Mosque near Ground Zero
- Thread starter YukonJack
- Start date
<shakes head in disbelief>
So is this the kind of "outreach" we should anticipate from this center of dialog and cultural bridging? "Screw you, it's legal, who cares what you think! We don't need to engage you!"
lol For at least the third time in this thread I find myself pointing out, the people opposed to the mosque (and I don't mean Yukon Jack lol) NEVER suggested that the mosque should be BANNED. You knew that Mach, yet you still made this post. Interesting.
I know you don't want it banned, but you do express that it's inappropriate and that that congregation should consult with the community about it. This implies that in your mind, they are guilty by association. Also, seeing that bylaws already allowed them to build the mosque without City Council's approval, we must assume therefore that their asking for approval even when the law did not require it was in fact a kind of outreach. And seeing that the entire City Council but one voted to approve it, it was clear therefore that the community approved it (after all, city council was democratically elected). but considering that that congregation had lost members to 911 too, it already has more of a say than most about building a mosque there. So by asking for permission even when it did not legally need it, and on top of that in spite of the fact that they had lost members to 911 themselves tells me that they'd already gone above the call of duty in consulting with the community. What more were they to do: conduct a city-wide poll to see if the community approved of them building the centre near ground Zero? Again, seeing that they't lost members themselves, how could anyone have the audacity to say no?
In your opinion, they'd not done enough to acquire the community's approval?For crying out loud, they'd got an overwhelming majority of support from City Council, democratically elected to represent the people, might I add.
We are talking about religious groups....if you want to expand on that it makes your argument of a Mosque near ground zero less relevant.
Is that what you want to do?
Of course.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll ask the question again, JTF:
Do you think the members of that congregation ought to feel guilty by association for the acts committed by terrorists on 9/11? If not, then why should they worry about getting approval to build the mosque when city bylaws allowed them to do it anyway? And if so, then why would you hold them accountable in any way when they themselves lost loved ones to those terrorists?
So when you say the should be more sensitive, JTF, what exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean going out of there way and getting approval even when they don't need it? They did that.
Do you mean opening dialogue with those who have concerns over this issue? They are in fact doing that. I've seen a few videos already where on TV, even Fox News, where they have confronted opponents quite amicably and surprisingly enough, especialy for Fox News, often Fox News is not as opposed to it by the end of the dialogue probably because they know the arguments on the other side are too legitimate to counter argue. Just look at some of the videos on Youtube. Goig on Fox News seems to be outreach in my book, no?
Do you think the members of that congregation ought to feel guilty by association for the acts committed by terrorists on 9/11? If not, then why should they worry about getting approval to build the mosque when city bylaws allowed them to do it anyway? And if so, then why would you hold them accountable in any way when they themselves lost loved ones to those terrorists?
So when you say the should be more sensitive, JTF, what exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean going out of there way and getting approval even when they don't need it? They did that.
Do you mean opening dialogue with those who have concerns over this issue? They are in fact doing that. I've seen a few videos already where on TV, even Fox News, where they have confronted opponents quite amicably and surprisingly enough, especialy for Fox News, often Fox News is not as opposed to it by the end of the dialogue probably because they know the arguments on the other side are too legitimate to counter argue. Just look at some of the videos on Youtube. Goig on Fox News seems to be outreach in my book, no?
Can you explain to me how it's a legitimate question?
First and foremost, it's a community center. It includes a Mosque, a gymnasium, it's a cultural center. The group that is building it is lead by Muslim leaders out in front of the effort to bridge the gap, to assimilate, not segregate. As I said much earlier in this thread, the Imam and his wife are actively involved in the 9/11 Memorial site, as well as inter-faith activities.
So how does that square with a museum of American advances in nuclear weapons on ground zero in Hiroshima or Nagasaki?
It is inflammatory in the extreme, the analogy that is... The Mosque is not a museum of Islamic Terrorist successes. They are not even close to being alike. I don't know if that is how he sees it, but if it is, he's an ignorant fellow.
A far better question is how is this cultural center inflammatory? Or Jerry's question, if somehow it can be shown that it is unacceptable, then how far away must they stay?
It's ridiculous.
Just did some reading, and apparently there are some people who wanted the mosque banned....families of 9/11 victims. I stand corrected. My information of no request for a ban was based on the SIOA planned protest of the mosque.
9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America
OK, I wasn't aware of that. But I know you don't want to ban it, fair enough. But then we can ask ourselves if these families are aware that some Muslims, including a paramedic who'd rushed towards the site on 9/11, died on that day. Have they not considered how hurtful it might be to those Muslims? Here's a good video showing how such misunderstandings can cause stress even within inter-Faith families:
YouTube - Rachel finds Islam, from Christianity to Islam
I can certainly understand why some family members of 9/11 victims would oppose this, and on that front the Muslim community does have an obligation to educate them about the reality of Islam, and perhaps even make them aware that some innocent Muslim men and women died on that day too. But the obligation is also reciprocal whereby the non-Muslims must make a reasonable effort to not divide the non-Muslim victims from the Muslim ones, and to try to understand what it is exactly that they are opposing. Then they might find that in fact they and the Muslims share a common enemy: terrorism.
On that front, an Islamic Community Centre is a good start.
Last edited by a moderator:
How many participating in this Thread haven't been called a Bigot at least
once (doesn't seem to matter which side of the debate they're on) so far in
the last fifteen pages? Not many it would seem, completely negating the
impact that term might have had before reading through this Thread.
I've skimmed through this Thread, and if someone notices that a Post has
been edited, that means that something in it contributed to the Thread so
that an effort was made to remove any personal attacks or Trolling or
quotes of such nonsense. If a Post is missing, it would be becouse it
didn't meet the criteria above.
