So it seems there’s a huge controversy over the mosque in NYC. Even though I’m an atheist, I still think it should be allowed there, because I believe in freedom of religion. I agree with Mayor Bloomberg:
This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.”
What do you think? Should the mosque be allowed near the WTC site?
If it *isn’t* OK, then can somebody give us some specifics? If two blocks away is still “too close” what about four blocks away? Ten blocks? Twenty? Where is that magic dotted line?
Completely agree. How far away is far enough?
There is no magic line, it is a Gaussian curve. The closer you build it the more likely you get negative responses and increase of people getting hurt because of this. I predict this mosque will be cursed from the beginning. Not because of some superstition but because it will attract people so upset on both sides hurting each other.
It is amusing to see that basically all atheists here defend the mosque while they get upset by some Christian religious symbols on some government building or by Christmas trees.
You said it yourself we have problem with the government displaying religious symbols. No atheists I know have any problem with Xmas trees put by private citizens or companies. Personally I couldn’t care less if WalMart had a merry Christmas or happy holidays of blessed solstice signs in their shops. Denying someone’s rights because it may piss off some bigots is not a good policy. You can use the same argument to deny gays the right to marry or women the right to have an abortion and so on. If some extremists on either side have a problem with this community center then fu*k them.
It is not about denying rights, it is about risk analysis.
You put your building on solid ground not on quicksand.
You put your building at a safe side not at a nuclear ground zero.
You can put your building at quicksand but then you must take precautions that it is safe to build it. In this case it could be done by education the people that might opposes and maybe start small so people get used to the idea.
Let that be the problem of those who build there. There is something extremely perverse and unseemly about the notion of denying people’s rights “for their own good”.
OK then let’s compromise, let’s also build a church a synagogue and a stripclub at the same place to make it really multicultural.
An a children playground so that Jewish and Muslim children can play together.
Freedom of ____________, but only on alternating Tuesdays, doesn’t have the same impact.
You mean, if there has already been a 2-storey mosque on that land for the last couple of decades, people would be less mad about it?
It’s generally the principle of the thing. The government is not allowed to establish any favor toward a religion, so it is not ok for religious people to assume rights they do not have, putting religious symbols on state or federal sites, or administering religious preferences, such as posting the 10 commandments or leading schoolchildren to prayer. The principle of this thing prefers no symbols or neutral symbols to a symbol of a religious preference, and is analogous to actual policies that infringe upon the rights of citizens – politicians who believe in end times, for example, shouldn’t be allowed to use those beliefs to initiate policies to the detriment of us who aren’t religiously motivated to agree, on the grounds they are religious, and also on the grounds they are ridiculous and at times not just disrespectful and intolerant, but actually dangerous and careless because they’re based on some fictional expectation with no regard for reality.
The freedom of expression of religious beliefs is a different and yet same thing. The government does not infringe on it. I know it’s kind of hard to see someone putting a manger on their own lawn and think, what stupidity, but it’s their lawn. I have my lawn, figuratively, and they have theirs. Nobody should have a problem with that. Businesses, likewise, may be more liberal and tolerant, or they can choose their right to be more religiously motivated with respect to what they sell or services they provide, and you can choose not to shop there if that is the case. That doesn’t take away their right to sell things you don’t believe in, but it might steer enough of their income away to put them out of business, and that’s their choice too.
“Where is that magic dotted line?”
793.64 metres (2603.8057742782152 Feet). Anything closer is just an outrage.
Meh, whatever.
The initial news report(s) I heard made it sound like it was going to be built nearly on top of the WTC site (not true) and that the guy building it wanted it to be like a victory monument (likely not true). I can’t help but wonder if that was some snippet of Fox News that slipped into my brain.
It’s an interfaith community center that includes a small mosque. It’s four blocks away from Ground Zero, and because of an intervening 16-storey building, can’t even be seen from the site. There’s already a mosque on the site, which is in a neighbourhood with a high Muslim population.
All in all, I really can’t figure what there is to be upset about this.
“if that was some snippet of Fox News that slipped into my brain”
Always a dangerous thing.
I don’t think they should be allowed to build them anywhere, same goes for churches of any faith, nor should they allow homoeopathic medicine, psychics, mediums or any other such liars. They should also be made to back pay all the tax they get away without having pay. If I was to sell empty boxes under the premise that they contained toasters, I’d get in trouble.
Agreed, MrCheese. The less superstitious drivel, the better.
We can’t go around banning people from building things just because we don’t believe what they believe. Tyranny by people who think they know better, whether they are right or not, is still just tyranny. People have the rights to their beliefs, they just don’t have the right to force them on other people, which is the very reason Muslims should be allowed to build a cultural centre anywhere in New York as long as they own the land and do the proper paperwork, regardless of Christians getting their knickers in a twist based on an outright lie.
If we tell people they’re not allowed to build faith buildings just because we don’t like it, that makes us as bad as everyone who voted for Proposition 8 just because they don’t like other people being gay, or everyone who is anti-choice because they don’t want other people to have a choice about their own body.
It’s not ‘just because we don’t believe what they believe’, the two sides are not on equal ground. They believe in made-up, superstitious non-sense and I don’t, there is a clear right and wrong. It is not the same as being for Proposition 8, it is very similar to being against it though. Imagine you bought brand new TV, a big, expensive one and when you got it home, it didn’t work. Would you just accept that they didn’t know it was broken and just buy a new one? No. If you knew someone was ripping off an old lady and taking her savings, would let them? No. But religions do both of things, except they get a lot more money from people, it’s tax free and no-one stops them.
