New York City mosque

[huskertim]

I feel like this is really pretty simple. They knew this was going to upset people, and they did it anyway. Either this is callous or it is calculated.

As to how close is too close, well if you think two blocks is a great distance I'd have to ask what close is, obviously it wasn't too far for landing gear to travel.

 

Still, it's their land.

 

 

Let's be real. You're not talking about defending the historic status of this building, you're talking about the proximity of the building to the WTC site. Your quote is pretty obvious here.

 

Relax, the landing gear thing was just tounge in ceek, I'm not making the claim that this is a historical site, I has merely making reference to the case before the preservation board.

[74Hunter]

My $.02

 

Firstly, let's not be naive, of course this is a big F@#$ YOU to the old red, white and blue. Must we overthink everything. The idea that there aren't any more suitable places for this "cultural center" in NYC is rediculous. The working title to the project was the Cordoba House, really, no history majors here I guess. If Rauf was as interested in reconciliation between the muslim and western worlds you think he could have shown a liitte of the "cultural sensativity" that he calls for from the rest of us.

IMO this is very much the same tactic used by the "minority leaders" of our country (IE Jesse Jackson, Farikan) or, if you prefer the radical right (Fallwell, Phelps). The fomenting of intolerance through beligerence is a neccessary part of recruitment to their cause. Even though these figures seldom represent the rank and file members of the cause they supposedly support, they act as touchstones (or lighting rods if you prefer) for attracting attention to themselves in the name of their cause. IMO that's what this is about.

My concern going foward is that once built, the "cultural center" will demand a "clean zone" around it thus infringeing on the rights of other property owners to build as they see fit. I suspect that the Bloomberg admin would cave to these demands on the grounds of "cultural senseitivities".

 

Having said all this, keep in mind, I support everyone's right to be as big an A**hole as they can. God knows we've shead enough blood to defend that right. So if the owners of this property want to build their victory trophy over the site of our fallen citizens while the city of NY argues over wheather it should build a memorial to these lost souls, I say go for it.

 

This entire post presupposes that the builders of that mosque supported/believed in/agreed with/are happy about 9/11 based on the tissue-thin evidence that 1) they are Muslim and 2) Osama bin Laden professes to follow Islam.

 

This is as logical as supposing that Christians - all Christians - endorse the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.

 

Question: Why do you support that bombing, and the murder of those innocents, huskertim?

Except that McVeigh was NOT a Christian, he was an Atheist.

[74Hunter]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7931799/Ground-Zero-mosque-too-close-for-comfort.html

 

Here's the relevant quote from that piece:

Imam Faisal is indubitably pluralist and tolerant. He is a strong advocate for Muslim women's advancement. He is however the sort of moderate who also has trouble denouncing Hizbollah or Hamas for acts of terrorism and who once said US foreign policy was "an accomplice" in the 9/11 attacks.

 

Is there a difference between having "trouble denouncing" (as the article said) and "supporting" (as you said)? I think there is.

 

Faisal apparently actually said that "US foreign policy was "an accomplice" in the 9/11 attacks." That's probably more a statement of fact and not a statement of opinion. We've certainly made few friends in the Arab world through our interactions in the middle east and our close relationship with Israel.

So, are you saying that because we have supported Isreal and because we have fought against radical Islam that we deserved to be sucker punched on 9/11?

 

I don't care if Muslims or radical Muslims do not like some of our interactions in the Middle East, what happened on that day was flat-out wrong.

[huskertim]

My $.02

 

Firstly, let's not be naive, of course this is a big F@#$ YOU to the old red, white and blue. Must we overthink everything. The idea that there aren't any more suitable places for this "cultural center" in NYC is rediculous. The working title to the project was the Cordoba House, really, no history majors here I guess. If Rauf was as interested in reconciliation between the muslim and western worlds you think he could have shown a liitte of the "cultural sensativity" that he calls for from the rest of us.

IMO this is very much the same tactic used by the "minority leaders" of our country (IE Jesse Jackson, Farikan) or, if you prefer the radical right (Fallwell, Phelps). The fomenting of intolerance through beligerence is a neccessary part of recruitment to their cause. Even though these figures seldom represent the rank and file members of the cause they supposedly support, they act as touchstones (or lighting rods if you prefer) for attracting attention to themselves in the name of their cause. IMO that's what this is about.

