Mosque/Community Centre near Ground Zero - your thoughts?

[Prometheus The Supremo]

But it *IS* racism. How is it not racism? If you want to get all picky and claim it's not because islam is a religion, not a race, then, okay, call it prejudice, but it sucks either way.

there's really no way of knowing unless the person admits to it. one can always use the other person's religion as a proxy in being racist but that doesn't mean that when somebody criticizes one's religion, be it even hypocritically or erroneously, that it is always an act of racism. it could be about race, about culture, nationality, about religion, etc. it can be legitimate criticism of ideology or just plain dumbness.

i'm sure there's a bit of everything.

 

[GraphicMatt]

If I say "I think Christianity is a patriarchal, close-minded system of belief" I'm being critical. If I say "Most Christians are dumb" I'm being judgemental and generalizing. If I say "Christians shouldn't be allowed to have churches in my town" I'm being prejudicial in a hurtful way.

If I say that I don't want Muslims with brown skin from the Middle East building mosques and community centres in my town I'm being a big mix of prejudicial, racist and xenophobic. Which is what's going on in the U.S. - and has been going on in some European countries for years now.

 

[adma]

As far as I'm concerned, the problem with the anti-GZ Mosque protest isn't racism. It's philistinism.

 

[Admiral Beez]

But it *IS* racism. How is it not racism? If you want to get all picky and claim it's not because islam is a religion, not a race, then, okay, call it prejudice, but it sucks either way.

Of course Islam is not a race. It's a religion, and no more a race than Buddism or Scientology.

Describing those who dislike Islam as racists is lazy and inaccurate. If you need a more inflammatory moniker than "prejudice", then come up with one.

Since when is accuracy and pickiness the same thing?

 

[GraphicMatt]

In this instance, there's an undeniable racist element directed towards people of Middle Eastern backgrounds. If a bunch of Muhammad Ali-type Muslims with bow ties were opening a community centre, the reaction would be different.

 

[Admiral Beez]

In this instance, there's an undeniable racist element directed towards people of Middle Eastern backgrounds.

Okay, I'll bite. People of "Middle Eastern backgrounds" are usually Arabs. Arabs are Semites, same as Jews. So, you're suggesting that the reaction to the mosque is anti-semitic? Obviously not, and I jest, but any talk of racism needs to first define what is a race, and which race is being offended.

 

[Cooool]

It was interesting, one of the editorials in The Toronto Star suggested the centre should be a "multi-faith" centre instead of a Mosque that is strictly geared towards Muslims. It actually sounds like a good idea, but I highly doubt one of the most intolerant religions would ever be able to have a centre that is shared with people of other backgrounds and faiths.

 

[RC8]

These guys 'should' be allowed to build whatever they want wherever they want. If it doesn't get built it'd just go on to show that rules regarding freedom of religion can be easily bent in the US... HOWEVER, I think most of them (trying to build it) are being extremely insensitive. I'm an atheist and a social democrat, but I love communist aesthetics...but I'd be careful enough not to post Soviet banners around those who lost family members to the KGB, in spite of feeling free to admire them on my own space.

Islamic community worldwide has been rather unapologetic regarding terrorists attacks. These sorts of attacks are (as horrible as it sounds) part of their culture to an extent. Muslim radicals don't only go around bombing europeans and americans to punish them for their foreign policies... they blow themselves up in Pakistan every week, they did so in Indonesia, they do so all over the middle east, and their targets are mostly innocent muslim people. Talk to a pakistani and you'll see that to them a suicide bomber is a casual thing that unfortunately happens from time to time - whereas we are all still traumatised about the 4 of them that managed to pull of such attacks in America.

To say that islam and suicide bombings are unrelated and that religion is being used as an excuse is just as inaccurate as claiming that all muslims represent a threat to national security.

 

[Epi]

Another bit of information that makes me care less and less for the construction of this site is the chief proponent of this centre (Fiesal Rauf) has made controversial remarks stating the US was an "accessory" to the 9/11 attacks. There's nothing worse when members of the Muslim community defend any act of terrorism, and unfortunately, I've seen this happen myself. In my grade 12 class, a group of Muslim students gave a presentation on why the US was hypocritical about Muslim countries using torture. You think any member of a misunderstood minority group would strive to prove they are not apart of a false and vicious stereotype rather than point the finger.

