Ground Zero mosque wins approval !!

[gambit]

Gambit

It is unfortunate that regadless of how many times you read the expression of this perception of being discriminated against, so many are unwilling to be open to it - these are US citizens we are talking about, you understand? Americans. Is there really any evidence or proof that will satisfy those who refuse to admit it?

Yeah...Since you brought on King and black civil rights, you can bring on evidence or proof of similar civil rights violations upon muslims in America.

Mayor Bloomberg, I think, has got the proportion of the problem just right, when he says that this is issue is the challenge of our lifetime - See, the numbers of US Muslims are not going to decrease, and they are all kinds of people, from all kinds of walks of life and such ill-informed and malicious oppositon only serves to make people more aware and active - so while in many cornersof the US, there are now and will be be in the future, much opposition, such opposition will serve to get more and more people to think more and feel less - in other words, US Muslims as full Americans exercising their constitutional liberties, is something we are going to see more of, not less of - and for some this may be the beginning of the end, of the ghettoization of the US Muslim in public perception. I certainly hope so.

Being insensitive is not a crime. Violating building codes is. No one is saying that this propose 'mosque' is violating any laws. Americans, including many muslims among us, are saying this is being insensitive. Muslims in America, just like the rest of us infidels, do not have exception from charges of being insensitive. So the more you try to cast this as a 'Constitutional' issue from way over there, the more it will become a backlash for muslims over here.

 

[Solomon2]

I don't know why Pakistanis are talking about this while their countrymen are suffering terribly from massive floods, but I should clear up a few things here.

There is a difference between zoning codes and building codes. Zoning has to do with good city planning. Zones can be industrial, commercial, rural, or residential. There may be limits on building size and rules for parking, but usually a religious institution can, as far as I know, be built in any zone. Zoning rules are, however, fundamentally political.

Building codes apply to type of building, strength of construction, amenities, fire protection, and the like. A religious institution with enough money will always be able to meet such codes. These engineering codes are rarely, if ever, messed with by politicians.

 

[gambit]

I don't know why Pakistanis are talking about this while their countrymen are suffering terribly from massive floods, but I should clear up a few things here.

There is a difference between zoning codes and building codes. Zoning has to do with good city planning. Zones can be industrial, commercial, rural, or residential. There may be limits on building size and rules for parking, but usually a religious institution can, as far as I know, be built in any zone. Zoning rules are, however, fundamentally political.

Building codes apply to type of building, strength of construction, amenities, fire protection, and the like. A religious institution with enough money will always be able to meet such codes. These engineering codes are rarely, if ever, messed with by politicians.

Come now...How insensitive of you by bothering these people with details.

 

[Solomon2]

A week-old article, but it belongs in this thread:

Mischief in Manhattan
We Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation
By Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, Citizen Special August 9, 2010

Last week, a journalist who writes for the North Country Times, a small newspaper in Southern California, sent us an e-mail titled "Help." He couldn't understand why an Islamic Centre in an area where Adam Gadahn, Osama bin Laden's American spokesman came from, and that was home to three of the 911 terrorists, was looking to expand.

The man has a very valid point, which leads to the ongoing debate about building a Mosque at Ground Zero in New York. When we try to understand the reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicentre of the worst-ever attack on the U.S., we wonder why its proponents don't build a monument to those who died in the attack?

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna"

So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?

Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?

There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis.

If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to.

It's a repugnant thought that $100 million would be brought into the United States rather than be directed at dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan.

Let's not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits. And rightly so. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.

The Koran implores Muslims to speak the truth, even if it hurts the one who utters the truth. Today we speak the truth, knowing very well Muslims have forgotten this crucial injunction from Allah.

If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S. We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America's Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill.

As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.

Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.

Raheel Raza is author of Their Jihad ... Not my Jihad, and Tarek Fatah is author of The Jew is Not My Enemy (McClelland & Stewart), to be launched in October. Both sit on the board of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

 

[fallstuff]

For all those sensitive folks check out the following link. While you are there read the complete article.

