• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYC Community Board OKs Ground Zero Mosque Plans

This is a poor choice and I would imagine that there will be some vandalism. Doesn't mean it's right to vandalize, but this isn't about building bridges. It's inflammatory.

Exactly my point.

This is like Annheiser-Busch building a "History of Beer" Museum next to a monument dedicated to all those died in Drunk Driving accidents because they want to "Build Bridges" with those that have suffered due to alcoholism.

This is like Jane Fonda making a building that's dedicated to the "Life and Times of Jane Fonda" next to the Vietnam Vets memorial, stating she hopes that by seeing her life people will come to understand her better and realize she's not so bad.

This is like the Japanese making a building in the 1950's dedicated to Japanese Culture right next to Pearl Harbor in hopes of "Building Bridges" with the Americans.

Would those things necessarily be wrong legally and should be stopped legally? No. Would they be foolish, tactless things to do that would make one think your reasonings are bull**** because the very people you'd be trying to reach with such a message are the ones you're actually just pissing off by doing it? Absolutely.
 
Exactly my point.

This is like Annheiser-Busch building a "History of Beer" Museum next to a monument dedicated to all those died in Drunk Driving accidents because they want to "Build Bridges" with those that have suffered due to alcoholism.

This is like Jane Fonda making a building that's dedicated to the "Life and Times of Jane Fonda" next to the Vietnam Vets memorial, stating she hopes that by seeing her life people will come to understand her better and realize she's not so bad.

This is like the Japanese making a building in the 1950's dedicated to Japanese Culture right next to Pearl Harbor in hopes of "Building Bridges" with the Americans.

Would those things necessarily be wrong legally and should be stopped legally? No. Would they be foolish, tactless things to do that would make one think your reasonings are bull**** because the very people you'd be trying to reach with such a message are the ones you're actually just pissing off by doing it? Absolutely.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding your objection to the building of this Mosque/Community Center correctly. Is your issue with the fact that they want to "build bridges" with non-Muslims? That somehow that is an offensive thing to do because some Muslims killed people? What if there was no such reason? What if they just wanted to build a place of worship, period? Should the whole of Islam be guilt-tripped for what a few deranged individuals (who do not speak for Islam to begin with) did? I don't understand why you want to collectively punish the entire Muslim community by associating them with the terrorists.

For the record, I'd have no problem with a beer company building a museum next to a memorial of drunk driving victims. The beer company is in no way responsible for the actions of people who get drunk and kill others. Just like a gun manufacturer can't be held responsible for the Columbine massacre and would be entitled to build a gun museum nearby. Islam is not responsible for 9/11. The individuals involved in the attack are the only ones who should be reviled, not the entire religion.

I'm not sure the Jane Fonda analogy really applies, seeing as she had the support of many Vietnam vets.

As for the Japanese, what would be so wrong with them wanting to "build bridges" with a nation they were once at war with?
 
I'm not sure if I'm understanding your objection to the building of this Mosque/Community Center correctly.

My objection to it is that its a tactless move showing either little forethought, or if there was forethought, abject jerkyness.

Is your issue with the fact that they want to "build bridges" with non-Muslims?

No, my issue is that I believe the "build bridges" argument shows that these people are either idiots or that they're simply lying.

Let me explain, once again...

If one is "Building Bridges" who is that most likely referring to in regards to who they're supposedly going to reach out to; those that have a misunderstanding of Islam and have a negative view towards it in the wake of 9/11 or those who have no issue with Islam at all and think its a great religion and doesn't understand why everyone else is so bigoted?

My guess, based on how "Building Bridges" is used in this context and how its usually used in these situations, is for the former of those two options.

Which is why they're either idiots or jerks.

Who are the people most upset with this mosque's location primarily? Those who have a misunderstanding of Islam or have a negative view towards it in the wake of 9/11.

So the very first act in your attempt to "build bridges" with people....is to piss them off beyond all belief and make them feel as if they're defiling or disgracing a place of extreme importance to them.

This is like saying you want to make friends with someone, and your first act is to call their mother a whore. Doing that means you're either dumb, not realizing that people don't like to have their mother called a whore, or you're a dick and you just wanted to put up an act.

If they "wanted to build bridges" they would've placed this a few blocks away, close enough that its within walking distance so people could visit but not so close as its literally on top of where the devastation happened and will instantly cause the emotions to flare into many peoples minds when the words "Muslim" and "World Trade Center" enter into their head at the same time.

That somehow that is an offensive thing to do because some Muslims killed people?

