Mosque near ground zero

porsche:

The company is the majority shareholder in Volkswagen AG, the parent company of the Volkswagen Group.

Professor Ferdinand Porsche founded the company called "Dr. Ing. h. c. F. Porsche GmbH" in 1931,[14] One of the first assignments the new company received was from the German government to design a car for the people: Volkswagen.

Volkswagen was originally founded in 1937 by the NAZI trade union German Labour Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront).

Hitler required a basic vehicle capable of transporting two adults and three children at 100 km/h (62 mph). The "People's Car" would be available to citizens of the Third Reich through a savings scheme at 990 Reichsmark, about the price of a small motorcycle (an average income being around 32RM a week).[4]

printer, I'd say he's being both oversensitive and insensitive. Of course, it's not pc to say so, but this is my opinion of course. Part of it depends on the timeline - chances are, the act happened many years ago, and I think that's enough time to let wounds heal. If it were a matter of weeks or months, you could make a stronger case. As for the mosque, 10 years is not an eternity, but I think it's enough time that the "sensitivity" argument has lost much of its strength. Also, chances are most people's daily lives will be completely unaffected by this mosque should it go up. It won't show up to their weddings, at least.

How do jews and nazis always find their way as bad examples for every argument all the time.

My mother's entire extended family went up in smoke (literally) at the hands of the Nazis or ended up as lampshades, soap, crash test dummy for mercedes, or whatever sensational disgusting act to exploit.
And my grandfather survived Dachau and Mathausen.

And I certainly have no problem driving a beemer or a fraulein, eating shnitzel or strudel, or just doing business with (as i do) with any germans.

But W67, if my mom had a problem getting into a german car regardless of what country she swears an oath to, ya might understand it?

bjw - so he is being oversensitive and insensitive, but what would you do as the invited friend? and almost more to the point, what do you think this priest would do upon finding out?

BJW
I would agree except here we are 10 years later and the place is still a parking lot. No building, more importantly, no proper memorial built yet we are forging ahead plans for a muslim center.
How's that make some of the 9/11 victims feel? These are not my feelings, as I said earlier, Im fairly dispassionate about the topic, But I do understand some of the anger.

German, Japanese or American it would take a very courageous man to willingly submit to sitting in the passenger seat of a sportscar next to W67 - i don't think the German thing had anything to do with it.

:) I suppose a wittier post by me would have/should have been...."Was it a boxster?"

printer, I would likely talk to the friend and explain it a bit more. If he/she pushes back, I'd drop it and go alone or with someone else. But I think that relationship would suffer if it came to that. It's tough to stay that close with people who are oversensitive and insensitive at the same time. Eventually, the wiser among us come to a more conciliatory place. As for the priest, I don't think there's any reason to let him know one way or the other, is there? If he somehow found out, I'm not sure how he would react. This is a nameless, faceless priest we're talking about - we don't know him. Unless you want to start stereotyping priests or something. I think you can see by now that this analogy has run its course.

truthskr, which place are you talking about? WTC? Or the Burlington Coat Factory?

BJW :) Indeed, the bullseye and the surrounding yellow.

I think many of the still angry 9/11 camp who watched their mayor not vocal enough for 10 years on WTC all of a sudden sing a chorus for a coat factory.....just sayin

"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?"

How others are treated in other countries is not the point. Its how WE in America treat each other, and respect the rights of others.

I am defending these people 1) they are NOT at all like the Muslims in Saudi Arabia 2) People like you keep trying to conflate them.

"The Catholic Priest analogy is not a good one - here is the correct one:"

No, mine is just fine the way it is. If you want to use yours, you would have to say that no Catholic priests can ever be near this person for any reason, or anything relating to Catholism. This is a YMCA for Muslims.

"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. "

I thought anti-nazi was a pretty universally American value... (well, at least after Americans started getting killed in the war).

> No, mine is just fine the way it is.

Only if you want to keep hurting your argument.

> If you want to use yours, you would have to say that no Catholic priests can ever be near this
> person for any reason, or anything relating to Catholism.

No, not even close. You're off again.

