Mosque near ground zero

juilag - Happyrenter's "very classy" comment really does sound so much like aboutready. She used to use that phrase quite a bit.

ph41 Agreed. Plus the syntax is remarkable similar. I think alanhart should judge. He's a grammar expert.

People Please! 200 Woman and 4 baby boys, including a 1 month old and a 6 month old were raped in the Congo. Stop this nonsense and focus on something important. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38814397/ns/world_news-africa/?gt1=43001

No, happyrenter is not aboutready.

I would know.

julialg is rufus.

can't we do both??

hotproperty
9 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse
People Please! 200 Woman and 4 baby boys, including a 1 month old and a 6 month old were raped in the Congo. Stop this nonsense and focus on something important. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38814397/ns/world_news-africa/?gt1=43001

w67thstreet, your turn ... blame the real estate industry for this one too.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/21853-short-sale-w67ths-take-on-it

w67thstreet
about 4 weeks ago
ignore this person
report abuse
nyc10023... let's put things in perspective. The mother who killed her 4 children (even she didn't have the heart to slit the throat of the 2yo) and herself had "money" problems... a significant part of which was her housing, which were in fact pumped up to ridiculousness by the bubble... manhattan was ground zero of this bubble. Now I am left to wonder is she wouldn't have killed her children if she just was a single mother w/ a rebellious 14yo boy and not someone who had to split a gyro for 4 children as their dinner and almost evicted 2 from a bubble based rents...
The manhattanites trying to move their rent-o-meters up and down several hundred dollars for 1) walk up 2)borker fees 3) doorman 4) closeness to trains 5) the "right" school district 6) proximity to fairways... I drop not a tear. Go live in LIC if you think you are forced to being life poor and housing rich....
I can't imagine the despair of a parent to kill their own and the fear of the younger daughter watching her older sister being killed by her mother haunts me. Hey julialarge/riversider... rejoice 5 less ppl on the welfare rolls, but the billions of $ for banks/gm/unions... thatz.. "capitalism" right?
fking idiots.

Comma comma comma comma comma cameleon...
you come and go....you come and go

Boy george?! Lovez that dude.

Mosquictism is just plain wrong. Just don't do it

Aboutready and I are off line talking all the time. WTF? Conspiracy theorists. Flmaoz. There's one troll. A fruity troll wo friends who thinks se is his own playground. Flmaozzz.

Julia more batteries in dildo please.

I really think alanhart should be the judge. He's an expert at grammar, after all. Plus, w67 come right in on cue defending the shrew.

aw, now julialg, it is very romantic, this love story between AR and W67.

"I have no idea what that has to do with 'tolerance of intolerance,' other than to say the people who want to build this community center should be tolerated, and have been tolerant"

Ironic you say that... they've been tolerant... of intolerance. Tolerating Hamas - there are few things worse to tolerate than folks who target CHILDREN.

Use 'd' batteries. On second thought get a outlet plug in model, dc.

do you know what tolerance means?

a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

your argument is that we should not tolerate people who deviate from tolerance. what should we do to them?

as in, what should we do to you, a person who is utterly intolerant of muslims.

Well, the first thing you need to do is get your facts straight.

Folks like you with horrific (and untrue) generalizations only contribute to the problem.

So, thats your first step... check yourself.

nice evasion.

when your premise is THAT far off, there is not much else to do.

"your argument is that we should not tolerate people who deviate from tolerance. what should we do to them?"

seems a simple question.

swe, can you check off which Muslims have proven themselves, in your eyes anyway, to be "intolerant of intolerance"?

"happyrenter
about 1 hour ago nice evasion."

Your entire life is evasion aboutready.

Julia...do you have any expectation of being taken seriously?

Or do you just come here to spout hatred?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-august-23-2010-rod-blagojevich

columbiacounty
about 2 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse Julia...do you have any expectation of being taken seriously?
Or do you just come here to spout hatred?

I'm with you buddy, julialg is rufus, lucille is ph41, julia is fake too just like NYCMatt. You and me buddy, we can get rid of these troublemakers.

This is what the leader of the regime should have said.

