaders is their willingness to sacrifice the memory of 2976 Americans on the altar of political correctness. The silence of moderate muslims is evidence of either their sympathy or fear of the jihadists.

This is not about freedom of religion, this is a political act. If it comes about there will be dancing in the streets of Cairo and Tehran.


Skippy

 

[Cyrus]

This is not about freedom of religion, this is a political act. If it comes about there will be dancing in the streets of Cairo and Tehran.

There is a lot in this post. First of all, I'm with you on the intolerance on the part of Muslims, and on the insensitivity of the location. However, I strictly follow the constitution, which carries more weight than those who perished on 9/11. You don't trade constitutional values based on body count. You say this is not about religious freedom, while denying a religious group the basic freedom of assembly at their place of establishment approved by the city. Furthermore, it's really none of your damn business where they get their financial backing from, any more than its where any other Christian Chruch get's its money from.

Overall, it's quite sad that it's been almost 10 years and there is still no memorial on the grounds of the WTC because of legal debates on if they were 1 or 2 buildings to collect insurance money on; but now, all of a sudden, people are mad about a Mosque while disregarding the constitution in the process... Quite pathetic, indeed.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't support building new religious structures anywhere... but that doesn't mean I'm going to try and prevent it.

Let people believe their fables...

+1

(text limit)

 

[Char. Limit]

Also, I just want to say that I can't believe that ANY Muslim group or any group affiliated with Muslims would schedule ANYTHING on the tenth-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, much less the opening of a mosque near Ground Zero (why that name?). I refuse to degrade Muslims by calling them that insensitive and foolish. So I'll need evidence for that.

 

[Cyrus]

Also, I just want to say that I can't believe that ANY Muslim group or any group affiliated with Muslims would schedule ANYTHING on the tenth-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, much less the opening of a mosque near Ground Zero (why that name?). I refuse to degrade Muslims by calling them that insensitive and foolish. So I'll need evidence for that.

Google Muhammad Cartoons. Ignorance is bliss, Char. They love to cry foul the moment anyone even hints or suggest something critical towards them.

 

[Char. Limit]

Google Muhammad Cartoons. Ignorance is bliss, Char. They love to cry foul the moment anyone even hints or suggest something critical towards them.

Granted, but they are far from the only ones who do this, even though they get the most attention for it...

 

[Cyrus]

Granted, but they are far from the only ones who do this, even though they get the most attention for it...

That's because they issue death threats, and carry out acts of violence.

 

[Alfi]

That's because they issue death threats, and carry out acts of violence.

/start sarcasm ah .. thanks for clearing that all up for me./end sarcasm

 

[alxm]

That's because they issue death threats, and carry out acts of violence.

Tell that to the victims at Srebrenica, or Sabra and Shatila. Or the American victims of the Olympic Park bombing. Or Dr George Tiller.

 

[Cyrus]

/start sarcasm

ah .. thanks for clearing that all up for me.

/end sarcasm

What part of what I wrote did you not understand?

 

[Cyrus]

Tell that to the victims at Srebrenica, or Sabra and Shatila. Or the American victims of the Olympic Park bombing. Or Dr George Tiller.

None of these examples invalidates the FACT that many Muslim clerics DO issue death threats.

One does not have to look far to find such examples: "Muslim threats to Christians rise in Pakistan"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/04/muslim-threats-to-christians-on-rise-in-pakistan/

By the by, trying to counter Muslim acts of violence with other acts of violence to excuse it is pretty distasteful...mmmight want to reconsider your style of argument.

 

[Char. Limit]

It does, however, prove that Muslims aren't alone in using death threats and violence. Hell, pro-lifers do that (Tiller et al), and I don't see a movement to condemn them.

 

[Cyrus]

It does, however, prove that Muslims aren't alone in using death threats and violence. Hell, pro-lifers do that (Tiller et al), and I don't see a movement to condemn them.

So, freaking, what - that makes it ok?

 

[Char. Limit]

Well, it's simple. If we condemn all Muslims for being Muslim, because Muslims "issue death threats and carry out acts of violence", then why do we not condemn pro-lifers for the same reason?

Answer: because not all pro-lifers think this way. But wait, Muslims are the same way. So, why do we discriminate against them being allowed to have a prayer room where they want?

I don't think the protesters have a rational, logical answer for that.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, it's simple. If we condemn all Muslims for being Muslim, because Muslims "issue death threats and carry out acts of violence", then why do we not condemn pro-lifers for the same reason?

I am not going to argue about pro-lifers here; however, the reason why most people are dissatisfied with Muslims is because they do not speak out against or actively try to stop radicalism within their own religion. It is their inaction against these kinds of things that makes them part of the problem.

Answer: because not all pro-lifers think this way. But wait, Muslims are the same way. So, why do we discriminate against them being allowed to have a prayer room where they want?