Also, they are forcing these beliefs on people, their children; they take advantage of the fact that, under the age of ten, children will believe anything you tell them. Religion is never harmless and certainly does not deserve the respect it gets.
I agree religion does not deserve the respect it gets, but that doesn’t mean that because you and I think it is a load of tosh that people who believe in it can be arbitrarily banned from constructing buildings for practicing their faith. Particularly in America, where the law of the land specifically and explicitly protects their right to do so. Your analogy fails because religions are not selling tangible materials and everyone involved knows it – if people are foolish enough to fork over their money to it, that sucks, and it is morally wrong for pastors or clerics to take their money in bad faith, but not everything about religion works that way. Some people have an honest faith, and while I have no idea why they can’t see their faith is grounded in contradictions, it’s their choice whether they want to believe it or not. True, faiths tend to brainwash children as a survival mechanism and I deplore that, but a cultural centre is not built specifically for that.
Besides, as I already pointed out, this opens the slippery slope argument that if we decide to allow people to ban anything they don’t like because they presume they are clearly right, then we have a society that can easily turn very nasty and uncomfortable for minorities without political clout. I don’t think god exists, but I don’t want to live in a world where I can stop people from having a place to worship their god, because that world could easily contort itself into stopping me from marrying whoever I want to marry, or stop me from entering a country I’d like to live in, or otherwise infringe on my rights. That’s the point of rights – they don’t just apply to you.
Message to Christians and others opposing the mosque/community center being built: the day we stop mosques from being built is the day we become like Saudi Arabia which doesn’t allow churches to be built.
Daniel,
Don’t you know that freedom of religion ONLY applies to christians in the United Theocratic States of Amerikuh? You silly tolerant hippie boy…
Sorry, I couldn’t resist the snark. :)
Unfortunately, it seems this is becoming more and more true in this country. “Freedom of Religion” is slowly becoming “Freedom to choose Christianity”
Like in the good old days when you had the absolute freedom to accept christianity or have the inquisition torture you to death.
In the U.S., “Freedom of religion” has historically meant “Freedom to accept the Holy Trinity in any of several sanctioned ways, and maybe to be a Jew as long as you keep a low profile and don’t make any demands.” Only relatively recently has it meant true freedom in most cases.
I hate to say this, but I agree with the freedom of religion thing — if they want to think irrationally, that’s up to them as long as they don’t hurt anyone else (meanwhile we’ll continue pointing at them how screwy/divisive/dangerous their doctrines and practices are). But my concern is a more practical one.
Here in my town there are several mosques, and I can honestly say I despise every single one of them. The problem is mosques are equipped with loudspeakers and are very loud and annoying when they do that bloody chant. I mean, couldn’t they at least be considerate enough to find someone with a good voice? I know my voice is far from perfect and I’m considerate enough to only sing in my car.
Unless that mosque is quiet one (oxymoron???), I don’t think the nearby residents should allow it.
There’s a mosque not far from me and I’ve never heard what you’re talking about. On their website, I found out that they have some guidelines for being good neighbors and one of them is for people not to gather in the parking lot afterwards and chit-chat… something to that effect. They offer meeting rooms if people still want to stay and talk. They want to be quiet and peaceful neighbors, they don’t want to cause annoyances or noise pollution.
Some mosques do the traditional call to prayer, and since most mosques don’t have a really pimp minaret to sing it from, they usually settle for loudspeakers unless those would violate local noise ordinances. Where you are probably refused to vary the ordinance for the mosque; no big whoop.
I could support a ban on all non-profit building in certain areas because it erodes the tax structure, but to single out one brand of religion while acquiescing to others is unfair – and un-American.
Almost every statement I have seen against the mosque from the hypocritical right involves the inability to distinguish between the extremeist Muslims who toppled the twin towers, and the non-extremist Muslims who want a building for peaceful religious purposes.
The question I would like answered by those who oppose the mosque is this: would you oppose the building of a Saudi Arabian embassy in that spot? If not, why oppose the mosque? Most of the people involved in the WTC destruction were Saudi. If you can condemn all the adherents of a particular religion equally, why not condemn all the residents of an entire country simply because they share a surrounding political border with people who chose to violently act out.
For that matter, shouldn’t we also oppose the building of christian churches near abortion clinics since it is christians alone who are responsible for US abortion clinic bombings (…talk about the definition of ‘terrorism’)?
I absolutely drives me crazy when people fail to understand that there is generally more variety within a group of people with some chosen common denominator (be it religion, gender, citizenship, sexual orientation, culture, age, etc.) than there is in a random sampling of all people. It is reactionary, dangerous, bigoted, and unthinking. Most religions, taken to their extreme, can lead to violent deplorable acts. To assume that all muslims are capable of what occurred on 9/11 is simply irrational.
I would much rather see rational debate on the aspects of Islam that run counter to what many of us would consider human rights. There’s a reason to oppose a mosque.
-Lexrst
I am pretty sure this would outrage most of them even more.
Actually, that might even outrage me.
I agree, freedom of religion should be maintained. However, I don’t think it should enjoy tax exempt status. Of course I don’t think any religious organization should enjoy tax exempt status. Some might be able to apply as a non-profit, but let the rest pay taxes like every other business.