No, that to many people this is extremely offensive because "Some muslims" killed people in a suicide bombing attempt, that they did because of their belief in their religion, which was spurred forward due to their hatred for the rest, that was due to their belief in their religion, that was cultivated by Osama Bin Laden, whose war against the United States is based in his belief for his religion. And thus when you combine the thought of "Muslims" with the thought of "World Trade Center" its natural for a lot of people, even those that aren't the "All muslims are terrorists types", to immediately conjure back up emotions of rage and anger that they had on that particular day.

I find it offensive because much like thinking "Firefighter and World Trade Center" makes me immediately feel emotions of respect and sorrow the notion of "Muslim and World Trade Center" immediately brings forth emotions of anger and rage. Why? Because while the firefighter instantly makes me think of an identifiable characteristic of some of those serving in the rescue, "Muslim" instantly makes me think of an identifiable characteristic of those that carried out the attack.

What if there was no such reason? What if they just wanted to build a place of worship, period? Should the whole of Islam be guilt-tripped for what a few deranged individuals (who do not speak for Islam to begin with) did?

First, if they really "just wanted to build a place of worship" and they just HAPPENED to have choose to buy a piece of land on which the largest terrorist attack ever on this nation was perpetrated by 20 follows of their religion that performed this act DUE to their religion, and didn't even THINK of that notion in any way shape or form when choosing the location.....again, I'd call them likely idiots with an IQ of 40.

Second, no... I don't think the whole of Islam should be "Guilt tripped". However I do think they should be polite and respectful, or at least not be surprised by the reaction when they're not that.

You don't set up a "Southern Pride" stand selling numerous things with the Stars and Bar's and General Lee's portrait on them right outside of a major Black church. Not if you're wanting be respectful and polite.

You don't sit outside a Kosher Deli in downtown New York with your head shaved handing out pamphlets and speaking about the greatness of the Third Reich's pre-WWII political philosophies. Not if you're wanting be respectful and polite.

You don't sit on the location where a family was killed by a drunk driver and down a bottle of Jack Daniels. Not if you're wanting be respectful and polite.

And you don't go to the location of the most devastating attack in this countries history that was carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam and build a mosque. Not if you're wanting be respectful and polite.

Is everyone that has pride for their heritage of being from the south someone who agreed with slavery or was responsible for it? No, its still generally not polite nor tactful. Is everyone who is bald and agrees with early 1930's Germany policies guilty of murdering Jews or necessarily agreeing with the policies regarding Jews? Nope, but it still not exactly tactful. Because a drunk driver killed someone is ALL drinking of Alcohol bad? No, but its still not a good place to do it.

And just because not all muslims are terrorists doesn't change the fact its a tactless and disrespectful act to put it where they're putting it.

It doesn't mean they shouldn't be ALLOWED to do it....it means I don't think they SHOULD do it by their own choice, unless they want it to be clear their intention is to do nothing but inflame and disrespect.

I don't understand why you want to collectively punish the entire Muslim community by associating them with the terrorists.

How is this collectively punishing the entire muslim community? Hyperbole much?

For the record, I'd have no problem with a beer company building a museum next to a memorial of drunk driving victims.

So you're saying that's a respectful and tactful thing to do? Not asking if you have a PROBLEM with it, asking if you think that's respectful or an action showing tact.

Just like a gun manufacturer can't be held responsible for the Columbine massacre and would be entitled to build a gun museum nearby.

Yes, they'd be entitled to do it. And they'd be disrespectful and tactless assholes for doing so.

As for the Japanese, what would be so wrong with them wanting to "build bridges" with a nation they were once at war with?

Because THEY WOULDN'T BE BUILDING BRIDGES!

Do you honestly think, 10 years after Pearl Harbor, that building a museum dedicated to Japanese Culture would build any bridges? With WHO? The people who already have no problems with the Japanese for their attack on Pearl Harbor? There's no REASON to build bridges to them, there's already a bridge there. Which means it'd be for the people who were mad at the Japanese...the very people who you'd PISS OFF by making said building, thus assuring no bridge would be built.
 
Okay, so it all comes down to respect, tact and politeness in the end. You don't buy the "building bridges" explanation and you think the center is being built too close to Ground Zero.

I can dig it.

It still doesn't bother me at all, because my mind doesn't automatically connect "Muslim" with "terrorist". I don't think of 9/11 and think about Muslims or Islam, I just think about terrorism. Probably because I've never believed that religion was the main reason these people did what they did. I believe their motives go much deeper that that and are ultimately political in nature. It doesn't seem to bother any of the people I know in NYC whom I've asked about this either, but I guess I can understand why some people would be upset, they did mention that some of their neighbors or coworkers were against it.

For the record, I think the project leaders do lack tact, but I don't think they ever meant to be either disrespectful or impolite. And in the end, this is NYC's decision to make. The city has decided to approve this project. We'll just have to see if all the outrage is justified and this mosque's presence two blocks from Ground Zero does in fact prove to be very disrupting in the future. My guess is that it'll be forgotten about very soon, only for the outrage to come raging back when it is inaugurated and then be forgotten about again.
 