I don't think the protesters have a rational, logical answer for that.

You'd have to ask a protest that question if you want their answer, but I'd generally agree with that statement.

 

[cronxeh]

I support demolition of all religious places and construction of public libraries in their place. Or perhaps a produce market, or a gym, or heck maybe even an ambulance station, why not? Why should we sit on a street corner while you get to bend over facing East 5 times a day, give me a couch and a gym, a coffee machine perhaps.

On the first amendment issue. If the zoning commission makes a ruling - then it is the law, their power was derived from the city, their power from the state, and their power from the US Constitution, hence the congress established a law that "respected an establishment of religion" by allowing it to build a place of worship. Ergo, the zoning commission is unconstitutional and only place of worship you may build is on your own private property. Otherwise, you should pay the taxes and should not have higher priority over any building that is not of religious nature.

 

[Office_Shredder]

On the first amendment issue. If the zoning commission makes a ruling - then it is the law, their power was derived from the city, their power from the state, and their power from the US Constitution, hence the congress established a law that "respected an establishment of religion" by allowing it to build a place of worship. Ergo, the zoning commission is unconstitutional and only place of worship you may build is on your own private property. Otherwise, you should pay the taxes and should not have higher priority over any building that is not of religious nature.

Are you seriously putting forth the argument that permitting a place of worship to be constructed in unconstitutional?

 

[cronxeh]

Are you seriously putting forth the argument that permitting a place of worship to be constructed in unconstitutional?

Unequivocally.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. To me it screams loud and proud that the law can not be used to gain special favors for religion. It should be treated like a hobby or a social club, except they can not get any special favors like tax breaks or special zoning or placards or any parking privileges. They should be treated like lepers.

 

[Char. Limit]

Unequivocally.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. To me it screams loud and proud that the law can not be used to gain special favors for religion. It should be treated like a hobby or a social club, except they can not get any special favors like tax breaks or special zoning or placards or any parking privileges. They should be treated like lepers.

Wait, you're saying that religious people should be treated like lepers? As if they have a contagious disease?

How militant are you?

 

[cronxeh]

Wait, you're saying that religious people should be treated like lepers? As if they have a contagious disease?

How militant are you?

Not enough to have ATF knocking on my door, but enough to have the bible humpers running away in agonizing shame and despair

I hate religion. I pity the religious people, really I see them as clinically delusional. You can't really be mad at crazy people once you know they have a 'condition'

Oh to further expand on this point, I think the "founding fathers" knew the truth about religion and their desire to put up a wall between religion and state was motivated by their desire to remain free of permanent ties to any particular regime. The whole neutrality thing was an attempt to remain free from being slaves to the rich and wealthy who control the population through financial institutions and religion which retards their mental growth. Simply put you wanted freedom but instead America became a prison for your mind. You should really burn the Constitution if you want to protest the next time, as it has lost any and all meaning or merit.

 

[Werg22]

I am not going to argue about pro-lifers here; however, the reason why most people are dissatisfied with Muslims is because they do not speak out against or actively try to stop radicalism within their own religion. It is their inaction against these kinds of things that makes them part of the problem.



You'd have to ask a protest that question if you want their answer, but I'd generally agree with that statement.

I don't understand the logic of that argument. One man is not responsible for another's actions. Should we have a problem with men because not enough actively seek to stop rapists? We shouldn't except someone to condemn or stop another's wrongdoings simply because they have a point in common.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't understand the logic of that argument. One man is not responsible for another's actions. Should we have a problem with men because not enough actively seek to stop rapists? We shouldn't except someone to condemn or stop another's wrongdoings simply because they have a point in common.

A person in a religion is responsible for the actions of the collective of that group, if they willingly choose to participate in it. Your example makes no sense.

 

[zomgwtf]

A person in a religion is responsible for the actions of the collective of that group, if they willingly choose to participate in it. Your example makes no sense.

C'mon Cyrus you can't really think that can you?

Many Muslims do speak out against terrorism etc.. I don't think you can group an extremely large amount of people together based on only religion.

First, many people do not 'willingly choose to participate' in their religion. Especially with some Muslims. It's just what they've grown up with...

Second and most importantly, participation in that religion doesn't make you guilty of all actions commited by persons in that religion... unless of course you are party to those actions. I mean this isn't a 'group' thing this is a HUGE religion... Your comment would make sense if it were a smaller group of people and they all knew what was going on and still participated in the group. For instance if my 10 friends want to rob a bank and I know that but I still hang out with them etc. and do not try to stop them then sure you can see it as I was party to that bank robbery. This simply isn't possible with an entire religion as big as Islam. Especially when the group of fundamentalist is extremely small in comparison.