We're talking about being near the grave. We're not talking about being against a mosque anywhere else in the city. The victim's familes aren't saying "don't put one near my house, or anyone near me". They are saying they don't want it near the graves.

Only you are saying anywhere.

"My mother's entire extended family went up in smoke (literally) at the hands of the Nazis or ended up as lampshades, soap, crash test dummy for mercedes, or whatever sensational disgusting act to exploit.
And my grandfather survived Dachau and Mathausen.

And I certainly have no problem driving a beemer or a fraulein, eating shnitzel or strudel, or just doing business with (as i do) with any germans.

But W67, if my mom had a problem getting into a german car regardless of what country she swears an oath to, ya might understand it?"

Interestingly enough, they tried to build a convent near Auschwitz. Survivors were not happy.
The pope stepped in and they didn't build the convent there.

It can't be bigotry if you're asking for the same sensitivity you've shown yourself.

"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?"

Great analogy. Replace priest with "african american."

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

seems pretty obvious to me that, as awful as it is to be molested, it is out of order--it is, simply, racist--to refuse to associate with african americans because you happened to be molested by an african american. i have sympathy with the victim of molestation, of course, but that's no justification for racism.

Again, confusing individuals with organizations and membership.

nice try happyrenter, but no - there weren't a bunch of molesters who 'just happened to be priests' - there was clearly something endemic going on, which the Church has, quite belatedly obviously, addressing. Ditto the Islamic terrorists - if it were random incidents then your substitution would hold, but this has been a campaign for 30 yrs of targeting innocent civilians, by several Islamic groups, led by myriad clerics.

That it was not this particular group of clerics, or of course most American Muslims makes it very analogous to the Priest situation above.

Thruty10, I am saddened for your family's loss.

Should we all not eat sushi? Go far back enough, we've all been wronged by somebody, rigth? This is america, the Nazis are not welcomed, the right wing jewish settlers are not welcomed, etc etc etc. We are a values driven country, starting with freedom of religion.

One other thing, I often walk by the Jewish center on the uws during some religious time, and the place is crawling with cops. My wife always wants to walk far away from it for fear that some radical Palestinian or muslim might like to blow that place up, especially if we are with the little ones. So should my wife and 10,000 other fearful ninnies get a right to remove that center?

in this country, we treat religious identification as equivalent to racial identity: we subject discrimination against members of a given religion or a given race to strict scrutiny under the constitution. so the analogy of a religious to a racial/ethnic identification is entirely appropriate.

"That it was not this particular group of clerics, or of course most American Muslims makes it very analogous to the Priest situation above."

why not substute "human being" for cleric or muslim, as in:

"That it was not this particular group of human beings, or of course most American human beings makes it very analogous to the Priest situation above."

certainly, the attacks of september 11th were carried out by human beings, in the name of human beings.

and one other question: as mayor bloomberg asks, for those of you who oppose this community center and mosque, how big should the no mosque zone be?

Missed Connections........

Me...handsome salt&pepper looker on 6 train heading north
You...berka wearing hottie sitting right across from me

Glances were exchanged.......
I think

would this be the same bloomberg who immediately, without any evidence, laid blame for the times sq. attempted bombing at the foot of a white conservative anti-Obama activist? Yeah, he's a great example of someone without any prejudices.

so you think bloomberg is prejudiced against...white people?

that's just odd.

not to mention irrelevant.

and again, the question remains:

how large should the no mosque zone be?

ACTUALLY the correct version of your analogy is what if your friend was a guest at YOUR wedding and said they did not want a Catholic priest or service as they had bad memories of abuse. You and your wife to be, both devout Catholics, are told to accommodate your friends bias.

Your friend may have a right to request something of you for THEIR wedding, but not the other way around! Its YOUR wedding!

You see, these Muslims ALREADY OWN THE BUILDING and ALREADY PRAY THERE, RIGHT NOW!

The only reason ANYONE is offended is because they mistakenly think ALL Muslims are the same and ALL of them should do things members of any other religion or irreligion need not do. At its core, this is either bigotry or appeasment of bigots so as to not hurt the bigots feelings.