Agree.
I think that if this was put up anywhere near the WTCs, it could be a positive symbol of unshakable values. To say that no matter what happens everyone remains equal. I know some people think that it’s like terrorists sticking a victory flag in an american wound, but I know there can be a more positive effect than that.
A lot of powerful emotions are involved in this though, so I do suppose that some people will have a reasonably hard time dealing with a mosque near that site. I can see it being frustrating and confusing for a lot of people. Even if you can justify it to yourself, if you knew someone who was hurt by that attack then I think it would be hard to avoid the feeling of having salt put in your wound.
Am I off-my-rocker?
I’m in favor of the mosque also. When they said “Never forget,” are we supposed to never move on also? It’s a freedom of religion thing for me, Muslims don’t need a mosque to pray, they don’t need a mosque to organize a terror plot either. What they’re doing is establishing a religious site in the US, and if that confrontation is too much for xenophobic Christians, well that’s gravy. The more diversity in religion there is, that cannot be ignored, the more people will have to accept that they have the right to be here as much as they do, and I think that helps atheists, in part because atheists don’t normally build atheist meeting spots. It behooves us to support diversity in religious freedom to keep any particular religion from thinking it has more rights than any other, and this site in particular. Objections to it are unreasonable and inconsiderate. What would one expect if they wanted to build a Christian church and nobody wanted it there? They would not have very many valid reasons for not building it, I think normal zoning laws or whatever. The 1st line of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution addresses the lack of government establishing a religion and the freedom to practice, that means everyone.
I like this mosque because it tests the amendment and puts it out in the faces of those who have reasons to oppose it. As far as atheism goes, Islam is not atheism, but whatever can happen that wedges in between reality and Christian assumption of authority is also good enough for me. You sometimes need a prominent case of religious freedom asserting itself, because people who oppose this mosque come forth with misinformation and silly rationales to oppose it, and it’s good to see that crushed any way you can get it.
“You sometimes need a prominent case of religious freedom asserting itself, because people who oppose this mosque come forth with misinformation and silly rationales to oppose it, and it’s good to see that crushed any way you can get it.”
The one thing about this that I was worried about was people reacting irrationally and violence ensuing, but you make a very good point here. People who would oppose such a thing should be confronted and made public. Hopefully that will help to inform more people as to why this Mosque isn’t the devil.
I don’t believe this mosque to be intentionally inciting people to violence, and if any violence does ensue, that’s on the part of the over-reaction of those prone to react violently, rather than rationally. I don’t care. I don’t really believe in preventing crime by being afraid of asserting one’s rights. I imagine these Muslims to be aware enough to have tight security, some issues may arise, and so be it. You can’t live your life like you’re always a target, and just stifle yourself and your rights and freedoms for the sake of letting some crazies get the better of you. They’re the ones who are crazy and prone to violence, that’s the wrong way to be. It’s self-punishing to deny the freedom of religious expression for the allowance of some potentially violent reactions, so when and if that happens, punish the people responsible for reacting poorly.
One aspect that should be addressed (stated very very simply) is that just like the Arizona law is not really just about immigration but about the political right trying to piss off the political left, this Mosque isn’t just about the political left trying to “heal wounds” and create acceptance it’s also about the left pissing off the political right. This isn’t the soul motivation for these issues being in the public eye but I believe that it is an important factor in how these issues are portrayed in the media and it needs to be recognized when discussing such issues.
Granted many of the people involved with these issues are genuinely concerned about immigration and creating a more accepting society but that’s not the only reason they become hot button topics. They are to some degree tailor made social concerns that force people to polarize their opinions on these issues to maintain the political status quo.
For example, the flood of illegal immigrants into this country is a symptom of a much larger and more complex problem not the cause. Arizona’s immigration bill is a tool that polarizes the issue.
By shifting the country’s focus onto “the symptom” the illegal aliens it does do two things:
1. It prevents the many people from seeing this problem from any other perspective other than the left-right dichotomy and diverts attention from real solutions to this problem.
2. they keep the left and right pundits bitching at each other to keep up the limited left-right political model.
Something similar is going on with the NYC Mosque issue. I have not really looked into that issue so much as the immigration issue as I live in Texas where that issue is discussed far more that the Mosque in New York.
Yes, bottom line yes. If the Christians want recognition then they need to give everyone else who died there recognition too.
This whole issue is so annoying to me!
The only reason it is a “big deal” to some, is because it is a mosque. The 9/11 terrorists were Islamic extremists, so the entire religion must want to kill everyone in the USA!
To me, it is just disgusting that people want to stereotype the entire religion because of 9/11.
So, this Timothy McVeigh, what religion was he, and do they ALL want to kill everyone in America?
Not American so my opinion holds little water… I say No mosque and no church and no Saudi Embassy there. I am fine with an apartment building, commercial building, a widget factory, …etc.
I would say leave it up to the people who live in that neighborhood. If people can protest and get Wal-Marts from not moving into their community then the same rules should apply for a mosque or church or strip club or whatever.
Though the city could just invoke the eminent domain ruling and get rid of the mosque anytime they wanted. Then again that whole eminent domain thing makes the USA look less and less “free”.
That being said I am not for the wacko right wingers who are saying this is a threat to freedom or how the terrorists have won if this is allowed to be built.
I’m not sure you know much about how politics actually works in the U.S.