Link:
Park 51 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



"Mosque at the Pentagon

The Pentagon, the other site successfully attacked on September 11th, has a mosque on site. This has not raised a similar controversy to the Cordoba House project..A Ramadan prayer service with more than 100 people in attendance was held at the Pentagon in 2007, during the administration of President George W. Bush"

Pentagon is no less sensitive site than lower Manhattan. It is the HQ of the US Military and also attacked on 9/11. Opposing folks, whats your take ?

 

[Meengla]

Islam in Two Americas - Readers' Comments - NYTimes.com

The 'Highlighted' as well as 'Recommended' 'Comments' tell a story of many Americans who are disgusted by the controversy about the mosque in their midst. This is American decency at one of its finest!

Even a Rabbi takes Russ Douthat who wrote the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16douthat.html
to task.

It gives me hope in America!

 

[Meengla]

One of the most highly rated Comments (#26) is worth mentioning here. Of course you can count on people like @Solomon2 to be on the wrong side of history be it the 'mosque' in NYC or the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Flotilla.

http://community.nytimes.com/commen...08/16/opinion/16douthat.html?sort=recommended

Mr. Douthat, what you really want is to maintain a provincial outlook on the world without taking into account the views and experiences of other cultures. The evidence is in your gripe with Imam Rauf's statement that America was an accessory to 9/11. Yes, it was an inappropriate statement considering the devastation of that day, but what Rauf said was and is true. Any thinking person knows that what we experienced on 9/11 was blowback from decades of American meddling in Muslim affairs around the globe. It was the result of frustration sowed by global oppression that America helps perpetuate everyday. You don't want to admit to that, and in your mind, people who do point out the obvious are less than American. But being American isn't about narrow-minded thinking. Idealistically, the experiment known as American was founded upon elevated, rational thought and discourse. America is about moving beyond limited, tribalistic impulses like the ones on display in the "ground zero mosque" debate. It's a shame that you try to legitimize those impulses. No matter how much tortured logic you pen for this publication, discrimination and unthinking provincialism will never be acceptable. Such provincialism will always be beneath America.

I also take issue with the idea that discrimination produces assimilation, and is excusable because it leads to unity. I'm curious to know your historical analysis of anti-black discrimination. Discrimination does not result in assimilation. Assimilation is the result of being fully integrated into the native culture through the work place, social and government institutions, media, and popular culture. The more people are forced to recognize that they are different, the more likely they are to wield those differences as cultural weapons. In short, discrimination results in narrow-minded thinking on the part of the victim, who comes to see himself as irrevocably different and only finds acceptance in his own culture. This may even lead to dangerous interpretations of that culture, i.e. militant black nationalism, Islamic extremism, etc.

 

[gambit]

For all those sensitive folks check out the following link. While you are there read the complete article.

Link:
Park 51 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



"Mosque at the Pentagon

The Pentagon, the other site successfully attacked on September 11th, has a mosque on site. This has not raised a similar controversy to the Cordoba House project..A Ramadan prayer service with more than 100 people in attendance was held at the Pentagon in 2007, during the administration of President George W. Bush"

Pentagon is no less sensitive site than lower Manhattan. It is the HQ of the US Military and also attacked on 9/11. Opposing folks, whats your take ?

See page 7 of this discussion.

 

[jeypore]

We have seena great deal of Indian apprehension about the building of a Mosque in NY - The Indian, true to his Majoritarian instinct, has offered a number of arguments citing polls and other Indians have offered ideology based on revisionist, doctored up history - these have been entirely unhelpful -- But yet it is undeniable that the issue is controversial -- We have offered that the issue is best framed as an issue of private property and the constitutional gauantee of freedom of religion i America - not India, or elsewhere, but in America.

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT].

Well thank you for the great compliment, indeed. To have Religious Rights based on the constitution, Every American Knows that, even the President. But just yesterday, seeing the polls of the sentiment of American Public, he made another statement which went "I am not sure it can be built,yet" It look like the President is hanging, as well as the Muslim community on the decision.

So Mr. Muse your argument based on this American constitution of providing freedom of religion to built this Mosque is in Question, In America today. This is unprecedented, based on Relgious Rights, but it boiles down to setiments of Family and there murders, which where all Muslims..

Anyways, how would an Indian know, like you have said....

 

[jeypore]

muse

Is Obama also playing politics with this as well and what will he do when draws too much heat?

