Thread: The Proposed Mosque at Ground Zero

Originally Posted by alanmt

Gumby, I have heard statements and read articles and posts by many people who are indeed arguing that they don't or shouldn't have the right to build it: that Islam is a political movement, not a religion, so the first amendment doesn't apply; that the first amendment was only really meant by the founding fathers to apply to Christian and Jewish religions, and that first amendment rights must yield to security concerns.

I have even heard the crazy position that the first amendment guarantees of religious freedom should not apply to Muslims in America because they are not granted by the Saudi government to Christians in Saudi Arabia.

I don't doubt that Alan. But I disagree with those people, I do think they have the right to build it.

I am not particularly offended by the mosque placement because I don't believe there is any actual nexus between its presence and the 9/11 attack, nor any "in-your-face" purpose.

Understood. So why do you think it's in bad taste? Why is it in bad taste to build a community center for muslims a couple blocks away from the WTC memorial, when there are other religious institutions at a similar distance? At how many blocks does it cease to be in bad taste?

Originally Posted by badjoke

Understood. So why do you think it's in bad taste? Why is it in bad taste to build a community center for muslims a couple blocks away from the WTC memorial, when there are other religious institutions at a similar distance? At how many blocks does it cease to be in bad taste?

Because other religious institutions don't happen to be the one that caused the memorial to be built. And as for how many blocks, I would say somewhere between thirteen and seventeen.

Just because you have the right to do something, does not mean that doing it is right. Of course they have the right to build the mosque there, and they should have the right; but as Baron pointed out, the fact that its a Cordoba mosque, one that can represent triumphs of Muslims over Christians, is particularly inflammatory.

I second Gumby and everyone else who say it's in bad taste. I'm sure they can find another spot to put the mosque. The sad fact is even if it isn't an "in your face" kind of thing, if they just honestly want to put the mosque there, a lot of people will take it the wrong way, so it's probably in their best interest to put it somewhere else.

One of the contentions is over where the funding is coming from and some of the individuals behind it (CAIR for example). I don't know why people still talk about this issue as though Jihad isn't a part of Islam. If you look at where they're building this, it is only just around the corner from Ground Zero and it is a Mosque as well as other things.

Two blocks away is too close and certainly the fact that part of the wreckage actually landed on the site should play into the sensitivities of the Muslim community towards the neighborhood. And underlines the 'bad taste' that I feel it demonstrates.

Out of curiosity I researched some background on the story, read what President Obama has said, read what the Republicans have said, and all that comes to mind is Clark Gable.

Before reading this board, I didn't object much to the building of a mosque in that location. The thought of prohibiting a religious building from being created makes me cringe, and under any circumstance, I think they have a right to do it. While it's necessarily a smart thing for them to do (as shown by all of this controversy that has consumed the media), I didn't think they were doing it maliciously. However, I didn't know about the name of the mosque, and to be frank, that pisses me off. That is in bad taste, and even though "bad taste" doesn't qualify as exemption from First Amendment protections--and I think they should still be able to build it--it kind of depresses me. The fact that anyone can have motives that intentionally hurtful causes me to lose faith (pun intended) in the understanding and compassion taught by religion. Can't we all just get along?

This is pretty off topic, but the situation reminds me of the Harold Holt Swimming Pool not far from my house.

Wiki Article on Holt

Harold Edward Holt, CH (5 August 1908 – 17 December 1967) was an Australian politician and the 17thPrime Minister of Australia.
His term as Prime Minister was brought to an early and dramatic end in December 1967 when he disappeared while swimming at Cheviot Beach near Portsea, Victoria, and was presumed drowned.


And so they named a pool after him.

And they say Australians don't have a sense of humour.

Pfft, who says that? Ox and I are a laugh a minute. Just ask us.

I would ask Ox, but he'd probably kick me. I'm going to bed. It's middle of the night here. Do whatever you want with the Mosque. Won't bother me.

Prudent counsel by Wendy Kaminer:

Sensitivity policing by private citizens is protected by the First Amendment but undermines its foundational commitment to freedom of speech and religion. It is sophistry, or self-delusion, to claim that sensitivity-based opposition to a Muslim community center and mosque is consistent with support for the fundamental right to build it. A right denied formally by the government or informally by a virtual mob is still a right denied.

Well, that sounds nice, but under the law, it doesn't make much difference. If lawful protests or boycotts or other pressures applied by private citizens stop a certain group from doing something -- building a church or mosque or a shopping center or strip club or whatever -- then there isn't much you can do about it. If it can be shown that civil rights have been violated, then that's something different.

Many of the Liberals injecting their two cents' worth on this topic hate religion and don't even believe in God. They simply thrive on chaos. Down deep they don't give a crap about the Mosque one way or the other--their primary object is confusion and trouble.