My concern going foward is that once built, the "cultural center" will demand a "clean zone" around it thus infringeing on the rights of other property owners to build as they see fit. I suspect that the Bloomberg admin would cave to these demands on the grounds of "cultural senseitivities".

 

Having said all this, keep in mind, I support everyone's right to be as big an A**hole as they can. God knows we've shead enough blood to defend that right. So if the owners of this property want to build their victory trophy over the site of our fallen citizens while the city of NY argues over wheather it should build a memorial to these lost souls, I say go for it.

 

This entire post presupposes that the builders of that mosque supported/believed in/agreed with/are happy about 9/11 based on the tissue-thin evidence that 1) they are Muslim and 2) Osama bin Laden professes to follow Islam.

 

This is as logical as supposing that Christians - all Christians - endorse the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.

 

Question: Why do you support that bombing, and the murder of those innocents, huskertim?

Except that McVeigh was NOT a Christian, he was an Atheist.

 

Actually, all I'm presupposeing is that this cleric is an A** and his actions prove it. I'm all for intra-Abrihamic peace and interaction, I just don't buy that that is the motivation here.

 

BTW at what point do all us patriotic defenders of everyone's right to build the mosque get around to defending people's right to be opposed to this? Agree or not, everyone has the right to speak his mind (or lack therof sometimes).

[knapplc]

BTW at what point do all us patriotic defenders of everyone's right to build the mosque get around to defending people's right to be opposed to this? Agree or not, everyone has the right to speak his mind (or lack therof sometimes).

 

Who told you that you couldn't voice a protest? Nobody has curtailed your right to free speech here.

[knapplc]

Except that McVeigh was NOT a Christian, he was an Atheist.

 

Not supported by all the facts. McVeigh clearly had Christian leanings, and held them for certain up until they days just before he bombed the Murrah Building. I've provided links to sources showing this.

[knapplc]

I feel like this is really pretty simple. They knew this was going to upset people, and they did it anyway. Either this is callous or it is calculated.

As to how close is too close, well if you think two blocks is a great distance I'd have to ask what close is, obviously it wasn't too far for landing gear to travel.

 

Still, it's their land.

 

 

Let's be real. You're not talking about defending the historic status of this building, you're talking about the proximity of the building to the WTC site. Your quote is pretty obvious here.

 

Relax, the landing gear thing was just tounge in ceek, I'm not making the claim that this is a historical site, I has merely making reference to the case before the preservation board.

 

That's what I thought.

[carlfense]

***snip*** The working title to the project was the Cordoba House, really, no history majors here I guess. If Rauf was as interested in reconciliation between the muslim and wes tern worlds you think he could have shown a liitte of the "cultural sensativity" that he calls for from the rest of us. ***snip***

You might want to rethink this. Apparently you weren't a history major either. link

***snip***

 

I'm just speaking from memory so I couldn't site dates but, then again wasn't Newt a Phd in history, somehow, that didn't seem to impress as much as the opinon of a grad student who includes his astrological sign in his profile.

 

Ummm . . . the astrological sign thing is part of the eBlogger format.

 

And if Newt was a Phd in history that means that he too was a graduate student . . . you do realize that this grad student may soon have a PhD as well right? That is how these things work . . .

 

What an odd argument.

[huskertim]

***snip*** The working title to the project was the Cordoba House, really, no history majors here I guess. If Rauf was as interested in reconciliation between the muslim and wes tern worlds you think he could have shown a liitte of the "cultural sensativity" that he calls for from the rest of us. ***snip***

You might want to rethink this. Apparently you weren't a history major either. link

***snip***

 

I'm just speaking from memory so I couldn't site dates but, then again wasn't Newt a Phd in history, somehow, that didn't seem to impress as much as the opinon of a grad student who includes his astrological sign in his profile.

 

Ummm . . . the astrological sign thing is part of the eBlogger format.

 

And if Newt was a Phd in history that means that he too was a graduate student . . . you do realize that this grad student may soon have a PhD as well right? That is how these things work . . .

 

What an odd argument.