Does that Liberal have a Choice On this subject!!! There are 70% antagonist in America, regarding this ruling by the New York board......

When MLK began his movement in the South, how did a majority of those in the South see his movement?

Now, it becomes a racial argument, not even considering of how many Mosque that already exists in Manhattan, but to build it right here is so important for Muslims, not even considering one bit of sentiments of the families!!!! Fantastic Argument!!!!!!

 

[muse]

It's great fun, this thread - Now the arguments of the opposition have retreated to "sentiment", to "feelings" - and in this citadel of non-reason, they hope to make their last stand.

Recall, that when confronted by radicals islamists, who argued that opposition to crticism, to caricature was sufficient because it was based on the so called "religious sentiments" of Muslims - we dismissed those as we dismiss these "sentiments of opposers. Neither policy nor laws, are made or effected by such sentiments - tomorrow, a group may ask of jews to not wear yarmuka on friday, because it represents a symbol (murder cap) to those who hold Jews responsible for the muder of the Christ, Day after that perhaps some will call in to question the right of the Catholic Church to build a church close to a play ground where little boys also play. (See John Daily show dated 16 Aug, 2010 for an elaborartion and a fun expression of the arguement above)

Friends, regardless of where you came down on the issue - "Feelings" cannot be what we base our opinions and actions on - Solomon2 pointed to the plicght of Jewry in Pakistan -- Did it come good and right what happened tp these families because political pressure was exerted to not apply the law to them and instead to treat them as if other than Pakistani citizens? Was it right to do it Ahmadi or Qaidianis?

"Feelings", "Sentiments" and such tripe must never be allowed to win over conscience - we have allowed that in Pakistan and we know the consequences that the entire society suffered - US Muslims, to protect the Hindu Monkey gods and Sikh Diaper heads, Jew Christ killers and any other religious minority, must protect their civil liberties and as they do so, and gain more confidence and acceptance - this point I think is important because the content of conscience in US must change, to safe guard all Americans, "sentiment" cannot be allowed to pit US against Muslims, whether US muslims or any other.

US Muslims are Americans and it does not matter how some "feel" towards them, what matters is that the law is applied to all and that no tingling group based on "sentiment" is allowed it's to sideline the law.

In the end if the US does not have law, how is it different?

 

[gambit]

It's great fun, this thread - Now the arguments of the opposition have retreated to "sentiment", to "feelings" - and in this citadel of non-reason, they hope to make their last stand.

Now? That is dishonest. The arguments of 'the opposition' have ALWAYS been about feelings and sentiments.

Recall, that when confronted by radicals islamists, who argued that opposition to crticism, to caricature was sufficient because it was based on the so called "religious sentiments" of Muslims - we dismissed those as we dismiss these "sentiments of opposers. Neither policy nor laws, are made or effected by such sentiments - tomorrow, a group may ask of jews to not wear yarmuka on friday, because it represents a symbol (murder cap) to those who hold Jews responsible for the muder of the Christ, Day after that perhaps some will call in to question the right of the Catholic Church to build a church close to a play ground where little boys also play. (See John Daily show dated 16 Aug, 2010 for an elaborartion and a fun expression of the arguement above)

Friends, regardless of where you came down on the issue - "Feelings" cannot be what we base our opinions and actions on - Solomon2 pointed to the plicght of Jewry in Pakistan -- Did it come good and right what happened tp these families because political pressure was exerted to not apply the law to them and instead to treat them as if other than Pakistani citizens? Was it right to do it Ahmadi or Qaidianis?

"Feelings", "Sentiments" and such tripe must never be allowed to win over conscience - we have allowed that in Pakistan and we know the consequences that the entire society suffered - US Muslims, to protect the Hindu Monkey gods and Sikh Diaper heads, Jew Christ killers and any other religious minority, must protect their civil liberties and as they do so, and gain more confidence and acceptance - this point I think is important because the content of conscience in US must change, to safe guard all Americans, "sentiment" cannot be allowed to pit US against Muslims, whether US muslims or any other.

US Muslims are Americans and it does not matter how some "feel" towards them, what matters is that the law is applied to all and that no tingling group based on "sentiment" is allowed it's to sideline the law.