I cite as evidence the fact that the signs held up by protesters outside the center in NYC as well as the words used by the Fox News pundits and people on this very board are about ALL MUSLIMS, or claim absurdly that THESE Muslims support all sorts of things they don't.

The icing on the cake is that there is ABSOLUTELY no distintion between these arguements and those used by opponents of Mosques in Staten Island, Brooklyn, Kentucky, Texas, California...all over the U.S.

The arguments in ALL of these non-Manhattan places are verbatum the same: 9-11, terrorism, al-quaeda, taking over America, Sharia, oppression of women, etc.

how large should the no mosque zone be?

1 millimeter X 1 millimeter

no...too big

No need to read ANY of this post if your a rabid right winger who hates MM. Just scroll down and read the signs protesters are holding up outside the mosque in NYC and say its not hatred of ALL Muslims.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201008260020

i still like my n-word comparison. most white people are not racist, had never owned slaves, don't come from families that owned slaves. but most white people understand that this word is just off limits because of its history. most muslims are not terrorist, but this area is just off limits. sorry to butt in, you fellas seem to be really going at it.

Your analogy is ass-backwards. Most people white people stay away from the n-word in PRIVATE or BETWEEN JUST THEM AND OTHER WHITE PEOPLE because they are not racist. Its not because they do not want to offend racists! What you are saying is "don't call Uncle KKKracker the Clan Grand Dragon a racist to his face, it offends him!"

i mentioned dr. laura's debacle, where she screamed n n n at this black woman to prove a point. that had dr. laura been black it would have been ok. my point is that while she was within her rights to say it, she shouldn't. black people can say that word, but white people, while we have a right to say whatever they want SHOULD NOT, because of the word's history.

the have the right to build a mosque anywhere they please, but they souldn't put one there because it is hurtful and offensve.

your last post doesn't make any sense

"Nazis are not welcomed, the right wing jewish settlers are not welcomed"
nazis=settlers, oh really w67?

lucillebluth,

You are crazy!

so lucille, what qualifies as 'this area?' how large should the no mosque zone be?

i ran past the site of the community center/mosque last night--the "hallowed ground" next to J and R music, across the street from city hall park.

and i noticed something interesting: to get from the site of the community center/mosque to the world trade center, you have no choice but to walk past either st. paul's chapel or trinity church. this neighborhood is full of houses of worship that are far closer to ground zero than the community center/mosque will be.

it's kind of amazing, actually: by NYC standards this building is not even close to the former world trade center. it's close to the woolworth building, it's within sight of the brooklyn bridge and city hall.

now, if you ask me, it would be perfectly fine if this community center were built within the world trade center sight, so long as the developers wanted to put it there--the private developers, not the port authority. but the fact is that it isn't even close to the site. if you object to this mosque, you basically have to believe that all of downtown manhattan is off limits for muslim houses of worship.

so again, i ask those of you who oppose this building: how big is the no mosque zone?

"world trade center sight" should be "world trade center site."

so again, i ask those of you who oppose this building: how big is the no mosque zone?"" aboutready... That's just plain retarded. It's like pornography, you KNOW what it is when you see it. Stop playing that game.

Considering the fact that the muslims in question ALREADY OWN THE BUILDING and ALREADY have a prayer center in the building, and the fact that another Mosque is four blocks away and a third is also below Chambers...yes, its relavent question, asked of you 20 times. Do all three need to move? If so how far away?

And why are half the arguments and links you posted ALSO used by Mosque opponents in Kentucky, Texas, California, Staten island, etc.

Your arguments almost all seem to against Islam itself.

"It's like pornography, you KNOW what it is when you see it. Stop playing that game."

I think most people can define pornography. You seem to have a lot of trouble defining what the no mosque zone should be. It really shouldn't be hard unless you have other motivations behind your opposition.

w67thstreet "the Nazis are not welcomed, the right wing jewish settlers are not welcomed"?????????

Who are you? Don't dare to compare both.

There are things that time doesn't heal. My family from my grandma side was burried alive by the Nazis. including kids.

