Jump to content

Should a mosque be built close to ground zero?


PiF

Recommended Posts

True, most Muslims can and do get along with others but it was highly inssensitive if not downright provocation to even consider bulidng a mosque in this particular area. Surely people understand how sensitive this still is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think on this there can be 2 modes of thought tan

one...how insensitive..ground zero is, and will always be a place where we remember those that died

two..ground zero is a place where the nation of islam and the american people no longer allow terror to become berween them and stand shoulder to shoulder to show a united front against all extremists

i supose it depends on how your way of thinking is

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is true, and human nature being what it is, the former is therefore more likely than the latter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortuneatly tan I will have to agree

a golden opportunity to not allow the acts of a few turn many against many....instead of the many turning against the few

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Christians believe that all humans are brothers and sisters. Other (relatively few) Christians believe that anyone not a fundamentalist Christian will burn in hell and should be shunned while alive.

Some Jews believe that all humans are brothers and sisters. Other (relatively few) Jews believe that the previously-mentioned Jews aren't really Jews and should be shoved out of Israel, along with all the Arabs.

Some Muslims believe that Islam is the culmination of the Abrahamic religions and is a religion of peace which should coexist with other religions. Other (relatively few) Muslims are radical Islamists and believe that the world should come under Islamic rule, and believe that death is appropriate for anyone who doesn't believe as they do.

Muslims are not the problem. Radical Islamists are, and I don't really believe that any standard Muslim mosque would be insensitive enough to expect to build a mosque right next to where Islamist terrorists killed more than 3,000 people. An Islamist mosque certainly would not have that insensitivity; in fact, they would consider it to be quite a proper thing to do. I don't like that idea. In a sense, they already "claimed" the area; now they want to make it quite visible.

All sorts of people died in the Twin Towers -- people from almost every country worked in offices and, especially, worked in restaurants. This isn't an "American" thing. It's respect for what happened there.

In case anyone who knows I'm Jewish thinks that's influencing me, they're wrong. Immediately after 9-11, a man in Seattle went to the mosque in my neighborhood and tried to get in, shouting profanity. He was repelled and that evening, Jews from my temple started taking turns with Christians to stand watch outside the mosque. We knew the Muslims in the mosque; they were good people and were horrified at what the terrorists had done in the name of the Muslim religion. We know the difference between Muslims and Islamists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All sorts of people died in the Twin Towers -- people from almost every country worked in offices and, especially, worked in restaurants. This isn't an "American" thing. It's respect for what happened there.

i agree we may never agree on this one..it is however an american thing because it happened in the u.s. and the u.s decides what happens next

when i look back at the troubles in england with the ira..bombings, terrorism, chaos..we don't look at irish people now as bombers, or do we look with in disdain the americans who continually funded them

shit happens..but if you want a future thats different..then living in the past rarely gets that

Link to post
Share on other sites
oneofthesun
All this activity is NOT just a bunch of individuals who happened to get together and who have nothing to do with the religion of Islam. They are radical Islamists, just as there are radical Christians and radical other religionists. The difference, in this century at least, seems to be that the other radical religionists don't feel that killing everyone -- civilians included, because to them there are no civilians, everyone's an enemy combatant -- is in direct pursuit of their religion, and unlike radical Islamists, they don't feel that their religion should be the ONLY religion in the world.

There being only one true religion is a basic tenant of all monotheism. It's the nature of the beast - If you believe there's only one God, then logically there's only one correct believe system. All the monotheistic faiths have the same potential to foster intolerance of other religions.

So I agree with you that Islam itself is the problem, BUT... Sometimes the best way to disarm your enemy is to treat them fairly. If they still attack you after that, no one will be able to deny that they are the bad guy in the situation. Preventing this mosque from being built on the grounds of 9/11 would provide fuel for Muslim extremists. It would be the proof they need that Americans are prejudiced against them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's important though that we understand that a point was raised here about the possibility of building a cathedral in Mecca.

The Saudis and the entire Muslim world would be up in arms at such a proposal.

FYI, it wouldn't get that far. Non-Muslims aren't allowed to set foot in Mecca.

I'd hope America would be above that sort of thing though. I don't see any good reason to categorically ban mosques (or Muslims) from Manhattan. Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

The difference is so glaring that it shames the light of day.

The liberal values of the west must be preserved everywhere they are resonant. In most of the world, they are not wanted or cared for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eli Dupree
All this activity is NOT just a bunch of individuals who happened to get together and who have nothing to do with the religion of Islam. They are radical Islamists, just as there are radical Christians and radical other religionists. The difference, in this century at least, seems to be that the other radical religionists don't feel that killing everyone -- civilians included, because to them there are no civilians, everyone's an enemy combatant -- is in direct pursuit of their religion, and unlike radical Islamists, they don't feel that their religion should be the ONLY religion in the world.