So why don't we determine how many feet away from the site of a tragedy is ok? How many feet until you become "inconsiderate" instead of an asshole? How many feet until it doesn't matter anymore?

It's not on the site. Two blocks in NYC is about 50 billion dollars worth of property. This is a purely arbitrary feeling about being "too close." And yes, people who think Islam is to blame for 9/11 are wrong.
 
I've just inked a deal with a consortium of Japanese investors that wish to erect a museum celebrating WWII Kamikaze pilots.

The site we've tentavely selected is adjacent to the USS Arizona.
 
I've just inked a deal with a consortium of Japanese investors that wish to erect a museum celebrating WWII Kamikaze pilots.

The site we've tentavely selected is adjacent to the USS Arizona.

Considering that comparison is in no way an honest one, maybe you should come up with some better argument.

This is two blocks away first off, which in New York City terms is quite far, plus you cannot blame 9/11 on Islam.
 
How is a mosque the equivalent of a museum celebrating kamikaze pilots? :confused:

A better question is why is a 13 story community center that contains a mosque equivalent?
 
I've just inked a deal with a consortium of Japanese investors that wish to erect a museum celebrating WWII Kamikaze pilots.

The site we've tentavely selected is adjacent to the USS Arizona.

Epic. Me, I just received a grant from the Federal government to build a community center. My compatriots and I will use it to disseminate a better understanding of the tender intimacies that are unique to relationships between experienced men and their youthful counterparts.

I found a great location too, I just need to convince the local diocese to sell or lease...



Even if 100% of all terrorism were perpetrated by Muslims of middle-eastern origin (and well all know that isn't true), that in itself doesn't mean that a mosque is a monument to terrorism or terrorists.

Only a fool would say otherwise.
 
Considering that comparison is in no way an honest one, maybe you should come up with some better argument.

This is two blocks away first off, which in New York City terms is quite far, plus you cannot blame 9/11 on Islam.


My American investment partners have expressed interest in erecting a museum celebrating the Manhattan Project, J. Robert Oppenheimer, the Enola Gay and her crew, and "Little Boy" and "Fat Man".

Site selection has become contentious, however....Hiroshima is the obvious choice, but the Nagasaki location has many supporters.

We don't expect any opposition from the locals for this, or the Kamikazi museum project in Hawaii...
 
Last edited:
My American investment partners have expressed interest in erecting a museum celebrating the Manhattan Project, J. Robert Oppenheimer, the Enola Gay and her crew, and "Little Boy" and "Fat Man".

Site selection has become contentious, however....Hiroshima is the obvious choice, but the Nagasaki location has many supporters.

We don't expect any opposition from the locals for this, or the Kamikazi museum project in Hawaii...

Hey, everybody, lookit me! My name is webrockk, and I endorse repeating yourself over and over as a suitable substitute of responding to the arguments of others!
 
My American investment partners have expressed interest in erecting a museum celebrating the Manhattan Project, J. Robert Oppenheimer, the Enola Gay and her crew, and "Little Boy" and "Fat Man".

Site selection has become contentious, however....Hiroshima is the obvious choice, but the Nagasaki location has many supporters.

We don't expect any opposition from the locals for this, or the Kamikazi museum project in Hawaii...

Again, how is a mosque the equivalent of a war museum? :confused::confused:
 
I'll enjoy the forum on my terms, thank you very much.

So, I guess "other" describing your "lean" means lefty apologist?
 
The site locations for all three projects are quite offensive, no? Switzerland....my, my....you've found yourself in the Muslim belly of the beast, huh?
 
Last edited:
The site locations for all three projects are quite offensive, no?

The only way the NYC Cordoba House project could be considered the equivalent to your other scenarios would be if instead of a mosque/community center they were building a museum celebrating terrorism. Do you think that mosques are terrorism museums?

Switzerland....my, my....you've found yourself in the Muslim belly of the beast, huh?

Do you ever make any sense?
 
Perfect sense.....that uncomfortable little Minaret ban must have really gotten your undies in a bunch.

You totally dodged her other question:


The only way the NYC Cordoba House project could be considered the equivalent to your other scenarios would be if instead of a mosque/community center they were building a museum celebrating terrorism. Do you think that mosques are terrorism museums?

DO you think that mosques are terrorism museums?
 
DO you think that mosques are terrorism museums?

My argument effectively illuminates an equivilent offensiveness many may find in all three project proposals. Hence your apologist attempts to deflect with silly questions.
 
Not really. I'm an atheist. I really don't care about religious buildings, but I did vote against the ban because I believe in freedom of religion.