There is no place for comparison between both

Glad to see that in the midst of this whole endless discussion that not everyone has just overlooked the staggering comparison of Nazis to right wing settlers.

nyg, if we reacted to every grotesque, inane, offensive statement W67 made, we'd have to time for anything else. How this guy is still allowed to soil the SE boards is beyond me.

what do nazis and west bank settlers have to do with thc community center/mosque being built in the 'hallowed' ground next to j and r electronics and across the street from the woolworth building? answer: nothing.

again: how big is the no mosque zone?

given that this mosque/community center is not even near the world trade center, and is further away from the site than several churches, and is only a block closer than another mosque, it seems like the key question for anyone who opposes this building:

how big is the no mosque zone?

"certainly, the attacks of september 11th were carried out by human beings, in the name of human beings."

aboutready.... Another retarded comment. Yes, they were human" beings". But, they were inspired by radical islam in the name of islam. Your statement doesn't give one confidence in the Yale educational system.

DubyaSixSev
Hey brother, usually I don't let any of the stuff you post get a rise out of me because I see it as just that, it's just that your friend's "thing" used to be my moms "thing" and it struck a chord with me.

"Thruty10, I am saddened for your family's loss."

I know you mean it and if you read my post carefully, it's my mom's trauma, not mine as I generally have no problems with anything german. But it is very much that, a life long trauma. She actually will get in a german car, she even had a Mercedes for a while, but that was in the late 80s, some 40 years after traumatic events?

"Should we all not eat sushi? Go far back enough, we've all been wronged by somebody, rigth? This is america, the Nazis are not welcomed, the right wing jewish settlers are not welcomed, etc etc etc. We are a values driven country, starting with freedom of religion"

Of course not, but your comparing to something with a 60 year spread, not 10. What do you think if this was 1951? What do you think if they wanted to build a Japanese Cultural Society 2 blocks from Pearl Harbor?
In 1951??
And there is one now....but in Honolulu!....and built in the 90's!

What if Americans wanted to build a cultural center in Nagasaki.....in 1951?(possible radiation issues so ok...)How about 1961? How about even now?? Or open the Oppenheimer Center for the advancement of nuclear energy for cleaner power....just outside Hiroshima? How'd that be?

Don't sell trauma so short, and I will reiterate a third time,I am not against the center being built, and not against being built in that location.
But I understand a lot of my fellow Nyers (and all I care about are my fellow NYers, F everyone else) are still traumatized and if it's too soon and to close for them, I can't beef 'em....that's all.

As most of this public argument is political and I hate that part of it, to me it's up to the local population, and what I mean by local population doesn't even include the whole of NYC,or the mayor..... just the people that live and work in FIDI and Tribeca.

and
"One other thing, I often walk by the Jewish center on the uws during some religious time, and the place is crawling with cops. My wife always wants to walk far away from it for fear that some radical Palestinian or muslim might like to blow that place up, especially if we are with the little ones. So should my wife and 10,000 other fearful ninnies get a right to remove that center?"

Well sorry to hear your wife feels a small taste of what jews worldwide feel slightly longer than just 60 seconds. I imagine it's like the same risk I feel when walking by an abortion clinic?

I think Bloomberg, like most other liberal elitists, is indeed prejudiced against a class of white people - working/middle class, conservative, religious. That's why his immediate reaction to the Mosque controversy was to band all opponents 'racist bigots'.

so how about just answering the question at hand:

how big is the no mosque zone?

truthskr, I get what you're saying. The difference for me is that Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki/Hiroshima were condoned by the respective governments. 9/11 is a different beast here - none of these Muslims are affiliated with that.

"how big is the no mosque zone?"

As I said before - A few blocks away outside of the radius, a little sensitivity, is in order. A sensible radius would be one in which there is or was not debris from the wreckage. A sensible radius is probably one in which someone on the 100th floor who decided to jump instead of burning, wouldn't have landed. Is that so difficult to understand? Why is this area so important for you? The only rationale why this location, and not one outside of this radius, is preferred, is because of an intention to inflame.

11 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse
"I think Bloomberg, like most other liberal elitists, is indeed prejudiced against a class of white people - working/middle class, conservative, religious. That's why his immediate reaction to the Mosque controversy was to band all opponents 'racist bigots'."

