House Of Evil / Seed Of Peace

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,276
Location
Edge's beanie closet
An insult, demeaning or insensitive?


abcnews.com

Despite Protests, Mosque Plan Near 9/11 Site Wins Key Vote
Controversial Mosque Plan Could be Thwarted By Landmarks Commission
By RAY SANCHEZ

May 26, 2010—

Opponents called it an "insult," "demeaning" and a "house of evil," but the angry protests did not stop an advisory board from approving plans to build a mosque and Islamic center two blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

In a heated, four hour meeting Tuesday night, Community Board 1, which represents the area of lower Manhattan that includes Ground Zero, voted 29-1 in favor of the proposal. There were 10 abstentions. At the raucous meeting, some relatives carried signs with the faces of 9/11 victims, reflecting still-raw emotions nearly a decade after the terrorist attacks. "This is an insult," said one of the more than 150 people at the meeting. "This is demeaning. This is humiliating that you would build a shrine to the very ideology that inspired the attacks on 9/11."

Angrily pointing a finger at board members, another protester said: "This house of evil will be the birthplace of the next terrorist event."

But Community Board 1 member Rob Townley called the plan a "seed of peace," a message repeated by mosque supporters throughout the night.

"We believe that this is a significant step in the Muslim community to counteract the hate and fanaticism in the minority of the community," he said.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the mosque proposal, said he understood the pain and outrage, especially since Muslims also died in the attacks. "We have condemned the actions of 9/11," Abdul Rauf said. "We have condemned terrorism." Still, plans to build a mosque and Islamic community center could be thwarted by the New York City's Landmarks Commission, which will hold a hearing on the matter in the early summer.

The proposal to build an Islamic center and mosque just blocks from the city's most hallowed ground has divided survivors of the nearly 3,000 people who perished on Sept. 11, 2001, with many families vehemently opposed to plan.

Many have complained that it would be insensitive to have a huge mosque two blocks from the site that became the burial ground for victims of the 9/11 terror attack by Muslim militants of Al Qaeda.

Elisabeth de Bourbon, a spokeswoman for the Landmarks Preservation Commission, said a hearing is scheduled to determine the historic status of the building that is currently on the site. The building, constructed between 1857 and 1858 in the Italian Renaissance palazzo style, could be historically significant.

If the old Burlington Coat Factory building at 45 Park Place is determined to have landmark status, that designation would mean the building cannot be torn down to make way for the Islamic cultural center.

The Landmarks Commission has had a pending application for landmark status for the site since 1989, de Bourbon said. The application had been on hold for more than two decades but was recently reinstated after a review by the commission.

She insisted the current review is unrelated to the controversy surrounding the proposed mosque and Islamic center.

"This is a totally separate issue," de Bourbon told ABCNews.com. "What we're looking at it is whether the building has the architectural and historic significance to the city of New York to merit landmark designation."

The commission will hold a hearing and vote on the landmarks status in the early summer.

Members of the landmarks commission are appointed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has supported the project. "Anybody wants to build a house of worship in this city, we'd love to do it," Bloomberg told reporters last week. "They have to comply with the zoning laws. In this case, I think the community board's already been consulted and they overwhelmingly like the idea."

Community Board 1's 12-member Financial District committee unanimously voted in favor of the plan earlier this month.

Mosque Near 9/11 Would Be Known as Cordoba House

Noah Pfefferblit, Community Board 1's district manager, said the board voted on a resolution in favor of the plan's community center without taking a position on the mosque.

"Most of the resolutions are approved but this is an unusual one because it's been very controversial," he said. "Our members would not be comfortable recommending or not recommending a house of worship."

The mosque is only one component of the Islamic center complex, which also includes a swimming pool, performance space and a basketball court. The center is the brainchild of Abdul Rauf, a New York imam, and Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement. The couple hopes to raise the estimated $100 million to raze the building at 45 Park Place to make room for the multi-story glass-and-steel structure two blocks from ground zero. The Islamic center would be known as Cordoba House and include a mosque for up to 1,500 worshippers on Fridays. Some 500 people already use the site of the old Burlington Coat Factory for Friday prayers.
 
The very people making a fuss are ironically likely to be the ones who would only add fuel to the fire. Don't make a big deal of it and there likely won't be one at all.