Let's see - being completely intolerant of anyone's religion but their own, labeling civilians as the enemy and going into foreign countries and killing people of a different religion and race - Sounds like the U.S. Army.

Granted, there are a lot of differences, but Muslims are hardly the only ones committing major atrocities recently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheMuffinMan

Well hmm let's examine that statement for a second there.

The US army has chaplains of pretty much every religion imaginable-though, I don't think they have Satanists. So, intolerant of 'anyone's religion but their own', no, not really. Labeling civilians as the enemy, well, considering that we limit the use of firepower we could use (very much so) for the express purpose of limiting civilian casualties, no, also not really. Going into foreign countries and killing people of a different religion and race, well, that IS what is going to happen when you go to a country where the people are a different religion and race.

Link to post
Share on other sites

couldn't you not go to other countries and just defend your countries freedom from within your own country...isn't that possible?

muslims are not the problem..extremists of any kind are

as long as those in power do not stand with the muslims but continue to manipulate the population into fearing something different there will never be resolution

perhaps there will be a time when 9/11 will be seen as a turning point for the relationship with everyday muslims, meaning everyone stood together and said not on my watch

i fear 9/11 was such a shock to the american sykee that given the lack of world knowledge and understanding of things outside of the u.s.a. it will be decades before they look at a muslim as a brother fellow man

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheMuffinMan

My my, tell me more. You certainly seem to know an awful lot about what the average American feels, and it fits your narrative so well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

couldn't you not go to other countries and just defend your countries freedom from within your own country...isn't that possible?

That would definitely be my preference. I think we should have stayed out of every country we've gone to since WWII. That would make---this may be an inexact count---8 countries so far.

as long as those in power do not stand with the muslims but continue to manipulate the population into fearing something different there will never be resolution

perhaps there will be a time when 9/11 will be seen as a turning point for the relationship with everyday muslims, meaning everyone stood together and said not on my watch

I honestly don't think that the US, under Bush (although I detest the man and those who served or controlled him) invaded Muslim countries, per se. He invaded countries in order to bring US corporations into make money, and protect oil. The biggest friends of the Bush family were the Saudis, who are definitely Muslim.

There was a sort of coming together on the part of some American religionists after 9-11 with American Muslims -- I mentioned that some at my temple defended them immediately afterward. But so many things have happened around the world since then that that support and defense has crumbled. Hearing of one bomber after another doesn't help. It also doesn't help when Islamists do things like put out a fatwa that causes people to go into hiding because they printed a stupid cartoon, and printed it in a country where Muslims can't claim as their country, as they do many other countries.

To mention equal-opportunity religious horror, the news of the extent of Catholic priests abusing children hasn't exactly received praise around the world either. So it isn't just Americans abusing Muslims for what they do; who wants to see ANYONE who claims to be religious and who blames others for not being part of "the one and only true religion" killing and raping?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eli Dupree

Well hmm let's examine that statement for a second there.

The US army has chaplains of pretty much every religion imaginable-though, I don't think they have Satanists. So, intolerant of 'anyone's religion but their own', no, not really.

Hmm, maybe I was a bit off. I was thinking of the widespread discrimination/hostility faced by atheist/non-religious soldiers, which might be a different issue than intolerance towards soldiers who follow different religions.

Labeling civilians as the enemy, well, considering that we limit the use of firepower we could use (very much so) for the express purpose of limiting civilian casualties, no, also not really.

I was thinking of the use of the "illegal enemy combatant" label as an excuse for indefinite detention of civilians, but if you want to talk about limiting casualties, we can also talk about drone bombings on the Pakistani border, the bombings of wedding parties, that recent leaked video... sure, you can argue the difference between gross negligence and malice, but it's not as if I'm trying to say that these are exactly the same as the WTC attacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheMuffinMan

Well, you're trying to draw a moral equivalence between them, which there isn't. The US army (nor any other branch of the military) doesn't have a policy of purposely targeting civilians, and as far as operations in Afghanistan and Iraq go, the standards for acceptable civilian casualties are pretty high. The limits on the sorts of firepower and the ROE are extremely limiting. Of course we have ridiculously lethal weaponry, and mistakes are made in war, as in anything else-it's just that in war, a mistake will produce corpses. No matter what happens in a war and no matter what sort of precautions are taken, innocent people are going to be killed. That I can always guarantee.

