New York mosque

[MrFrost]

I see plans to build a mosque near the ground zero site in New York is causing quite a stir.

Is this an insult to those who lost their lives? For me, yes it is. Even through the terrorist's were extremists, you have to say it is a little inconsiderate.

Surely there are more well suited sites in New York?

[Snods Shinpad 2]

Following the same logic, would you be insulted by the Church of England announcing plans to build a church in Bradford's red light district?

After all, Sutcliffe believed he was lead by the voice of Christ.

[Sandy Lane]

It's very controversial for sure, Mr. Frost, and in my opinion fairly insensitive to the families of the victims of 9/11.  However, most Muslims were not responsible for the actions of the terrorists and since freedom of religion is one of the tenets of our constitution, it is certainly their right to build it there.  I don't know why that particular site specifically, perhaps it is within their community in lower Manhattan and may have been better suited for a different type of community-type center, but again having said that if they are lawful owners of the property and have the proper permits, like anyone else they have this right.  I would like to think it could become a symbol of peace, understanding and acceptance.  Wishful thinking on my part, I know.

[MrFrost]

I'm not sure the financial district in Manhattan is a hotbed for the Muslim community.
I realise those proposing the build have nothing to do with the terroist attacks on 9/11 (at least I hope they didn't!!) Still, you would think they would show a degree of compassion and recognise why it may cause uproar.

[Sandy Lane]

Lower Manhattan houses more than just Wall Street and is in fact, an area with many neighborhoods, including a Muslim community.  And on second thought, I feel this is the perfect place to built this as it would show the world that we have perhaps grown to become more tolerant and accepting of others, unlike the terrorists who did this.

[Lytham Rover]

it would also serve to indicate that extremism will not be tolerated but peaceful law abiding muslims are welcome to be part of america

you have to split the extremists from the main body if you are to defeat them

isolate and annihilate

[5minstogo]

Sandy Lane wrote:

Lower Manhattan houses more than just Wall Street and is in fact, an area with many neighborhoods, including a Muslim community.  And on second thought, I feel this is the perfect place to built this as it would show the world that we have perhaps grown to become more tolerant and accepting of others, unlike the terrorists who did this.

Agreed.

[LongbridgeMGRover]

if you think a mosque is offensive, then what about the new tower they will be building????????????

it is to be 1776 feet high, to commemorate the year they gained independence from Britain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

so a load of fanatics from  the Arab world come along and blow up your iconic buildings, your best ally in the world helps you in Afghanistan and Iraq, and you then celebrate by building a mosque and a tribute to the defeat of the British.

where's the nearest BP petrol station ?

[Muttley]

I'm fairly sure that a number of innocent, hard-working law-abiding Muslims also lost their lives in 9/11 so maybe they deserve a place of rememberance too.

[German Rover]

Its been a typical american right wing response demanding vengance against everyone when they are wrong done by. It has been perfectly illustrated by the reaction to a man who regardless of timframe iss dying of cancer was released from his sentance, for a crime it is looking like he was a fall guy for.  The majority of muslims are peacefull law abiding citizens of the world. Having been to Afghanistan i can safely say the americans need to look at the way they put themselves to the world before they have a go about other peoples beliefs and churches.

It is a good sign that the man at the top is all for it demonstrating the religious freedoms that america was founded for, it is this that is becoming increasingly forgotten by them

[Sandy Lane]

LongbridgeMGRover wrote:

if you think a mosque is offensive, then what about the new tower they will be building????????????

it is to be 1776 feet high, to commemorate the year they gained independence from Britain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

so a load of fanatics from  the Arab world come along and blow up your iconic buildings, your best ally in the world helps you in Afghanistan and Iraq, and you then celebrate by building a mosque and a tribute to the defeat of the British.

where's the nearest BP petrol station ?

Lol.  Sorry.  I for one never celebrate the 4th of July!!

[i_ateallthepies]

And it might give future muslim extremists reason to think twice before flying a plane into the new tower, knowing the whole lot would come down on top of a mosque.

[jucyberry]

I would say the score of wrongs done down the millenia is just about equal, plenty of terrible things have been done in the name of one God or another... as muttley said, it wasn't just Christians that died on the 11th of September, It is three blocks away from Ground Zero, and to be honest I find it more distasteful that they are building any thing on ground that can only be seen as a grave yard. I see nothing what so ever wrong with the Americans of muslim faith having a place of worship... Isn't that the key after all, it is a building for AMERICANS who happen to be of that faith.

That nasty red neck mentality that still festers in the south seems to be being driven on the wind of discontent all over the U.S.A.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Some really inspiring comments here. Surely, when we seek to protect \"our culture\" against the vicious bigotry of the people who perpetrated 9/11, we're talking about a culture that is big, open, free and self-confident enough to not resort to similar bigotry? Isn't that what western democratic states are all about?

