Muslims in NYC Planning to Build Second Mosque Near Ground Zero (1 Viewer)

[Desert_Power]

I'll make you a deal, Tommy. I want you to write down your best arguments as to why this mosque should not be built, seal them in an envelope, and put it someplace safe. I'll do the same with my arguments for why it should be. Thirty years from now, we'll each open our envelopes, read the contents again, and decide if we are proud or ashamed of the man who wrote them.

you sound like the southern democrats that couldn't get over the fact the north won and gave freedom to slaves and took away voting rights of the former confederate soldiers. you were the vocal 30% minority that spent 10 years having tantrums killing people and forming groups like the KKK because no one agreed with you. Yet the other 70% adapted to the new reality that the north did in fact win and yes slaves were people that deserved rights.

Then take the deal. If you really believe that you're the abolitionists in this scenario and I'm the Klan, then you shouldn't be worried about how your position will look to people (or even just to yourself) 30 years from now.I'm guessing you won't do it, though. Because on some level, you know which of us is on the side of right and justice, which of us will be vindicated by history.

i wouldn't do it because I probably won't be alive in 30 years to check the answers. but if it makes you feel better about yourself I'm pretty sure that my side is the correct side and your side is the wrong one. I highly doubt my answer will change, ever, as pertains to this particular mosque

Yeah, we certainly have a history of looking kindly at denying rights in retrospect. I'm sure this will be no different. :(

 

[Christo]

I'm tired of this hyper-technical response. Anyone who would be upset that it was being built on top of Ground Zero has just as much reason to be upset that it's being built 2 blocks from Ground Zero. Would you change your position if it wasn't "at Ground Zero" but just across the street overlooking Ground Zero? I doubt it. How about if Ground Zero is made into a multi-purpose facility that has open areas, a memorial, commercial areas and residential areas and a Muslim group leased space there? Again, I doubt it. The only worthy argument is that without evidence that an actual terrorist group or someone with ties to a terrorist group is behind the building they have as much right as anyone else to build a multi-purpose community center/religious facility in Lower Manhattan.

Arguing against your shtick is the new shtick?

First, it's not shtick. With some issues, technicalities are very important. Second, the argument being made by the people against the mosque is an emotional one. Therefore, technicalities are irrelevant when you are disagreeing with them.

 

[Statorama]

I'm just disgusted at how easily their plan worked on so many people. Not surprised, just disgusted.

Wait, you're talking about the guys building the mosque, right?

 

[Statorama]

First, they came for my Burlington Coat Factory....

 

[tommyboy]

did you even read the words of Imam Rauf I posted for you? Either you did and your being obtuse or you didn't. Here I'll repost them for you:

The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.”

and if that isn't enough to satisfy you, how about this?

After about 40 minutes they finish. The men and women exit and immediately blend in to the streetscape of Manhattan. The shelf with the shoes empties. Just 100 yards away, construction cranes rattle. From the hole that is Ground Zero gigantic steel beams have begun to rise -- the first floors of the new World Trade Center.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...67678-2,00.html

Ms. DAISY KAHN(ph): So we're standing on Park Place at the corner of West Broadway, which is only a block away from Ground Zero.

JAMIE TARABAY: This is Daisy Kahn. She's pointing at a four-story building that's being renovated. Apart from a grocery store around the corner, the whole block is deserted. All the shop fronts are down.

Ms. KAHN: They were the former Burlington Coat Factory. And it was shut down on 9/11 because a piece of the plane wreckage, the fuselage fell into the building, and everybody had to be evacuated.

TARABAY: Since then, not a lot has happened to the area. It's in the heart of the financial district, but no one comes here. That's something Kahn is hoping to change. She's a diminutive woman at 5 feet tall, but a formidable advocate for Muslims.

(Soundbite of jackhammer)

TARABAY: The fact that this building is within earsplitting distance of the jackhammers and cranes at the scene of America's worst terror attack is exactly why she wanted it.

note that Ms Kahn is imam Raufs wife

 

[tommyboy]

I'll make you a deal, Tommy. I want you to write down your best arguments as to why this mosque should not be built, seal them in an envelope, and put it someplace safe. I'll do the same with my arguments for why it should be. Thirty years from now, we'll each open our envelopes, read the contents again, and decide if we are proud or ashamed of the man who wrote them.

you sound like the southern democrats that couldn't get over the fact the north won and gave freedom to slaves and took away voting rights of the former confederate soldiers. you were the vocal 30% minority that spent 10 years having tantrums killing people and forming groups like the KKK because no one agreed with you. Yet the other 70% adapted to the new reality that the north did in fact win and yes slaves were people that deserved rights.

Then take the deal. If you really believe that you're the abolitionists in this scenario and I'm the Klan, then you shouldn't be worried about how your position will look to people (or even just to yourself) 30 years from now.I'm guessing you won't do it, though. Because on some level, you know which of us is on the side of right and justice, which of us will be vindicated by history.

i wouldn't do it because I probably won't be alive in 30 years to check the answers. but if it makes you feel better about yourself I'm pretty sure that my side is the correct side and your side is the wrong one. I highly doubt my answer will change, ever, as pertains to this particular mosque

Yeah, we certainly have a history of looking kindly at denying rights in retrospect. I'm sure this will be no different.

if you want to frame it that way. I certainly am not opposed to mosques being built in the united states and it is my sincere hope that muslim americans are welcomed and integrate into our society. I am only opposed to this mosque at this place.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'm just disgusted at how easily their plan worked on so many people. Not surprised, just disgusted.