To be honest, a LOT of people have said similar comments, including Glenn Beck himself.

 

[Long Island Mike]

It's only right to let them build it. What's the difference if it's 2 blocks or 1 block or 5 blocks?
If they want to build it, The mayor and council say they can build it, let them build it.

To be honest, I wish the developer would drop this one and move on to another project. It would save a lot of grief.
This lot has to have increased in value after all this publicity. Put the property on the market for a ridiculous price. Some Donald Trump will buy it and turn it into a total "den of inequity". Some sexy boutique hotel with a Chai place and Cheap Trattoria. Maybe a fitness club too.
Could make a TV show out of it.

The muslims can take 5 times what the building is worth and go build for next to free somewhere else. Calm down the senseless, racist and unecessary rhetoric from both sides. It wouldn't hurt to take one for the team.

Jay: Interesting thoughts here concerning the Downtown Manhattan mosque...I agree with you here especially on the property sale idea...and I will note one more poster...LI MIKE

 

[Long Island Mike]

I really don't see the big deal with this centre being located two blocks away from the World Trade Center. The centre itself contains a 9/11 memorial, so I don't believe it is a "victory mosque" as some have called it.

However, I am opposed to the many members of the Muslim community condemning the American people as racists, when the site of the 9/11 attacks is obviously a very sensitive area within Manhattan. This is just ANOTHER example of minorities dishing out the race card when they do not get their way. I really wish the media would not be so quick to assume racism/homophobia/bigotry is at the root of every issue. That type of argument is used to stop any sort of healthy debate.

Another bit of information that makes me care less and less for the construction of this site is the chief proponent of this centre (Fiesal Rauf) has made controversial remarks stating the US was an "accessory" to the 9/11 attacks. There's nothing worse when members of the Muslim community defend any act of terrorism, and unfortunately, I've seen this happen myself. In my grade 12 class, a group of Muslim students gave a presentation on why the US was hypocritical about Muslim countries using torture. You think any member of a misunderstood minority group would strive to prove they are not apart of a false and vicious stereotype rather than point the finger.

COOOL: I agree with your comments on this touchy subject to many-the trouble to me also is how the right wingnuts have run with this subject and have made it a big political issue with the crucial 2010 Midterm elections coming up...I think that politicizing the 9/11 tragedy is a bad thing especially noting who is doing so! Thoughts from LI MIKE

 

[Second_in_pie]

These guys 'should' be allowed to build whatever they want wherever they want. If it doesn't get built it'd just go on to show that rules regarding freedom of religion can be easily bent in the US... HOWEVER, I think most of them (trying to build it) are being extremely insensitive. I'm an atheist and a social democrat, but I love communist aesthetics...but I'd be careful enough not to post Soviet banners around those who lost family members to the KGB, in spite of feeling free to admire them on my own space.

We've been through this before. It's not so much Soviet banners as it is Karl Marx, and you're not waving him in front of their face, more having a seminar on him and communist ideals at the local library.

Islamic community worldwide has been rather unapologetic regarding terrorists attacks. These sorts of attacks are (as horrible as it sounds) part of their culture to an extent. Muslim radicals don't only go around bombing europeans and americans to punish them for their foreign policies... they blow themselves up in Pakistan every week, they did so in Indonesia, they do so all over the middle east, and their targets are mostly innocent muslim people. Talk to a pakistani and you'll see that to them a suicide bomber is a casual thing that unfortunately happens from time to time - whereas we are all still traumatised about the 4 of them that managed to pull of such attacks in America.

To say that islam and suicide bombings are unrelated and that religion is being used as an excuse is just as inaccurate as claiming that all muslims represent a threat to national security.

When you say the Islamic community worldwide, you're talking about people in the Middle East, no? In case you haven't noticed, muslim groups in North America, Eastern Asia, and even many within the Middle East have condemned Islamic extremism and have tried their hardest to show the west the type of Islam that a majority of Muslims follow.

