Mosque in Manhattan

There has been a growing controversy surrounding the planned construction of a mosque in New York. To be honest I was angered when I first read about the plan, thinking it was an unnecessary provocation by the muslim community. The way it was being presented in the media was that they wanted to build a mosque at ground zero. The way I interpreted that was obviously that the mosque was to be on the same exact spot that the World Trade Centre once stood.

Obviously it is impossible to separate Islam from the September 11 attacks. Regardless of what has been said by some supporters of the project, the alleged attackers Al Qaeda are always presenting their actions as being in the name of Islam, and as attacks against the “infidels”. As a result, the project of building a place of worship for Islam on the very site of the most mediated attack on the Western world by muslim extremists is nothing but the ultimate provocation.

The only problem is that the mosque is not planned on ground zero, but rather two blocks away. Basically this is a plan to build a mosque on lower Manhattan, and for me that changes things completely. To be honest, if the media had presented this project from the outset as a plan to build a mosque on lower Manhattan I really don’t think many would have paid much notice. Instead we saw headlines such as mosque planned at ground zero. Regardless of if this is a result of media manipulation or not, to me the media is responsible for blowing this way out of proportion, and obviously all extremists groups will jump on the occasions to fan the flames.

As the situation is today, this all comes down to an ultimate victory of the extreme right in the US. They have managed to capitalize fully on this in the media, and re-ignited the flame against the foreign enemy. After WWII the focal point was the communists, and anybody who was not on the extreme right was obviously a communist. Reading some of the comments made by people such as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich one can certainly find many parallels to Joseph McCarthy. It seems their tirades are being heard by the masses in the US who are hungry for a focal point of their anger and frustration. A recent poll showed that 20% of Americans believe that President Obama is a muslim. WTF!?

I would not have wanted the construction of any religious symbol at ground zero, be it muslim, christian, jewish or anything else. However, building a place to worship a religion in lower Manhattan shouldn’t matter at all. Unfortunately it is too late to try and change the general opinion, and the best would be to stop the project completely, even if this would imply that a group of extremists would win a battle. Ultimately it would lead to people forgetting this unfortunate incident.

Henrik wrote:A recent poll showed that 20% of Americans believe that President Obama is a muslim.

That's weird...!

I thought that Obama was only 15% Muslim.

Whatever.

Shades of The Crusades much! Christian Knights building Churches in Jerusalem - right in the heartland of the "non-infidel"...the moor things change, the moor they stay the same, er, or something...

It will be almost impossible to get that mosque built.
1. No bank in town will fund it.
2. No union will build it.
3. The building board is run by Jews.

Finally, it will only piss off the locals and create problems. Regardless of what is right or wrong that mosque would be a beacon for victims families, and other protestors to get out their anger. Only the hardcore Muslims would attend, and the first time one member speaks out, all Hell would break loose. I would expect Jewish lighting within a few months.

I thought this was America....First Amendment, and the whole freedom of religion thing.

I think the biggest FU, would be to the terrorist's by building and embracing a Muslim Mosque.

Of course all the right wing nutters love the constitution as long as it fits their narrow minded view....when it doesn't...it's against God, or anti-American.

If they can't build the mosque...I'd be for removing all house's or worship anywhere near the WTC site. Fair is fair.

H8R wrote:If they can't build the mosque...I'd be for removing all house's or worship anywhere near the WTC site. Fair is fair.

I've got a Flight Simm you can borrow for practice...

So - just what is a "House of Worship"...?
I'm religious about beer, so that's all pubs and taverns out then.
Some people are food zealots.
Then cinemas must go, just in case they choose to show Star Wars and the Jedi religion.
Worshippers of the Hairy Goblet...?
Banks...?
Chemists - just in case the Amish etc get upset...?
Black Panthers, White Supremacists, Red Indians, Gay Clubs, Mods & Rockers, Vegetarians, Omnivores, PC-versus-Mac users, s'trewth...

Just shut down all of lower Manhattan!

Gelert wrote:

H8R wrote:If they can't build the mosque...I'd be for removing all house's or worship anywhere near the WTC site. Fair is fair.

I've got a Flight Simm you can borrow for practice...

So - just what is a "House of Worship"...?
I'm religious about beer, so that's all pubs and taverns out then.
Some people are food zealots.
Then cinemas must go, just in case they choose to show Star Wars and the Jedi religion.
Worshippers of the Hairy Goblet...?
Banks...?
Chemists - just in case the Amish etc get upset...?
Black Panthers, White Supremacists, Red Indians, Gay Clubs, Mods & Rockers, Vegetarians, Omnivores, PC-versus-Mac users, s'trewth...

How about the simple way of deciding....all of the religions that don't pay taxes...close them all near the WTC.

Announced over 6 months ago- just turned into a wedge issue for the conservatives desparate as they have no platform or policy to run on.

Second- in the interests of tolerance on each side of this community center should be built a bar-b-q pork rib restaurant and a gay bar. Across the street should be a hebrew temple, a catholic church and a Wican coven for witches.

http://shar.es/0b5F6

I think this is more than just a Republican issue. I think a ton of Jews (almost all left wing), and locals were upset about the issue. I know a few very left wing New Yorkers that are against the mosque.

That said, the right did run with it for political capital. The way it was presented was that it was on ground zero, or across the street.

Face it, we are 10 years post 9/11, and they still can't even decide what to build on the site. That entire area is a clusterfuck, and torching lower Manhatten could be a nice way to solve some problems. We can start with Wall Street, then the UN just to balance the torching around.

Please cite for your response "I think a ton of Jews (almost all left wing), and locals were upset about the issue."