Wait, you're talking about the guys building the mosque, right?

Yup. They're clearly evil masterminds bent on subverting the United States from within through prayer facilities and a community center. Their plan worked so well that this building project was totally ignored by everyone (including the posters on this board now outraged by it) for seven months despite the fact that its announcement was on the front page of the New York Times. Thank God we have noble patriots like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh at the gate, telling us seven months after the fact that we should be outraged.

 

[Desert_Power]

Yeah, we certainly have a history of looking kindly at denying rights in retrospect. I'm sure this will be no different.

if you want to frame it that way. I certainly am not opposed to mosques being built in the united states and it is my sincere hope that muslim americans are welcomed and integrate into our society. I am only opposed to this mosque at this place.

Yeah you don't oppose their rights normally, just this one time. Gotcha, that doesn't make your position any better.

 

[Desert_Power]

did you even read the words of Imam Rauf I posted for you? Either you did and your being obtuse or you didn't. Here I'll repost them for you: (snip)

Again, so what? They want to build a community center two blocks from Ground Zero in a building that was damaged by falling debris. It still isn't Ground Zero which refers to the WTC site in the minds of pretty much every American; you can't change the definitions of places as they fit your politics. You wouldn't be happy unless they block off all of Lower Manhattan, but that isn't your choice to make and the residents (many of whom are Muslim) don't disagree with it being there.

 

[TobiasFunke]

did you even read the words of Imam Rauf I posted for you? Either you did and your being obtuse or you didn't. Here I'll repost them for you: (snip)

Again, so what? They want to build a community center two blocks from Ground Zero in a building that was damaged by falling debris. It still isn't Ground Zero which refers to the WTC site; you can’t change the definitions of places as they fit your politics. You wouldn't be happy unless they block off all of Lower Manhattan, but that isn't your choice to make and the residents (many of whom are Muslim) don't disagree with it being there.

Don't you get it? Ground Zero Burlington Coat Factory belongs to ALL of us.

ETA: Except Muslims, I guess. But whatever.

 

[Jewell]

Their plan worked so well that this building project was totally ignored by everyone (including the posters on this board now outraged by it) for seven months despite the fact that its announcement was on the front page of the New York Times. Thank God we have noble patriots like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh at the gate, telling us seven months after the fact that we should be outraged.

Once again, I don't think this was some nefarious plan by the right wing media. Unless, of course, you think the trend of news outlets making ratings their primary objective is nefarious. It's common for stories to go unreported for months before blowing-up nationally. Take for instance:On December 4, 2006 17-year-old Justin Barker, a white Jena High School student, was battered at school by a group of black students. US Attorney Washington states he does not believe the noose incident and the beatings were related. District Attorney Walters likewise indicated that he believes there is no linkage between the noose incident and the beating.

The case began to receive extensive national media coverage in July 2007, with CNN interviewing Jena residents and parents of those involved. News reports from Jena have evoked the Civil Rights Movement, made references to lynching, or evoked Jim Crow. Some sources have pointed out inaccurate reporting by the media. The Associated Press published an article noting the various reporting errors that have been made, including whether the tree was a "white tree", the number of nooses, and the discipline meted out on the noose-hanging student. (Per Wiki)

That's a case of CNN telling us eight months after the fact we should be outraged. Was this a master plan by CNN? Or did CNN not report the case earlier because they didn't have enough info on it, but once they got info on it they beat it to death because provocative Us vs. Them stories sell?

News has become a business. These news outlets are merely discussing matters that the public continues to have an appetite for even if it is now months after the fact.

 

[cowboysin07]

Has anyone actually seen the spot? I work down the block and my happy hour spot is right next door.

It's too close and will be by far the largest building on that block. Not to mention, I was trying to have a smoke the other day and 4 people were on the ground washing their heads, feet, and hands.

I was not here for 9/11 but we lost 2 people in the towers and still have plenty of co-workers traumatized by the events. This thing should not be happening.

 

[Desert_Power]

Not to mention, I was trying to have a smoke the other day and 4 people were on the ground washing their heads, feet, and hands.

que?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Their plan worked so well that this building project was totally ignored by everyone (including the posters on this board now outraged by it) for seven months despite the fact that its announcement was on the front page of the New York Times. Thank God we have noble patriots like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh at the gate, telling us seven months after the fact that we should be outraged.

Once again, I don't think this was some nefarious plan by the right wing media. Unless, of course, you think the trend of news outlets making ratings their primary objective is nefarious. It's common for stories to go unreported for months before blowing-up nationally. Take for instance:On December 4, 2006 17-year-old Justin Barker, a white Jena High School student, was battered at school by a group of black students. US Attorney Washington states he does not believe the noose incident and the beatings were related. District Attorney Walters likewise indicated that he believes there is no linkage between the noose incident and the beating.

The case began to receive extensive national media coverage in July 2007, with CNN interviewing Jena residents and parents of those involved. News reports from Jena have evoked the Civil Rights Movement, made references to lynching, or evoked Jim Crow. Some sources have pointed out inaccurate reporting by the media. The Associated Press published an article noting the various reporting errors that have been made, including whether the tree was a "white tree", the number of nooses, and the discipline meted out on the noose-hanging student. (Per Wiki)

That's a case of CNN telling us eight months after the fact we should be outraged. Was this a master plan by CNN? Or did CNN not report the case earlier because they didn't have enough info on it, but once they got info on it they beat it to death because provocative Us vs. Them stories sell?