Absolutely correct. Plus, do you remember this bloomberg gem?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3srghy2IFBg

I don't have an answer because at this point I don't know what the options are. I'm not against the mosque/center - I am against the characterization of all opponents as being intolerant racists. I feel that there are very legitimate reasons to oppose its location, as well as questions about the leaders behind it and the funding of it. I have been extremely disappointed and confused by the lack of transparency from said leaders, as well as their seeming unwillingness to engage in dialogue with the likes of Paterson and Archbishop Egan who have attempted to mediate the situation.

The self-appointed voices of moderation and reason - like Bloomberg, immediately attacked the opponents with nasty labels. Instead of moderating, they inflamed.

printer,

there are no options. that is, they own this site, they don't own another site. this is the site. the only way to get this thing moved is to force them out because of their religion. so the question is: how far away should they be forced because of their religion?

deplucha,

debris from the wreckage blanketed lower manhattan and parts of brooklyn and new jersey. there are dozens of mosques in the area blanketed by debris from the wreckage of those towers. so that provides no guidance.

as for the distance people jumped from the building, it's quite hard to imagine that they landed over 900 feet away from the towers. this mosque is quite simply not in the immediate vicinity of the towers. so if you think a mosque shouldn't be built here, where should it be built? what reasonable criteria can we establish for how far muslims need to stay from the world trade center?

and printer, it isn't nasty to label all muslims 'islamists,' to call moderate sufi american citizens 'jihadists,' to compare muslims with nazis and kkk members?

insisting that racists are, well, racist, isn't nasty.

if the no mosque zone is to be determined by debris, then we need to forcibly remove dozens of mosques from new york and new jersey.

if it is to be the size of the area people jumped from the tower, then this one is already outside the zone.

happy, Bloomberg and his ilk didn't differentiate - they labeled all opponents of the mosque's location as racists. I think there are legitimate, and of course illegitimate, reasons to oppose.
To say that since they bought this building there are no other options is patently ridiculous - of course they could voluntarily sell it and buy another, swap, etc.

"of course they could voluntarily sell it and buy another, swap, etc."

Let's be realistic and practical - that's an unlikely scenario. And frankly, until there's a really compelling reason to oppose this (and obviously I don't think I've heard one yet), it's a terrible idea to bow to ignorance and racism (I'm not saying that all opponents are these things, but enough are that they would feel emboldened - that is just a bad outcome in my book).

printer,

again, they 'could' voluntarily sell it. but they have voluntarily chosen not to sell it. they own it, they consider this the best spot for their center. so, for opponents of the mosque, the only option is to force them out. what am i missing here?

i don't really care if people want to be bigots, or want to be offended for no reason, as long as we respect the rights of these people to build their mosque and community center on their own private property in accordance with zoning regulations. islamophobia is terrible, but but obviously not uncommon, and it isn't going anywhere, which is why this is such a case in point for why we have a constitutional system that protects unpopular minority groups.

i hope bloomberg steps up and writes them a big check.

i should also add that none of these so-called reasonable 'opponents' have given any, well, reasonable reasons for their opposition. the fact that it offends some people is not a reasonable reason. offense is something we have to live with in a free society.

The insanity of the left has no limits. The radical ISLAMISTS if the had the ability, would annihilate NYC with nukes. How can the left not see that? When will they comprehend the danger? Do all of you forget SEPT 11?

LOL

here we go again. moving a community center is going to do what to prevent an attack on nyc by radical islamists, or by anyone else?

how far away should this community center be built to prevent attacks on nyc? what location would keep julia safe?

and the radical mormons would marry our 12 yo daughters--

and white supremacists would kill all blacks and jews--

and christian tim mcveigh killed 200 in oklahoma city--

and the list could go on and on

get a rechargeable, julia

"The radical ISLAMISTS if the had the ability, would annihilate NYC with nukes. How can the left not see that? When will they comprehend the danger? Do all of you forget SEPT 11?"