 

So, we discount one who has attainned a Phd in favor of one who may? Yeah, makes sense to me. My point is simply that Newt is every bit as informed as the author with the advantage of experience in world affairs that this guy couldn't possiblly bring to the table. I'm pretty sure you understood that anyway, so why the cheecky rebuttial? The primary difference, as I see it, is that your willing to lend credibility to the arguement that best suits you. While this is human nature, I would guess that if you were presenting a case to a jury you might prefer the credenialed witness to one seeking credentials because acceptance of ones words based on their accomplishments is also human nature (and a great deal more logical to boot).

[huskertim]

BTW at what point do all us patriotic defenders of everyone's right to build the mosque get around to defending people's right to be opposed to this? Agree or not, everyone has the right to speak his mind (or lack therof sometimes).

 

Who told you that you couldn't voice a protest? Nobody has curtailed your right to free speech here.

 

No one.

 

Usually my BTWs are simply asides, food for thought, if you will.

 

In our zeal to prove our point we all tend to discount those who hold a different view as being somehow inferior. I've seen accusations of bigotry, hypocracy and support of religous intolerence in this very thread. I've been accused of supporting the OKC bombing and failing high school geography (apparently by someone intimately familiar with mahattan island real estate values). Thing is, I'm okay with all that. It's just the forum and sometimes it gets a bit raw. I just think that it doesn't hurt to remind ourselves once in awhile that though we disagree, we do support each others right to speak.

 

BTW, did anyone notice that I defend this action as legal if not wise (a bad PR move)?

[knapplc]

In our zeal to prove our point we all tend to discount those who hold a different view as being somehow inferior. I've seen accusations of bigotry, hypocracy and support of religous intolerence in this very thread. I've been accused of supporting the OKC bombing and failing high school geography (apparently by someone intimately familiar with mahattan island real estate values). Thing is, I'm okay with all that. It's just the forum and sometimes it gets a bit raw. I just think that it doesn't hurt to remind ourselves once in awhile that though we disagree, we do support each others right to speak.

 

BTW, did anyone notice that I defend this action as legal if not wise (a bad PR move)?

 

You have a lot of nerve playing the victim here, you who have been throwing all of Islam under the bus for the actions of one fringe group which does not believe in what Islam teaches.

[carlfense]

***snip*** The working title to the project was the Cordoba House, really, no history majors here I guess. If Rauf was as interested in reconciliation between the muslim and wes tern worlds you think he could have shown a liitte of the "cultural sensativity" that he calls for from the rest of us. ***snip***

You might want to rethink this. Apparently you weren't a history major either. link

***snip***

 

I'm just speaking from memory so I couldn't site dates but, then again wasn't Newt a Phd in history, somehow, that didn't seem to impress as much as the opinon of a grad student who includes his astrological sign in his profile.

 

Ummm . . . the astrological sign thing is part of the eBlogger format.

 

And if Newt was a Phd in history that means that he too was a graduate student . . . you do realize that this grad student may soon have a PhD as well right? That is how these things work . . .

 

What an odd argument.

 

So, we discount one who has attainned a Phd in favor of one who may? Yeah, makes sense to me. My point is simply that Newt is every bit as informed as the author with the advantage of experience in world affairs that this guy couldn't possiblly bring to the table. I'm pretty sure you understood that anyway, so why the cheecky rebuttial? The primary difference, as I see it, is that your willing to lend credibility to the arguement that best suits you. While this is human nature, I would guess that if you were presenting a case to a jury you might prefer the credenialed witness to one seeking credentials because acceptance of ones words based on their accomplishments is also human nature (and a great deal more logical to boot).

 

If you think Newt is actually arguing from a historical perspective and not just taking political jabs to further his party I don't know what to tell you. Obama is a Constitutional law scholar . . . do you automatically defer to his knowledge? Somehow I doubt it.

[huskertim]

In our zeal to prove our point we all tend to discount those who hold a different view as being somehow inferior. I've seen accusations of bigotry, hypocracy and support of religous intolerence in this very thread. I've been accused of supporting the OKC bombing and failing high school geography (apparently by someone intimately familiar with mahattan island real estate values). Thing is, I'm okay with all that. It's just the forum and sometimes it gets a bit raw. I just think that it doesn't hurt to remind ourselves once in awhile that though we disagree, we do support each others right to speak.