Not everyone who is Islamic was responsible for that attack. Not everyone who is Islamic supported that attack. If a group of Christians had attacked us on 9/11 and then a Christian church popped up nearby, would there be a similar outcry?

Will some use/see that as a taunt? Yes. But focus on interacting with the people who want to use it as a means to peace, and drown those idiots out.

Angela
 
The very people making a fuss are ironically likely to be the ones who would only add fuel to the fire. Don't make a big deal of it and there likely won't be one at all.

Not everyone who is Islamic was responsible for that attack. Not everyone who is Islamic supported that attack. If a group of Christians had attacked us on 9/11 and then a Christian church popped up nearby, would there be a similar outcry?

Will some use/see that as a taunt? Yes. But focus on interacting with the people who want to use it as a means to peace, and drown those idiots out.

Angela

That was very well said.
 
As someone who lives in NYC, who knew people who lost loved ones, and who's brother-in-law was part of the WTC clean-up, I do find the mosque to be insensitive. I know a lot of people who do not support this mosque who are not conservative or even religious, and they also find it to be insensitive. Why couldn't they build a mosque somewhere else and not so close to the site?

Yes, not all Muslims are terrorists or support terrorism, and yes, some Muslims did die in the attacks. I don't know, I just find the whole thing to be insensitive. Maybe because when I was in college, I noticed quite a lot of the Muslims there didn't seem to care about the 9/11 attacks. Heck, the local paper did a story on my school's Muslim group and many of those interviewed were all about jihad, believed the U.S. got what it deserved. Later they said the article took what they said out of context, whatever that means.
 
Do you lump all christians into the category of the Westboro "god hates fags" group?

So why lump this mosque in with Bin Laden?
 
As someone who lives in NYC, who knew people who lost loved ones, and who's brother-in-law was part of the WTC clean-up, I do find the mosque to be insensitive. I know a lot of people who do not support this mosque who are not conservative or even religious, and they also find it to be insensitive. Why couldn't they build a mosque somewhere else and not so close to the site?

Where else would you propose they put it? I'm sure there's some people in New York City who would go to the extreme of not wanting Muslim-related stuff in the city at all. Anywhere it is in the city, some people will still see it as an affront regardless. I understand in a way why some people are bothered by this, see it as a painful reminder-it's certainly easy for me to have the view I do, having not been there that day or lived there (and you're right, of course, not everyone who's opposed is conservative or religious-it's merely a knee-jerk emotional reaction), but at the same time, if you let fear and anger rule the day, doesn't that feed into what the terrorists were hoping for? You're New Yorkers. You're not afraid. You're tough. Right?

Yes, not all Muslims are terrorists or support terrorism, and yes, some Muslims did die in the attacks. I don't know, I just find the whole thing to be insensitive. Maybe because when I was in college, I noticed quite a lot of the Muslims there didn't seem to care about the 9/11 attacks. Heck, the local paper did a story on my school's Muslim group and many of those interviewed were all about jihad, believed the U.S. got what it deserved. Later they said the article took what they said out of context, whatever that means.

Yeesh. Yeah, unfortunately there will always be assholes out there who apparently weren't equipped with thought filters or compassion or humanity. That really sucks that you had to hear that sort of crap (presuming they weren't taken out of context), and I'm sorry about that. But they'll still have those views with or without a mosque, and I just think it'd show more defiance and bravery to not give in to their mindset. Plus, if the mosque stands, then you may start to see more of the good-hearted Muslims come out of the woodwork. If they don't feel any hostility from people, they'll feel more comfortable and people can start seeing the better side of the Muslim faith.

Angela
 
Do you lump all christians into the category of the Westboro "god hates fags" group?

So why lump this mosque in with Bin Laden?

Where did I say that? Did I not say that not all Muslims are terrorists or support terrorism?

Moonlit_Angel: I would say the mosque is a painful reminder, that's likely the reason why I find it insensitive. No, I have nothing against anything related to Islam being in NYC.

As for New Yorkers being tough, yes we are. But we don't forget what hurts us. I've seen poll after poll of people being asked if they are against the mosque, and half say yes.
 
Moonlit_Angel: I would say the mosque is a painful reminder, that's likely the reason why I find it insensitive. No, I have nothing against anything related to Islam being in NYC.