Also, if the Mets had the ability, they would win the World Series. Neither scenario is at all relevant to this mosque.

happy,
of course there is no way to force them to move without violating their constitutional rights (as far as I am aware), and I am very thankful for that. what you are missing is that they could try to sit down with those who have sought to reach out to them to find out whether there is another acceptable option. Besides the fact that they purchased this building - something which can be remedied, is there some reason why it MUST be at 51Park? Did Mohammed die there? Does it hold some spiritual significance which cannot be replicated anywhere else in Manhattan? Of course not. And let's stop with the canard that it isn't really that close to the WTC site, when this proximity is something the developers themselves originally touted.

Why did aboutready change her name to happyrenter?

printer,

again, your mistake is to put some sort of onus on these developers to prove why they want to build here. it's their business. i assume that reasonable proximity to a huge new development, featuring millions of square feet of office and commercial space, would play some role in their choice of this location. why shouldn't it? they got this building for a pretty cheap price, and i am sure they hope that proximity to the largest office buildings in the city and a huge retail complex will make this a more prominent location.

it may also be the case that they want to be near the site of the attacks to show al qaeda and the rest of the world that the united states is a welcome place for moderate muslims, and to be a part of rebuilding this neighborhood.

they may also want to be here because they just love j and r electronics and want to be on the same block.

if i had been developing the world trade center site, i would have invited a similar moderate muslim group to build an islamic center IN the development; that would have been great symbolism. now we have the worst possible symbolism with the entire republican party and about half of the democrats lining up against a totally reasonable, legitimate, contsitutionally protected project.

"the fact that it offends some people is not a reasonable reason."

You are quite wrong. It is more than quite reasonable.

And it isn't just some minority of people. Evidence this thread. Evidence that you feel the need to support something so vociferously that you have nothing to do with personally.

It is YOUR point of view that lacks pragmatism.

This is 2 blocks away of the destruction of two hundred + story buildings that were destroyed.

The only think you are correct about is that there is a money motive for the developer, they do own this site and no others. But Patterson and others are trying to work with that.

The libs would never allow Walmart to build in NYC even if they owned the land, But, islamists who want to build a mosque at ground zero, the lunatic left defends to the death.

you think it is reasonable to force people to move out of their privately owned property because their presence there offends other people? what kind of society do you want to live in?

You think that the offense is unreasonable?

And by the way, they haven't moved in.

"truthskr, I get what you're saying. The difference for me is that Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki/Hiroshima were condoned by the respective governments. 9/11 is a different beast here - none of these Muslims are affiliated with that."

I'm glad you do BJW. I think as often as we all like to put up analogies and try to understand "like kind" scenarios, 99% of them will always fall short, depending on how passionate or how much skin one has in the game.

Now "the difference for you" answer touches on another subject that could be debated for hours/days/years and Im almost afraid to open the can of worms. But I guess it needs to be because it is part of the underlying problem and is the undertow that finds us in these "cultural wars" with islam all the time and will continue to do so until there are changes.

The response, (and forget about the muslim center element to this) of "not the same muslims" is of course on the outside a most valid argument but illuminates the chronic problem "we" or "they" or whatever group or sector ends up having with Islam as a whole is there is no "check yourself" element.

Meaning, you have a beef with pedophile priests?....you have catholic groups, or at the very least catholic people quite vocal,or media, etc. and holding the church or Vatican City to task on the issue.

Jewish right wing settlers get too frisky?....you have Ny liberal jews, Israeli media, etc. holding them to task,etc.
In the western world, you have 2 sides to every argument, quite vocal on both sides and out in the open, and at the very least, these groups "policing" their own.

Islam does a piss poor job of policing their own, offering the same response you did, leaving the voice of opposition to "outsiders" which will always be harsher.
I know it sounds silly but if there were some substancial "islamic" groups voices screaming louder and most important screaming first against wrongs done in the name of Islam, it would be different.

What do we know about humans? There are always at least two perspectives on an issue. Any issue.
Westerners are quite vocal on just about anything for both sides, let alone physically doing something about "the other side."
Is there an islamic country that can take the reigns? Turkey? Saudi Arabia?Yeah ...exactly. There are 1 billion muslims on the planet, where is the other side? Afraid? I understand that. So how's that make non muslims feel....not afraid? Where's the effort?

What if Egypt, Saudi Arabia,and Turkey freed Kuwait?...without the West. Wouldn't that have been so much more proper....and healthier? Where would we be today as a global society if that happened?
How many more million lives would have been saved?
How different would things be if countries like Turkey..or Egypt...or UAE were spearheading the fight against Al Qaida?

I know some of my comments will be interpreted wrong. And my intention was to offend NO ONE.

But I strongly feel that if an element to Islamic society doesn't really step up, nothing is going to change. Muslims will never find contentment with "outsiders" (such as me) giving "the other side of the perspective." The sooner muslims physically act on this, the sooner there we'll be substancial alleviation of perceived prejudices all around.

having lived and worked here through 9/11, I feel that its completely inappropriate. you think this could have been done in 2002 ?

The reason they want to build THERE, as politifact.com says, is because the current facility and the two other mosques in the areas are so OVERFLOWING that people have to pray outside on the sidewalk. The street vendors, cab drivers, employees of various businesses (yes there are Muslim bankers at Goldman Sachs) etc have to pray five times a day, and have no room to pray at existing facilities. If you work at or near the WTC - Goldman, DB, the NYSE, etc, juliag is saying you can't walk to a mosque, you have to take a subway ride, so as to not be "insensitive." its absurd.

"What if Americans wanted to build a cultural center in Nagasaki.....in 1951?(possible radiation issues so ok...)How about 1961? How about even now?? Or open the Oppenheimer Center for the advancement of nuclear energy for cleaner power....just outside Hiroshima? How'd that be?"

AGAIN false analogy. What if ANTI-NUKE Americans who were APPALLED at what happened to to Hiroshima and Nagasaki wanted to build such a center? I think no one would object. THESE Muslims were NOT involved in 9-11 and in fact were opposed to al-quaeda in every way.

deplucha,

actually, they have. the buildings are already being used as prayer space.

happy,

if community outreach/peaceful coexistence, etc. are part of their mission, then why shouldn't they want to work out an amicable arrangement? Does it suck for them that right now the majority of Americans are skeptical of the Muslim community as a result of the terrorist actions of some of them? Absolutely. They (non-fanatical Muslims) have been put in a position where they have to bridge the divide created by the fanatical muslims. Unfortunately, the choice of their non-Muslim supporters to brand all opponents as racists has made that job that much harder.

"actually, they have. the buildings are already being used as prayer space. "

Ah, well, there's no turning back. The rest of the multi-million dollar build-out can not be stopped, except by force of racism. Is that your position?

truthskr,

some of what you say is accurate, some inaccurate. but what does any of it have anything to do with this community center?

of course that's my position. it "cannot be stopped" because it is legal and has been approved by the relevant authorities. so, no, it 'cannot be stopped.'

how do you propose stopping it?

" THESE Muslims were NOT involved in 9-11 and in fact were opposed to al-quaeda in every way."

How do you know that the financial backers of the mosque had nothing to do with sept 11 or radical islamists? Prove it, you have said it 100 times. Why doesn't the imam answer questions?

1 - the people involved can realize that they've been entirely insensitive to the community and stop it themselves

2 - the relevant authorities can realize that they did not take into account the community when they approved this and revoke their approval.

#1 would be preferred and would require some earwax removal.

"AGAIN false analogy. What if ANTI-NUKE Americans who were APPALLED at what happened to to Hiroshima and Nagasaki wanted to build such a center? I think no one would object. THESE Muslims were NOT involved in 9-11 and in fact were opposed to al-quaeda in every way."

Yes take it even further, what if they were japanese americans who were interned in a camp during the war and emigrated to Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the war and wanted to build an american culture center, they wouldn't let them do it, certainly not 10 years after the incident.

deplucha,

you actually think #2 is legal?

julia,

it's obviously illegal to accept money from al qaeda for a building project in the united states. try again.

truthskr,

there are a variety of american institutions in both hiroshima and nagasaki and there have been since world war two.

at least get your facts straight.