It is true that occasionally people can petition to rezone areas or to refuse certain businesses in cases where those businesses need special contracts with the city, but that could not apply here. Cities cannot refuse specific religious structures for a number of reasons, the primary one being the first amendment.
Eminent domain does not work at all the way you think it does. The government can make a compulsory purchase of land, but it must be justly compensated and must be for public use. So for example, the government could buy up the land to put a utility or other facility there that needed to be on that spot, but because it is not the case that that land is needed for public use, it can’t do that. It would be especially ridiculous considering the building in question is a public community center.
And since it is private property, the owners of the property, not the community at large, have the final say for what to build there.
And by the way, I’m not sure that particular community is so opposed to the mosque. I think most of the offended people come from other parts of Manhattan.
I said I was not American! :P
But I have read enough stories where eminent domain was used for strange reasons. If the USA Constitution can’t prevent the stoppage of a religious structure being built then that’s reason #47 I disagree with the Constitution and left after 2 years (student visa) in the USA.
I feel the government (and public) should be able to stop religious buildings (and other things) from being built. Then again I have no say in such matters in the USA.
The government absolutely should not be able to stop people from building things that don’t hurt the public unless there is a real necessity for the land elsewhere (actually, eminent domain allows the states to buy up land even when there isn’t a necessity, but I disagree with this). There is no reason it should restrict basic freedoms simply because it disagrees with the message you are sending.
That is pretty central to the U.S. Constitution, so if you disagree with it, then I can understand why you wouldn’t want to live here.
Hi Daniel
This is a good topic for debate which you have put up, usually I find that very much in agreement with whatever you write about[This also extends to Vorjack]. However I somehow can’t seem to agree with you on this point. I realize the “freedom of religion” is very much prevalent and by that right it should be allowed.
However the point to look at is 9/11 was caused by people who were acting out based on a holy book and religion which is espousing this building. While I agree the people who did this were a fringe(or not) or had a different opinion on what their book says. Fact is that they did it & some people look upon it without regret (the Taliban for one). Now imagine some who has lost a friend or family in this event & as you walk by the site, you come across this new building which is partly a Mosque and partly community center. Basically it stands for the very thing which caused the 9/11[ by cause I mean the reasoning behind it]. If they truly want to apologize for this event why not build a homeless shelter without any religious overview or say even a hospital. Anything without any Islamic idealogy associated with it perhaps. Lets see if the builders would agree on this point, if they wish for harmony they can spread it without any religious overtones so build just a community center without any association of Islam.
Now if you look at the basic Islamic idelogy, they divide the world into “Dar-al-Islam” and “Dar al-Harb” which basically mean house pf peace & house of war. Now I don’t need to point out which category this nation falls in. In earlier times a Mosque or a minaret was built on conquered lands to signify the conquest. I don’t think that the builders mean to build this to signify but that’s what all the religious zealots will take it up as! They smashed the towers and now they built the mosque as well.
I’m not a Christian or a right-winger, but for me I dislike this ideology which threatens to impact my freedom and future freedom. I guess many of the posters will be poking holes in my attempt. I’ll try to answer as much as I can so please be patient as I’m also working. Thanks for posting this Daniel.
Alec
How much of the land surrounding the site of some Muslims murdering a couple grand of people and destroying skyscrapers needs to be considered sacred? I guess that is my idea. As an atheist, I am sad this happened, but also trying to be reasonable how emotions can get in the way. It is sensitive not to insist this building be at the site or across from it, but I think it is unreasonable to say it’s too close where they’ve proposed it.
Another thing is, they aren’t obligated to create some non-denominational center of peace to make amends. They are just as ok to build a mosque there as someone might be to build a church without being obligated to qualify their right to religious freedom with deference to the victims. The idea that they are doing this out of spite, however, deserves some consideration, and I don’t think that’s what’s happening, that’s just what people are feeling. How much do we have to care how people feel? A little, but not too much. If they are over-reacting, not too much at all! Life goes on, and sometimes it’s better to push people to accept things they would otherwise be hurt by, since it’s not meant to hurt them. It’s meant to provide a place for Muslims to worship as they have the same rights as all Americans to worship. It is sort of like you broke up with someone and she/he sees you out on a date with someone else. Oh well, right? You’re not dating other people to spite your ex. You’re moving forward. It just so happens it sucks to see you moving forward and being happy and seeing other people, but it’s not reasonable to hold off on going out in public with other dates to spare your ex’s feelings.
@ Kodie
I absolutely agree with you that the land isn’t sacred, what it is, the site of an attack which was plotted to strike terror & start a war. I just feel that allowing a building which endorses the very same religion would be a step back, instead why can’t we ask them to build a non-denominatory center. That would be a reasonable demand (i guess).
Muslims have places to worship in and around NYC, why would they want to come and pray at this site. It like allowing the Neo-nazis to hold a meeting at a Holocaust site (not that they should be allowed to hold meetings, but they invariably do). The point is that it almost seems to be constructed just to needle people.
“It like allowing the Neo-nazis to hold a meeting at a Holocaust site (not that they should be allowed to hold meetings, but they invariably do). The point is that it almost seems to be constructed just to needle people.”
This is a very telling sentence.
The comparison of the entire Muslim faith to neo-nazis betrays your prejudices here. Or do you honestly believe that all Muslims supported the attack on 9/11? How monolithic do you believe that faith to be?