We as American love religious freedom, we love islam and muslims.
There are over 100 mosques in NYC and over 300 in New York State and
thousands in our great country. We hope in the future there will be
thousands of new mosques. Even though the owners of the mosque near ground zero
have a legal right to build at the site, I believe, out of respect for the
dead and for sensitivity and kindness to the million of Americans that still mourn that terrible
day, the mosque should be moved to a more appropriate site.

You're right julialg. Thanks

Are all Muslims guilty by association? No. Just like all Christians are not guilty by assocation vis a vis teh abortion clinic killers, Tim McVeigh, or the IRA. Or Asians teh Virginia Tech shooter. For the President to say what you suggest says overtly that he and America in general think THESE Muslims bear some responsibility for 9-11. They do not. End of story.

> Are all Muslims guilty by association? No.

Of course not.

> Just like all Christians are not guilty by assocation vis a vis teh abortion clinic killers, Tim
> McVeigh, or the IRA

Thats actually a bad comparison. Abortion clinic killers go to jail. Mcveigh is in Jail. And the IRA, besides being called terrorists and being in trouble with the law, were also killing other Christians. That certainly doesn't make it right, but its a bad analogy.

> seems a simple question

ruined by false accusations. The folks in support of the mosques continue to do a horrible disservice to their own cause when they time and time again resort to rediculous claims about their opponents (or in this case, not even an opponent, I'm still undecided).

So please, elucidate: can you check off which Muslims have proven themselves, in your eyes, to be "intolerant of intolerance"?

Like....? What ridiculous claims? The signs from portestors and words from Fox news pundits DO clearly indicate that many opponents...not all, but many are against Islam itself. Holding up a sign saying "Islam=murder" or saying its not a religion but a political ideology bent on destroying America pretty much says no matter where you build the mosque, you hate Muslims. The protesters against mosques in Staten Island, Kentucky, and Southern California among other places cite 9-11 as a reason that Mosques can't be built in there towns. Newt likens all Muslims to Nazis by his analogy (always fun), and countless pundits slander this guy - a guy Bush's state dept used to promote the US to the Muslim world, BTW, as a terroists sympathizer. Some pundits say that ALL mosques are training grounds for terrorists. Etc.

Even the "moderate" voices like Howard Dean or harry reid or sheldon silver are saying that ALL muslims are and should be reminders or 9-11 via guilt by assocation. Why else would you say it "painful" for a Mosque to be near teh WTC? THESE muslims had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

And my anologies were spot on. WHEN CAUGHT, terrorists do go to jail, Muslim, McViegh, or otherwise.

So when the pro-mosque people say that the opposition is motivated by hate or islamophobia, or the bigoted notion that ALL Muslims should do XYZ because of 9-11, its spot on.

ALL black people need not do anything or say anything because of the DC sniper. ALL christians need not do anything or say anything because of Abortion doctor killer. I don't NEED to condem the acts of violence committed by anyone anymore than anyone else does. THESE muslims do not NEED to donate money to the 9-11 victims, or alter their behavior in ANY way because THEY are not guilty of anything. We do not assign collective guilt in this country.

The ONLY reason you would oppose this mosque is because you someohow do think ALL muslims have some sort of guilt for 9-11. Its assanine.

The logical result of those pundits telling us that ALL Muslims bear collective guilt for 9-11.

"'Are You Muslim?' Question Leads to Cabbie Stabbing, Hate Crime Charge‎:

According to police, passenger Michael Enright, a 21-year-old from Brewster, New York, hailed a taxi at 24th Street and Second Avenue in Manhattan driven by ..."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/muslim-question-leads-cabbie-stabbing-hate-crime-charge/story?id=11480081

The mistake I'm talking about is sterotyping, of the sort you're talking about.

Absolutely, there are bigots involved doing it for bigot reasons. Many of them are on fox. Absolutely 100%, bigotry can/has led many to be against the mosque.

But if folks on one side don't listen to whomever they are arguing with, and tell them that thats what they think, even when they don't, they've lost the argument.