Again, separate the religion from politics. The Taliban are a political group. They're not invading Pakistan and killing people there because that's what muslims do. They're doing it because they want power in the region.
Mexicans and Colombians face vicious murders and gun battles every day, so is murder and bloodshed just part of Hispanic culture? Go to someone from Medellin, and they'll probably have a similar reaction to drug cartels as a Pakistani does to the Taliban. Which isn't shrugging it off as a casual thing, but saying it's terrible and that international help is needed immediately to stop violence. But, Americans don't go into Colombia and kill a score of civilians every week, if you're looking for a difference between the two.

It was interesting, one of the editorials in The Toronto Star suggested the centre should be a "multi-faith" centre instead of a Mosque that is strictly geared towards Muslims. It actually sounds like a good idea, but I highly doubt one of the most intolerant religions would ever be able to have a centre that is shared with people of other backgrounds and faiths.

What, so Muslims aren't allowed to have their own places of worship anymore? Would you demand that Churches have Muslim, Jewish and Hindu services as well as Christian ones, and then call them intolerant for politely declining?
And IIRC, substantial parts of it are going to be geared towards the non-muslim community within Lower Manhattan. It's just that nobody's gonna be using it because they're unhappy that there are Muslims are in New York.

 

[RC8]

We've been through this before. It's not so much Soviet banners as it is Karl Marx, and you're not waving him in front of their face, more having a seminar on him and communist ideals at the local library.

When you say the Islamic community worldwide, you're talking about people in the Middle East, no? In case you haven't noticed, muslim groups in North America, Eastern Asia, and even many within the Middle East have condemned Islamic extremism and have tried their hardest to show the west the type of Islam that a majority of Muslims follow.

Again, separate the religion from politics. The Taliban are a political group. They're not invading Pakistan and killing people there because that's what muslims do. They're doing it because they want power in the region.
Mexicans and Colombians face vicious murders and gun battles every day, so is murder and bloodshed just part of Hispanic culture? Go to someone from Medellin, and they'll probably have a similar reaction to drug cartels as a Pakistani does to the Taliban. Which isn't shrugging it off as a casual thing, but saying it's terrible and that international help is needed immediately to stop violence. But, Americans don't go into Colombia and kill a score of civilians every week, if you're looking for a difference between the two.

Nah, a mosque is a permanent thing that looks very islamic from outside and will remind you of what the people who killed your family members were SUPPOSEDLY fighting for every time you drop by the area to pay your respects. I'm sure if they wanted to have a muslim chapel inside one of the surrounding buildings people wouldn't mind - they just happen to want to build one of the biggest mosques in the city there! I think that's a pretty 'in your face' statement, even if there are no bad intentions attached to it.

Regarding the second point you try to make: most muslims are in muslim countries, but regardless. I've dated people with a muslim background, and I know that most of them wouldn't blow themselves up in a terrorist attack - but because of their culture and the way they were brought up as well as the experiences they've lived, they really do not see it as such a preposterous thing to do.

I grew up in Caracas, Venezuela - one of this world's most dangerous capital cities. My grandfather has been kidnapped by the Colombian guerrilla, and I've seen how corrupt the authorities are when it comes to dealing with drug dealing, etc. Now, if you ask me, does allowing average latin americans make your city more prone to crime? The answer is a big fat yes.

Suicide bombing is endemic to muslim people (have not seen people of other faiths blow themselves up like that with any sort of frequency) like football riots are to some European and South American countries, in my opinion. There is a culture in those places that allows them to happen. Can it be rooted out without destroying the rest of their culture? It sure can, but in countries with a muslim majority that is just not being done to any extent.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Nah, a mosque is a permanent thing that looks very islamic from outside and will remind you of what the people who killed your family members were SUPPOSEDLY fighting for every time you drop by the area to pay your respects. I'm sure if they wanted to have a muslim chapel inside one of the surrounding buildings people wouldn't mind - they just happen to want to build one of the biggest mosques in the city there! I think that's a pretty 'in your face' statement, even if there are no bad intentions attached to it.