@ Ty
Why is it prejudiced to compare Neo-Nazis to Islamic terrorists? don’t they wish to obliterate their opponents just on the basis of their belief? The faith is monothiestic & to see its Monolithic Islam can be, try looking over here http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007269,00.html
Its kind of insulting of you to presume that I’m comparing the entire Muslim faith, I clearly used the example to signify what it would mean to see the building for person who has suffered a loss.
Alec
It is NOT like allowing Neo-Nazis to visit a Holocaust site, because the Muslims building the cultural center are NOT Islamic terrorists.
Blocking the construction is more like not allowing any non-Jewish German people to visit the Holocaust museum in DC.
That was a pretty terrible analogy fail there pal.
“That was a pretty terrible analogy fail there pal.”
Ok you got me there, my point being that building a Mosque will be trumpeted a win for the terrorist who got those towers done & so why not have them build something else… anything would do so long as there are no religious over tones.
Alec
What I don’t understand is this:
Let’s say the terrorists and their fellow-travelers took the building of this mosque as a sign of victory. Let’s say they throw a party hold a press conference and declare “mission accomplished”.
Why do we care? Are we caring about that? So what if they are deluded and think this signals the defeat of the Great Satan? I don’t think we could beg to be granted enemies precisely that stupid.
El – this is exactly right. Who gives a rats ass what the terrorists think?
“Are we caring about that?”
Everything is better with a Firefly quote.
Do people who believe they’ve won actually win? Some Muslims killed a bunch of Americans, have they won? Now some of the Muslims want a place to worship in their neighborhood, explain to me how that means they have won. Whether or not they believe they have “won” does not determine if they have actually won anything, but then I don’t think that’s what they’re trying to do here. It’s perception, it’s unreasonable and emotionally driven. The Muslims who want to build this mosque do not owe anyone extra sensitivity where they build their mosque. It’s unreasonable to dictate what kind of purpose they should have other than to express their religious freedom to build a mosque wherever they may. How long to wait, how far away to build, what instead to do with their building, it’s all unnecessary tiptoeing, you are speaking on the insensitivity of a thing which may provoke others, are you yourself provoked or just concerned? I don’t mean to wash over the whole 9/11 event, but it’s unreasonable after a few years to prevent people from living their lives because you want to dwell on the pain of the event. It’s not ON the site or across the street from it. Most who oppose do not live in NYC, most in NYC don’t care, and it’s a lot of talk on behalf of a group of families of victims of murder by terrorism — do you think they all agree with each other either? Some perhaps are likely to oppose anything that looks like the Muslims are sticking it to them, while others are reasonable. You can’t defend what they think since they don’t all think the same thing either. How sensitive to we have to be to get on with the business of living in the US, making sure not to hurt anyone’s feelings? Do you think all churches and other businesses care if they have hurt my feelings to build their centers near me? I might have to move if they put a Best Buy in my neighborhood, but other than that, I guess I’ll just live with the terrible pizza places needling me, and the temple with the daycare I can hear every day out my window. I mean, can you say that’s not the same? What if a Christian person killed my mother, and all churches near me are painful for me to walk past. They don’t know me, I’m one person. Multiply my heartache by thousands, and suddenly it’s insensitive to build a mosque in a particular neighborhood.
For another thing, that’s just land. A lot of people died there, but ultimately, there’s nothing magical about the land or the neighborhood. Let’s keep that in mind, that ultimately any reaction to its location is imaginary and emotional. Whether or not those Muslims consider it a victory to score a mosque is immaterial, either way, there’s no magic to where it’s located that grants it any power unless you let it.
“Its kind of insulting of you to presume that I’m comparing the entire Muslim faith, I clearly used the example to signify what it would mean to see the building for person who has suffered a loss. ”
Except that, as coffeejedi pointed out, this is exactly what you did.
Umm No.. I gave a wrong analogy… I didn’t compare the entire Muslim race to neo-nazis… Ty you are trying to feed words here!
But see, you did. Then you admitted it.
BUT you also acknowledged that it was a mistake, which is cool, you just need to realize that your argument has no merit and either come up with a different point or bow out gracefully.
Yarp.
@ CoffeJedi
Thanks for pointing that out and since my original argument was about the Mosque not being built but something else without any religious connotation. I’m going to do precisely as you suggest.
Alec
“It like allowing the Neo-nazis to hold a meeting at a Holocaust site (not that they should be allowed to hold meetings, but they invariably do). The point is that it almost seems to be constructed just to needle people.”
This is a telling comparison – and not really on point – but I have to step in and say that I would allow Neo-nazi’s the same meeting rights as any other group. Even if that means a meeting at a holocaust sight. Freedom of speech/religion is an easy concept when it’s used to protect ideas we agree with, but it’s there to protect unpopular ideas too. Even when those ideas belong to a group of facist a-holes.
The solution to this abhorent speech is not supression, but counter speech. It turns out having real “freedom” is messy, loud, rude and sometimes unpleasant. But it’s also – for lack of a better phrase – awesome. It forces me to hear and see things I find awful. But it also give me the right to speak out against those things.
I’ve long lurked and enjoyed this blog, Daniel. I really enjoy most of the questions posed to your commenters. But this is just sad.
The Christofascists who don’t want the mosque two blocks away from the WTC site – their opinion doesn’t matter. And neither does ours. It’s simply against one of the central principles of the USA to deny private citizens the right to practice their religion – ESPECIALLY on private property.