 

BTW, did anyone notice that I defend this action as legal if not wise (a bad PR move)?

 

You have a lot of nerve playing the victim here, you who have been throwing all of Islam under the bus for the actions of one fringe group which does not believe in what Islam teaches.

 

 

Firstly, I include myself in my critisism and I accept the discourse as it is, just read the post. Secondly, at what point did i throw Islam under the bus. Methinks your reading what I'm not writing.

[huskertim]

***snip*** The working title to the project was the Cordoba House, really, no history majors here I guess. If Rauf was as interested in reconciliation between the muslim and wes tern worlds you think he could have shown a liitte of the "cultural sensativity" that he calls for from the rest of us. ***snip***

You might want to rethink this. Apparently you weren't a history major either. link

***snip***

 

I'm just speaking from memory so I couldn't site dates but, then again wasn't Newt a Phd in history, somehow, that didn't seem to impress as much as the opinon of a grad student who includes his astrological sign in his profile.

 

Ummm . . . the astrological sign thing is part of the eBlogger format.

 

And if Newt was a Phd in history that means that he too was a graduate student . . . you do realize that this grad student may soon have a PhD as well right? That is how these things work . . .

 

What an odd argument.

 

So, we discount one who has attainned a Phd in favor of one who may? Yeah, makes sense to me. My point is simply that Newt is every bit as informed as the author with the advantage of experience in world affairs that this guy couldn't possiblly bring to the table. I'm pretty sure you understood that anyway, so why the cheecky rebuttial? The primary difference, as I see it, is that your willing to lend credibility to the arguement that best suits you. While this is human nature, I would guess that if you were presenting a case to a jury you might prefer the credenialed witness to one seeking credentials because acceptance of ones words based on their accomplishments is also human nature (and a great deal more logical to boot).

 

If you think Newt is actually arguing from a historical perspective and not just taking political jabs to further his party I don't know what to tell you. Obama is a Constitutional law scholar . . . do you automatically defer to his knowledge? Somehow I doubt it.

 

I would counter that you assume the author of the piece has no political axe to grind which I frankly find unchacteristically naive. Actually, I would defer to Obama on knowledge of Constitutional Law, I differ in interpetation and the ideological application that he generally chooses.

[carlfense]

***snip*** The working title to the project was the Cordoba House, really, no history majors here I guess. If Rauf was as interested in reconciliation between the muslim and wes tern worlds you think he could have shown a liitte of the "cultural sensativity" that he calls for from the rest of us. ***snip***

You might want to rethink this. Apparently you weren't a history major either. link

***snip***

 

I'm just speaking from memory so I couldn't site dates but, then again wasn't Newt a Phd in history, somehow, that didn't seem to impress as much as the opinon of a grad student who includes his astrological sign in his profile.

 

Ummm . . . the astrological sign thing is part of the eBlogger format.

 

And if Newt was a Phd in history that means that he too was a graduate student . . . you do realize that this grad student may soon have a PhD as well right? That is how these things work . . .

 

What an odd argument.

 

So, we discount one who has attainned a Phd in favor of one who may? Yeah, makes sense to me. My point is simply that Newt is every bit as informed as the author with the advantage of experience in world affairs that this guy couldn't possiblly bring to the table. I'm pretty sure you understood that anyway, so why the cheecky rebuttial? The primary difference, as I see it, is that your willing to lend credibility to the arguement that best suits you. While this is human nature, I would guess that if you were presenting a case to a jury you might prefer the credenialed witness to one seeking credentials because acceptance of ones words based on their accomplishments is also human nature (and a great deal more logical to boot).

 

If you think Newt is actually arguing from a historical perspective and not just taking political jabs to further his party I don't know what to tell you. Obama is a Constitutional law scholar . . . do you automatically defer to his knowledge? Somehow I doubt it.

 

I would counter that you assume the author of the piece has no political axe to grind which I frankly find unchacteristically naive. Actually, I would defer to Obama on knowledge of Constitutional Law, I differ in interpetation and the ideological application that he generally chooses.

 

Somehow I would guess that a history grad student blogger has less of a political agenda than one of the leaders of a political party. If that's naive, by all means . . . I'm naive.