Are there bigots involved? Of course. But assuming that anyone who disagrees is a bigot is false and ignorant, and gets in the way of actual dialogue and understanding.

I can't tell you how many times simply because I've disagreed with someone on something, I automatically believe that RE will go down 50% (I don't) that one should never buy (I don't) that I think all Muslims are wrong (I don't). Its scary that I have to put in the "I don't", but I really do. Its incredible how many folks assume the worst of anyone who disagrees with them... on RE, on politics, on religion, on whatever.

Its generally the sign of folks with lousy arguments, or no understanding of nuance. Its the place of the moronic folks on either side of almost any argument.

And the folks whose only response is "you must be a [bigot, doomsayer, whatever]" just don't realize they're just hurting their own case.

"The ONLY reason you would oppose this mosque is because you someohow do think ALL muslims have some sort of guilt for 9-11. Its assanine"

actually, your statement is assanine. horrifically assanine.

That's fine and totally logical. I just think we'd be a lot clearer on your opinion if you talked more about what it is than about what it's not.

"ALL christians need not do anything or say anything because of Abortion doctor killer."

But I'd certainly have some questions for the church what wishes to build on the site.

This seems to be one of your HUGE mistakes. It is only you here saying "all muslims" or "all christians".

You just hurt your own case.

Going forther on this, the distinction is pretty clear for me.

Individuals.... absolutely, as long as you aren't taking away someone else's freedom (by preaching inside their house ;-))... you have the right, noone should be able to stop you. Even if you preach hate. I can hate you back, sure.

But we are talking INSTITUTIONS here. With tax breaks. And that don't have to open their books.

I think the same should apply to all religious institutions. The salvation army is homophobic (its been pretty well documented). But the charity watch sites can't show their books because they're a religion, not a charity.

I think we have to consider reducing the protections (in this case, really just open transparency) that religions get.

Or how about the washington politicians who call their houses places of worship and get tax breaks?

I think we should require more or anyone trying to claim the benefits.

You can call it what you want, but its not bigotry... this should apply to all religions/groups.

And the atheists should get the same rights!

Does anyone even remember how the palestinians and other muslims cheered all over the world at 9/11? or only me?

switel, that's pretty much a non sequitur. I know non-muslims who, unfortunately, cheered as well. What does that have to do with this?

just wanted to remind those that don't. y the way, don't remember having seen those non muslim on the news..
maybe because they were only..what? 10 persons?

2 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse
"switel, that's pretty much a non sequitur. I know non-muslims who, unfortunately, cheered as well. "

We all know the hard left cheered on sep 11. The regime's gang of thugs were very happy. The regime's leader very own "pastor" said...".America's chickens came home to roost"

You're nuts.

"don't remember having seen those non muslim on the news..
maybe because they were only..what? 10 persons?"

Sorry, are you saying that because you didn't see it on the news, it didn't happen (not in any meaningful numbers anyway)? Amazing. Many non-Muslims cheered, not because of the actual deaths, but because of what it symbolized - a giant dent in America's ego (for lack of better phrasing at the moment). I'm not saying that's justified, but I think you can see how some people got there. The point is, bringing up that some Muslims publicly cheered after 9/11 has very little to do with this mosque controversy, despite what some would have you think.

switel - what are you talking about? Everyone knows that there were only those 19 extremists responsible for 9/11. No other Islamic terrorists out there - unless you mean the '93 WTC bombing, the London Underground bombings, the Spanish mass transit bombings, the slew of hijackings in the 70s-90s, the 10s of thousands of Iraqi's who've been suicide bombed, Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO, the Iranian regime, the Taliban.....

"Sorry, are you saying that because you didn't see it on the news, it didn't happen (not in any meaningful numbers anyway)? Amazing. Many non-Muslims cheered, not because of the actual deaths, but because of what it symbolized - a giant dent in America's ego (for lack of better phrasing at the moment). I'm not saying that's justified, but I think you can see how some people got there. The point is, bringing up that some Muslims publicly cheered after 9/11 has very little to do with this mosque controversy, despite what some would have you think."

Totally agree with your analysis of the left... So glad you're honest enough to admit it. Thanks!!!!

"just wanted to remind those that don't. y the way, don't remember having seen those non muslim on the news..
maybe because they were only..what? 10 persons? "

1, a million, doesn't matter.

Anyone cheering at the deaths of civilians... at the murder of children... is simply sick.

printer - i didn't wrote "responsible" I wrote "Cheered" .

"Does anyone even remember how the palestinians and other muslims cheered all over the world at 9/11? or only me?"

Again, assigning collective guilt for all Muslims. What THOSE muslims did has nothing to do with what THESE Muslims want to do.

And SWE, yes, this is all relavent. If you agree that THESE muslims had nothing to do with 9-11, and that we are not against ISLAM but against terrorists and radicals, then its simply bigotry pure and simple, even by you, to suggest that they 'sensitive." To what? Other people's incorrect notion that ALL muslims have anything to do with 9-11? I keep throwing out analogies but you don't seem to comprehend. If someone from one group does something - any group, any bad act - it means ZERO in terms of what others from that group need to do or should do going forward.

I think its offensive that the Mormon church has an inherently racist theology, and did not allow blacks to be full members until the IRS threatened there tax exempt status, and then magically a year later they had a revaltion from God (really) that black men could be members in 1978 and priests in 1981. Yet they STILL claim that being native american or black or non-white in general is a mark of the sin of our ancestors. And that all people are white when they go to heaven. Really.

But I don't protest the Mormon temple at 129th and lenox. Just because some relgigion is offensive to some people for whatever reason does not mean we should say it should not be wherever it has the legal right to be.

Anyone cheering death is sick, no argument about that.

^^^And for that matter, i do not shout "RACIST!!!!!" every time I meet a Mormon.

"Totally agree with your analysis of the left... So glad you're honest enough to admit it. Thanks!!!!"

Look, I don't make much "left/right" distinction. If you're full of it, you're full of it. As was said above, if you cheered after 9/11, that's pretty sick. I also happen to think co-opting the pain and anger over that tragedy is pretty sick, which I think has been more a tactic of the "right" but frankly I don't care to play that game much.

last point from me:

I dont think the muslims that want to have the center have anything to do with 9/11. I do believe they want to be part of the society and pray like everyone else. the only thing that I don't understand is why have it there from all the places?

There is nothing more that I want than mutual understanding between all religions. I only think that a bit of sensitivity is not too much to ask.

Why have one in Staten Island (where it was fought and eliminated) of all places? Every place is somebody's wrong place.

And it's not "there", it's "near" "there".

switel, jason10006 can't comprehend that it's extremely insensitive. jason10006 says 'if you're against the mosque you're a racist" That's
his mind set, he can't get beyond that.

agreed... he really just hurts his own case.

> ^^^And for that matter, i do not shout "RACIST!!!!!" every time I meet a Mormon.

Right, I'm sure you just save that for anyone who speaks out against Louis Farrakhan.

;-)

jason10006 is,what he professes to hate about people, a racist. Everything to him is race and religion and groups. If you're against the mosque, for whatever reason. guess what, you are a racist. Race, race race race race that is all he sees.

His biggest mistake here is not understanding what bigotry really is. Bigotry requires discrimination. Its applying different standards to other religions than your own.

I'm saying the exact opposite, I'm talking about applying the same standard to all, and a better standard.

But Jason's misunderstanding just makes things worse for those he supports, and everyone else.

I did not say it was racist, it was bigoted. What do the mosque people need to be sensitive for? They had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 9-11. They only have to be sensitive to others' religious bigotry.

If a woman is raped by a black man, is it being "sensitive" to deny a job at her office to a black man because it reminds her of the rape? No, its racist. If you deny the job to ANY man, its sexist. If you had a mean left handed red headed step-mother, its bigotry to expect other left-handed or red headed women to steer clear of you.

Catholic priests may have molested many children, but is it therefore "insensitive" to invite someone who was once abused to a baptism or wedding officiated by a Catholic priest? 9 years later? How about Easter dinner? How about wearing the cross on your head on ash wednesday - deeply offensive to this person?