I know you don't, but I can just see some deeply anti-Muslim people in New York City who would support that. And if it's a painful reminder close to the site, it'll be one from farther away, too. Focus on the peaceful possibilities and the pain may turn into something good.

As for New Yorkers being tough, yes we are. But we don't forget what hurts us. I've seen poll after poll of people being asked if they are against the mosque, and half say yes.

Well, I don't know what to say about that, other than what are those people going to do if the mosque is built there? If it winds up there they're going to have to find a way to work out their issues with it.

Of course you'll never forget that day. I don't expect anyone would, or could, nor should they. But there's ways of dealing with the hurt, and I don't see how carrying around a grudge is a good or healthy way.

Angela
 
Where did I say that? Did I not say that not all Muslims are terrorists or support terrorism?

Yes, but my point is that a Mosque should not remind you of Bin Laden and those that hijack the plane at all.

Just like a Christian church shouldn't remind you of the Westboro family and their ilk.
 
Is a McDonald's in El Salvador offensive?

Yes.

but then Mickey D's is an offense anywhere. . .


Seriously though, with all due respect to Pearl, I think this reflects a very basic bias that many of us carry towards Muslims. We tend to define the 9/11 terrorists by their religion and/or ethnicity.

Yet if a Christian group decided to build a church near the Alfred Murrah building in Oklahoma City therre would be no outcry at all. We categorize Timothy McVeigh and his group as a couple of extremists unconnected to any larger mainstream religious or ethnic group regardless of whatever claims to legitmacy they may have had. I think the 9/11 bombers and their like belong in the same category.

That said, if I were a Muslim and on the building committee for the mosque, I would have pushed for a different location, because I know a lot of people wouldn't understand. I wouldn't care to trample on people's grief, even if it wasn't intentional.

BTW, A_W, your arguments on the subject don't count in my mind because you think little of religion as a whole anyway.
 
It's a question of the associations in peoples minds, I don't think that it's wrong for people to make associations between Islam and terrorism, or Catholicism and the inquisition (or more pressingly rape cover-ups), or Pentecostals and Hillsong.

The point was that we should not make the association between Islam and Bin Ladenism, I don't see why not.

The mosque should be built, I don't see anything wrong with people being allowed to practice their religion.
 
I was in Istanbul for work least week
and the mosques I visited felt more peaceful than the majority of churches I've visited in my life
 
A mosque near Ground Zero is insensitive? So, building a new church around the corner of a kindergarten or playground would be insensitive too, because all priests are paedophiles as well as all muslims are terrorists...

I think people who talk about 'insensitivity' when a mosque is build two blocks from the Ground zero site are (secretly) prejudiced.

I'm sorry that it seems to be blurted out and shortsighted, but seeing and experiencing the political climate today, especially where I live, that's my view.
 
Thank you for calling me prejudiced, Bonoa. :|

I am not prejudiced or racist or a bigot in anyway. Just because I feel a mosque near the WTC site would bring back memories of 9/11 does not mean I feel Muslims are inferior or actually believe they are all terrorists. I stated it before and I'll state it again: I do not think all Muslims are terrorists or sympathize with terrorists.

Maybe when Muslim terrorists kill 3,000 in a single day on Dutch soil someday, you would understand.
 
Just because I feel a mosque near the WTC site would bring back memories of 9/11...

I don't know if there's going to be a monument or something at the site, but I'm pretty sure people are going to be reminded of 9/11 when they walk by.

It's just a mosque, nothing more and nothing less. No reason to ban it from the area.
 
:doh: Even here in the Netherlands these conservative idiots led by Geert Wilders are making a fuss about that.

Wilders' numbers are dropping in the polls, he could do with a nice controversy even if he has to cross the Atlantic to find one.
 
I don't know if there's going to be a monument or something at the site, but I'm pretty sure people are going to be reminded of 9/11 when they walk by.

Yeah, true.

It's just a mosque, nothing more and nothing less. No reason to ban it from the area.

Maybe I am getting worked up over nothing. It probably would've been built sooner or later.
 
Thank you for calling me prejudiced, Bonoa. :|

I am not prejudiced or racist or a bigot in anyway. Just because I feel a mosque near the WTC site would bring back memories of 9/11 does not mean I feel Muslims are inferior or actually believe they are all terrorists. I stated it before and I'll state it again: I do not think all Muslims are terrorists or sympathize with terrorists.