Even asking the question implies that this is open to debate, which it is not. Rights are not to be voted on. Shame, Daniel.
Sadly, despite the strength of those values and how apodictically true they seem to some of us, it is a live debate in the polity and it is a political issue. In viewing that reality, it is very important to talk it out, air all arguments, and so forth. If a right in particular application is polling poorly, that is an indication that more information, more discussion is needed; minds need to be changed, and that doesn’t happen by merely holding them in contempt.
Minds may need to be changed, but it doesn’t need to happen BEFORE a group can be granted their rights under the US Constitution.
Your point that the debate exists, and that is true. My point is that treating the question like it is open for debate is wrong, which it is.
There are still people who are unhappy with interracial marriage, and even the right of women to vote. I applaud efforts spent on changing their minds, but just because they think such a thing should be open to debate does not mean it should.
I agree that the event itself, i.e. whether the actual mosque gets built, is not up for debate. They obey all the local zoning laws, and beyond that freedom of religion is end of the discussion. What is open for debate–is *always* open for debate–is what our values are, in light of how they cash out in terms of consequences and also in light of what sort of people we wish to be. That debate is one worth having, especially if one is invested in keeping those values the way they are.
Why is this permissibility of a “mosque” at “ground zero” even debatable? Assuming the “mosque” meets all other zoning criteria what possible legal basis could there be to deny building it? Making the denial strictly based on the fact that the government doesn’t like the religion it’s affiliated with is a clear equal protection violation. The city/state/feds will lose an eventual lawsuit on that basis.
BUT BUT BUT TERRISTS!!1!
I know….I know…It’s so annoying how we have those courts to protect minorities from oppression!
Courts are un-American!
No, the mosque should not be allowed to be built that close to the WTC. Or anywhere, for that matter.
Why? because it is yet another multi million dollar project with suspicious funding which almost certainly leads back to the Saudi Royal family – who are spreading their hard core religion of hatred across the world by supporting mosques and ‘outreach centres’ across the planet.
Out of all the various schools of islamic thought, Wahabism is the absolute motherlode of hate. Every jihadi terrorist has carried out their bloody murder drenched in wahabi teaching.
Until the ‘cordoba’ project (and what the hell is with that name, anyway?) can account for every cent of money, and provide clear assurance that the mosque is not supported by saudi money, it should not be allowed to be built.
They have done a magical job of painting this as being about religious freedom. This is not about religion. It is about a foreign power using religion as a mask to spread a militaristic ideology which undermines our society.
Then I want that same standard applied to every religious building constructed in America. Until they can show where every single cent of their contributions came from, we need to block them all.
I don’t see a problem with that. Isn’t it reasonable to have complete disclosure of where the funds are coming from for a super church that will become a political rallying point? and for that matter, having full accounts published to show where the money went?
How about removing the tax exemptions that all of these religious groups enjoy?
The root problem is somewhat similar – that both groups of nutcases are trying to undermine democratic society and implement a theocracy: because don’t think for one second that the cordoba project is about anything other than the wahabi end goal of a global caliphate.
I don’t care about what you think their goals are. The only thing I insist on is that we treat all religions and religious institutions exactly the same. Since, you know, that’s part of the founding principles of this country.
I think Family First does far more damage to this country than Mosques do.
Until the ‘cordoba’ project (and what the hell is with that name, anyway?)
Cordoba is a reference to the Caliphate of Cordoba, in medieval Spain which was the premiere example of religious tolerance and peace, with Jews, Muslims, and Christians living side by side and engaging in productive cultural exchange.
Until the Reconquista came and shat all over it, killing the Muslims, and then oppressing and later kicking out the Jews.
Not exactly an example of “tolerance”: christians were allowed to live there, but they had to pay extra taxes and had fewer rights than muslims. Still that’s much better than how christians treated anybody else when they got to power.
Quite so, it was literally the most tolerant place in the Western World, religiously speaking. Despite the tax differential, there was peace and social comity. It would not be equaled or surpassed in that respect until the British colony of Rhode Island was established some four and a half centuries later. Not too shabby, I think.
I’m all for full disclosure of funding for all tax exempt organization but you can’t just single out one group. On what are you basing your claim that the group building this center is connected to the Saudis or that they follow the Wahhabi branch of Islam. I haven’t heard a single piece of evidence pointing to any contact to radical islamists and we all know that fix noise would have loved to push such a story and would have blown any connection of anyone involved in the NY mosque, however remote, to any radicals to make it look like the place is personally managed by Osama Bin-laden.
An overtly hostile group is using religion as a mask to undermine society, and you don’t care, as long as they play fair.
Well, good luck with that. I hope you like the taste of boots.
Who, exactly, is the overtly hostile group?
TEH TERRISTS DUMMIE!!!!!!
Oh, I’m so chastened.
Laugh it up, the pair of you.
it’s incredibly easy to have a good old internet laugh and mock against the straw man caricature that you have built. Except, that this is has nothing to do with ‘terrists’ (and thanks for the implication that I am a frothing at the mouth idiot – real mature).
I am not suggesting that the overtly hostile group is islam, or muslims in general. It is the clerical establishment of Saudi Arabia, which exerts an incredible amount of influence across the islamic world.