No, here's a problem. These people were psychos. If someone came into your house and murdered your family while quoting the bible and saying that he was a messenger of god, would you demand that churches in your community show some respect and even stop a week of service, let refusing a new one to be built? Meaning no offense to those who's loved ones were killed in the 9/11 attacks, but tragedy happens. A smart person would be able to differentiate between psychotic extremists and over 1.5 billion regular people who just happen to call god Allah. And plenty of smart people have.

regarding the second point you try to make: most muslims are in muslim countries, but regardless. I've dated people with a muslim background, and I know that most of them wouldn't blow themselves up in a terrorist attack - but because of their culture and the way they were brought up as well as the experiences they've lived, they really do not see it as such a preposterous thing to do.

Muslim women that you've dated have noted how it wouldn't be too weird if a car suddenly exploded while they were downtown, or if their son blew themselves up? We're all human; Muslims in Pakistan or Afghanistan may be accustomed to suicide attacks, but they're no less disgusted by it or tired of the sorrow than we are.

I grew up in Caracas, Venezuela - one of this world's most dangerous capital cities. My grandfather has been kidnapped by the Colombian guerrilla, and I've seen how corrupt the authorities are when it comes to dealing with drug dealing, etc. Now, if you ask me, does allowing average latin americans make your city more prone to crime? The answer is a big fat yes.

Does allowing in average latin americans who have been shown to not be involved in crime make your city prone to crime? No. And we don't see people in the US creating zones where you're not allowed to serve Mexican food. There's a difference between relatively lawless places in the Middle East and Western Muslims. Just like you have crazy non-muslim groups in Africa or Southern Asia, you have some dangerous people in the Muslim world. In fact, you have crazy non-muslim groups in the US and Europe. But it's Muslims that get the short end of the stick when it comes to who we call out for having lawlessness and psychos for... a so far unknown reason.

Suicide bombing is endemic to muslim people (have not seen people of other faiths blow themselves up like that with any sort of frequency) like football riots are to some European and South American countries, in my opinion. There is a culture in those places that allows them to happen. Can it be rooted out without destroying the rest of their culture? It sure can, but in countries with a muslim majority that is just not being done to any extent.

Is it possible that some European and South American countries are prone to football riots because lots of people like football there? Again, it's a political issue. Islamic extremism is occurring because of huge instabilities in predominately Muslim places.

 

[RC8]

But Second Pie, those same instabilities have happened elsewhere, and there's no suicide bombers to any significant degree anywhere else! And it's not only suicide bombings, it's a whole branch of terrorism that can be found in isolated and extremist muslim communities regardless of their geographic location. The extremists who perpetrated the London suicide bombings were Englishmen, but they were muslim. The extremists that perpetrated the Moscow bombings were Chechen, but they were muslim. The countless Pakistanis and Iraqis and Indonesians and Saudi Arabian, bloody Chinese Uigur(!) who have nothing to do with each other and wouldn't mind going to war against each others' countries, but who would willingly commit horrendous acts of terrorism in the name of more or less the same thing, they are all muslim!

There's PLENTY of countries that have been screwed over by imperialism or been torn apart by religion, etc. But only is predominantly muslim country has this led to the sort of terrorist acts that have become all too common over the past 50 years. It's pretty obvious to me that this branch of terrorism is an islamic phenomenon. And that islamic religion and culture are to blame much like christian religion and culture were to blame for the crusades.

If someone, anyone, killed my family quoting the bible, I'd be in my damn fucking right to be disgusted by the bible for the rest of my life, and to campaign against churches if I want to while I'm at it. The church that exists now is the same church that did horrible things in the past, and I haven't seen enough murderers in the name of non-violent ideologies to believe that ANY ideology can be misinterpreted to such insane degree as religions can. The bible used to textually allow slavery and allow people to stone unfaithful women, for example, as does the Quran. Those bits might have been edited out, but their legacy is still there for some! I would argue against such a church being built next to my place. HOWEVER, my feelings wouldn't be so strong because I didn't see MASSES OF PEOPLE celebrating in the street as my family died - maybe you'll remember the images of celebration in the middle east when the towers came down?

Man, people aren't turning a blind eye to other radical groups... muslim radical groups are more radical than any other group out there, and to argue that it's for historical reasons just doesn't add up. I'm not saying that it's always been a muslim phenomenon, or that it will always be, but right now pretty much all religions and cultures have abandoned that tactic except for one.