It would be different if you stated that persons supporting or participating in those actions are all collectively guilty but that's not what happens in Islam... far from I think.

 

[lisab]

I don't understand the logic of that argument. One man is not responsible for another's actions. Should we have a problem with men because not enough actively seek to stop rapists? We shouldn't except someone to condemn or stop another's wrongdoings simply because they have a point in common.

"Men" do actively seek to stop rapists, by making rape a crime and sending rapists to prison. Such law is the collective voice of "men".

And women, of course.

Let's say you're a member of a group, and some of your fellow members do something in the name of the group. If you don't speak against them, you are giving your tacit approval of their actions. I think that's an interpretation that many people would make.

And that's the trouble with your example. I don't think rapists say, "In the name of all men I'm going to go rape this woman. Men are great!"

 

[Char. Limit]

And that's the trouble with your example. I don't think rapists say, "In the name of all men I'm going to go rape this woman. Men are great!"

Unfortunately, many of the more militant women think this is exactly what rapists think, for some reason.

 

[zomgwtf]

"Men" do actively seek to stop rapists, by making rape a crime and sending rapists to prison. Such law is the collective voice of "men".

And women, of course.

Let's say you're a member of a group, and some of your fellow members do something in the name of the group. If you don't speak against them, you are giving your tacit approval of their actions. I think that's an interpretation that many people would make.

And that's the trouble with your example. I don't think rapists say, "In the name of all men I'm going to go rape this woman. Men are great!"

I disagree, these people have nothing to do with each other aside from what WE see as their religion. All Muslims do not have to actively speak out against terrorism or illegal actions committed by all Muslims in order to 'clear' their religion. Even though many do, in fact many don't even bother because they don't see these fundamentalist AS Muslims (from personal experience).

This would be like grouping all Christians together and collectively blaming them for what some Catholic priests do, or what the Catholic church does, or what Westboro Baptist Church does, simply because not all Christians voice an opinion on the matter. They don't have to voice their opinion at all, they just have to not follow what those people are doing.

 

[Werg22]

"Men" do actively seek to stop rapists, by making rape a crime and sending rapists to prison. Such law is the collective voice of "men".

And women, of course.

Let's say you're a member of a group, and some of your fellow members do something in the name of the group. If you don't speak against them, you are giving your tacit approval of their actions. I think that's an interpretation that many people would make.

And that's the trouble with your example. I don't think rapists say, "In the name of all men I'm going to go rape this woman. Men are great!"

There are laws in Muslim countries to stop terrorism, believe it or not. By the same argument, Muslims actively seek to stop Muslim terrorists. So where's problem again?

As an aside: the vast majority of Muslims I have ever talked to on this matter are disengaged on the issue. They do not identify with radical Muslims and see terrorists as a threat to their security like everyone else. It ends there.

 

[Werg22]

While we're at it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10900478"

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

HAHAHAAAAAAAAAaaai... Are you blind?!

Maybe. All I see is this :

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

 

[vertices]

A person in a religion is responsible for the actions of the collective of that group, if they willingly choose to participate in it.

you do realize how absurd this statement is?

 

[Evo]

you do realize how absurd this statement is?

In a way I see his point. If crimes are committed in the name of 'religion A' and 'religion A' says that those criminals are not part of their religion and are banned from their religion, then those that adhere to that religion have made it clear there is no afiliation.

If 'religion A' just says "oh, they're just are a bit extreme, and although we don't condone their actions, we still consider them members of our religion". Then, yeah, if you choose to be part of that religion, you are agreeing with that stand, if only passively. Either force change or leave if you disagree with what is happening.

Protestants broke off from the Catholic church because they disagreed with what was happening.

Why don't Muslim clerics do the Catholic equivalent of an excommunication of these criminals? They're not just criminals that happen to belong to a religion.

Perhaps I am just not informed enough about Islam, has the Taliban been thrown out? Are they now outcasts in the eyes of Muslims?

But, why we're discussing this in a thread about a building that has been approved, I'm not sure.

 

[rootX]

Why don't Muslim clerics do the Catholic equivalent of an excommunication of these criminals? They're not just criminals that happen to belong to a religion.

Perhaps I am just not informed enough about Islam, has the Taliban been thrown out? Are they now outcasts in the eyes of Muslims?

I was just reading a news few days ago where Islamic clerics are outcasting Taliban in England and teaching youth about peace and tolerance et. I have come across many other stories.

But who owns Islam and can outcast Taliban? Second this is wide geographic conflict and religion does not have to do much with it.

 

[Evo]

I was just reading a news few days ago where Islamic clerics are outcasting Taliban in England and teaching youth about peace and tolerance et. I have come across many other stories.

But who owns Islam and can outcast Taliban? Second this is wide geographic conflict and religion does not have to do much with it.

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.

Can you tell I'm not interested in religion?