Its sheer lunacy. Switel, you CLEARLY do on some level equate THESE Muslims and ALL Muslims with 9-11. Otherwise, there woudl be nothing for them to "sensitive" about. Why do they have to put it here? They ALREADY OWN THE BUILDING and ALREADY use it as a mosque for starters.

And as alanhart pointed out, protesters in Staten Island, Kentucky, Texas, and california among other places are protesting local mosques using the same verbatum arguments as juliag et all - invoking september 11, etc.

Apperently, the excluding zone around the WTC is 3,000 miles.

^^ i should say any man based soley on his gender....

...also there is a second mosque four blocks away. Should that move too? Please give us the exact distance from the WTC that is sufficiently sensitive.

jason10006.... You have very little perspective. Why can't you see the extreme insensitivity of the mosque? You're faux righteousness is childish.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/244545/inventing-moderate-islam-andrew-c-mccarthy

What about it is insensitive? These are SUFI Muslims. Those were Saudi Wahabists. Its like getting made at Lutherens in Vancouver because of what a Catholic priest did to a kid in Italy.

You post a link to claim that all Muslims are not moderate - that they can NEVER be moderate. Ergo you think ALL muslims are as radical as the 9-11 bombers, including these muslims. Ergo you are a religious bigot.

Julialrg. Your dildo misses you.

I mean come on, soon we'll have people randomly stabbing muslim looking cab drivers. Let's stop this hatred bf it leads to that.

jason10008... Let us say in 2010, the germans wanted to build a world war 2 german cultural center NEAR the site of auschwitz. jason10006 would say, "no big deal,that was 65 years ago, get over it. all germans aren't nazis. why are you racist against ALL germans? most nazis are even dead. these germans had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the death camps"

Julia...why do you keep gOing on and on and on? You're never going to convince anyone. Everything you say just confirms that you a nuts zealot with far more in common with other zealots of different persuasions. You and your endless slogans add nothing but noise. Endless noise,

cc What do you really care about? Just going along to get along....

I care about family. I care about doing the right thing. I care about being fair. I care about being very careful of judging others. I care about the golden rule because of it's pragmatism. I care about making a reasonable living for my family and myself. I care about other people.

okay cc agreed. But don't you think it's extremely insensitive to build that mosque at ground zero?

No. The people who are planning to build it have nothing in common with the people who destroyed it.

columbiacounty Ignored comment. Unhide

Hard to read, what is it you really care about?

How about building that german WWII cultural center near auschwitz?cc

I don't know anything about it. What could that possibly have to do with the downtown mosque?

cc... answer the question.

How about building that german WWII cultural center near auschwitz? jason10006. No problem, right?

I did. Having no information about what you are talking about, I would have to say that I have no opinion. I still don't understand what that has to do with building a mosque in downtown manhattan.

In theory cc, should today germans that aren't even nazis, build a WW11 cultural center near auschwitz. Would that be insensitive?

What is a WWII cultural center? What would it's purpose be? Would it be in part a memorial to the many who were killed there?

Julia....what's your point?

But these muslims are AGAINST 9-11. The CORRECT analogy would be if Germans who were against the nazis wanted to build a cultural center next to auschwitz.

However, I would (in America) support neo-nazis right to march in a jewish or black neighborhood, or anti-abortion protesters's rights outside an abortion clinic. And if there was site of an American holocaust based on race (say a native americcan massacre) and some racists who hated native americans wanted to build a monument to such hate, I would say "ok."

Oh wait...we already built Mt. Rushmore.

But you see I support free speech and freedom of religion, even from racists and bigots and people who hate gays and blacks and whatever. Or from radical fairies, radical greens, communists, whatever.

We all support their right jason10006. That's not the point. NOBODY qustions their RIGHT. We are talking about should they do it not can they do it.....

Why shouldn't they?

WWii. Hahahahhaha

jason10006,

Did not make a bad comparison. Some Muslims, do go to jail providing they don't kill themselves during acts of terrorism or evade police apprehension. Terrorism is not limited to Muslims as we all know. Not all pro-life killers are captured. Timothy McVeigh, received the death penalty. George Washington, became the first President of the USA. I am shocked the conspiracy theory is still unused!