Are you aware of the difference between suffist islamic thought and wahabism? That what we recognise as the liberal christianity of more moderate churches is more like Suffism? almost every time you hear one of the more unpleasant aspects of islam spoken about, that has come about because of the ‘reformation’ of wahabism.
In London’s finchbury ‘cultural centre’, attached to the mosque, there have been repeated investigations into the sale of radicalising materials – encouraging young men to segregate from society, to engage in jihad, to disengage from democracy and so on. Each time, the Saud government is in the background, making all the right noises, clearing things up until the cameras are gone, then getting right back down to business.
In short, this cultural centre is less about the symbolism of being near the WTC. I doubt they care. It’s more about the spreading of wahabist thinking, which cements the position of Saudi Arabia as the leader of the islamic ummah, rather than Suffist islam, which is much more amenable to living in peace with the west. Think of it as Saud’s real ‘sovereign investment fund’ – spending oil money now to secure political influence in the future (and in the process producing a steady crop of home grown terrorists, all fired up to jihad in their local cultural centre)
but yeah, you get right back to your straw man kicking and lulz.
That’s all well and good, but there is currently no reason whatsoever to believe these are wahhabis. And, no, I don’t think it appropriate to go on fishing expeditions into other people’s private affairs to satisfy your hunches.
Unless we also do forensic accounting on every church that’s built within two miles of an abortion clinic just to make sure none of the money comes from people who think it’s ok to shoot abortion doctors.
The reason we are laughing is because you are laughable in your paranoia and witchhunting.
It’s either laugh at you or be depressed that people like you exist. I pick laughing.
Congratulations, You win at Internet!
Watch me leave, vanquished, and never to return. feel better now?
Really? You think that this mosque will… what? Something involving American’s being booted in the face? Terrorists will boot Ty in the face? I don’t dislike Ty, but that does sound funny for some reason.
I understand how you see this as a problem, but I just don’t see HOW you expect them to succeed in whatever they are planning. Can you explain, or is it more of a hunch?
“Terrorists will boot Ty in the face?”
Well, they’re welcome to try.
In short, be used as a platform for visiting imams to radicalise the muslim youth in new york, in precisely the way that has happened in our cities in the UK.
The problem is not the mosque. The problem is the cultural centre, which will include bookshops which sell extremist material (supplied by the saudis), and meeting rooms and facilities which will be used for study groups that encourage violent jihad.
America does not have a home grown islamic terrrorist problem yet. The UK does – and those young men do not go from just regular muslim men to radicalised jihadists accidentally.
There was an excellent pair of programs produced by the UK’s Channel 4 – part of the dispatches series of political investigation. They investigated the Finchbury mosque in london (which was built with Saudi money, and includes a cultural centre also), and the extremist views being propagated there.
Al Saud is using the oil money his nation is earning at the moment to spread one particular ideology of islam – one which just happens to venerate Mecca and Medina and cements the clerics of those cities as the spiritual heart of islam.
Far too many of us in the west look at a mosque and see ‘muslim’. We recognise that Fred Phelps and Unitarians are not the same thing, but don’t ask the questions when a mosque is being built.. is this going to be a quaker meeting house, or a westboro baptist?
If the money for Cordoba House is coming from Saudi royals… then there *will* be radicalisation of islamic youth in the area – and that should concern us.
It is not only in the UK, this is happening all over Europe.
So what you’re saying is, we should only allow religious groups to build houses of worship if we like what they say?
[citation needed]
You will find that the Wikipedia article about Wahhabi islam is actually very good and well referenced.
to quote:
“The Saudis have spent at least $87 billion propagating Wahhabism abroad during the past two decades, and the scale of financing is believed to have increased in the past two years, as oil prices have skyrocketed. The bulk of this funding goes towards the construction and operating expenses of mosques, madrassas, and other religious institutions that preach Wahhabism. It also supports the training of imams; domination of mass media and publishing outlets; distribution of Wahhabi textbooks and other literature;”
The citation is needed for how you blithely and without evidence connect this mosque and center to wahhabism. We *know* what wahhabism is. What are *your* reasons for thinking this mosque is underwritten by them?
Wrong. I did not ‘blithely and without evidence’ connect this mosque to wahhabism.
I asked the question which several other commentators have asked – where is the money coming from? it’s not all accounted for, and faisal has refused to provide transparent accounts. It is a perfectly reasonable assumption that a large mosque building effort has saudi backing, given how commonly this happens elsewhere in the world.
What I am saying is… *IF* that money is coming from the Saudi royals, then this centre is connected to wahhabism, and is a problem.
The only way to know for sure is to have complete accounts… and in the absence of that complete transparency, this mosque should not be built.
He does not need to provide any accounting for where his financing comes from, because it is roughly none of your business. But for fun, let’s take the worst case scenario: the mosque and center is *completely underwritten* by Saudi wahhabists.
So what? Ooh, another repulsive religious group opens up shop in New York. It’s about as exciting and noteworthy as dog bites man. How do you get from “wahh, these people don’t like America and have built a building where they can continue to talk about how they don’t like America” to the jackboots on faces you were predicting? Draw a line from A to B.
Lets take the example of… London!
The cultural centre opens, and becomes a focal point for wahabists.
Given a nice open platform, a radical cleric called Abu Hamza starts preaching his own special line of hatred.
Two young men from the english heartlands who have previously not been in any way radical listen to his tapes, and become enamoured. They join up to Hizb Ut Tahir, and take a trip to pakistan, where they are trained in how to make bombs.