News has become a business. These news outlets are merely discussing matters that the public continues to have an appetite for even if it is now months after the fact.

This is a false analogy. As you say, with this story one possibility is that CNN didn't report it because they didn't have enough info on it, and later facts may have come to light to make it controversial or or newsworthy or good for ratings or whatever their motivation may be. In contrast, there was plenty of info on this story from Day One. It was on the front page of the New York Times the day the plans were announced- you can't get much more public than that- and the identities of the parties involved were never hidden. It wasn't a story because it shouldn't be a story, and it wasn't until some people decided to make it a story by attaching misleading, inflammatory rhetoric to it, e.g. calling it the "Ground Zero Mosque" when it is neither at Ground Zero nor simply a mosque.

 

[cowboysin07]

Not to mention, I was trying to have a smoke the other day and 4 people were on the ground washing their heads, feet, and hands.

que?

I don't know much about the religion but apparently they have to be completely clean before entering the building. I've seen quite a few people with bottles of water cleaning their feet, hands, head before entering.Those are the situations that could escalate when building something so close to the worst terrorist attack in our countries history. I can just imagine some drunk New Yorkers outside while this is going on.

 

[Jewell]

Yeah you don't oppose their rights normally, just this one time. Gotcha, that doesn't make your position any better.

Sure it does. It should at least weigh in favor of a showing that the objection in this particular case isn't based solely on bigotry.Say for instance there's a white hiring partner. He has interviewed a hundred black candidates and not hired a single one of them. Now say he just interviewed a 101st black candidate and also didn't hire him. It's much easier to suggest that bigotry is at the root of the hiring partner's decision not to hire the 101st candidte based on the hiring partner's history.Now say that same hiring partner had interviewed a hundred black candidates and hired all of them. Then the hiring partner doesn't hire the 101st black candidate. If the hiring partner then says that his objection to the 101st candidate is based on merit and not bigotry, it's easier to take him at face value because he never evidenced bigotry in the past under similar circumstances.

 

[Desert_Power]

Not to mention, I was trying to have a smoke the other day and 4 people were on the ground washing their heads, feet, and hands.

que?

I don't know much about the religion but apparently they have to be completely clean before entering the building. I've seen quite a few people with bottles of water cleaning their feet, hands, head before entering.Those are the situations that could escalate when building something so close to the worst terrorist attack in our countries history. I can just imagine some drunk New Yorkers outside while this is going on.

So, you have a problem with people practicing their religion because certain drunken people passing by may associate peaceful Muslims with terrorists?

 

[Desert_Power]

Yeah you don't oppose their rights normally, just this one time. Gotcha, that doesn't make your position any better.

Sure it does. It should at least weigh in favor of a showing that the objection in this particular case isn't based solely on bigotry.Say for instance there's a white hiring partner. He has interviewed a hundred black candidates and not hired a single one of them. Now say he just interviewed a 101st black candidate and also didn't hire him. It's much easier to suggest that bigotry is at the root of the hiring partner's decision not to hire the 101st candidte based on the hiring partner's history.Now say that same hiring partner had interviewed a hundred black candidates and hired all of them. Then the hiring partner doesn't hire the 101st black candidate. If the hiring partner then says that his objection to the 101st candidate is based on merit and not bigotry, it's easier to take him at face value because he never evidenced bigotry in the past under similar circumstances.

My post wasn't about suggesting bigotry on the part of tommyboy, my post was about him supporting taking away the rights of a religion/minority. Just because he "claims" that this is the only instance he supports denying them rights, it doesn't change that he supports denying them rights.

 

[cowboysin07]

Not to mention, I was trying to have a smoke the other day and 4 people were on the ground washing their heads, feet, and hands.

que?

I don't know much about the religion but apparently they have to be completely clean before entering the building. I've seen quite a few people with bottles of water cleaning their feet, hands, head before entering.Those are the situations that could escalate when building something so close to the worst terrorist attack in our countries history. I can just imagine some drunk New Yorkers outside while this is going on.

So, you have a problem with people practicing their religion because certain drunken people passing by may associate peaceful Muslims with terrorists?

No I have a problem with the lack of common sense. I also have a problem with an unwarranted threats on my life.

Where do you live?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yeah you don't oppose their rights normally, just this one time. Gotcha, that doesn't make your position any better.

Sure it does. It should at least weigh in favor of a showing that the objection in this particular case isn't based solely on bigotry.Say for instance there's a white hiring partner. He has interviewed a hundred black candidates and not hired a single one of them. Now say he just interviewed a 101st black candidate and also didn't hire him. It's much easier to suggest that bigotry is at the root of the hiring partner's decision not to hire the 101st candidte based on the hiring partner's history.Now say that same hiring partner had interviewed a hundred black candidates and hired all of them. Then the hiring partner doesn't hire the 101st black candidate. If the hiring partner then says that his objection to the 101st candidate is based on merit and not bigotry, it's easier to take him at face value because he never evidenced bigotry in the past under similar circumstances.

My post wasn't about suggesting bigotry on the part of tommyboy, my post was about him supporting taking away the rights of a religion/minority. Just because he "claims" that this is the only instance he supports denying them rights, it doesn't change that he supports denying them rights.

