They won't build it! Hardhats vow not to work on controversial mosque

I read the article. If people aren't going to do their jobs, then they should get fired. Doing your job isn't optional, and if constructing places of worship for a people you think is responsible for 9/11 sounds like a bad thing to you, how about getting involved in another trade?

Supreme said:

I read the article. If people aren't going to do their jobs, then they should get fired.

Click to expand...

But isn't that up to their employer? What if they are doing their jobs, but just working on a different project?

Doing your job isn't optional, and if constructing places of worship for a people you think is responsible for 9/11 sounds like a bad thing to you, how about getting involved in another trade?

Click to expand...

You know, somebody said something similar to me just the other day. "Michael", they said, "if you think child molestation is a bad thing, then you shouldn't be an accountant."

Supreme said:

I read the article. If people aren't going to do their jobs, then they should get fired. Doing your job isn't optional, and if constructing places of worship for a people you think is responsible for 9/11 sounds like a bad thing to you, how about getting involved in another trade?

Click to expand...

I agree with this, completely, but if they have a problem with building a mosque because of their understanding and disproving of Islamic teaching and ethos, that hardly makes them a bigot.

But isn't that up to their employer? What if they are doing their jobs, but just working on a different project?

Click to expand...

Then they shouldn't get fired. I'm talking about the construction workers assigned to the mosque project specifically.

You know, somebody said something similar to me just the other day. "Michael", they said, "if you think child molestation is a bad thing, then you shouldn't be an accountant."

Click to expand...

Unless, in the unlikely situation, a convicted peadophile has recently recruited your accounting skills, what relevance has this to the topic at hand?

I agree with this, completely, but if they have a problem with building a mosque because of their understanding and disproving of Islamic teaching and ethos, that hardly makes them a bigot.

Click to expand...

Of course they're not bigots. Everyone has their own opinions. British Muslim soldiers likely did not agree with the invasion of Iraq at first, but they still went ahead and did their job. Just as these construction workers- they have a right to voice their opinion and views, but they do not have a right to loose their employees money by straight out refusing to do the job they're paid to do.

Good.
In response, this Muslim group should hire illegal immigrant workers and give the talk radio fools a fit of spontaneous combustion.

Charlie Milles said:

I agree with this, completely, but if they have a problem with building a mosque because of their understanding and disproving of Islamic teaching and ethos, that hardly makes them a bigot.

Click to expand...

You're right, but those that are trying to prevent it being built at all might qualify as that:
Intolerant would be the key, I think.

Some Other Guy said:

But isn't that up to their employer? What if they are doing their jobs, but just working on a different project?

Click to expand...

Then they shouldn't be fired. That isn't refusing to work at all, is it?

You know, somebody said something similar to me just the other day. "Michael", they said, "if you think child molestation is a bad thing, then you shouldn't be an accountant."

Click to expand...

I don't get it - how is that in the least bit similar?

Constructing a place of worship is to a construction worker as molesting a child is to an accountant? Nope, I don't get your analogy.

aisy_Day said:

You're right, but those that are trying to prevent it being built at all might qualify as that:

bigot

[SIZE=-1]NOUN:[/SIZE]
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]ETYMOLOGY:[/SIZE][/FONT]
French, from Old French

[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]WORD HISTORY:
[/SIZE][/FONT]From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant "an excessively devoted or hypocritical person." Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense "a superstitious hypocrite."
​

Intolerant would be the key, I think.

Click to expand...

Well, of course there are bigots and racists protesting this mosque, there are bigots are racists protesting damn near everything. I do agree that the key term could be "intolerant". But I have much less of a problem with intolerance than I do bigotry. I have no shame in my intolerance of, things like, Wahabbisim, Neo-Nazism and so on.

brinny said:

Building a community center meant as a reconciliation is morally repugnant? Really?

Click to expand...

What i find interesting is that this had to be spelled out to anyone. Is there such contempt for the American people that our objections to this "trophy of conquest" is ridiculed? Apparently so.

Click to expand...

brinny, I am also an American person. I am not ridiculing you - I am saying that you are mistaken that this is or was ever meant to be a "trophy of conquest" or a "spit in the face".

It is a community center to be open to everyone regardless of their religion. The board is inclusive of multiple religions. The man behind the project was so well thought of by the Bush administration that he was sent on religious tolerance missions twice. Now, suddenly, conveniently he is being demonized as a religious extremist. This is wrong. This is an evil thing to do.

I admit I do have contempt for certain American people - those who lie, deceive and lead campaigns of misinformation. I don't think for a moment that you would deliberately be a part of that, but I do think that you've been misled and deceived by others (you may well believe the same of me).

Look at the history of the project and look at the history of the protest.

Charlie Milles said:

Well, of course there are bigots and racists protesting this mosque, there are bigots are racists protesting damn near everything.

Click to expand...

Heh, sadly.

I do agree that the key term could be "intolerant". But I have much less of a problem with intolerance than I do bigotry.

Click to expand...