They come back to the UK, and plot bloody murder. fifty two people die.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/victims/default.stm
in response to this, and the escalation from 9/11 and Madrid, the UK government starts drafting anti terrorism laws which restrict basic freedoms.
less than a year later, UK citizens no longer have the right to trial by jury. They need the permission of the police to protest, and can be arrested for taking photos on holiday. They can be put under surveillance indefinitely with no legal oversight, and can be locked up for 42 days without any charges ever being brought against them.
That was the end result of *TWO* radicalised ‘angry young men’.
We all saw what the Patriot Act did the US, and how quickly the Homeland Security department turned into an Orwellian police force.
When you have home grown radicalised islamic terrorists, and the problem stops being something you can screen for in an airport, then draconian anti freedom laws are the result.
What we are doing here is not discussing some wacky possible future – this is recent history as it unfolded, and you are pretending that it somehow doesn’t apply to THIS islamic cultural centre with dubious funding, like it did with the last one.
“less than a year later, UK citizens no longer have the right to trial by jury. They need the permission of the police to protest, and can be arrested for taking photos on holiday. They can be put under surveillance indefinitely with no legal oversight, and can be locked up for 42 days without any charges ever being brought against them.”
Oh do feck off and try and get your reality right why don’t you … I presume you think the Daily Mail it’s telling it like it is.
I’m quite as willing to slag on England as much as the next yankee, not least about civil liberties issues, but equating the current condition to an Orwellian state is just dishonest. And there is nothing to say that the US has to react the way it has in the past, or that it would react the way England did react. Sometimes, even governments learn from their errors.
But all that aside, one bombing does not a pattern make. If these wahhabi terror camps, as you’re making them out to be, really churned out bombers, we’d be in a world more hurt than we are. Drawing an extended inference from two unbalanced idiots getting excited after hearing something extreme seems a bit ridiculous.
@Elem
I think the fact that he can’t even spell Finsbury speaks for itself …
I wonder how many Wahabbi mosques are erected throughout the country anyway. Perhaps they are everywhere and nobody gives it much notice because they aren’t in such a controversial spot. What makes this mosque worse than other mosques, more notorious or whatever? I mean even if what you claim is true, no doubt there are other mosques you might look into, it seems like this one is the only important one. I mean people like you are finding special reasons to oppose one specially located mosque. It is almost like you don’t have power to question the building of other mosques nor care to figure out where all the Saudi money is going, just this one place.
I guess I mean if there’s some danger here, why would this mosque so controversially located be the only place that merits your watchdoggedness? It might be sneakier for this plot to already be under way at dozens of mosques across the US, why does anyone only care that this one be prevented? Because you got nothing, I’m assuming.
I could imagine more productive ways of undermining society than banging your head on a carpet nine times a day.
Or is that just part of their clever “mask?”
The great thing about what Theo says is that if you replace that he’s probably talking about Muslims with Christians, the statement still makes sense. It makes even more sense.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Suicide-Factory-Hamza-Finsbury-Mosque/dp/0007234694
The problem is not the muslims praying in the mosque. The problem is the wahabist ideology being pushed in the cultural centre.
This is America. People are allowed to push whatever ideology they want.
To be fair to Theo J part of his argument has validity (Islamism is certainly a problem in the UK) but they way he lumps all Muslims together makes for a very poor argument. The mosque in NY, well I have no problem with it unless it actively promotes the likes of visiting terrorist camps in Pakistan or violently over throwing the US government. None of this is to suggest that this is going to be the case but I certainly don’t agree with the ideology that exists within a very small minority of Muslims in the UK and I support the use of law to ensure that it doesn’t happen.
Part of our problem is that the UK government has side stepped the issue of tackling Islamism for fear of upsetting mainstream Muslims and the constant it’s all the West’s fault attitude therefore blowing yourself up on the Tube is our fault as well. The comparison between the way the BNP is treated and the way some Muslim groups are treated is stark and has only lead to the encouragement of groups such as the English Defence League.
Play Fair – Isn’t it one of the best things you can hope for from your Government?
Imagine the entire human race as ants dotting the surface of this planet. If a few ants want to make a pile of dung a bit higher then why not? In the grand scheme it means nothing. Eventually the little pile will disappear and so too will the ants. Build your pile and believe it means something…enjoy…..
Some have been trumpeting a poll claiming it shows that New Yorkers oppose a mosque in lower Manhattan. However a close look shows that those in lower Manhattan on the whole favored a mosque (usually the closer the more nimbyish but not here) those further away were more opposed.
Lower Manhattan has a large population of Muslims living and/or working in the area so that the current mosques are overfull at prayer times (though Muslims do not have to meet at a mosque for a prayer it is traditional for them to gather at the Friday noontime prayer even if they don’t go at other times). Also most of the building is planned to be a privately run community center with a swimming pool, theater, etc available for use by others living in the area (much like a Y) so they might not be paying taxes but they are giving to the greater community in concrete ways.
Why would they stop religious buildings from being built? Surely the religious should have the right to build temples (or whatever) to their god(s)? However, they should pay for it themselves, and it should definitely not be tax exempt.
I do not know if this is a joke or not but apparently a Greg Gutfeld from FOX News wants to build a Gay bar next to the NY Mosque open for everyone including Muslim gays. Apparently he wants to dedicate one place of the bar alcohol free for all the gay Muslims