"> Are all Muslims guilty by association? No.

Of course not.

> Just like all Christians are not guilty by assocation vis a vis teh abortion clinic killers, Tim
> McVeigh, or the IRA"

Thats actually a bad comparison. Abortion clinic killers go to jail. Mcveigh is in Jail. And the IRA, besides being called terrorists and being in trouble with the law, were also killing other Christians. That certainly doesn't make it right, but its a bad analogy.

My view- to not want a mosque in that location simply because it is a mosque is a bigoted opinion. This isn't a Taliban Center or an Al-Qaeda center, it is an Islamic center and mosque. To say that anything related to Islam should be kept away from locations "near" Ground Zero is to stereotype all Muslims as associated with terrorism.

Now, if someone has issues specific to the organizers of this mosque, and believes based on evidence that the organizers are hateful or corrupt, then I see no problem protesting the organizers and taking a position that they, specifically, shouldn't be there. But, obviously, unless the organizers committed some illegality, the government should not be part of the decision.

jason, you are messed up. It's one thing to begrudgingly accept that everyone (within well known limitations) has the constitutional right to free speech or to build monuments on private land, etc. It is quite another to say that it is 'ok' with you if racists build monuments to racism, anywhere. I'm not 'ok' with that.

printer,

I agree with you "racists build monuments to racism, anywhere. I'm not 'ok' with that."

e.g. A court ruled burning crosses to be illegal because of what it represented.

jason10006 .... You're an atheist and you are voraciously defending the rights of a religion that would, if in power ,deny you all of your liberties. Now, we all agree in the constitution and religious freedom, so don't throw that back. Just think of the way women,gays and .non-muslims are treated in suadi arabia, the protecter of islam. I will agree in the rights of nazis to march around a jewish center but I certainly won't be advocating for them... Why are you defending islam so passionately?

"you are voraciously defending the rights of a religion that would, if in power ,deny you all of your liberties"

Even if that's true (and I don't really think it is), it doesn't matter in terms of this mosque. No one is talking about turning this into a Muslim country. In case you don't know much about the history here, the First Amendment to the US Constitution kind of prohibits that from happening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3srghy2IFBg

"Catholic priests may have molested many children, but is it therefore "insensitive" to invite someone who was once abused to a baptism or wedding officiated by a Catholic priest?"

No, but your analogies are off yet again.

A better analogy would be having the priest sit in his therapy sessions....
;-)

And that one still isn't strong enough.

Leave out religion... imagine your kid is killed by a clown. Would it be ok to not have a clown at the funeral?

Why are you racist against clowns? Just because a fringe element of clowns are radical, doesn't mean ALL clowns are radical. THESE clowns at the funeral are bridge builders, they have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the radical clown.

I don't know - was he killed in the name of clowns, or just killed by a guy who happens to be a clown? What if the clown is there to show his sympathies? Seriously though, that's a terrible analogy. Putting up a building that's not even on the same site is not the same as attending a funeral.

Julialarge, lindsay lohan is pregnant.

Whew! That outta keep her out of streeteasy for a few hours.

Swe? You are way way off dude. It seems when your entire identity is one dimensional, an attack on that one dimension makes ppl complete hypocrites.

A jewish guy that I knew, completely rational on all things political, immoral, social..... Had serious issues getting into my Porsche. This is america, not mini Israel, not mini Egypt, not mini Mormon church, not little italy...... You pledge allegiance to the us, and it's values.

The Catholic Priest analogy is not a good one - here is the correct one:
Someone who was molested invites a friend to his wedding, and the friend saying that he will be taking a Priest as his guest. Upon finding out, the groom requests that he doesn't bring the Priest, because although that Priest wasn't the abuser, and in fact is a great guy (like most Priests), the memories are just too painful when he sees the collar. Is he an anti-priest bigot? Oversensitive? Unreasonable? Out of order? Should the Priest just show up anyway, because after all the invite says 'and guest' and doesn't mention anything about pre-screening.

What would you do if you were the invited friend?