The deeply depressing thing about the post-9/11 reaction under Bush was the desire to flail out and land a punch on someone in retaliation. I find it faintly ludicrous that a nation that purports to be deeply Christian like America does seems to ignore the fundamental teachings of Christ himself. Bush's response to 9/11 (egged on it seems to me as an outsider looking in by public opinion in the States) was a thoroughly Old Testament kind of Christianity - the one that demands an eye for an eye. As Mahatma Ghandi pointed out, the logical conclusion of such an approach is that everyone ends up blind. Jesus Christ's approach was surely to turn the other cheek - to refuse to be defined by violence, but to uphold your own values regardless of the provocation. It takes courage, nerve, self confidence and self control, but in the long run, it's an infinitely better approach than the idea of vendetta. And in the long run, it wins.

Obama seems to have fouled up his original \"breath of fresh air\" approach in recent months, but he is bang on the nail on this one. If America really does see itself as morally superior to the bigotry of (some) Islamists, it MUST allow this mosque to be built. There's no argument. If the aim of the developers is to score a propaganda victory, then America will trump that 10 fold by allowing them to go ahead. It will make a statment a loud as could be made about the values of either side.

[MrFrost]

I see Obama has now stated he agree's that the developers have rights to build the mosque, however he refuses to comment on the suitibility of the site for a mosque.

[Savvy]

Just wonder what Salman Rushdie makes of it all, turn the other cheek and all that!

My question is why? Why the f**k would people want to be so insensitive as to request permission to build a mosque on the scene of one of the greatest atrocities in my lifetime? Is it because they really want to, or is it because they can?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Savvy wrote:

Just wonder what Salman Rushdie makes of it all, turn the other cheek and all that!

My question is why? Why the fcuk would people want to be so insensitive as to request permission to build a mosque on the scene of one of the greatest atrocities in my lifetime? Is it because they really want to, or is it because they can?

Salman Rushdie was a self publicist who revelled in his role as pseudo-martyr.

As for the mosque, if the builders have honest motives of simply wanting to build their own religious building on land that they own, tgen why should it matter that it's close to the WTC site? If you think that does matter, then you appear to equate the 9/11 bombers with the entire Muslim faith. Which is on a par with condemning the whole of Christianity because of the actions of Vlad the Impaler.

But even if the mosque-builders' reasons ARE mischief making, then it's important to STILL let them do it. In fact it's perhaps even MORE important. Doing so sends a message. It says, \"We're not going to descend to the level that you want us to. We know that you wNt to provoke us into an authoritarian response so that you can portray us as the bad guys. Well, we're bigger than that. We're morally superior and THAT is why we will not be defeated by you.\"

Bush would, I'm sure, have banned the mosque. That's because he was a small minded intellectual Pygmy who didn't see the wider picture. Obama is demonstrating by his approach that he is a Statesman who understands the side of America that the rest of the world looks up to.

[Savvy]

Not sure how you \"appear\" to draw the conclusion that I'm condeming the whole muslim faith for the 9/11 event thats quite a paradigm shift from discussing the insensitivity of the request to build a place of worship in an area blighted by terrorists.

Personally, I take the Bush view on this, and yes I'd grant the permisson with the proviso that it was opened by Bin Laden personally!

[Jonathan]

Savvy wrote:

My question is why? Why the fcuk would people want to be so insensitive as to request permission to build a mosque on the scene of one of the greatest atrocities in my lifetime? Is it because they really want to, or is it because they can?

My understanding is that it isn't on the site but close to it.

I have to admit a few years ago I might have ignorantly jumped on the bandwagon with this one but I'd like to think I've grown up a lot since then and learned a lot in the process. To condemn a mosque in an area close to Manhattan on the basis of 9/11 would be to suggest that the Muslim religion is responsible for the atrocity, which is simply not the case. It is important that people learn to draw the distinction between Muslims and terrorists.

As far as I'm concerned the development of a mosque has no more to do with endorsing 9/11 than the opening of a taxi rank in Whitehaven would be seen to be celebrating the shootings of Derek Bird.

[MrFrost]

Jonathan wrote:

Savvy wrote:

My question is why? Why the fcuk would people want to be so insensitive as to request permission to build a mosque on the scene of one of the greatest atrocities in my lifetime? Is it because they really want to, or is it because they can?

My understanding is that it isn't on the site but close to it.

I have to admit a few years ago I might have ignorantly jumped on the bandwagon with this one but I'd like to think I've grown up a lot since then and learned a lot in the process. To condemn a mosque in an area close to Manhattan on the basis of 9/11 would be to suggest that the Muslim religion is responsible for the atrocity, which is simply not the case. It is important that people learn to draw the distinction between Muslims and terrorists.

As far as I'm concerned the development of a mosque has no more to do with endorsing 9/11 than the opening of a taxi rank in Whitehaven would be seen to be celebrating the shootings of Derek Bird.

You have to take into consideration of those involved in 9/11. How will their families feel about it.
Obama has now refused to comment on the suitability of the site. That alone says alot.
The question is, is this a muslim area where they are building it. News reports suggest that it isn't. Would you build a trailer park in Harlem? I think not.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Savvy wrote:

Not sure how you \"appear\" to draw the conclusion that I'm condeming the whole muslim faith for the 9/11 event

I couldn't draw any other conclusion from your comment that building the mosque there was \"insensitive\". The only possible conclusion was that you believe the whole muslim faith should be apologetic for 9/11.

By the way, on the logic that the mosque there would be \"insensitive\", what's your take on the presence of St Mary's Catholic Church just round the corner from the Arndale Centre in Manchester? Or the presence of an Anglican church in Dresden? Or the evangelical Amercian church in Hiroshima?

[BillyStubbsTears]

MrFrost wrote:

You have to take into consideration of those involved in 9/11.

No you don't. That much was made perfectly clear when many of the families requested that the WTC site be turned into a park-cum-shrine, but they were ignored and a massive monument to American Capitalism was built instead.

[MrFrost]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

You have to take into consideration of those involved in 9/11.

No you don't. That much was made perfectly clear when many of the families requested that the WTC site be turned into a park-cum-shrine, but they were ignored and a massive monument to American Capitalism was built instead.

Yes you do.
There is that much public pressure regarding this, that to build it would be a massive two's up to New Yorkers.

Would you have East Riding Sacks open up office in the Keepmoat Stadium?

[Jonathan]

MrFrost wrote:

The question is, is this a muslim area where they are building it. News reports suggest that it isn't. Would you build a trailer park in Harlem? I think not.

I can't claim to be clued up on the religious demographic in New York. If it's a demand issue that we're debating then I'm not well enough researched on the area to express an opinion.

[jucyberry]

The thing is, it is a community center that will also house a place of worship.. yet that is the bit that the hand wringers have latched on to, that there will be a mosque. It is a building that will hopefully enhance the area for the people who will use it.  If you look at the photos it isn't on the site but several buildings over..

I can't begin to understand the pain and unimaginable grief felt by the survivors and those who lost loved ones, but I also feel that these people will be used by others with an agenda... they make such a good rallying (sp) point for the ones who want to completely anahilate the East .
Let us never forget that to a polititian there is nothing as sexy as a victim if it suits the party line.

The wicked are so few, the innocent so many, yet as a vast group of people they are being demonised.

[BillyStubbsTears]

MrFrost wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

You have to take into consideration of those involved in 9/11.

No you don't. That much was made perfectly clear when many of the families requested that the WTC site be turned into a park-cum-shrine, but they were ignored and a massive monument to American Capitalism was built instead.

Yes you do.
There is that much public pressure regarding this, that to build it would be a massive two's up to New Yorkers.

Would you have East Riding Sacks open up office in the Keepmoat Stadium?

So I take it that YOU too think the whole of Islam is responsible for 9/11?

[MrFrost]

No. However, they were acting on their interpretation of the faith. That's the problem.

I myself have no time for muslims. That's not me being racist, that from my own experiences with them. They only ones I have known have all drunk, gambled, cheated on their partners, all to play the race card or take time off work to attend one of the many religious festivals that seem to come around. Certainly not what the Koran sets out.

Having said that, i'm sure there are many decent muslims. The ones I have met however are general piss takers not following their own code.

[Savvy]

I couldn't draw any other conclusion from your comment that building the mosque there was \"insensitive\". The only possible conclusion was that you believe the whole muslim faith should be apologetic for 9/11.

By the way, on the logic that the mosque there would be \"insensitive\", what's your take on the presence of St Mary's Catholic Church just round the corner from the Arndale Centre in Manchester? Or the presence of an Anglican church in Dresden? Or the evangelical Amercian church in Hiroshima?

Surely you can't be that f**king thick to reach the conclusion that by labelling the building of a mosque in such an area I am also blaming the whole muslim conclusion? Or is it another one of your sweeping generalisations tailored to suit your arguement along with the pathetic analogies designed to cloud the waters eh?

Just a an aside, I wonder if you'd still be of the same opinion if you'd have had a member of your family involved in 9/11? Wonder if it would be \"turn the other cheek\" then eh cocker?

[BillyStubbsTears]

MrFrost wrote:

No. However, they were acting on their interpretation of the faith. That's the problem.

OK. So, leaving aside your personal experiences with Muslims (who all sound like Denaby Catholics to me) why did you equate a Mosque near the WTC site with an East Ridings Sacks office at the Keepmoat?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Savvy wrote:

I couldn't draw any other conclusion from your comment that building the mosque there was \"insensitive\". The only possible conclusion was that you believe the whole muslim faith should be apologetic for 9/11.

By the way, on the logic that the mosque there would be \"insensitive\", what's your take on the presence of St Mary's Catholic Church just round the corner from the Arndale Centre in Manchester? Or the presence of an Anglican church in Dresden? Or the evangelical Amercian church in Hiroshima?

Surely you can't be that fcuking thick to reach the conclusion that by labelling the building of a mosque in such an area I am also blaming the whole muslim conclusion?

Sorry spadge. I clearly AM that thick. I tried and I tried and I tried, but I couldn't see any other explanation. Please do me a favour and explain to me what you meant, and I PROMISE I won't make the same mistake again.

And in all honesty, the analogies were there to clarify the issue, not to cloud it. Again, I've clearly fallen well short of the standards you set, so please explain to me why the examples I gave are not 100% exact analogies of the WTC Mosque.