So I’ve been hearing a bit on my local talk radio station about this mosque they’re building in NYC in the old Burlington Coat Factory, pretty much right across the street from Ground Zero, and set to be opened to the public on Sept. 11, 2011. Many Americans seem to be outraged by this, especially those who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11 attack ten years ago. I have to say, I’m not a racist person, but this does seem highly inappropriate. I’ve no problem with people worshipping whatever religion they choose to follow, but it occurs to me that there is probably a less controversial/personal place they could build this mosque. Anyone care to sound off?
…and opening on the same day as the tragedy too? that’s laughing in the face of the American public - let’s hope that they are made to change that date, if not, I can see a mob descending on their asses.
I think it is digusting. I’m normally loathe to suggest that city ordinances ought interfere with private business, but if churches are the only thing that is tax free, they ought feel the pinch more than private business! Can you imagine what would happen if a privately owned company with ties to terrorists tried to pull the same stunt? The media would be all over it!
Instead, we get “news” reporting about how some crazy guy who drives an SUV and is from the South tried to set off a bomb in Times Square. Not that he is Pakistani or anything! Disgusting. The radical left (aka the Democratic party) is making America into a Caliphate vassal almost as fast as the wussies in Europe! The fight against Muslim extremism is the fight of our time.
There are plenty of mosques in America yet to dedicate it to 9-11 victims would be disproportionate. There needs to be clarification set into place here.
That’s sick. Can’t imagine this is plain stupidity.
I don’t have a problem with it.
For starters, the builders and attendees of the mosque are not (obviously) the same people who hijacked the planes and brought down the twin towers. In fact, chances are these people have no terrorist ties whatsoever, not that they would openly admit it if they did.
Whether or not they support the attacks or are against the attacks have no bearing on the fact that they did not commit the attacks, nor does it have any bearing on speculation as to whether or not they would have committed the attacks, given the opportunity.
Secondly, property laws. If they own the property, they can build whatever they want there and open it on whatever day they want.
Finally, it is an ingenious publicity stunt. What better advertising than that can you think of for a mosque? Obviously, you could have come to the Grand Opening of our mosque and be entered into a drawing for a new Ford Focus, but then you’d have to shell out a Ford Focus. This sort of publicity is cheap, easy, free and this mosque is already being talked about nearly a year and a half ahead of time.
Is it in poor taste? Sure, but if it ain’t in poor taste, it ain’t on the news! At least not in this country.
I never read the book, but wrestling promoter Eric Bischoff authored a book called, “Controversy Creates Cash,” and I think that the title says it all here.
You’re not going to operate a church and pay 100 million to build a church without some serious donations being pumped in.
Property, controversy, offense, salesmanship, cheap publicity…I think these guys are even more American than they think they are!
You are correct, of course. The problem is that, as a matter of propriety, to glorify the religion of people who want to see our destruction (not implying that all muslims do, just that those who do want to see us destroyed happen to be, in this instance, muslim) in such close proximity to a place where they managed to accomplish killing hundreds of our citizens (in the name of their god) all in one shot is in poor taste. Further, to do so as some kind of attempt at repairing relations between the two, and to have a grand official opening on the very anniversary of said attack, is like a slap in the face.
Naturally. I can’t help, though, that I’m still slightly bothered by the idea. Imagine that your neighbor has a farm where he breeds and raises horses, and he thinks horses are the only animal anyone should ever have anything to do with. You also have a farm, and in your farm there are chickens, cows, horses, and even a few pigs. Your neighbor is pissed that you would think it’s alright to own anything other than horses, and is sick of all the mooing, squawking, and oinking, so he blows up your barn, and manages to damage the shed next to it. In the aftermath, your cows won’t milk, your chickens won’t lay eggs, the horses won’t eat, and the pigs…well, they’re still just pigs. Your debt skyrockets as you try to reassemble the pieces of your now shattered farm, so your neighbor, viewing all of this, swoops in and buys your damaged shed. Rather than build another building that the two of you could use and therefore begin to repair the relationship, he instead builds a shrine to the awesomeness of horses, giving you a daily reminder of what happened to your farm, and why. Now, this daily reminder will not only have an emotional impact on you, but because he now owns that little bit of your farm, you can’t even do anything about it except continue to be reminded every day what happened until you become completely desensitized to the fact that your farm and animals have been irreversibly scarred.