2 - the relevant authorities can realize that they did not take into account the community when they approved this and revoke their approval.

whose community?? i live in the community and have no problem with this community center for muslims

and since when does the community matter? unless an entity or person is breaking specific laws, they have a right, in this fine country to buy and operate any real estate they'd like--consider yourself lucky in this, cuz no matter who you are, there have beeen communities that didnt want you and yours around--but, so long as you are law-abiding, you have had a right to own and operate real estate just as any other has

"whose community?? i live in the community and have no problem with this community center for muslims" It's America's community.

And aluding back to my post to BJW, the appropriate step for "THESE Muslims were NOT involved in 9-11 and in fact were opposed to al-quaeda in every way" would have been to denounce and/or rescind an offer or rumours of an offer by Hamas or any other terrorist group to fund the center.

Something so unbelievably small as a gesture like that would have carried miles. The point muslims and the chronic appeasers perpetually fail to see

How do you know that the financial backers of the mosque had nothing to do with sept 11 or radical islamists?

lose the batteries, get a damned rechargeable

it's common knowledge the nin alwaleed tala is the primary backer of the center--he is one of the largest shareholders of many major US corps, incl citibank--if he worries you in the context of this community center, you'd better look out for your economy and the rest!!

bin alwaleed talal--woopsie

"there are a variety of american institutions in both hiroshima and nagasaki and there have been since world war two.

at least get your facts straight"

What like McDonalds?
And did I dispute as such? But what about just 10 years later after the incident?
Don't get it twisted. I know it's easy to do so on this board.

I think everyone should read a post at least twice before responding.

"My wife always wants to walk far away from it for fear that some radical Palestinian or muslim might like to blow that place up, especially if we are with the little ones. So should my wife and 10,000 other fearful ninnies get a right to remove that center?"

The correct response would be to go after those supporting the terror... oh wait, uh, isn't that what we've been talking about?

nice try happyrenter, but no - there weren't a bunch of molesters who 'just happened to be priests' - there was clearly something endemic going on, which the Church has, quite belatedly obviously, addressing. Ditto the Islamic terrorists - if it were random incidents then your substitution would hold, but this has been a campaign "for 30 yrs of targeting innocent civilians, by several Islamic groups, led by myriad clerics."

Correct.

The black analogy is just unintelligent.

We're talking about groups, and ones you choose membership in.

"The only reason ANYONE is offended is because they mistakenly think ALL Muslims are the same and ALL of them should do things members of any other religion or irreligion need not do."

This is not only nonsensical, it is ccmpletely contradicted by numerous posts in the thread.

This claim is really nothing short of ignorance.

"happyrenter
some of what you say is accurate, some inaccurate. but what does any of it have anything to do with this community center?"

Maybe you missed..........
"Now "the difference for you" answer touches on another subject that could be debated for hours/days/years and Im almost afraid to open the can of worms. But I guess it needs to be because it is part of the underlying problem and is the undertow that finds us in these "cultural wars" with islam all the time and will continue to do so until there are changes."

to understand why I wrote what I wrote

"I don't have an answer because at this point I don't know what the options are. I'm not against the mosque/center - I am against the characterization of all opponents as being intolerant racists. I feel that there are very legitimate reasons to oppose its location, as well as questions about the leaders behind it and the funding of it. I have been extremely disappointed and confused by the lack of transparency from said leaders, as well as their seeming unwillingness to engage in dialogue with the likes of Paterson and Archbishop Egan who have attempted to mediate the situation."

Very well said, printer.

Anyone shouting "racism" in response to comments like this really needs to check themselves... and understand that they are part of the PROBLEM.

truthskr, great post, even if I don't agree 100%. It's a shame that I have to point out a well thought out, non-aggressive post, but this thread is largely devoid of any of those, so I feel like I have to thank you. I do agree that from a pr perspective, this could be handled better, but that is my only major gripe with this, and that's nowhere near enough for me to decidedly oppose it.

"This is not only nonsensical, it is ccmpletely contradicted by numerous posts in the thread.
This claim is really nothing short of ignorance."

Ok, but still waiting on you to answer which Muslims you think have been "intolerant of intolerance." Or you could keep ignoring the question, as usual.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/debate-marriage-proposal-segment-goes-from-sweet-to-awkward-to-weird/

i wonder how the guy in this video would feel about the mosque. i love how he has to read his dogma from notes.