Maybe when Muslim terrorists kill 3,000 in a single day on Dutch soil someday, you would understand.

I understand you, my reaction was kind of radical. 911 was a very sad event, but still it's wrong to think of 'terrorist' when you hear the word 'Muslim', while the majority wants to distance themselves from the radicals.
I don't think you're a bigot or a racist, but I get so tired of people here in NL who mix up muslims with terrorists as these terrorists can hardly be called muslims...

And then there is that bleach blonde idiot who calls himself a fighter for 'freedom of speech', while he wants to live that freedom thouroughly by taking away people's right to choose their own religion and tries to divide the society in order to get votes.

Maybe you'll understand if you lived here in the Netherlands.
 
building a new church around the corner of a kindergarten or playground would be insensitive too, because all priests are paedophiles as well as all muslims are terrorists...

they have a more efficient model
they have schools on the church sites
 
I am not prejudiced or racist or a bigot in anyway. Just because I feel a mosque near the WTC site would bring back memories of 9/11 does not mean I feel Muslims are inferior or actually believe they are all terrorists. I stated it before and I'll state it again: I do not think all Muslims are terrorists or sympathize with terrorists.

Maybe when Muslim terrorists kill 3,000 in a single day on Dutch soil someday, you would understand.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but these two paragraphs feel contradictory to me.

I do not think this should even be an issue, because the mosque could be used to help educate and help bridge the divide between Muslims and the general population.

It can be used as a tool for peace, for understanding.
 
Think Progress � Former Bush Adviser Mark McKinnon Rips GOP’s Stance On Mosque: ‘We’re Reinforcing Al Qaeda’s Message’

Former Bush Adviser Mark McKinnon Rips GOP’s Stance On Mosque: ‘We’re Reinforcing Al Qaeda’s Message’

On Morning Joe earlier today, a pair of leading Republicans — host Joe Scarborough and former Bush strategist Mark McKinnon — blasted the GOP for its xenophobic and unconstitutional stance against American Muslims’ right to build a new Islamic center in lower Manhattan.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has claimed that the new Islamic center project “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.” Referencing that quote, Scarborough expressed angry disdain at Gingrich’s intolerance. “I don’t know where to begin,” Scarborough said. “To suggest that someone trying to build a tolerance center for moderate Muslims in New York is the equivalent of killing six million Jews is stunning to me.”

McKinnon then chimed in, arguing that the debate surrounding the Cordoba House project is contrary to his party’s principles. “We may get our membership [by the GOP] revoked,” McKinnon joked. “Screw ‘em,” Scarborough responded. McKinnon then said that the GOP’s stance is “reinforcing al Qaeda’s message”:

McKINNON: Usually Republicans are forthright in defending the Constitution. And here we are, reinforcing al Qaeda’s message that we’re at war with Muslims. So we’ve got this issue; then we’ve got the 14th Amendment issue, where Republicans are saying you’re not welcome here, when we were the architects of the 14th Amendment. So, I see a bad pattern where we’re headed as a Republican Party.

McKinnon said he believed President Obama has “done the right thing in stepping forward at this time on this issue.” He added, “Tolerance means tolerating things you don’t like, especially when you don’t like them. … I respect the President for making this move.”

Writing in the Washington Post today, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson — using Bush-era terminology — reinforced McKinnon’s view. “Those who want a president to assert that any mosque would defile the neighborhood near Ground Zero are asking him to undermine the war on terrorism. A war on Islam would make a war on terrorism impossible,” Gerson writes.

This morning, Scarborough remarked that when he first entered Congress in 1994, he was deemed to be some “crazy,” “right wing nut job” for his ideological views. He explained that, while he still holds “the same views,” he is “feeling further and further distant from the people who are running my party.”
 
^Credit where credit is due. Good for them!

Somewhere though, Obama is gritting his teeth and saying: "Not fair! How come they get to say it but I don't!"
 
Maybe when Muslim terrorists kill 3,000 in a single day on Dutch soil someday, you would understand.

Understand that we should unfairly treat innocent people because some nutjobs who claim the same religion did something bad? That we should single out one religion above others as not worthy of the same kinds of religious freedoms we're supposed to be fighting for? That we should, as the above posted article says, perpetuate the incredibly harmful perception that we're in a war against Muslims and not just those who actually committed crimes against us?
 
Back
Top Bottom