In tommyboy's defense, I don't think he or anyone else really said that. I haven't seen anyone call for the group to be legally barred from opening this site.I believe what he, and others, are saying is that they shouldn't have chosen to exercise their rights in this instance, because it's too inflammatory. How they're missing the irony of claiming it's too inflammatory when nobody gave a rat's behind for seven months until the Right decided to stoke some flames, I don't know.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Not to mention, I was trying to have a smoke the other day and 4 people were on the ground washing their heads, feet, and hands.

que?

I don't know much about the religion but apparently they have to be completely clean before entering the building. I've seen quite a few people with bottles of water cleaning their feet, hands, head before entering.Those are the situations that could escalate when building something so close to the worst terrorist attack in our countries history. I can just imagine some drunk New Yorkers outside while this is going on.

So, you have a problem with people practicing their religion because certain drunken people passing by may associate peaceful Muslims with terrorists?

No I have a problem with the lack of common sense. I also have a problem with an unwarranted threats on my life.

Where do you live?

This has to be schtick. It's too perfect.

 

[cowboysin07]

This has to be schtick. It's too perfect.

Nope, and is the opinion of most of the people I know that actually live here.

Do you work 2 blocks from there?

 

[Desert_Power]

Not to mention, I was trying to have a smoke the other day and 4 people were on the ground washing their heads, feet, and hands.

que?

I don't know much about the religion but apparently they have to be completely clean before entering the building. I've seen quite a few people with bottles of water cleaning their feet, hands, head before entering.Those are the situations that could escalate when building something so close to the worst terrorist attack in our countries history. I can just imagine some drunk New Yorkers outside while this is going on.

So, you have a problem with people practicing their religion because certain drunken people passing by may associate peaceful Muslims with terrorists?

No I have a problem with the lack of common sense. I also have a problem with an unwarranted threats on my life.

Where do you live?

Unwarranted threats on your life? It isn't like the Muslims are going to attack their own Terror Triumph Monument to Allah. I live in Charlotte, NC(though I will likely live in NYC this time next year). If where people live matters so much to you, shouldn't that people that live in Manhattan support the project than oppose it carry more weight than your concern about angry drunk people?

 

[cowboysin07]

I didn't say anything about Muslims. It's a threat from people on both sides of the fence. They just need to use common sense and build it in a less sensitive area.

I guess you could build a day care in the middle of the everglades but what's the point?

 

[Desert_Power]

I didn't say anything about Muslims. It's a threat from people on both sides of the fence. They just need to use common sense and build it in a less sensitive area.I guess you could build a day care in the middle of the everglades but what's the point?

You're right you didn't say anything about Muslims, until the sentence afterwards where you did.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Nope, and is the opinion of most of the people I know that actually live here.Do you work 2 blocks from there?

That's not what polling data indicates- it's pretty much 50/50 in NYC. And even that polling data is the result of misleading information about the site. If you has asked seven months ago whether people opposed the construction of a Muslim community center and mosque on Park 2+ blocks from the former site of the Twin Towers, you would have gotten a completely different answer than you'd get now that the Right has inaccurately labeled it the Ground Zero Mosque.

 

[Desert_Power]

Yeah you don't oppose their rights normally, just this one time. Gotcha, that doesn't make your position any better.

Sure it does. It should at least weigh in favor of a showing that the objection in this particular case isn't based solely on bigotry.Say for instance there's a white hiring partner. He has interviewed a hundred black candidates and not hired a single one of them. Now say he just interviewed a 101st black candidate and also didn't hire him. It's much easier to suggest that bigotry is at the root of the hiring partner's decision not to hire the 101st candidte based on the hiring partner's history.Now say that same hiring partner had interviewed a hundred black candidates and hired all of them. Then the hiring partner doesn't hire the 101st black candidate. If the hiring partner then says that his objection to the 101st candidate is based on merit and not bigotry, it's easier to take him at face value because he never evidenced bigotry in the past under similar circumstances.

My post wasn't about suggesting bigotry on the part of tommyboy, my post was about him supporting taking away the rights of a religion/minority. Just because he "claims" that this is the only instance he supports denying them rights, it doesn't change that he supports denying them rights.

In tommyboy's defense, I don't think he or anyone else really said that. I haven't seen anyone call for the group to be legally barred from opening this site.

Given that his earlier analogy was all about rights, I assumed his objection had something to do with rights. If it doesn't, then my bad.

you sound like the southern democrats that couldn't get over the fact the north won and gave freedom to slaves and took away voting rights of the former confederate soldiers. you were the vocal 30% minority that spent 10 years having tantrums killing people and forming groups like the KKK because no one agreed with you. Yet the other 70% adapted to the new reality that the north did in fact win and yes slaves were people that deserved rights.

 

[cowboysin07]

Nope, and is the opinion of most of the people I know that actually live here.Do you work 2 blocks from there?

That's not what polling data indicates- it's pretty much 50/50 in NYC. And even that polling data is the result of misleading information about the site. If you has asked seven months ago whether people opposed the construction of a Muslim community center and mosque on Park 2+ blocks from the former site of the Twin Towers, you would have gotten a completely different answer than you'd get now that the Right has inaccurately labeled it the Ground Zero Mosque.