What I meant was that "intolerant" is the part of the definition of "bigot" - otherwise, it is mere chauvinism, excessive pride in one's self, one's own.

I have no shame in my intolerance of, things like, Wahabbisim, Neo-Nazism and so on.

Click to expand...

You and me both, bud.

brinny said:

You do realize this will be a "trophy" symbol of conquest, do you not? It has always been done throughout history. A Mosque is raised after a triumph.

Click to expand...

please prove this by showing what triumph the mosques in Australia are celebrating. Only limit yourself to Australian mosques because if what you say is true then it will be true of these mosques as well. if it isn't then your statement is false.

Also note these workers have no problem at all with building a mosque. That fact should not be ignored.

perhaps these workers should refuse to build any churches (or repair them) on the grounds of the horrors committed by christians. If they were saying that as well then I would at last respect them for being consistant.

Some Other Guy said:

But isn't that up to their employer? What if they are doing their jobs, but just working on a different project?

Click to expand...

So then if they are asked by their employer to work on the mosque and they refuse what then? They are clearly not doing their job. As the article in the OP said they have no problem with building mosques. Obviously if there employer asked them to work on a different project then there would be no issue. however the topic is not about a person building houses in but rather people who may be asked by their employer to build the mosque and community centre.

Some Other Guy said:

I think we tried that with black people back in the 1800s. Didn't work out too well.

Click to expand...

This is comparing apples to oranges. Slavery is morally wrong. How is building a mosque morally wrong. These guys have said they would be happy to build it somewhere else so they obviously have no problem building a mosque. It is just the location.

aisy_Day said:

brinny, I am also an American person. I am not ridiculing you - I am saying that you are mistaken that this is or was ever meant to be a "trophy of conquest" or a "spit in the face".

It is a community center to be open to everyone regardless of their religion. The board is inclusive of multiple religions. The man behind the project was so well thought of by the Bush administration that he was sent on religious tolerance missions twice. Now, suddenly, conveniently he is being demonized as a religious extremist. This is wrong. This is an evil thing to do.

I admit I do have contempt for certain American people - those who lie, deceive and lead campaigns of misinformation. I don't think for a moment that you would deliberately be a part of that, but I do think that you've been misled and deceived by others (you may well believe the same of me).

Look at the history of the project and look at the history of the protest.

Click to expand...

Which man was sent out by the Bush admin? I'm seriously curious, as I hadn't heard that - it would make the protests seem even more hollow.

ZephyrWiccan said:

Which man was sent out by the Bush admin? I'm seriously curious, as I hadn't heard that - it would make the protests seem even more hollow.

Click to expand...

See this post: http://www.christianforums.com/t7492144/

From this link provided in that post:

brinny said:

You do realize this will be a "trophy" symbol of conquest, do you not? It has always been done throughout history. A Mosque is raised after a triumph.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if it is raised in peace or as a trophy, it is still their land and their plan for the building is well within the zoning laws for NYC.

These workers can choose to work on it or not, and if their employer doesn't have another job for them to work on they just don't get paid. They may even get laid off. Union or not, that how it is in the construction business. If there is no work, or no work done you don't get paid.

Now, their union may support them for a while, and that is up to the union, but a union pockets are only so deep and even unions don't like to support do-nothings.

The US fights WAY too much.

aisy_Day said:

See this post: http://www.christianforums.com/t7492144/

From this link provided in that post:

WASHINGTON – American taxpayers will pay the imam behind plans for a mosque near the Manhattan site of the Sept. 11 attacks $3,000 in fees for a three-nation outreach trip to the Middle East that will cost roughly $16,000, the State Department said Wednesday.

*snip*

Crowley said this will be Rauf's fourth U.S.-government sponsored trip under a program run by the State Department's Bureau of International Information Programs. Earlier, the State Department had said it was his third trip.

Crowley said Rauf had traveled twice to the Middle East in 2007 during the Bush administration and once earlier this year.

​

Click to expand...

Cool. Thanks for the info!

I haven't read all of the replies yet, but my take on this, as someoe who works closely with the construction industry, is that what the construction workers themselves decide to do will have limited effect on the thing actually getting built. They can refuse to work on it if they want, but with unemployment as it is, there will be replacements. And if someone doesn't want to work on it, their call. But the real important stuff is going on way over their heads. This is a fairly major project, and it's not going to be some small local contractor who bids on it. It's going to be a larger company. And they are going to see that the controversy means there is extra money to be made; they can inflate their bids because (a) they can justifiably argue that attracting workers may be more costly, and (b) they know that the number of potential bidders is decreased by the controversial nature of he job. So you've got bg companies with a great chance to up their bottom line, and a collection of people desparate for work who would be more than willing to take over any position left open by someone refusing to work on the mosque. Probaby at a lower wage, too.

For their own personal stance, it's fine. If they think it's gonna make a lick of dfference in actually getting the thing built, think again.

fieldy said:

The US fights WAY too much.

Click to expand...

Well, we did come from ancestors that were notorious rebels.