As for the atheist/theist thing, well, I'm an atheist and I never noticed what I'd call 'intolerance', but then again I don't really care much about it. Then again, I am in a portion of the military with a higher proportion of atheists, so. During basic training I was ordered to bow my head during a prayer, but I think that was more because they wanted everyone to look uniform rather than forcing me to acknowledge their god, and it's not like me tilting my neck is religious deference and prayer in itself, it's just me tilting my neck. The military is actually pretty good at getting people with vast personal/political differences to work together and respect each other, which it should be, since it's in its best interests.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eli Dupree

Well, you're trying to draw a moral equivalence between them

Uh, no, I'm not. I'm arguing against Sally's position (if I've understood it correctly) that it makes sense to refuse the construction of a mosque (and not of some other religion's building) on the basis that there's much more gratuitous violence directly associated with Islam than with any other religion. I'm disagreeing on the basis that there are plenty of card-carrying Christians who also commit gratuitous violence in a large, organized way. That is the only similarity I'm currently arguing for, and I don't think I'd call that a "moral equivalence".

No matter what happens in a war and no matter what sort of precautions are taken, innocent people are going to be killed. That I can always guarantee.

Accepted. So the decision to go into a war is a decision to kill innocent people. That just pushes the question back to the reasoning for entering the war in the first place. At best, it absolves soldiers of the responsibility for the deaths, but I'm discussing the responsibility of the faction, so to speak, as a whole - on that level, you can't separate the making of the decision from the execution of the decision.

As for the atheist/theist thing, well, I'm an atheist and I never noticed what I'd call 'intolerance', but then again I don't really care much about it. Then again, I am in a portion of the military with a higher proportion of atheists, so. During basic training I was ordered to bow my head during a prayer, but I think that was more because they wanted everyone to look uniform rather than forcing me to acknowledge their god, and it's not like me tilting my neck is religious deference and prayer in itself, it's just me tilting my neck. The military is actually pretty good at getting people with vast personal/political differences to work together and respect each other, which it should be, since it's in its best interests.

Any idea what the reaction would've been if you refused to tilt your neck?

A quick Google search ("atheist soldiers" or similar) will show you a lot more experiences that differ from yours than you'd probably care to learn about...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
I'm arguing against Sally's position (if I've understood it correctly) that it makes sense to refuse the construction of a mosque (and not of some other religion's building) on the basis that there's much more gratuitous violence directly associated with Islam than with any other religion

Sally's position is quite strong. There are clearing houses that keep track of violence within the ummah and between Muslims and others.

The record, historically and even close to the present day, is extremely violent.

Still, it would be bigoted to say that all Muslims are violent. Not all of them are. But the faith itself, its content, is quite pro-violent.

To say that the Muslim scriptures, culture, society and law codes do not condone and contain imperatives for violence is an outright lie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
During basic training I was ordered to bow my head during a prayer, but I think that was more because they wanted everyone to look uniform rather than forcing me to acknowledge their god, and it's not like me tilting my neck is religious deference and prayer in itself, it's just me tilting my neck. The military is actually pretty good at getting people with vast personal/political differences to work together and respect each other, which it should be, since it's in its best interests.

I think what you've done here is fine. To bow one's head in prayer is not the same as the partaking of sacraments.

If you partook of sacraments you would have certainly crossed the line.

Last year, when my bf was reading Morning Prayer, several Muslim women joined him. They were not behaving in what their religion would call an apostate manner by doing so.

If they had partaken of sacraments, then they would have crossed the line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The position of fundamentalist Islamists (I'm choosing to use that phrase rather than Muslims) is that all "enemies" are combatants. Thus, in a nation or region which is controlled by those whom the Islamists identify as the enemy, there are no civilians. They're all soldiers and they should be killed.

I don't know of any other religion that believes that. I don't know of any other religion that believes that suicide bombings -- deliberate killings of everyone in the area, children included -- is a sacred act which will bring God's approval. If there's evil in the world, that qualifies.

Islam is not a religion of peace. I'm frankly sick of hearing such claims, which are made defensively after every single act of violence, and which were made immediately after 9/11.

So. I don't feel in the least tolerant about this, which has probably been evident before, and anyone who wishes to blame me for intolerance is welcome to do so. But keep in mind I'm not talking about the accidental death of civilians, I'm talking about DELIBERATE killing of civilians. And I'm also talking about the disgusting use of your own people--including children and old people--as shields for your soldiers and your armament centers during war and then crying to the world that the enemy has killed your civilians.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Inevitable

deliberate killings of everyone in the area, children included

Would anyone like to quote that little passage from the bible that says all Israeli (I think) children should be stoned?

Most religious books contain... questionably violent material. But the majority don't bother with the more archaic stuff. It's fundamentalists that do things differently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
oneofthesun

Islam is not a religion of peace. I'm frankly sick of hearing such claims, which are made defensively after every single act of violence, and which were made immediately after 9/11.

*Claps* You're so right. It doesn't matter at all what the Qu'ran says - What matters is what the people who claim to follow it do. It's about time people started speaking the truth about Islam.

I disagree with you about whether the mosque should be built, but for different reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel in the least tolerant about this, which has probably been evident before, and anyone who wishes to blame me for intolerance is welcome to do so. But keep in mind I'm not talking about the accidental death of civilians, I'm talking about DELIBERATE killing of civilians. And I'm also talking about the disgusting use of your own people--including children and old people--as shields for your soldiers and your armament centers during war and then crying to the world that the enemy has killed your civilians.