My own polling data says otherwise. I'll agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Jewell]

I believe what he, and others, are saying is that they shouldn't have chosen to exercise their rights in this instance, because it's too inflammatory. How they're missing the irony of claiming it's too inflammatory when nobody gave a rat's behind for seven months until the Right decided to stoke some flames, I don't know.

First, very fair summation of our position in the first sentence. Second, how can I give a rat's behind about something I knew nothing about?

Sorry, but I don't read the New York Times on a daily basis, and I also don't listen to Palin, Rush, Beck and others you suggest are stoking the flames. The first time I became aware of this controversy was by opening this thread and reading its materials; and most of the comments here seem to support the location. I'm going to guess that most Americans act the same way. They're too busy to seek out the news so they wait for the news to come to them.

It seems a bit unfair to argue that people should take a position on something they're unaware of. That would be like Obama taking an earlier position against Rev. Wright's rhetoric even though Obama told us he was completely unaware of it. Once the media made Obama aware of the rhetoric, he took a position on the controversy. Same phenomenon here.

 

[cowboysin07]

I didn't say anything about Muslims. It's a threat from people on both sides of the fence. They just need to use common sense and build it in a less sensitive area.I guess you could build a day care in the middle of the everglades but what's the point?

You're right you didn't say anything about Muslims, until the sentence afterwards where you did.

Never once said anything about Muslims and never will. I posted some observations and said that I'm opposed to the site based on a factual event and the emotions that it will bring to people on the other side.I would never throw gas on a fire......especially if I was standing over the fire.I guess that would be my definition of common sense.

 

[tommyboy]

Yeah you don't oppose their rights normally, just this one time. Gotcha, that doesn't make your position any better.

Sure it does. It should at least weigh in favor of a showing that the objection in this particular case isn't based solely on bigotry.Say for instance there's a white hiring partner. He has interviewed a hundred black candidates and not hired a single one of them. Now say he just interviewed a 101st black candidate and also didn't hire him. It's much easier to suggest that bigotry is at the root of the hiring partner's decision not to hire the 101st candidte based on the hiring partner's history.Now say that same hiring partner had interviewed a hundred black candidates and hired all of them. Then the hiring partner doesn't hire the 101st black candidate. If the hiring partner then says that his objection to the 101st candidate is based on merit and not bigotry, it's easier to take him at face value because he never evidenced bigotry in the past under similar circumstances.

My post wasn't about suggesting bigotry on the part of tommyboy, my post was about him supporting taking away the rights of a religion/minority. Just because he "claims" that this is the only instance he supports denying them rights, it doesn't change that he supports denying them rights.

i swear arguing with you is a gigantic waste of time but for sake of clarity it is not my position that I support taking away the rights of a religion/minority. It is my position that the imam was stupid to think that building this thing at this place was a good idea, he should have known it would inflame sensitive feelings about a horrible mass murder and in a perfect world he would never have proposed this trainwreck. Short of that, the best possible outcome would be for the imam to show the same types of sensitivity he so clearly desires towards himself and his view of Islam and announce that he is moving the mosque to a different location so as to show the people of New York and the United States (who by overwhelming margin are opposed to the mosque) that he respects the feelings of his fellow citizens.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I believe what he, and others, are saying is that they shouldn't have chosen to exercise their rights in this instance, because it's too inflammatory. How they're missing the irony of claiming it's too inflammatory when nobody gave a rat's behind for seven months until the Right decided to stoke some flames, I don't know.

First, very fair summation of our position in the first sentence. Second, how can I give a rat's behind about something I knew nothing about?

Sorry, but I don't read the New York Times on a daily basis, and I also don't listen to Palin, Rush, Beck and others you suggest are stoking the flames. The first time I became aware of this controversy was by opening this thread and reading its materials; and most of the comments here seem to support the location. I'm going to guess that most Americans act the same way. They're too busy to seek out the news so they wait for the news to come to them.

It seems a bit unfair to argue that people should take a position on something they're unaware of. That would be like Obama taking an earlier position against Rev. Wright's rhetoric even though Obama told us he was completely unaware of it. Once the media made Obama aware of the rhetoric, he took a position on the controversy. Same phenomenon here.

I'm not asking why you personally, or any poster in particular, wasn't outraged. It's not reasonable to expect a particular person to have identified the issue as troublesome. Sometimes I even miss front page articles of my hometown paper. I'm asking why nobody was outraged. If there really was some substance here, i.e. there really was something to be upset about, someone in the media (or, to extend it to our little community, someone in the FFA who reads the Times) would have picked up on it immediately. It's fair to assume that if something appears on the front page of the NY Times, a lot of people are aware of it. Because none of these people saw it as a problem at the time, it's fair to ask why it suddenly became a problem seven months later.

You offered a couple theories as to why your CNN example suddenly became a hot story seven months after the fact. I have yet to hear a theory regarding this delayed reaction, other than the obvious one- some Right-leaning media and politicians saw an unmined opportunity for political gain and seized it.

 

[Jewell]

You offered a couple theories as to why your CNN example suddenly became a hot story seven months after the fact. I have yet to hear a theory regarding this delayed reaction, other than the obvious one- some Right-leaning media and politicians saw an unmined opportunity for political gain and seized it.

I provided a longer explanation in that CNN post, but here is the summation of it...

News has become a business. These news outlets are merely discussing matters that the public continues to have an appetite for even if it is now months after the fact.