What about Freedom of Religion, Eminent Domain not to mention Private Property.

Frankly the right has been polluting the whole thing including their self appointed leader Rush Limbaugh.

As I've said before, the sooner World see's american as as as country of religious bigots and racists, and then the sooner the country will be ridiculed (even more than it is now) and, hopefully, cast into a international vacuum.

The World would be a far better place without america and it's warmongering policies.

H8R wrote:Please cite for your response "I think a ton of Jews (almost all left wing), and locals were upset about the issue."

What about Freedom of Religion, Eminent Domain not to mention Private Property.

Frankly the right has been polluting the whole thing including their self appointed leader Rush Limbaugh.

Jon Stewart, a left wing Jew, made Fox News look stupid (not the hardest thing in the World I know) with there vilifying of the Kingdom Foundation on his 23rd August show.

The Islamic Community center in lower Manhattan has been there since 1979. They want to build a newer facility with property they already own.

So group of moderate American Muslims want's to build not really a Mosque and not really at ground zero with their own money on their own private property.

If this were an X-stain or jewish group it would be a complete non-issue. The opposition is unconstitutional and anti-American.

I wish Jill were up for expatriation. I want to get out of here and give my kids a little broader perspective on things...


eso

eso wrote:

I wish Jill were up for expatriation. I want to get out of here and give my kids a little broader perspective on things...


eso

Lots of room in NB eso!

[quote="Danny Boy"]

H8R wrote:Please cite for your response "I think a ton of Jews (almost all left wing), and locals were upset about the mosque.

I talked to a few locals, some Jew, some union, and a teacher. Interesting note is that the ADL is against the location not the idea.

TopContender wrote:...a ton of Jews (almost all left wing), and locals were upset about the issue.

Just so as I can buy into the argument here, without getting short-changed...exactly how many Jews do you get to the ton...?
Metric Ton or Imperial Tonne...?
Is there a difference in weight if they are totally Left Wing, or just almost all Left Wing...?
And do you get more Jews or 'upset locals' to the pound...?
Or maybe to the gallon...?

You see, here in the UK, we have to abide by EU laws that state that all produce sold by weight has to be advertised in Metric units, with Imperial units being optional. It's all designed to stop religious misunderstandings being amplified into zealotic fanaticism, caused when confusing different units-of-measurement.

So, as a law-abiding citizen of the EU who fully embraces all that the Maastricht Treaty has done for us, and in particular that we now appreciate how all global conflict is as a direct result of the difference between grammes and ounces, a clarification as to how many Jews-and-of-what-persuasion-to-the-pound or kilo is absolutely necessary I'm afraid.

Sorry.

After all, The Lord's Prayer runs to 56 words, the Ten Commandments to 297, the American Declaration of Independence to 300. However, the EU Directive on the Export of Duck Eggs runs to 26,911.
Consider how many wars have been started in the name of The Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, or The American Declaration of Independence...?
And then how many have been started in the name of the EU Directive on the Export of Duck Eggs...?

Insufficient clarification and not enough words causes wars you see.

I rest my case.

Hmm, I would think that if the UK tries to export duck eggs to France you may just start a war...

Also, how many stones to a ton(ne)?

Henrik wrote:Also, how many stones to a ton(ne)?

An Imperial ton (not a metric tonne) weighs 2240 lbs (pounds). A stone is 14 lbs, there are 8 stones in a hundredweight (cwt), and 20 cwts in one ton. There are therefore 8 times 20 = 160 stones in one ton.

Of course, 1 metric tonne = 157.473044 stone.

Stones are also related to Miles Per Hour.
For example, you require bigger stones to drive at 150mph than at 50mph.
Unless you're stoned on an ounce whilst pounding around doing a ton...
And yet speed is sold in grammes...

I live about 3 blocks away from the WTC and 5 or so away from the proposed site, and to be honest you can't even see the WTC from where they want to build the cultural center.

If it was my project, I would not build it in that place. It is close to ground zero which is very important to many people, while the location itself is not that important to the muslim leaders. It is simply a matter of courtesy, if you will.

But that's not my choice and I fully support their decision. They have every right to build it wherever they please, with the added bonus that they have highlighted the amount of hatred and ignorance towards Islam present in american society today.

Gelert wrote:

TopContender wrote:...a ton of Jews (almost all left wing), and locals were upset about the issue.

Just so as I can buy into the argument here, without getting short-changed...exactly how many Jews do you get to the ton...?
Metric Ton or Imperial Tonne...?
Is there a difference in weight if they are totally Left Wing, or just almost all Left Wing...?
And do you get more Jews or 'upset locals' to the pound...?
Or maybe to the gallon...?

I really want to put a joke in here, but man I think even DB would call bad form if I did.

As for the mosque, I think the issue stems from bitter locals still salty over what happened. Should they be able to build "yes," but is it good for PR "no." To me it is like putting a brothel across the street from Vatican City. Sure it would create some good business, but bad for installing a lighting rod of opposites when a change of venue could eliminate the problem.

I could be wrong, but I don't think it is the locals that have been making a fuss about it. Seems to me like it is the right wign extremists who saw a golden opportunity to get the rest of the country behind them by getting the press to present the whole thing like a mosque was being built on ground zero.

I was told it was local and then went national. We will see what the local fallout is since mayor bloomberg is for the mosque.

Actually it was a local controversy until Obama weighed in on it, and there was opposition and support.

Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives’ aggressive wars.

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.[u]

The above is a statement released by Ron Paul. He basically shows that both sides are at fault, and points out something we missed... Property rights! If the building is in code then nobody has a right to stop it. Also house speaker Pelosi has no right to investigate the owners.