Mosque Construction At Ground Zero (Merged Thread)

[StMichael]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081204996.html

A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).

When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there -- and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.

That's why Disney's 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It's why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It's why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.

Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers "to show some special sensitivity to the situation." Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message or show "special sensitivity" to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely that Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern what can be done there.

Bloomberg's implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by "insensitive" Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction.

But then, why not? By the mayor's own expansive view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter, there's no guarantee that this couldn't happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?

An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Or would the mayor then step in -- violating the same First Amendment he grandiosely pretends to protect from mosque opponents -- and exercise a veto over the mosque's clergy?

Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history -- perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi -- yet despite contemporary Germany's innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

Which makes you wonder about the goodwill behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's proposal. This is a man who has called U.S. policy "an accessory to the crime" of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, "I'm not a politician. . . . The issue of terrorism is a very complex question."

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero.

Build it anywhere but there.

The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf's ostensible hope for the structure, would accept the offer.

[cmotherofpirl]

[Sternhauser]

No, it's still not holy ground, despite his redefinition of the term "sacrilege." It would have to be holy ground, in order for "sacrilege" to be perpetrated. The prospective mosque location is an example of poor judgment at best, or malice, at worst.

~Sternhauser

Edited August 14, 2010 by Sternhauser

[dauntingknight]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1281824533' post='2157449']
No, it's still not holy ground, despite his redefinition of the term "sacrilege." It would have to be holy ground, in order for "sacrilege" to be perpetrated. The prospective mosque location is an example of poor judgment at best, or malice, at worst.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
They are just asking for trouble.


~dauntingknight

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='dauntingknight' timestamp='1281824983' post='2157452']
They are just asking for trouble.


~dauntingknight
[/quote]

That's really their prerogative, not like anyone can honestly stop them either.

It is bad taste, other than that nothing else.

[Hassan]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1281818931' post='2157414']
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081204996.html

A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).

When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there -- and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.

That's why Disney's 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It's why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It's why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.

Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers "to show some special sensitivity to the situation." Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message or show "special sensitivity" to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely that Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern what can be done there.

Bloomberg's implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by "insensitive" Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction.

But then, why not? By the mayor's own expansive view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter, there's no guarantee that this couldn't happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?

An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Or would the mayor then step in -- violating the same First Amendment he grandiosely pretends to protect from mosque opponents -- and exercise a veto over the mosque's clergy?

Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history -- perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi -- yet despite contemporary Germany's innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

Which makes you wonder about the goodwill behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's proposal. This is a man who has called U.S. policy "an accessory to the crime" of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, "I'm not a politician. . . . The issue of terrorism is a very complex question."

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero.

Build it anywhere but there.

The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf's ostensible hope for the structure, would accept the offer.
[/quote]


Build it anywhere but where? Two blocks away and out of sight?

What asinine hogwash.

Let's just ban all Mosques in Manhattan and be over with it. Let's throw some ham at a Synagogue and make a Rabbi walk in the gutter too while we're at it. What would a good old fashioned mindless campaign of vitriolic populism led by charlatans and clowns be without some some old fashioned, fun for the whole family antisemitism?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Hassan' timestamp='1281834762' post='2157505']
Build it anywhere but where? Two blocks away and out of sight?

What asinine hogwash.

Let's just ban all Mosques in Manhattan and be over with it. Let's throw some ham at a Synagogue and make a Rabbi walk in the gutter too while we're at it. What would a good old fashioned mindless campaign of vitriolic populism led by charlatans and clowns be without some some old fashioned, fun for the whole family antisemitism?
[/quote]

its not mindless, its not vitriolic, not led by charletans or clowns

but normal everyday people who are offended by the idea that anything related to mass murderers will be at or near ground zero, especially put in by CAIR, undoubtedly funded by Saudi Arabia where most of the mass murderers were from. Its an in your face middle finger.
If the muslims had ANY sensitivity, ANY sense of decorum they would drop it immediately.

but we both know that will not happen...

[Winchester]

Freedom of religion, or not?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1281866110' post='2157686']
Freedom of religion, or not?
[/quote]

Firstly, it is not about freedom of religion. People have a [i]right[/i] to build churches or mosques, but we do have the right to restrict the locations to fit the need of the community at large. For instance if you have 5 catholic churches in two blocks, you can reasonably ask a diocese to build #6 two blocks away. There are other mosques in Manhattan, and they have unrestricted access to them.
Its about respect, and these people are totally lacking it. Most people consider Ground Zero sacred territory in one way or another, and this violates that in every way. Its simply an in your face middle finger to the people and the families of those who died there.

[Catholictothecore]

I do not think that the Mayor is out of line asking them to build somewhere else. It truly is a cultural thing. Most American's aren't going to want to see a mosque near Ground Zero becuase it would be a cruel reminder of what some Muslims did there.

However, that does not mean the cruelty is intended. It doesn't mean it's a giant middle finger up. It means they have premises, and intended to occupy it.

This little topic is a ying-yang one. I really don't think either party is 100% malicious, nor 100% pure.

[Resurrexi]

"And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign."

Was it really necessary for the Carmelite nuns to be forced to abandon their convent? After all, is not Auschwitz a site sacred to the Catholic religion due to the martyrdom of St. Maximilian Kolbe there?

Edited August 15, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Slappo]

[quote name='Resurrexi' timestamp='1281888995' post='2157773']
"And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign."

Was it really necessary for the Carmelite nuns to be forced to abandon their convent? After all, is not Auschwitz a site sacred to the Catholic religion due to the martyrdom of St. Maximilian Kolbe there?
[/quote]

Agreed... Building a German monument towards Hitler would be outrageous, but a Catholic convent would be excellent.

I would not be against an orthodox jewish synagogue being built on ground zero, or even a protestant mega church, although I find both of those religions to be lacking in truth.

A mosque however, built on the site Muslim radicals killed thousands, is quite different.

[LoveConquersAll]

I definitely think people should be very sensitive about this, and I don't think it's very sensitive to build it so close...however, we must remember not to make generalizations and to remember that the terrorists involved were extremist radicals, and that many Muslims find their actions just as disgusting and rehensible as the rest of us. Not every Muslim is a terrorist.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='LoveConquersAll' timestamp='1281925325' post='2157932']
Not every Muslim is a terrorist.
[/quote]
But every terrorist on 9/11 was a Muslim.

Here is an in teresting commentary on the topic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16douthat.html?_r=1&src=mv

[Winchester]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1281886214' post='2157766']
Firstly, it is not about freedom of religion. People have a [i]right[/i] to build churches or mosques, but we do have the right to restrict the locations to fit the need of the community at large. For instance if you have 5 catholic churches in two blocks, you can reasonably ask a diocese to build #6 two blocks away. There are other mosques in Manhattan, and they have unrestricted access to them.
[/quote]
So the answer is 'no.'

[Winchester]

Asking is fine, but we're finding people wanting the government to forbid building it. Anyone who wants the government to forbid building it is an idiot. I think The Comrade would do well to take everyone up on that. Yeah, he'd piss off some mohammedans, but who cares because he'd increase government authority and Federal authority. And the stupid would thank him for it. Then he could forbid construction of other insensitive churches. Maybe some gays are upset because the local Catholic Church is expanding. Well, we can't have people being offended, can we? If people really want to get even, then put money together and build a Catholic Church dedicated to the Crusaders. Build stores devoted entirely to selling pork, alcohol and skimpy clothing. Surround the building with the most offensive things to mohammedans. Fight offense with offense on a private level. Keep the authoritarians out of it. They are looking for more rights to deny property and religious worship. That's what Democrats stand for, now. Obviously except with Mohammedans, who are peaceful and loving and not at all represented by the [s]vast majority of muslim nations[/s] small minority of [s]rabidly bloodthirsty[/s] slightly irritated [s]terrorists[/s] insurgents.

[Winchester]

Shouldn't Democrats be screeching about separation of Church and State? Should their shrill cries not be filling the air at this moment?


Democrats are sissies.

[StMichael]

Wanting the government to forbid them from building it?

Actually, it is the reverse, whereby the city council has created a fast pathway to allow them to build it, even though the building in question was slated for landmark status.

Additionally, the city council and the state AG (Cuomo) has not investigated how this group will pay for this or where the $100M is coming from. The land is owned by the state and leased to Con Edison. Would expect that given these economic times, Ready, willing and able are adhered to, which it appears it has been tossed out for this group.

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1281986395' post='2158356']
Asking is fine, but we're finding people wanting the government to forbid building it. Anyone who wants the government to forbid building it is an idiot. I think The Comrade would do well to take everyone up on that. Yeah, he'd piss off some mohammedans, but who cares because he'd increase government authority and Federal authority. And the stupid would thank him for it. Then he could forbid construction of other insensitive churches. Maybe some gays are upset because the local Catholic Church is expanding. Well, we can't have people being offended, can we? If people really want to get even, then put money together and build a Catholic Church dedicated to the Crusaders. Build stores devoted entirely to selling pork, alcohol and skimpy clothing. Surround the building with the most offensive things to mohammedans. Fight offense with offense on a private level. Keep the authoritarians out of it. They are looking for more rights to deny property and religious worship. That's what Democrats stand for, now. Obviously except with Mohammedans, who are peaceful and loving and not at all represented by the [s]vast majority of muslim nations[/s] small minority of [s]rabidly bloodthirsty[/s] slightly irritated [s]terrorists[/s] insurgents.
[/quote]

[Winchester]

Well now I know where my post about sending Wal-Imam around the world to rap about ninja women and rock lovers went.

[socalscout]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1281965725' post='2158106']
But every terrorist on 9/11 was a Muslim.

Here is an in teresting commentary on the topic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16douthat.html?_r=1&src=mv
[/quote]

Were any of the victims Muslim?