Is there also a nefarious media conspiracy with the following stories that the media dragged on... and on... and on?Michael Jackson's Death

Tiger Woods' Affairs

Anna Nicole Smith's Death

Maybe the media realizes that ratings plummet when they talk about the minutiae of health bills, but spike when they talk about celebrities early deaths, affairs, and Us vs. Them matters. Then, like anything else, things with brand name recognition sell better. The media could move on to another story, but they realize the brand name headline of Michael Jackson's Death, Tiger Woods' Affair, or The Ground Zero Mosque is a proven ratings getter. Once the ratings go, so will the story.

As for the delay in originally reporting, I'd just be speculating if I came up with an explanation. If you're suggesting the media was intentionally delaying reporting on the community center to later use it as a wedge issue, why not just use it as a wedge issue that original time? And that would take a huge conspiracy for no reporter to want to break the story? Reporters are humans who, like us, often get swept up in mass mentality. Many probably didn't know about the mosque, and first reported only when they saw a wave of other reporters start to do so.

It's like Fantasy Football articles. One guy posits that Jabar Gaffney is a great sleeper and next thing you know there are 500 articles on Jabar Gaffney being a great sleeper. "Real" reporters do the same ####.

 

[Mario Kart]

The world trade centers were attacked by extremists as an attack on our economy, our way of life, our inhabiting Islamic lands, and our freedom.

The attacks from the extremists about this Mosque are an attack on a religion.

Somehow, these do not fit into the same category.

 

[Desert_Power]

Yeah you don't oppose their rights normally, just this one time. Gotcha, that doesn't make your position any better.

Sure it does. It should at least weigh in favor of a showing that the objection in this particular case isn't based solely on bigotry.Say for instance there's a white hiring partner. He has interviewed a hundred black candidates and not hired a single one of them. Now say he just interviewed a 101st black candidate and also didn't hire him. It's much easier to suggest that bigotry is at the root of the hiring partner's decision not to hire the 101st candidte based on the hiring partner's history.Now say that same hiring partner had interviewed a hundred black candidates and hired all of them. Then the hiring partner doesn't hire the 101st black candidate. If the hiring partner then says that his objection to the 101st candidate is based on merit and not bigotry, it's easier to take him at face value because he never evidenced bigotry in the past under similar circumstances.

My post wasn't about suggesting bigotry on the part of tommyboy, my post was about him supporting taking away the rights of a religion/minority. Just because he "claims" that this is the only instance he supports denying them rights, it doesn't change that he supports denying them rights.

i swear arguing with you is a gigantic waste of time but for sake of clarity it is not my position that I support taking away the rights of a religion/minority. It is my position that the imam was stupid to think that building this thing at this place was a good idea, he should have known it would inflame sensitive feelings about a horrible mass murder and in a perfect world he would never have proposed this trainwreck. Short of that, the best possible outcome would be for the imam to show the same types of sensitivity he so clearly desires towards himself and his view of Islam and announce that he is moving the mosque to a different location so as to show the people of New York and the United States (who by overwhelming margin are opposed to the mosque) that he respects the feelings of his fellow citizens.

Good to hear you don't oppose the rights of people to build a "giant monument to allah" as you call it. I don't think the irrational objection and fear mongering of people such as yourself is a reason not to do something however. Maybe this wouldn't be such a large issue if people would lay off the giant monument to allah/victory mosque crap. Unfortunately, instead of simply voicing that some people are sensitive to the issue you continuously opt for playing the fear card and chose to exacerbate the situation.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You offered a couple theories as to why your CNN example suddenly became a hot story seven months after the fact. I have yet to hear a theory regarding this delayed reaction, other than the obvious one- some Right-leaning media and politicians saw an unmined opportunity for political gain and seized it.

I provided a longer explanation in that CNN post, but here is the summation of it...

News has become a business. These news outlets are merely discussing matters that the public continues to have an appetite for even if it is now months after the fact.

Is there also a nefarious media conspiracy with the following stories that the media dragged on... and on... and on?Michael Jackson's Death

Tiger Woods' Affairs

Anna Nicole Smith's Death

Maybe the media realizes that ratings plummet when they talk about the minutiae of health bills, but spike when they talk about celebrities early deaths, affairs, and Us vs. Them matters. Then, like anything else, things with brand name recognition sell better. The media could move on to another story, but they realize the brand name headline of Michael Jackson's Death, Tiger Woods' Affair, or The Ground Zero Mosque is a proven ratings getter. Once the ratings go, so will the story.

As for the delay in originally reporting, I'd just be speculating if I came up with an explanation. If you're suggesting the media was intentionally delaying reporting on the community center to later use it as a wedge issue, why not just use it as a wedge issue that original time? And that would take a huge conspiracy for no reporter to want to break the story? Reporters are humans who, like us, often get swept up in mass mentality. Many probably didn't know about the mosque, and first reported only when they saw a wave of other reporters start to do so.

It's like Fantasy Football articles. One guy posits that Jabar Gaffney is a great sleeper and next thing you know there are 500 articles on Jabar Gaffney being a great sleeper. "Real" reporters do the same ####.

There was no delay in original reporting. There was a delay in the reaction to the reporting, namely, the outrage. Why? I've got a theory that I think makes sense: the "story," if presented in a straightforward manner, is simply not a particularly noteworthy or controversial story. It is only noteworthy if presented falsely as a "Ground Zero Mosque" that we should be upset about. And (according to Wikipedia at least) that's exactly how it happened:

Plans to build then-named Cordoba House were reported in The New York Times in December 2009,[19] at a location that was already in use for Muslim worship.[20] Early response to the project was not pronounced, and one conservative commentator provided positive coverage.[15][21][22] The plans were reviewed by the local community board in May 2010, at which time they attracted some national media attention.[23] Protests were sparked by a campaign launched by conservative[24] bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, founders of the group Stop Islamization of America, who dubbed the project the "Ground Zero mosque,"[23][25] and a national controversy ensued.

So there's my theory for the reason behind the delayed reaction. It makes sense to me. I'd love to hear another one.

 

[the moops]

I guess you could build a day care in the middle of the everglades but what's the point?

I was clearly in the pro-victory mosque corner until this spot on analogy.

 

[jon_mx]

Saudi Prince Urges Ground Zero Mosque Be Moved

Prince Says Imam Should 'Defer' to Opinion of New Yorkers

20 comments By CINDY E. RODRIGUEZ

Oct. 28, 2010

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal speaks during a press conference in Riyadh in this Feb. 2010 file...

"Those people behind the mosque have to respect, have to appreciate and have to defer to the people of New York," Prince Alwaleed bin Talal said in an interview with the Dubai-based Arabian Business magazine. "The wound is still there. Just because the wound is healing you can't say, 'Let's just go back to where we were pre-9/11.'"

Alwaleed also said in the interview that Muslims in New York should consider a more "dignified" location, alluding to the presence of at least one strip club and several bars in the area.

"It can't be next to a bar or a strip club, or in a neighborhood that is not really refined and good. The impression I have is that this mosque is just being inserted and squeezed over there," he said.

Alwaleed said that it may take up to 30 years for the wounds of 9/11 to heal, and said that moving forward with the mosque would agitate people needlessly.

"Most governments are pragmatic, most people are logical. There are pockets of extremism in Israel, in the U.S. and in the Muslim world. But we have to fight them with reason, with logic and with compassion," Alwaleed said. "We can't just say 'go to hell.' We cannot do that."

The prince's comments were applauded by those who have been protesting the project. Conservative blogger Pamela Geller, one of the most vocal opponents of the mosque, said in a blog post today that Alwaleed "got it right."

"Pretty pathetic when our own liberal media and politicians need lessons in sensitivity from a Saudi prince. Sheesh," Geller wrote.

But Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam of the proposed Islamic center, said he has no intention of moving the project out of the shadow of Ground Zero.

"While we respect the points of view of other interested observers, we plan to build the community center in this location," Rauf said in a statement today.

He said that hundreds of Muslims have been praying in that space every day for more than a year. He said the project is part of an effort to "tackle tough issues in a practical way in order to build better relationships among Muslims, Jews, Christians and people of goodwill from all cultures and faiths."

 

[jon_mx]

It's slated to cost $100 million, but the nonprofit organization working on the project have reportedly raised a fraction of that amount and have since declared that they are open to donations from foreign governments – including Iran.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Saudi Prince Urges Ground Zero Mosque Be Moved

Prince Says Imam Should 'Defer' to Opinion of New Yorkers

20 comments By CINDY E. RODRIGUEZ

Oct. 28, 2010

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal speaks during a press conference in Riyadh in this Feb. 2010 file...

"Those people behind the mosque have to respect, have to appreciate and have to defer to the people of New York," Prince Alwaleed bin Talal said in an interview with the Dubai-based Arabian Business magazine. "The wound is still there. Just because the wound is healing you can't say, 'Let's just go back to where we were pre-9/11.'"

Alwaleed also said in the interview that Muslims in New York should consider a more "dignified" location, alluding to the presence of at least one strip club and several bars in the area.

"It can't be next to a bar or a strip club, or in a neighborhood that is not really refined and good. The impression I have is that this mosque is just being inserted and squeezed over there," he said.

Alwaleed said that it may take up to 30 years for the wounds of 9/11 to heal, and said that moving forward with the mosque would agitate people needlessly.

"Most governments are pragmatic, most people are logical. There are pockets of extremism in Israel, in the U.S. and in the Muslim world. But we have to fight them with reason, with logic and with compassion," Alwaleed said. "We can't just say 'go to hell.' We cannot do that."

The prince's comments were applauded by those who have been protesting the project. Conservative blogger Pamela Geller, one of the most vocal opponents of the mosque, said in a blog post today that Alwaleed "got it right."

"Pretty pathetic when our own liberal media and politicians need lessons in sensitivity from a Saudi prince. Sheesh," Geller wrote.

But Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam of the proposed Islamic center, said he has no intention of moving the project out of the shadow of Ground Zero.

"While we respect the points of view of other interested observers, we plan to build the community center in this location," Rauf said in a statement today.

He said that hundreds of Muslims have been praying in that space every day for more than a year. He said the project is part of an effort to "tackle tough issues in a practical way in order to build better relationships among Muslims, Jews, Christians and people of goodwill from all cultures and faiths."

Bush is no longer in the White House so we do not take orders from a Saudi Prince anymore.

 

[jon_mx]

Bush is no longer in the White House so we do not take orders from a Saudi Prince anymore.

Next time, maybe you should take a bit longer to post, and perhaps make a point.

 

[Statorama]

It's slated to cost $100 million, but the nonprofit organization working on the project have reportedly raised a fraction of that amount and have since declared that they are open to donations from foreign governments – including Iran.

 

[Jewell]

jon_mx has argued in this thread that the location of the "Ground Zero" mosque is an intentional .

Others have argued the location is merely coincidence.

Does the location and date of the following event give you any second thoughts on the above positions?

I'll use the groups own narrative to be as fair as possible...

One Million Muslims.org is the organizer and presenter of the upcoming One Million Muslim March. The planned event is not to be an actual march, but rather a gathering of Muslims from across the US, at the Anacostia Park in Washington DC, July 4, 2011. The One Million Muslim March will be a gathering of Muslims from across sectarian, ideological, racial, ethnic,language and all other barriers. We will come together to re-establish the feelings of brother and sisterhood among Muslim Americans, and to begin the difficult process of post 9/11 healing. Please visit this website often for news and updates regarding the march.

If it's not an actual march then why keep calling it a march?

 

[jon_mx]

New imam quits embattled Islamic community center

By Allan Chernoff, CNN

A Park51 imam announced his resignation Friday, just three weeks after being appointed to his post at the embattled Islamic community center in New York, according to a written statement Friday.

"I wish the project leaders well," said Imam Adhami, saying he needed more time to complete a book meant to assist English readers in understanding the Quran.

His resignation comes on the heels of a controversial post on his website, sakeenah.org, in which he claimed that "an enormously overwhelming percentage of people struggle with homosexual feeling because of some form of violent emotional or sexual abuse at some point in their life."

Park51 officials later attempted to distance the community center from Adhami's comments, tweeting that "Adhami's personal statements do not reflect the position of p51."

The community center - located two blocks from the ground zero location in Manhattan - describes itself as an inclusive community center open to anyone, with the goal of integrating Muslim-Americans into U.S. society.

"We have been humbled by Imam Adhami's contributions to this project over the past few months," said Park51 President Sharif El-Gamal. "We look forward to him, God willing, leading prayers informally for Park51 in the near future."

His departure is the latest in a string of setbacks after former Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, was given a reduced role in the center.

Rauf remains on the board of the community center.

 

[Thunderlips]

jon_mx has argued in this thread that the location of the "Ground Zero" mosque is an intentional .

Others have argued the location is merely coincidence.

Does the location and date of the following event give you any second thoughts on the above positions?

I'll use the groups own narrative to be as fair as possible...

One Million Muslims.org is the organizer and presenter of the upcoming One Million Muslim March. The planned event is not to be an actual march, but rather a gathering of Muslims from across the US, at the Anacostia Park in Washington DC, July 4, 2011. The One Million Muslim March will be a gathering of Muslims from across sectarian, ideological, racial, ethnic,language and all other barriers. We will come together to re-establish the feelings of brother and sisterhood among Muslim Americans, and to begin the difficult process of post 9/11 healing. Please visit this website often for news and updates regarding the march.

If it's not an actual march then why keep calling it a march?

That Muslims love the freedom this country affords as much as non-Muslims do and are going to show that freedom on one of the most important days in this countries history?

 

[Joe Summer]

Is this still a news story? November was 4 months ago.

 

[Shtaym Syek]

Is this still a news story? November was 4 months ago.

It wasn't really a news story then.

 

[Jewell]

jon_mx has argued in this thread that the location of the "Ground Zero" mosque is an intentional .

Others have argued the location is merely coincidence.

Does the location and date of the following event give you any second thoughts on the above positions?

I'll use the groups own narrative to be as fair as possible...

One Million Muslims.org is the organizer and presenter of the upcoming One Million Muslim March. The planned event is not to be an actual march, but rather a gathering of Muslims from across the US, at the Anacostia Park in Washington DC, July 4, 2011. The One Million Muslim March will be a gathering of Muslims from across sectarian, ideological, racial, ethnic,language and all other barriers. We will come together to re-establish the feelings of brother and sisterhood among Muslim Americans, and to begin the difficult process of post 9/11 healing. Please visit this website often for news and updates regarding the march.

If it's not an actual march then why keep calling it a march?

That Muslims love the freedom this country affords as much as non-Muslims do and are going to show that freedom on one of the most important days in this countries history?

So then why not include "American" in the title of their event? Why not the One Million-Muslim American March? The word "American" is noticeably absent.That's my main issue with the date and location. I have no problem with law abiding well intentioned people of any background but Independence Day in our nation's capitol should be a day we stress the American part of Muslim-American, African-American, Irish-American, or Italian-American. It shouldn't be the day we celebrate the Mulim part, or African part, or Irish part, or Italian part of those terms. There are better days to celebrate that aspect of those terms.

I think that's what most people were also arguing with regard to the mosque location. Those proposing that location claim it was intended to bring people together. It soon became obvious, though, that the proposed location was causing a greater rift. When I see a situation where the outcome is obviously contrary to the stated intent, it make me question the intent.

 

[Joe Summer]

So then why not include "American" in the title of their event? Why not the One Million-Muslim American March?

Maybe because they didn't want to exclude non-American Muslim residents? No one expected the Million Mom March to identify themselves as the Million American Mom March, did they?

 

[Jewell]

So then why not include "American" in the title of their event? Why not the One Million-Muslim American March?

Maybe because they didn't want to exclude non-American Muslim residents? No one expected the Million Mom March to identify themselves as the Million American Mom March, did they?

Was the Million Mom March held in the nation's capitol on the day we celebrate our mutual American identity?