Can’t argue with that. It is definitely an ingenious publicity stunt.
That Allah is the one true God and that only the faithful will be admitted to eternity in Paradise?[/sarcasm]
All of that is the very thing that makes it such a great publicity stunt!
I don’t argue that it is in poor tatse, it definitely is, which is why it’s working so well for them already!
I understand your analogy, but in the analogy, it was the neighbor that blew up the barn and erected the horse shrine. The guys building this church and the members of the church didn’t slam planes into the Twin Towers.
Maybe September 11th means something different to different people and someone’s going to get their toes stepped on. Sorry mister Jew for working on the Sabbath, but I’ve got shit to do. I don’t want any assclown to tell me September 11th is sacred now. People die all the time. I guess everyday should be death day. How about we honor this small selection of individuals who died on September 12th and hold anyone who plays baseball on that day as doing it in bad taste? In any case, people need to seperate “Islam” from terrorists who practice Islam. I guess it’s the cool thing in these times to do things like that. I guess the next Christian to terrorize someone will likely open the door to everyone scapegoating all Christians? Now that I think about it, Islamic and Christian society share a similar history when it comes to violence.
But their support is relevant, the same as anyone who supports enemies or criminals is complicit at least, and possibly an accomplice giving aid and support to the enemy. It’s coming to light now that the Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, working to establish the mosque (although they’re calling it something else now) wants it to be governed by Sharia law, making the absurd claim that Sharia is compatible with the Constitution.
Also, it should be noted, that it is every Muslims duty to participate in Jihad. Now Jihad is more than a holy war.
The “struggle of the way of God” is a euphemistic phrase for the struggle to establish Sharia Law.
For those who wonder if it isn’t compatible with the Constitution, just look at these crimes and their punishments:
• Any critic of Muhammad, the Koran, and even Sharia, may be ordered to death, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
• Drinking alcoholic beverages and gambling are not permitted. Punishment should be whipping.
• Islamic unmarried men may not indulge in sexual relations; the guilty are to be whipped. Adulterers are to be stoned to death.
• Husbands have full say over their wives and may hit them for any mistrust they perceive.
• Homosexuals must be executed.
• Islamic thieves, no matter their sex, must have a hand cut off.
• Islamic highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
• An injured plaintiff may seek the exact same injury as revenge, like an eye for an eye or a hand for a hand.
• Abandonment of one’s Islamic religion is punishable by death.
Not any more. We have zoning boards, and in any case, since the Supreme Court knocked down eminent domain, the city could just condemn it and let some other private entity buy it. But they’re exploring other approaches it appears. The Lower Manhattan Community Board vote, scheduled for today the 25th, would not derail the project, but rather indicate whether there is support for the proposal. The city’s Landmark Preservation Commission will also review the plan as the project would call for the razing of an historic structure.
Ain’t bureaucracy grand.
Poor babies don’t have enough room to pray. OK fine, reserve a spot for their prayer rugs on the East River. (On, under, I’m not gonna quibble.)
I feel we have several pertinent misunderstandings occurring here.
Firstly, Pav is absolutely right. They are not “criminals”. We may consider their actions immoral but that is a simple value judgment and should not hinder the autonomy of the people involved. We must respect certain rights on the same footing we hold our own. People may have agreed with criminals for killing little black babies in churches but it does not make them “criminals” merely immoral. America makes it a strong point that immoral can happen but illegal cannot – thus separating them as much as it can. I feel we could ask how we would feel if it was the Westbourough Church, who say we deserved 9/11, going in there. I feel we would shrug it’s affects away far more. Yes, I am saying we have a cringe factor towards Islam.
Secondly, Jihad of the Sword is only taken literally by fanatics. Christians have very similar tenets that shows a constant struggle for “Becoming”. So we cannot charge them for being fanatics until we have proof – because it may just be a hasty over generalization.
