[needmorewax]

What's the big deal, it's not like they're building a Catholic Church next to a Boy Scout camp or something outlandish like that. 
 
 

[needmorewax]

Holy freakin' christ.  I watched that video.  It's satire right?   

Seriously, please tell me he's like the Borat guy, just a joke.   
 
 

[BlueBerry]

I don't like the idea of it down there. $100 milldo could get you a very nice center almost anywhere else in the city.

 I love the mosque on 96 th St and 3rd it's just beautiful and welcoming. I wish they would reconsider the location. 

[HydroGlide]

A fair point, HG, but Islam, like Christianity, is not a monolith with a unified central leader who speaks for all muslims.  Muslims are every bit as geographically and philosophically diverse as christians.  No one person speaks for Islam.  Even if there were such a central leader of Islam, I am not sure that he would necessarily need to offer contrition for the perversion of his faith by the 9/11 terrorists any more than Christian leaders should apologize for Timothy McVeigh's perversion of christianity.  McVeigh, after all, was aligned with the right-wing, anti-government Christian Identity movement.  I wonder, were any churches built within walking distance of the Murrah Federal Building in the years after the OKC terrorist attack?

understood but organized religion is always about leadership and the leaders of this newly planned mosque need to speak up more.  I would imagine that any church built within walking distance of McVeigh's OK attack would involve many heavy hearted media discussions and prayers  on the topic of that horrible event and possibly a dedication to the victims and their families - how could it not?  Not asking for a formal, mandated apology - just some public discussion and prayers from Islamic leaders on the building around the 9/11 site issue, I don't expect a dedication to the victims and their families (although that would be a very "religious" thing to do) - is that too much to expect from any religion?  C'mon these leaders are not naive enough to think that the vast amount of people in the Islamic world who cheered the 9/11 attack after it happened will not seize upon this construction as a symbolic foot on the chest of a beaten enemy (just like christians would if McVeigh had blown up the Dome of the Rock and the pope followed up by building a little get away palace within walking distance of the attack (and next to that new boy scout camp).  Do you think the Pope should maybe address the unfortunate Dome explosion before he gets his picture taken with the symbolic fist shovel and hard hat or not?   

[skSURF]

What is the guys reference to at the end?

gob bless the ? ? ?

[Harry Balzsac]

A fair point, HG, but Islam, like Christianity, is not a monolith with a unified central leader who speaks for all muslims.  Muslims are every bit as geographically and philosophically diverse as christians.  No one person speaks for Islam.  Even if there were such a central leader of Islam, I am not sure that he would necessarily need to offer contrition for the perversion of his faith by the 9/11 terrorists any more than Christian leaders should apologize for Timothy McVeigh's perversion of christianity.  McVeigh, after all, was aligned with the right-wing, anti-government Christian Identity movement.  I wonder, were any churches built within walking distance of the Murrah Federal Building in the years after the OKC terrorist attack?

understood but organized religion is always about leadership and the leaders of this newly planned mosque need to speak up more.  I would imagine that any church built within walking distance of McVeigh's OK attack would involve many heavy hearted media discussions and prayers  on the topic of that horrible event and possibly a dedication to the victims and their families - how could it not?  Not asking for a formal, mandated apology - just some public discussion and prayers from Islamic leaders on the building around the 9/11 site issue, I don't expect a dedication to the victims and their families (although that would be a very "religious" thing to do) - is that too much to expect from any religion?  C'mon these leaders are not naive enough to think that the vast amount of people in the Islamic world who cheered the 9/11 attack after it happened will not seize upon this construction as a symbolic foot on the chest of a beaten enemy (just like christians would if McVeigh had blown up the Dome of the Rock and the pope followed up by building a little get away palace within walking distance of the attack (and next to that new boy scout camp).  Do you think the Pope should maybe address the unfortunate Dome explosion before he gets his picture taken with the symbolic fist shovel and hard hat or not?   

Why do they need to speak up more?  They own the property and want to build a mosque there.  Too fuckin bad for the rest of us.  We have freedom of religion and free market policies in this country.  They own the building and have the right to build whatever the hell they want in the space as long as they comply with the local zoning laws.  They don't owe anybody anything.  I love how the right wants to force my kid to pray to a Christian god in school but wants to use the government to block a private property owner from building a house of worship too close to Ground Zero (which they have fetishized to the point that it is a quasi-religious totem). 
 
Having said that, I saw the Director of Development of the mosque on one of the morning shows last week.  He was eloquent and impassioned in his reasoned defense of the center's position and respectful of the opposition to the construction without acknowledging the rather pernicious campaign that has been waged against his community. 

