Park 51 - Should a mosque be allowed to be built two blocks from Ground Zero ??

First topic message reminder :

Certainly a controversial issue back home on whether a 13 storey building should be built in the name of Islam close to the tragedy.....

Why it shouldn't be built arguments
----------------------------------------

1. Insensitivity...............Maybe the Terrorists weren't representative of the majority of muslims. But they were associated with a form of Islamic ideology.

2. Majority....................The majority of New Yorkers oppose the plans.....

3. Triumphalism............There are those... and there will be some that will view planting a mosque right by Ground zero as some form of victory..

4. Provocation..............Let's be honest it's provocative... and assaults on the asian community have increased dramatically in the years following the tragedy.

Why it should be built
---------------------------

1. View..............Park 51 won't be visible from Ground zero.

2. Penalised....... Why should good, peaceful muslims suffer from a minority of bad apples..

3. Education.......Perhaps it will make some New Yorkers more informed about the religion and hopefully breed tolerance...

4. Move on.........Time to maybe put the past behind us....

5. Put more money back into the local economy..

Park 51 is a tough one..

navyblueshorts wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I can sympathise with the feelings of, I dunno, discomfort? Fear? That surround Muslims and Islam in New York. Although I doubt anyone ever remembers 9/11 and thinks "and all those lost jobs, I just can't get over it." However, I think it would be extremely healthy and show a spirit that rises above extremism if a mosque were to be built near Ground Zero. You would hope it could be a constant reminder to people that extremists committed the atrocity, not the religion of Islam. A message to extremists that America rejects their tainted view on the Western World and on Islamic beliefs.

Instead of scaremongering around people's differences it promotes acceptance and community.

To coin a religious comment to the above - amen. Current Americans, it would seem, don't have the psyche for this though. Far happier with simple revenge, vendetta and petty one-upmanship.

The weird thing is, Truss, that my reasons for it being built are much the same as reasons you have listed in your opening post. 

I am saddened to hear that the majority of New Yorkers are against it. To me it would be a hugely positive message to send out to those who stand against them and to the rest of the world in general. 

I also wonder whether this might be reasonably therapeutic to American Muslims whose lives were changed hugely by this.

Hammersmith harrier wrote: but to single out Islam because of a few extremists is pathetic.

We are talking about the location of the mosque..............Not the right for them to have them in NY....

You're struggling to differentiate.

It was perverted Islam as followed by a small minority of scum.......But New Yorkers have in my opinion every right to feel sensitive about a huge Islamic shrine being built right next to where the atrocity was committed....

You Americans crack me up  

Your not even going to be able to see it from where 9/11 was. If you could see it then id be more bothered tbh.

It's like going well we had the 7 & 21/7 attacks so you can't have a mosque in a half mile radius or you can't have a protestant church to near where their was KKK lynchings.

It's just very silly, I have a fair few Muslim friends and their more pleasant to hang around with then most white people i know so to tar their religion with terrorist crap over a few people who are straying a long way from the Qu'ran is a joke.

Since 9/11 48 people have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, including the recent mass killing in Charleston, S.C., compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists

(This is my one and only comment so don't bother replying i won't read it )

That's a pretty awful comment to make, but if you won't read the reply then I guess I won't bother elaborating.

In some ways, I can see where Truss is coming from. Sharpeville in SA was fifty years ago, but I'd imagine an outrageously opulent Afrikaner reformed church being built anywhere near there would go down like a lead balloon. Probably razed to the ground within a year.

On the other hand, I'm not sure stopping a mosque from being built because of 9/11 is actually legal or should be legal anyway? I mean, then you open up a whole new can of worms. You've got to also take the safety of these Muslims into consideration. I'd imagine if this happens, there'd be a lot of rifle wielding madman annoyed with Americuh being disrespected by them Ay-Rabs.

I can understand the reticence especially with the way things tend to be portrayed over there. I think if it does go ahead then it just shows that you can always put your faith in American people as a whole as opposed to their war and media machine who are the real b*stards. If it doesn't go ahead I'd be a bit sad becuase of the lost opportunity for the americans to show their famed tolerance but I wouldn't condemn them. 9/11 was murder on a grand scale and a traumatic event and the memories might still be too raw to look at objectively and use to destroy the stain the murdering b*stards put on the American conscious. I can still remember people jumping out of windows at a height which meant near certain death to escape absolutely certain death. It's as fresh in my mind as that poor kid lying face down in the sand or that policeans blank face as her carried the dead child. It's unfair I think to hold the locals responsible for their gut feelings after such a traumatic event. I don't think of it as islamophobia more of a struggle to come to terms with it. If this will bring up memories and raw wounds for the families of the victims then the Islamic thing to do would be to build it elsewhere. Times haven't been great for Islam in the last few decades and there was a time where the Islamic world was the essence of nobility perhaps a noble gesture of goodwill will herald those times again instead of hiding in embarrassment like a brit in any holiday resort inundated with his countrymen clad in socks and sandals.

Why on earth did anyone apply for a mosque within 500m of th 9/11 site? Surely the unpopularity could have been predicted.

Could have picked another site a flush a few quid towards a museum or memorial.

ShahenshahG wrote:I can understand the reticence especially with the way things tend to be portrayed over there. I think if it does go ahead then it just shows that you can always put your faith in American people as a whole as opposed to their war and media machine who are the real b*stards. If it doesn't go ahead I'd be a bit sad becuase of the lost opportunity for the americans to show their famed tolerance but I wouldn't condemn them. 9/11 was murder on a grand scale and a traumatic event and the memories might still be too raw to look at objectively and use to destroy the stain the murdering b*stards put on the American conscious. I can still remember people jumping out of windows at a height which meant near certain death to escape absolutely certain death. It's as fresh in my mind as that poor kid lying face down in the sand or that policeans  blank face as her carried the dead child. It's unfair I think to hold the locals responsible for their gut feelings after such a traumatic event. I don't think of it as islamophobia more of a struggle to come to terms with it. If this will bring up memories and raw wounds for the families of the victims then the Islamic thing to do would be to build it elsewhere. Times haven't been great for Islam  in the last few decades and there was a time where the Islamic world was the essence of nobility perhaps a noble gesture of goodwill will herald those times again instead of hiding in embarrassment like a brit in any holiday resort inundated with his countrymen clad in socks and sandals.

Good points...Excellently put across.

Whilst I can completely understand why there would be resentment for a Mosque there, I don't agree with rejecting it outright. I think it is a chance for America (and Western society) to be able to display it's compassion, tolerance and most of all ability to rise above everything. The atrocities of 9/11 were not carried out by Islam, despite what the media and government try to portray. They were mindless idiots who used it as an excuse. The sooner people realise that the better.

No one is suggesting it wasn't idiots or that Muslims shouldn't have mosque's built in New York..

9/11 was a huge atrocity of epic proportions and the NY people will be dealing with the trauma for years and years...

It's only about one small sacred location and I can't see why their feelings can't be respected.

Why build it so close?  The Mosque has the symbol of Islam on top: the moon and the star.  The twin towers was brought down by radical Islam.  Some will see it as radical Islam bringing down the twin towers then raising their flag over it.  Of course others will vehemently deny this but that is the basic reason why people are objecting to it.   The Islamic Society of Great Britain is calling for the next British Coronation to be modified with the inclusion of three wise men bringing forth a copy of the Holy Qur'an for acceptance by the new British Monarch in recognition of Islam in Britain (Islam is the second most important religion in Britain and the fastest growing).

I'd question the reasons why they want the Mosque so close - New York is a big place.

So - I'd suggest a compromise: - a Mosque - ok, but publically dedicated to all those innocents that have died as a result of that one single day event.  So dedicated to the innocents that died in Afghanistan and Iraq but also pointedly dedicated to those that lost their lives on 911 itself.

If there is a link publically declared (plaque - statue or something) then there is less ammo for militant Muslims who might like to claim it's a nice two fingers to The Great Satan (USA) but also it would lessen the impact of those Americans/New Yorkers who will undoubtedly say the Mosque was erected to sneer the dead of 911.

It's a big opportunity for Muslims to declare that 911 was not done in their name or condoned by their religion.

Nore Staat wrote:Why build it so close?  The Mosque has the symbol of Islam on top: the moon and the star.  The twin towers was brought down by radical Islam.  Some will see it as radical Islam bringing down the twin towers then raising their flag over it.  Of course others will vehemently deny this but that is the basic reason why people are objecting to it.   The Islamic Society of Great Britain is calling for the next British Coronation to be modified with the inclusion of three wise men bringing forth a copy of the Holy Qur'an for acceptance by the new British Monarch in recognition of Islam in Britain (Islam is the second most important religion in Britain and the fastest growing).

Given that even a Catholic still can't be King or Queen of GB, I doubt that Islam has much of an argument for central formal inclusion of their beliefs into any coronation ceremony. They'll have a representative at the event and that will be it.

SecretFly wrote:
It's a big opportunity for Muslims to declare that 911 was not done in their name or condoned by their religion.

But isnt even more of a chance for Americans to show they don't blame all muslims for 9/11?

No...the other way around. Americans - many of them - obviously do still blame Muslims for 911. It's not a perfect world and people believe what they believe.

It's a sensitive site - lots of wars have been fought over it and what it should become after the tragedy. City Planners against Lease holder, Architects against each other, relatives against Planners, architects and Leasers. Very very sensitive area still and for decades to come.

An opportunity for Muslims to say none of it was in their name - if it's done wrong, it doesn't matter what you or I think - there will be people on both sides of the divide that claim the Mosque is an insult to the city it's situated in. It has to be done right.

I disagree. I think its a great chance for New York to show they are above the hate spread by the terrorists message. Not only that, but this was a huge moment in history in the relationship between Muslims in the Western world and how they are seen by other people. They were victims in an entirely different way as a collective, and of course those who actually are American citizens who were hugely traumatised anyway.

Well whether it's my view or indeed your view - it must be done with sensitivity. Emotions of all views must be respected, which I'm sure would be a general view.

That we can agree on.

It's up to the people of New York and up to the relatives of those that were killed.  As outsiders we cannot impose our own criticism of them as victims for not doing this or that.  It's fair to make comment but unfair to criticise them.  So use could rather than should.  If my parents were killed by muslim extremists I wouldn't take kindly to people saying I should allow a mosque to be built at the end of my garden to demonstrate I had no hard feelings to liberal muslims.  It would be an inappropriate and insensitive suggestion and might in fact promote further radical Islamic attacks to get more mosques built etc.

I'm not sure any of us have demanded they do it, more that it would be a good idea. I'm not likely to write any emails to them about it, but in discussion on a forum I can be a little less sensitive. And in doing this, you would be better arguing the use of could and should were you to also offer more balance than this "might in fact promote further radical Islamic attacks." Balance and sensitivity goes both ways.

There is a difference between might and will.  I also refer to psychological studies that reveal rewarded behaviour is encouraged behaviour.  There is also a difference between asserting something to be good and offering your opinion that in your opinion it is good.  One needs to take care that claims of good don't imply the reverse choice being evil.

People aren't taking into account what a huge event 9/11 was..............It was Terrorism beyond the scale. It was was an outrage of breathtaking proportions.....

3,000 people dead and thousands traumatized......and the people traumatized and the tens of thousands of bereaved families and friends are still dealing with it now..

You can't move on from 9/11 in 14 years......It's still too relevant.

I take that on board Truss.  But hundreds of thousands of just-as-innocents have died elsewhere as a result of 911.  Their families too find it hard to pick up their lives again and move on.  The wars that came to their countries didn't bring resolution or freedom and they're still trying to make the aftermath of those wars turn into something workable and peaceful - and it's not succeeding for them.

911 was a huge event for many more than the 3,000 people that died in the towers and their families.  That was merely the beginning of the bloodbath. You might say it's continuing now in Syria and Iraq.

I get what your saying......

If you're a new yorker what happens in New York is more relevant to you than anywhere else...........If some b*8tard killed one of my Sons I wouldn't take much solace in the fact that other Fathers would be going through the same thing I am. 9/11 is personal to the people of NY..

Thing is New Yorkers aren't asking for mosques to be banned in NY they just want a sacred bit of land respected......

There is exceptionally poor analysis in the attribution of 9/11 as a cause of hundreds of thousands of people dying elsewhere.  Unfortunately it is impossible to discuss on a thread such as this.  Most of the deaths following 9/11 was due to muslim on muslim civil war brought about by the toppling of Hussein.  Before 9/11 there was the Iran - Iraq war (millions dead).  There was also the Kuwait invasion and the post Kuwaiti invasion sanctions.  But we cannot talk about this - let's call it an out of bounds news item.  So lets stick to the original question and lets not conflate it with other things that are basically irrelevant (imo). Too many people believe there is one type of African black person, one type of Middle Eastern Muslim person etc.

There was also Vietnam, Korea and WW11.

We all know wars are a continuous part of being human and being controlled by our evolutionary urges to be the fittest and survive.

But you have to find patterns somewhere to debate history - and just as the aftermath of WW1 had an impact on the eventual start of WW11, you just can not deny in history terms that the isolated event of 911 led directly to all out war in two Nations and led directly then to the death of many thousands of Innocent peoples in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
My point doesn't include soldiers from the west or militants, terrorists or soldiers from the regions themselves.  Innocent people, in their thousands, died as a direct result of the actions carried out in the aftermath of 911.

To say the direct link cannot be proven is evasion.  The link is real.  911 directly impacted on the lives then of innocents in other Nations.

I don't understand your argument or its relevance.  

Are you saying that for you 9/11 is a symbol of post 9/11 Muslim massacres and for that reason there should be a 13 Storey Mosque built within two blocks of the site of the former location of the World Trade Centre Towers in New York?  

If that is your opinion all I can do is to thank you for sharing it.

Nore Staat wrote:I don't understand your argument or its relevance.  

Are you saying that for you 9/11 is a symbol of post 9/11 Muslim massacres and for that reason there should be a 13 Storey Mosque built within two blocks of the site of the former location of the World Trade Centre Towers in New York?  

If that is your opinion all I can do is to thank you for sharing it.

Nope.

I'm one of the ones who queried why they want a Mosque specifically so close to a 'sensitive' site.

But I don't stick rigidly to arguments like politicians.  People say things here whilst arguing that I constantly either agree with or have some reservations about.  In a chat forum, you highlight your reservations as much as you agree with arguments or disagree.

So it's easy for me to say that Muslims should be sensitive to the nature of the site they want to build a Mosque close to (go look above and you'll find those comments)
..but also I find it easy to have reservations about the idea that the 911 tragedy only affected in a real way the dead of the towers and their relatives.  

I say no, that is not all that were effected by it.  Thousands died on the day itself, thousands of others had death certificates written for them in advance as, even in the earliest days, everyone knew Bush would seek revenge.  Unfortunately innocents die as well as the guilty when you go to war.  911 impacted the lives of people far far away from New York and far far away from America itself.  People in other parts of the world lost sisters, brothers, fathers, mothers because of what happened on that fateful day.

Bush went in to Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein.  Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911 although some claim otherwise.  At least a few hundred civilians died as a result of that.  The Baathist party was also smashed.  They left Iraq with a weak government and the country imploded into ethnic / sectarian / tribal civil war and hasn't yet recovered.  Iraq was a little like Yugoslavia held together by a strong dictator.

PS: With regard the building of a Mosque as a symbol of "reconciliation" - why not have it built near the White House or The Pentagon as they too were targeted on 911. Maybe these would be more appropriate as it was the US Government & military that went into Iraq - it has nothing to do with the people of New York nor those killed in the World Trade Centre Towers.

Nore Staat wrote:Bush went in to Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein.  Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911 although some claim otherwise.  At least a few hundred civilians died as a result of that.  The Baathist party was also smashed.  They left Iraq with a weak government and the country imploded into ethnic / sectarian / tribal civil war and hasn't yet recovered.  Iraq was a little like Yugoslavia held together by a strong dictator.

Would you then suggest there was no link between Bush going after Saddam so strongly and 9/11? Whilst there may well be no link to Saddam and 9/11 in motive, there certainly is a link to the zest behind America's pursuit of foreign enemies and the approval Bush's actions got.

I don't care why Bush went to War or what was in his heart or his reasons ...much less what was in the hearts of those who flew planes into the twin towers.  The result was death of innocents both times, and that's the subject of the discussion - the dead that resulted from 911.  A few hundred civilians died in Iraq and Afghanistan post-911??? Really?

On the 'reconciliation' thing, I assume that's directed at another of the posters because again I never declared that there should be a Mosque.  It's up for New Yorkers to decide amongst themselves (Muslims, Christians, Jews and Atheists) - with hopefully sensitivity shown by all sides.

Getting back to the original question.

Can I know assume that you (SecretFly) are happy to allow the people of New York to decide about the Mosque. And Dolphin Ziggler is also happy to allow the people of New York to decide about the Mosque but believes it would be a good idea for it to be built.

Read back. I'm happy for people in New York to decide...all of them with an interest, together and in sympathy to the sensitivities. But all of them means all of them.... Muslims included as I'm sure many of them would naturally regard themselves as New Yorkers.
Muslims not to ignore the mood of relatives of the dead, relatives of the dead not to assume, without evidence, that the Mosque is designed to annoy them. Let New Yorkers decide.

But I'll still reserve the right to chat about it when the mood takes me

Another thing to note if we want a conciliation against Iraqis killed it should be something like an Iraq Museum rather than a Mosque. The distinguishing feature of those killed was not Muslim but Iraqi. Iraqis comprise Sunni, Shia, Kurds, Christians, Zoroastrians, Atheists, there may have been one or two Jews.

Nore Staat wrote:Getting back to the original question.  

Can I know assume that you (SecretFly) are happy to allow the people of New York to decide about the Mosque.  And Dolphin Ziggler is also happy to allow the people of New York to decide about the Mosque but believes it would be a good idea for it to be built.  

Oh definitely. I would like it to happen, I personally feel it would be good for a lot of people, but I wouldn't feel any negative emotion towards them were it not to. Complex situation.