Thirdly, I do agree with your disdain for Sharia Law TPT. I feel it violates human rights. We should wonder if they were not putting it smack dab into a city if we would really protest it (probably would not be in the news then anyways). The Amish code seems quite pleasant comparably to Sharia Law.
Lastly, I find it a bit deplorable that people still use the Islamic - 9/11 rhetoric when the killers obviously had a problem not stemming from their religion but most likely a problem with a 1st World country. Their actions were not justified by their religion but it was an attack upon the economic/foreign representation of the US.
The point of the matter is, unless any of those people physically flew planes, or conspired to fly planes into the Twin Towers, then they committed no crime. Even if they donated money directly to the people who did it, they’d have to explicitly know that it was the plan of those people to do that for any sort of complicity to exist.
Let’s take these in order.
1.) Kill someone, you go to jail.
2.) If you whip someone, you could go to jail for assault. It’s unenforceable, people are free to drink alcohol as they choose in this country and gamble if they desire.
3.) Unenforceable, same as above.
4.) You usually only get a slap on the wrist for a domestic, but it’s still illegal.
5.) Kill someone, go to prison. In fact, there’s a special distinction for hate crimes, particularly if it goes to federal court.
6.) They can’t enforce it.
7-9.) Same thing.
The point is, their religion can say whatever bullshit it wants to say, but all of those things are illegal in this country. They can’t enforce any of their own laws without the potential for punishment. Freedom of Religion is not going to protect them should they attempt to punish according to their own Religious code, it just doesn’t happen.
The other side of that is, they have Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech, so they can suggest any sort of punishment for any sort of offense that they want to. I can suggest that someone should be stripped naked and publically hanged for shoplifting a Take 5 candy bar, that doesn’t make me guilty of anything.
Most importantly, it doesn’t mean I’ll actually do it.
I suppose that the city could do that, but they’d be looking at one hell of a Religious Discrimination lawsuit.
If they live in the country and are citizens (or otherwise are here legally) then they should have the same rights. They should have Freedom of Speech, they should have the right to Freedom of Religion and they should have the Right to practice their Religion provided the way that they practice it is consistent with the law.
No, they wouldn’t have to explicitly know, only that it was intended to be used to help finance a violent act.
But that’s the point, Sharia law would be paramount to our Constitution. I agree it appears absurd, but so is blaming ourselves for 9-11. It’s what they expect and could well get if the liberal bleeding hearts who want to “understand” them let it happen, as they appear to be letting this mosque happen 2 blocks away from ground zero. The mosque would be outside the jurisdiction of our laws.
Happens all the time, with any number of irrelevant reasons given. Our zoning system is often a joke. And like I say, given the recent Supreme Court decision, they can just condemn it, pay t hem pennies on the dollar, and sell it to another company.
The venue where this decision was arrived at was apparently filled with religious and political demonstrators (including 9-11 victims families) who were protesting it. Yet the decision was what, 27-1. The people deciding it’s landmark status will probably sell out (literally?) just the same.
Fanatic perpetrators, yes. But the favorable reaction of Muslims often reported (implying a lot more unreported) even in this country, was not matched by any significant number of unfavorable reactions–a very disturbing fact. I’m really not sure what the basis for the hatred is, possibly jealousy, at least to some degree, but mostly I think its just the us against them mentality.
That’s what I mean, that’s what they would have to explicitly know.
You’d still be looking at a discrimination lawsuit. Were it a Catholic (or otherwise Christian) church, would there be any objection?
Yeah, here in Phoenix a couple of months ago there was an objection to building a Mormon temple because the steeple was going to be too tall.
And they do know it’s for violence. It isn’t like the beneficiaries start being violent after the fact and it’s all a big surprise. If it was, they’d stop giving but they don’t, and they don’t criticize them either, which is probably even worse.
By, “Explicitly know,” I mean prove. It can’t be proven, but everyone can know it.
Show me a cancelled check where, “Global violence and terror, inshAllah,” is in the Memo.
Of course they don’t criticize them, they are probably afraid to.
I don’t consider the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-Day Saints a Christian Church, by the way. They make their own rules, write their own books.