[HydroGlide]

they don't need to speak up more from a secular perspective - from a business/legal perspective, they can tell everyone to go fuckoff, just release a press release stating money talks bullshit walks - but if they do not speak up more from a religious perspective then they risk being mis-understood by the larger community that surrounds their insular community - which is exactly what is happening now - and although it may not be the case that much anymore - NYC has a long history of waging many different types of wars over very small little plots of land (that may or may not be appropriately zoned).

[Harry Balzsac]

but if they do not speak up more from a religious perspective then they risk being mis-understood by the larger community that surrounds their insular community - which is exactly what is happening now

That's point I was trying to make.  They don't have to, but they did.  The public face of the group has been all over the news making their case.  The problem is, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich shine a lot brighter and throw a lot more heat.  The group's purpose in building the center is misunderstood by the public because there is a concerted effort being made by vocal opponents of the mosque to make sure that purpose is not properly understood. 

[HydroGlide]

but if they do not speak up more from a religious perspective then they risk being mis-understood by the larger community that surrounds their insular community - which is exactly what is happening now

That's point I was trying to make.  They don't have to, but they did.  The public face of the group has been all over the news making their case.  The problem is, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich shine a lot brighter and throw a lot more heat.  The group's purpose in building the center is misunderstood by the public because there is a concerted effort being made by vocal opponents of the mosque to make sure that purpose is not properly understood.

They are not trying hard enough in the right places or they are not hitting the right talking points (that was my take in the few pieces I have read) - they have more than enough $dough$ to outspend Sarah Palin - they can do a better PR job if they put a little more effort in (you may argue that they shouldn't need to in a perfect free world governed by ironclad laws,  but that world doesn't exist).  What I was trying to say in the beginning  was - if they sensed they might be catching some flack down the road, and being a religion of love and all -if the had made a strong public statement directly addressing their intended location's proximity to the ground zero site destroyed by Islamic terrorists (no matter how far off the reservation) and publicly appeared more sensitive to the issue way before  - Sarah and Newt might have gained less traction - and they wouldn't need a full out media blitz now to better state their case.

[jscottk]

*

[BOB]

So Muslims are neo-Nazis?  That's what it sounds like you're saying and that is the tenor of the majority of the opposition.

They are more similar than they differ.
They both hate Jews. Check
They both hate gays. Check
They both view women as inferior to men. Check (well actually the Neo-Nazis, I think they are more liberal than the Muslims here) half-check
They are both unapologetically for the use of violence and terror to accomplish their political goals. Check
I'm sure I left some stuff out?

[RayG]

 
I've not heard one rational, legal and sensible argument from anybody opposed to the building.

I haven't heard a rational, legal and sensible argument from anyone opposed to a Burger King on Ground Zero, either. You just don't do it. It's in terribly poor taste- They HAD to know what the public response would be, and yet, here we are.

And yet- I haven't heard a rational or sensible argument about why they picked THAT particular site, and what's the matter with plenty of other sites around the city that the Governor offered them?

Are the people like myself who lost about 4 friends, co-workers, or relatives are ALL irrational about having a Mosque built within sight of the WTC area? And surprisingly enough a few folks on here who have been on opposite sides of a few arguments are together on this one.

Not against a Mosque, per se, but why there? and Why plan on opening on the 10th Anniversary? (which is highly unlikely as stated in my earlier post)

[needmorewax]

RayG, there are rational people who lost people on 9/11 who are fine with the Mosque.  There are rational arguments on both sides frankly, although the anti-cultural center argument is the weaker one in my view. 
 
Oh, and to be clear, the "Mosque" isn't on Ground Zero it's a couple blocks away.  You know what's closer to the WTC site than the "mosque" would be? At least one Burger King.  Not to mention at least two strip clubs.  Numerous bars and, my favorite Century 21.
 
Anyway, back to the video.  Who is that maniac?
 
 
 

[Harry Balzsac]

 
I've not heard one rational, legal and sensible argument from anybody opposed to the building.

I haven't heard a rational, legal and sensible argument from anyone opposed to a Burger King on Ground Zero, either. You just don't do it. It's in terribly poor taste- They HAD to know what the public response would be, and yet, here we are.

 
 
 
 

[jscottk]

Anyway, back to the video.  Who is that maniac?

http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell#p/a

Yes quite extreme, but my views on all religions are quite extreme.  I am intolerant of religions that place women and minorities lower then men. I am fully against the human idea of a Heaven with a velvet rope, a guest list and a bouncer at the door and Hollywood style Hell. (Ooohh so scary) I have heard many the arguments about land, power, oil and how this whole mess is not about religon..but I find it hard to believe that any of those men would have flown those planes without believing in a magically fairy afterlife.  That said, Religion is a luck of the draw.  I hold no ill will against its followers, you were born into the role.  I was born to tolerant parents that promoted me to question everything, all the time.  If I had been born in a slum in Pakistan into a Islamic extreme male dominated family who knows what I would have become.