I don't even pretend to catch everything, but here I've caught much of it.
Yes, this (like many other Threads here on this Forum) is one on a
controversial topic. I get it. Can you all participate without further personal
attacks and name calling and insinuations about other members intelligence
or lack there of? It would be much appreciated.
once (doesn't seem to matter which side of the debate they're on) so far in
the last fifteen pages? Not many it would seem, completely negating the
impact that term might have had before reading through this Thread.
I've skimmed through this Thread, and if someone notices that a Post has
been edited, that means that something in it contributed to the Thread so
that an effort was made to remove any personal attacks or Trolling or
quotes of such nonsense. If a Post is missing, it would be becouse it
didn't meet the criteria above.
I don't even pretend to catch everything, but here I've caught much of it.
Yes, this (like many other Threads here on this Forum) is one on a
controversial topic. I get it. Can you all participate without further personal
attacks and name calling and insinuations about other members intelligence
or lack there of? It would be much appreciated.
That video has no backing from the Qur'an. I don't know about what's actually written in that book, and certainly if he did discuss mixing politics with religion, that's not a good idea. As a religious leader, he ought to stay out of politics. That aside though, I don't see how building this mosque would be any threat to the US, seeing that even if the claims in that video about Rauf are true, they are merely an expression if his views, however erroneous they may be, and not an actual promotion of any kind of Jihad; not to mention that they have little to no relation to the construction of an Islamic Centre based on a similar concept as a YMCA, with the mosque on one floor.
Have you ever attended jum'a at a mosque? I have. Some Mulims go there on time for the Salat, perform the salat, and then leave, and do not even pay any attention to the imam. On that front, a Muslim service is quite different from the typical Catholic service where in fat it is the priest for the most part who directs the service. While an imam can certainly deliver a sermon prior to or after salat, he certainly will not do so during salat. And unlike a church service where all are expected to attend not only the worship but the sermon too, a Muslim sermon is totally optional, and though quite common, it's equally common for one to drop in for the salat only. In fact, it often happens that shi'a and sunnis will attend the nearest mosque regardless of whether it's sunni or shi'a, but just not attend the sermon, since salat is practically identical for all Muslims. So on that front, the main purpose of a mosque is worship, with the sermon being a distant second. You cannot compare it to a typical Christian service. So Rauf's beliefs are not so important a consideration in the building of that mosque. That just shows that the persons on that video had little to no understanding of the purpose of a mosque n Islam.
But it is typicall 'Foxian' to be randomly scrambling a bunch of words like Islam, shari'a, and jihad incoherently so as to confound the mind of a listener who's just half paying attention while chopping the carrots in the kitchen. If you actually pay attention tot the dialogue though, it's totally incoherent as the talkers jump all over the place among this jumble of words with no obvious linking of them into a coherent whole.
The guy in the video likewise has no understanding of dawa, which has little to do with jihad. Again, that conversation is just a fancy word salad, no more.
And just to clarify from the video, jihad is not some later stage of dawa. Again, it just shows their complete ignorance of Islam.
You're dead right that it's legitimate machjo... But I get a kick out the apologist brigade like gerry and tonington that piss and moan about legitimacy when there are no real precedents set that support their sad argument, the message is that it is not incongruent simply because there is no standard to measure it against.
In the end, that's the basis for the personal attacks and name calling, they have zero to offer and that is the last bastion available.
Congratulations... Senator McCarthy would be proud.
No Avro, YOU want to limit it to discussion, and certainly not just to "religion" but only one. Be that as it may, let's analyze this relative to any/all religious organizations if you like, I don't think that this will make your argument for you, but giv it a try.
There are so many ideas which could be beneficial to that black reminder of 9/11
I would love to see a modern generically beautifully crafted buildng representing no one nation - but a buildling dedicated to the "historical study of war of nations". Hopefully learned people could attend and emerge into understanding from military and civilian positions, as well as commerce and education - how war could be avoided - even to the benefit of the nations involved.
Where people from all walks of life could spend a year or ten years studying what
causes mankind to kill mankind.
Still the religious groups could have their specific areas.
My only objection to any group taking part in any reconstruction project would be the U.N. who have raped New York in so many ways.
New Yorkers love money - I am surprised Soros hasn't become the benefactor in toto with his very own "unique" ideas.
I would love to see a modern generically beautifully crafted buildng representing no one nation - but a buildling dedicated to the "historical study of war of nations". Hopefully learned people could attend and emerge into understanding from military and civilian positions, as well as commerce and education - how war could be avoided - even to the benefit of the nations involved.
Where people from all walks of life could spend a year or ten years studying what
causes mankind to kill mankind.
Still the religious groups could have their specific areas.
My only objection to any group taking part in any reconstruction project would be the U.N. who have raped New York in so many ways.
New Yorkers love money - I am surprised Soros hasn't become the benefactor in toto with his very own "unique" ideas.
No, I am not limiting it to one.
You are.
I simpley asked a question which has not yet been answered.
....actually I asked two questions that have been ignored.
Oh, I see... So, when you said: "So should Catholics be running schools or building churches near schools considering they are mostly pedophiles?"
What you meant was that all religion is represented by the Catholic Church?.. I assume that you feel that Catholicism is fully interchangeable with Judaism, Islam, Proestants, Agnostics and Wickans, right?
Seems like your questions morph quite often depending on the convenience factor.
I already said I was being facetious.
What I said was that if Muslims can be prevented from building a Mosque near a giant hole because of the actions of a few then so should Catholics be prevent for the same.
Pretty simple.
Nope, the answers are not given as a matter of convenience.