You are far from alone in this view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Islam is not a religion of peace. I'm frankly sick of hearing such claims, which are made defensively after every single act of violence, and which were made immediately after 9/11.

*Claps* You're so right. It doesn't matter at all what the Qu'ran says - What matters is what the people who claim to follow it do. It's about time people started speaking the truth about Islam.

The imperatives for violence in the Koran are repeated, detailed and forceful.

I have theorized that the phenomenon of Muslim terrorism is the externalization of an internal Muslim problem with doctrine and interpretation to the West.

From 1500-1649, the West engaged in an extraordinary series of wars called the Wars of Religion. I suspect that what we are seeing now is the Muslim confrontation with modernity and a similar re-evaluation of the relationship of religion to life in their community.

That said, I believe it may be a long time, perhaps a century or more, before this is straightened out.

Meanwhile, in spite of the terrorism against the West, these problems will come back to the ummah to roost, and that regardless of American war or American peace.

What is happening is more profound than East-West relations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest nanayaFTW

its incredibly intolerant and probably deliberate. People have gotten PTSD from 9/11 so the wounds are still there. it doesn't end with the 3000 people killed. America is about freedom of religion but its also about sensitivity and understanding. in my opinion the needs of family members of people whose lives were unjustly ended deserve sensitivity more then a minority group

Link to post
Share on other sites

deliberate killings of everyone in the area, children included

Would anyone like to quote that little passage from the bible that says all Israeli (I think) children should be stoned?

Most religious books contain... questionably violent material. But the majority don't bother with the more archaic stuff. It's fundamentalists that do things differently.

Read the passage again. It specifically talks about a disobedient son who is a drunkard, etc., and that was an era where violent acts were committed against family members. For that matter, it was still legal and considered appropriate for men to beat and sometimes kill their children and their wives only 100 years ago in first-world countries, and that had nothing to do with the bible or any other religion.

And fundamentalists are exactly what we're talking about here. The problem is that the Islamic religion as now practiced in Muslim countries IS a fundamentalist religion, and they believe that anyone who does not believe as they do is an enemy and deserving of death.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Salt Shaker

Do most people recognize a mosque when they pass by it?

There are several churches near ground zero (been there myself), why shouldn't a mosque be allowed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of building a mosque at ground zero, in a purely Western perspective, is fine. It's even democratic. But that's not the issue here.

The issue is how it is seen by the Muslim community worldwide.

Those who know their history and cultural perspective understand that Muslims will see it as an emblem of a Muslim victory in the West, a shrine to a battle won.

They will understand not in terms of inclusion, but in the historically and scripturally-determined terms of humiliating an enemy.

If you do not understand this about Muslim culture, you have not been studying history.

And refusing to take the long view in empathy is a profound mistake here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And fundamentalists are exactly what we're talking about here. The problem is that the Islamic religion as now practiced in Muslim countries IS a fundamentalist religion, and they believe that anyone who does not believe as they do is an enemy and deserving of death.

If you look at the punitive taxes on non-Muslims in Muslim states and the persecution of other faiths Muslims engage in constantly, that conclusion is good.

It comes into even sharper relief when you read about the attacks on Ahmadi Muslims by more hard-line Muslims in Pakistan.

What was the Ahmadis' problem?

They varied their thinking in the doctrine on prophecy.

You see here that the cost of holding varying perspectives on faith is very high in the Ummah.

The stranger and the open mind alike are attacked by the adherents of the mainline, acting in the name of Islam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
oneofthesun

The idea of building a mosque at ground zero, in a purely Western perspective, is fine. It's even democratic. But that's not the issue here.

The issue is how it is seen by the Muslim community worldwide.

Those who know their history and cultural perspective understand that Muslims will see it as an emblem of a Muslim victory in the West, a shrine to a battle won.

They will understand not in terms of inclusion, but in the historically and scripturally-determined terms of humiliating an enemy.

If you do not understand this about Muslim culture, you have not been studying history.

And refusing to take the long view in empathy is a profound mistake here.

Well mindlife, I have to admit that this is an excellent point I didn't think of. I'm going to have to retract my previous opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of building a mosque at ground zero, in a purely Western perspective, is fine. It's even democratic. But that's not the issue here.

The issue is how it is seen by the Muslim community worldwide.

Those who know their history and cultural perspective understand that Muslims will see it as an emblem of a Muslim victory in the West, a shrine to a battle won.

They will understand not in terms of inclusion, but in the historically and scripturally-determined terms of humiliating an enemy.

If you do not understand this about Muslim culture, you have not been studying history.

And refusing to take the long view in empathy is a profound mistake here.

Think you missed the word fundamentalist out of that post somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...