You seem to care enough to weigh in from Switzerland on an issue many Americans find offensive and inappropriate. So, which is it...don't care / do care?
 
My argument effectively illuminates an equivilent offensiveness many may find in all three project proposals. Hence your apologist attempts to deflect with silly questions.

The offensiveness is only equivalent if mosques are terrorism museums, so I'll ask again: do you think that mosques are terrorism museums?


TED,
Who wasn't aware that asking straightforward yes/no questions was an apologist attempt at deflection. :lol:
 
It still doesn't bother me at all, because my mind doesn't automatically connect "Muslim" with "terrorist". I don't think of 9/11 and think about Muslims or Islam, I just think about terrorism. Probably because I've never believed that religion was the main reason these people did what they did. I believe their motives go much deeper that that and are ultimately political in nature.

As I said in an earlier post...

When I hear the word "Islam" I don't think "Terrorist" or have hateful emotions as my immediate response.

When I hear the word "World Trade Center" I don't instantly think "terrorists" or have hateful emotions as my immediate response.

When I hear the word "World Trade Center and Islam" I do tend to immediately have my mind jump to the terrorists that perpetrated 9/11 and the hateful emotions that were present on that day are immediately entering my mind

Switch the word "Islam" with "Box Cutters" and you'll likely get a similar reaction from me. Switch the word "Islam" with "hijackers" and you'd likely get a similar reaction from me. Switch the word "Islam" with the word "airplanes" and you'd likely get a similar reaction from me. Why? Because all four of those things...box cutters, airplanes, hijackers, and Islam...were directly related to those that perpetrated the attack on the place that is being referenced with those words...thus immediately bringing back the feelings that I associated with that time in regards to my feeling about the attackers.

My opinion would be the exact same if they were building a monument on WTC's foundations of a giant box cutter or an airplane sculpture pointed towards the buildings. Are all box cutters evil? No. Are all airplanes evil? No. Were they unquestionably intertwined with what happened that day and able to be fully removed from the very fabric of how that day happened? No. So is it unreasonable that seeing something that is completely and utterly tied up in HOW the attack happened at the place of WHERE the attack happened brings forth emotions and reactions similar to what one feels when thinking about those attackers? No. Is it unreasonable to not want, but not think it should be made illegal for it to happen, something placed in that area that is going to instill that kind of reaction and that kind of negative emotions to a large amount of the population that will be visiting the place? No, I don't think so.

And I disagree with your assertion. Its impossible to remove Islam from the reason 9/11 happened. Absolutely, unquestionably, impossible. Even if you argue "There were political issues", those very political issues come about due to their faith in the religion. The U.S.'s backing of Israel? Disliked because Israel is, one, infidels, and two...and more importantly...on land that they believe to be holy and should be in the control of their people. The U.S. being involved in the Middle East? Again, while political, the basis for their political outrage comes about primarily due to their religious beliefs regarding the west and regarding their land. The religion is interconnected and at the basis of almost every single possible explanation you can give for the attacks these peoples religion was centered around it. The sad attempt to paint this as something areligious but political, akin to the OKC Bombing where you had a guy who happened to be Christian bombed a place for entirely political reasons that had nothing to do with Christian foundations (hell, he was protesting an attack on a Cult...something disliked by Christians), is laughable in its ignorance or dishonesty.

The Religion deeply was instrumental in the reasons for the feelings and attitudes towards the United States by the man that ran the organization, that is in and of itself deeply tied within the religious extremism, that recruited these men to perform an attack that was felt was needed for at least a large part religious reasons (either directly on indirectly) and conducted in such a way as to highlight their faith in the suicidal nature of said mission.

Was religion the only reason? No. But it was a large reason, and was interwoven into the vast majority of the secondary reasons as well be they political, personal, etc.
 
The kamikaze pilot museum is a poor analogy, because the mosque is not a museum dedicated to terrorism.

A more apt analogy would be thus...

Building a 13 story museum dedicated to Japanese History & Culture in the year 1951, its location adjacent to the U.S.S. Arizona.

It wasn't Japanese history and culture didn't cause Pearl Harbor, so it'd be an absolutely upstanding and completely respectful thing that no one would possibly do for any other but the most purest and noble of intentions and completely with tons of foresight to build a huge museum dedicated to the Japanese essentially on the very ground that Pearl Harbor occurred.



Problem is, while everything in Japanese History and Culture didn't directly cause pearl harbor, and while everything in Islam didn't directly cause 9/11, both are unquestionably tied directly to said attacks and it is rather idiotic to believe that building a 13 story building dedicated to such a thing right on the very land that it happened on and attempting to suggest that its to "Build Bridges" when its only going to irritate at best and piss off majority at worst the very people you'd supposedly be trying to "Build bridges" with only a decade later is ignorant and disrespectful.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom