New York Mosque? Near ground Zero?!!

[Servant of Jesus]

I wonder if Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf would allow an interdenominational Christian church to be located in the same building.

As course, they'd have to be side-by-side on the same floor; one higher than the other wouldn't work.

 

[resistingrexmundi]

Then they shouldn't use it after it's built.
tulc(problem solved)

Yes your terse response solves the issue. At any rate the one's protesting its' construction probably wouldn't be allowed to use it to start with as many mosques do not let kuffar inside. I am curious how others might feel if they had a physical daily reminder of the most horrible day of their lives enshrined in the city they lived in. Even if the one's responsible are not connected to this mosque it would have gone a long way to show some empathy towards the families by cooperating with those who bent over backwards to alleviate the tension.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

PSST -

The "Mosque" has already been there, and has been used for Islamic worship for YEARS. What they're building is an Islamic community center.

You didn't EXPECT the "media" to get anything right, did you????

According to this article, it was a Burlington Coat Factory before being picked up by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf after 9/11.

There is no mention of it ever being used as a mosque before Rauf proposed the idea.

 

[resistingrexmundi]

I think there is a little confusion going on in his post. Their has been a mosque located nearby for years. One of the Imam's congregants made arrangements to procure the Burlington building.

 

[John S]

You don't think that if it is built, Islamic terrorists will claim it as a great victory of Islam over Christianity, both for the fact of its construction going ahead, despite widespread opposition, and as a monument to the "success" of those who carried out the 9/11 atrocity?




Nobody is denying the fact that right now, given the NYC building code, they may have a legal right to build the mosque near Ground Zero; so it is not a case of prohibiting anything. But since the vast majority of Americans are opposed to its construction, and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has been offered compromise alternatives that would alleviate the concerns that have been raised, and be consistent with his stated goal of promoting friendship and understanding, I don't think building the mosque there is the morally right thing to do.



I don't think it's that simple- my guess is that the status quo, anti-American sentiment in places like Afghanistan will continue whether the mosque is built or not. The U.S. Government's decision to rescind Don't Ask, Don't Tell and recognize the basic human rights of everyone, no matter what their sexual orientation is, will more than make up for any political gains made by Americans giving their blessing to the Ground Zero mosque.

1. NO. It's a victory for American openness. These terrorists are NOT going to make us too scared to do what we would normally do.
2. On the contrary. It is the morally right thing to do. It would be morally wrong to be too scared or intimidated to build it.
3. I'm not talking about anti-Americanism. I'm talking about showing the rest of the world, whether they like us or not, that we are STILL the moral example for everyone else to model themselves after.
If we refuse to build it, then we lose that moral high ground. We ARE the United States of America - the greatest country in the world and maybe the greatest country in the history of mankind.

 

[tulc]

Yes your terse response solves the issue.

Thank you, I thought it might.

At any rate the one's protesting its' construction probably wouldn't be allowed to use it to start with as many mosques do not let kuffar inside.

Actually most of it could be used by everyone, there would be certain parts that were restricted.

I am curious how others might feel if they had a physical daily reminder of the most horrible day of their lives enshrined in the city they lived in.

So you don't think anything should be built at ground zero? Perhaps you're right...of course this isn't being built there this is a couple blocks away, so I'm wondering how that would apply to this?

Even if the one's responsible are not connected to this mosque it would have gone a long way to show some empathy towards the families by cooperating with those who bent over backwards to alleviate the tension.

Perhaps so, or perhaps the people who are protesting could just let it go? In the end, the building will (hopefully) get built and people can simply move on to the next faux outrage.
tulc(is going to a Christmas party now, and wishes you all a Merry Christmas!)

 

[The Lady Kate]

I wonder if Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf would allow an interdenominational Christian church to be located in the same building.

As long as they pay their rent on time and leave a security deposit... But the rates in lower Manhattan are highway robbery; a church would need a miracle to afford what it's worth.

As course, they'd have to be side-by-side on the same floor; one higher than the other wouldn't work.

Not really. Rauf's building, Rauf's rules... the church goes wherever he says it goes.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Yes. No comparison.

Okay...

One is an issue of respecting basic human rights (something that Islamic theocracies seem to have difficulty understanding and embracing),

We're not talking about Islamic Theocracies... are we talking about an American one?

the other a case where Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is trying to do something that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to because it is so inconsiderate and hurtful to the survivors and loved ones of 9/11,

To some of them, yes. To others, not at all.

is likely to be exploited by Islamic extremists as a symbol of victory over infidels,

So you're afraid of how our enemies will react to this?

What else are you afraid to do because of what extremists will think?

I fell sorry for you... you've already been defeated by the terrorists.

and where there are good compromise alternatives available that the Imam has refused to consider, even though his stated goal with this project is to promote understanding and friendship.

Compromise... as in "We understand what we're trying to do, and while nobody's saying you shouldn't be allowed to do it, the simple truth is that the people don't want you here. Why don't you people go over to that neighborhood with some more of your own kind?"

Still not seeing much difference here... history repeating itself, as it always does.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/nyregion/08zero.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

 

[Servant of Jesus]

I think there is a little confusion going on in his post. There has been a mosque located nearby for years. One of the Imam's congregants made arrangements to procure the Burlington building.

One nearby mosque was in the World Trade Centre. But 9/11 changed everything- and this needs to be considered in any future plans.

And unlike Christian churches, where everyone is welcome, kuffars are definitely not welcome at a Muslim service. In middle eastern countries, though, everyone, including Christians, are allowed to walk through mosques- as long as they are appropriately attired- which only makes sense if one is sensitive to the wishes of others.

 

[ibrahim9]

It concerns me greatly that the mosque is being allowed in new york. I live in another country and the muslims that work there tell me how they want to see the US go down.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

To some of them, yes. To others, not at all.

To some of them??? How about the vast majority of them.

So you're afraid of how our enemies will react to this?

What else are you afraid to do because of what extremists will think?

I feel sorry for you... you've already been defeated by the terrorists.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to feel sorry for me. I certainly don't feel either fear or sorrow for anyone that is so twisted by satan that they feel the need to indiscriminately kill innocent men, women and children to force their fanatical views on anyone. Nor do I feel anything but contempt for those who give even the slightest credence to such monsters.

One doesn't fight terror with weakness- thank goodness America and other countries are willing to fight to uphold principles of human rights, equality of women, for freedom of religion, democracy, and free speech. Appeasement will never work with tyrants and their sympathizers- in that regard, the Israelis have it right- don't stoop to the level of the terrorists and deliberately and indiscriminately kill innocent people- but make certain that when they attack you, those responsible pay a heavy price. Unfortunately, this means that terrorist sympathizers, and occasionally innocent bystanders, will suffer collateral damage. If that happens, realize it is the terrorists who are to blame, not those who are reacting to them. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf provided support to the groups who organized the ships that violently attempted to foil the Israeli blockade of Gaza- hardly something that someone who is trying to promote peace and understanding would do. Thank goodness President Obama is also learning to stand up to the terrorists by launching carefully targeted drone attacks in Pakistan- even if those attacks occasionally result in collateral damage, and earn him the absolute wrath of terrorist sympathizers and apologists in Pakistan.

Compromise... as in "We understand what we're trying to do, and while nobody's saying you shouldn't be allowed to do it, the simple truth is that the people don't want you here. Why don't you people go over to that neighbourhood with some more of your own kind?"

Still not seeing much difference here... history repeating itself, as it always does.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/nyregion/08zero.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

I've never heard anyone of influence in America even slightly suggest what your idea of compromise is all about. In this regard, you have an unfortunate habit of exaggerating and putting words in people's mouths.

My idea of compromise: "We understand you want to promote peace and harmony- so why don't you respect the majority will of the people and use an alternative site for your mosque and accept that we are even willing to pay you more than fair market value for the original site."

 

[resistingrexmundi]

Thank you, I thought it might.

I bet you did.

Actually most of it could be used by everyone, there would be certain parts that were restricted.

Has the Imam clarified his position then? The last I had heard he had been silent on the issue of who exactly would be allowed in the mosque and whether the facilities would be open to all the public and whether they would be seperated based on sex.

So you don't think anything should be built at ground zero? Perhaps you're right...of course this isn't being built there this is a couple blocks away, so I'm wondering how that would apply to this?

I think the WTC should be built back. That would go the farthest in showing that we will not be beat. Along with a memorial site to commemorate everyone who lost their lives. And as I pointed out earlier it is part of Ground Zero as the building in question was damaged by part of the plane.

Perhaps so, or perhaps the people who are protesting could just let it go? In the end, the building will (hopefully) get built and people can simply move on to the next faux outrage.

And that is where you misunderstand the issue. For many this isn't faux outrage. This is genuine heartfelt grief at seeing what seems to be a trophy being built as near to their dead loved ones graves as possible. Whether that is the case or not it did not take a genius to see that many would percieve it that way. Which is the heart of this issue. Given the sensitivities involved it would have gone a long way if the Imam had addressed the families directly offered to cooperate with them and the whole ordeal would have been resolved by now.

tulc(is going to a Christmas party now, and wishes you all a Merry Christmas!)

Merry Christmas to you too!

 

[John S]

Lady Kate - Good job.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Lady Kate - Good job.

Thank you... and might I recommend:

A Raisin in the Sun (1961) - IMDb

Do yourself a favor and forget about the Sean "Puffy" Combs remake.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

I wonder if Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf would allow an interdenominational Christian church to be located in the same building.

As course, they'd have to be side-by-side on the same floor; one higher than the other wouldn't work.

Then they'd claim it was an act of Islamic domination over Christianity through "Ecumenism" and that it was a sign of Christianity compromising with "the Islamics" in America.

It's a lose-lose situation, nothing will satiate the hate-mongers in America apart from seeing their irrational, xenophobic, islamaphobic hysteria have a victory over "the infidel".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[John S]

Unfortunately, when you're dealing with conservative fear, bigotry and paranoia, that is what you get - lose-lose situations.

 

[Maggie893]

MOD HAT

Please keep your posts on the topic and not directed at one another. It's fine to disagree but it is not acceptable to insult one another while doing so.

MOD HAT
​

 

[The Lady Kate]

Unfortunately, when you're dealing with conservative fear, bigotry and paranoia, that is what you get - lose-lose situations.

Unless you're an islamic extremist, of course... then everything we do to become more like them goes into their "win" column.

 

[The Lady Kate]

It concerns me greatly that the mosque is being allowed in new york. I live in another country and the muslims that work there tell me how they want to see the US go down.

Did they mention why? Or even how, for that matter?

Because it seems to me that seeing our once-proud free republic turn into a fearful quasi-theocracy would certainly count as "going down."

 

[resistingrexmundi]

Did they mention why? Or even how, for that matter?

Because it seems to me that seeing our once-proud free republic turn into a fearful quasi-theocracy would certainly count as "going down."

Not to knit-pick but could you explain to me how publicly opposing the building of a mosque on an emotionally sensitive area and attempting to cooperate with those in charge of the initiative makes "our once-proud free republic turn into a fearful quasi-theocracy"?