In the end if the US does not have law, how is it different?

That is funny......Because the first thing muslims do whenever they get 'offended' is to call up their own 'Feelings', 'Sentiments' and 'such tripe'. Aaahhh...So when it is non-muslims who are offended, we are irrational and bigoted.

 

[muse]

firrst thing muslims do whenever they get 'offended' is to call up their own 'Feelings', 'Sentiments' and 'such tripe'. Aaahhh...So when it is non-muslims who are offended, we are irrational and bigoted.

That's unfair - If you have read me before, you know that I and a whole bunch of others have consistently argued against this notion of "sentiments" -- but you are right that radical Islamists, particularly such as those representing the Jamaat have consistently used "religious sentiment" argument. "Think more and feel less" this has been a consistent position that I and particularly TT have taken.

But look just because those arguments animated people in Pakistan or elsewhere in Muslim Majority countries, does that mean that it should in the US, as well?

Look, being "offended" we have argued is not grounds for policy action or the law - please be as offended as you want to be - it's a "feeling" - it will pass or not - but "feelings", particularly those around political positions, have a way of "passing" or "evolving" - - but the law is not going to pass, reason and rational approaches are not going to pass, in fact they are method, elementary.

Do some still think of jews as Christ Killers, you bet, but is this "sentiment" any kind of thing for society to base actions on? Can we really insist that Catholics not built a Church near a play ground?

US claims it is not at war with Islam? So why this irrational basis, this "sentiment"? Al-Qaida is not building the Mosque, US Muslim are, and are doing so on private property they own and in doing so exercise their civil liberties -- Some may not like Blacks in their stores, is it OK to demand that Blacks not shop there??

See, you can "feel" any way that you want, but public policy cannot be based on such things and when ever it is, it has be disasterous, ask Pakistanis, ask those segments of society that have suffered directly, as a matter of fact, ask which part of society did not suffer? Would you want the same for the US?

 

[gambit]

That's unfair - If you have read me before, you know that I and a whole bunch of others have consistently argued against this notion of "sentiments" -- but you are right that radical Islamists, particularly such as those representing the Jamaat have consistently used "religious sentiment" argument. "Think more and feel less" this has been a consistent position that I and particularly TT have taken.

But look just because those arguments animated people in Pakistan or elsewhere in Muslim Majority countries, does that mean that it should in the US, as well?

Look, being "offended" we have argued is not grounds for policy action or the law - please be as offended as you want to be - it's a "feeling" - it will pass or not - but "feelings", particularly those around political positions, have a way of "passing" or "evolving" - - but the law is not going to pass, reason and rational approaches are not going to pass, in fact they are method, elementary.

Do some still think of jews as Christ Killers, you bet, but is this "sentiment" any kind of thing for society to base actions on? Can we really insist that Catholics not built a Church near a play ground?

US claims it is not at war with Islam? So why this irrational basis, this "sentiment"? Al-Qaida is not building the Mosque, US Muslim are, and are doing so on private property they own and in doing so exercise their civil liberties -- Some may not like Blacks in their stores, is it OK to demand that Blacks not shop there??

See, you can "feel" any way that you want, but public policy cannot be based on such things and when ever it is, it has be disasterous, ask Pakistanis, ask those segments of society that have suffered directly, as a matter of fact, ask which part of society did not suffer? Would you want the same for the US?

This is where you are wrong. Laws are codified response to moral outrages and moral outrages are based solely upon 'feelings', 'sentiments' and 'such tripe'. Laws that involve murder, theft, treason, or rapes are what if not in response to what we feel as the highest level of moral outrage, not just against an individual but against the whole of society. Can you prove to me that pork is 'unclean'? I have been enjoying pork chops on/off all my life, from farm hogs to wild boars. Why do you, as a muslim, would feel 'unclean' just from touching them, let alone ingest a piece of them? To us, your religiously based revulsion of the pig to that your soul would be condemned to hell is hilarious, but we are to exercise political correctness and respect your 'tripe'...ooopss...I mean 'feelings'. But when it comes to our feelings we are irrational and bigoted.

 

[inddef]

@muse : please fix this first

Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia