Obama and the NYC "Ground Zero" Mosque

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure what's more interesting here, the story about the mosque or the story about how it's become a national focus. Fox News has been running this issue up the flagpole for weeks, if not months, and with their popularity amongst conservatives it's hard to say that the issue has been purely a NYC local one. On the other hand, when the President of the United States comments on an issue it does tend to bring addition focus to the story.

 

So I guess question #1 here is: Is Politico right?

 

President Barack Obama’s endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque has transformed an emotion-laden local dispute in New York into a nationwide debate overnight, setting nervous Democrats on edge and creating potentially dramatic political implications in the upcoming midterm elections.

 

And if so, is this another example of the Obama administration responding/reacting to stories that are being driven by Fox News Channel?

 

It seems that way to me, and I think it's a mistake for him to do that, especially if the reaction he continues to put forth is so decidedly left of center. Challenging opposition is great, but finding common ground is better, especially if he wants to win back moderate swing-voters.

 

I guess question #2 is: Is building the mosque a good idea? My opinion is that it's not a good idea, but that it has to be allowed. As Jon Stewart pointed out the other night, there's another mosque in the neighborhood so it's not exactly a new thing. The only problem with it is that it's unnecessarily provocative. There's been an undercurrent of anger and lashing-out in some parts of the American Islamic community in recent years and I think they're making a mistake in pushing that element to the forefront.

 

IMO the concerns people are expressing about Islam are misplaced and indicative of American misunderstandings about that religion. But the sensitivity is understandable, just as it's understandable for followers of Islam to be upset about their treatment since 9/11. The challenge is to find common ground, not a new battlefront.

 

What do you think?

[Marat]

It would seem ironic to try to stand up for a country which values the separation of church and state and religious freedom by denying religious liberty in forbidding the building of a mosque near ground zero just because of its affiliation with a given religion. Zoning laws allow communities to regulate where certain structures can be built, but if you can demonstrate state-enforced religious prejudice behind these regulations, you can go to court and get them overturned.

 

Just because all those who made their attacks on 9/11 were Moslems has never been taken to mean that the U.S. went to war with Islam in response to that aggression. We were never at war with Roman Catholicism just because all those who attacked the Alamo were Catholics!

[ydoaPs]

It's ridiculous that this is an issue. Of course Obama is going to allow it-he has zero grounds on which not to. Muslims have the same freedom of religion as Christians.

 

IMO, the Islamaphobia in the US is appalling. The actions of extremists do not bear on the religion as a whole.....unless we want to declare Christians as being clinic bombers, prejudiced murderers, and spreaders of incurable endemic.

 

It would seem ironic to try to stand up for a country which values the separation of church and state and religious freedom by denying religious liberty in forbidding the building of a mosque near ground zero just because of its affiliation with a given religion. Zoning laws allow communities to regulate where certain structures can be built, but if you can demonstrate state-enforced religious prejudice behind these regulations, you can go to court and get them overturned.

Yes, they could change the zoning to create a radius in which no place of worship would be able to be, but you can't single out the Muslims. However, I doubt the people getting all upset would like that, as it would probably mean a few Christian churches would have to move.

 

On a practical standpoint, given the rampant Islamaphobia, building a mosque that close to Ground Zero might be a bad idea as it could inspire the paranoid to do something stupid.

Edited August 14, 2010 by ydoaPs

[Sisyphus]

It is completely ridiculous and disgusting on many levels that people are even having this argument. Let the Fox News audience act like the Taliban if they want. I'm going to act like an American.

[ydoaPs]

It is completely ridiculous and disgusting on many levels that people are even having this argument. Let the Fox News audience act like the Taliban if they want. I'm going to act like an American.

I just watched the recent Daily Show segment and learned something interesting: there's a mosque older than the trade centers only 4 blocks away from Ground Zero. What difference does two blocks make?

[Sisyphus]

The challenge is to find common ground, not a new battlefront.

 

I don't see why that's necessary. It will be built, Glenn Beck will cry and call a lot of people bad names, and then Fox will find some other trumped up issue to pander to people's worst natures with. Why does anything need to be done at all?

[ydoaPs]

I just watched the recent Daily Show segment and learned something interesting: there's a mosque older than the trade centers only 4 blocks away from Ground Zero. What difference does two blocks make?

 

Watch online:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-10-2010/municipal-land-use-update---ground-zero-mosque

[Sisyphus]

I just watched the recent Daily Show segment and learned something interesting: there's a mosque older than the trade centers only 4 blocks away from Ground Zero. What difference does two blocks make?

 

The difference is that the people who are up in arms haven't been told about that one. Or, I assume, the several strip clubs within the same "hallowed" radius. (Facts are clearly of little importance to this cause.) While the demagogues of the right are furiously trying to let the terrorists win, New York (aka "fake America") has long since ruled that out.

 

Yeah, I guess it's obvious that this really pisses me off...

[ParanoiA]

Ok, do you all remember when we were making the point that perceptions matter, when analyzing the interaction between the US and the Middle East? Remember how some of us, including myself, made the point that we appear as imperialists to this region, and that perception carries consequences? That we cultivate terrorists when we fail to acknowledge that perception and continue to use the proverbial stick to smack them into meeting our expectations?

 

Well? How about extending that same courtesy to your countrymen? How about their perceptions? Why do they not get the same level of respect?

 

And further, like it or not, while we WANT to be perceived as thoughtful and rational, we will also be perceived as weak. A Mosque erected in place of the Twin Towers, the greatest, most triumphant attack on the Americans - all with their help. And all before their own monument could even be built. A submission to Allah by the Americans - or maybe it's the power of Allah over the Americans. Who knows how they'll spin it.

 

 

Most of that is just contrarian points that I think should be considered. I don't have much of a dog in this fight. Personally, I don't care if they erect a Mosque or a cheeseburger stand. I do want a monument though. And I do think the 9/11 event is the kind of event we should always respect and be reminded of. Just like any other defining event or catastrophe in our history.

[Sisyphus]

Ok, do you all remember when we were making the point that perceptions matter, when analyzing the interaction between the US and the Middle East? Remember how some of us, including myself, made the point that we appear as imperialists to this region, and that perception carries consequences? That we cultivate terrorists when we fail to acknowledge that perception and continue to use the proverbial stick to smack them into meeting our expectations?

 

Well? How about extending that same courtesy to your countrymen? How about their perceptions? Why do they not get the same level of respect?

 

The idea is to just not be imperialist. Not wage a war against Islamic culture, as conservatives in both the United States and the Islamic world would like, but against terrorism. Our side, if we want to be the good guys, promotes liberty and tolerance.

 

And, guess what, those Muslims in New York are also my countrymen.

 

And further, like it or not, while we WANT to be perceived as thoughtful and rational, we will also be perceived as weak. A Mosque erected in place of the Twin Towers, the greatest, most triumphant attack on the Americans - all with their help. And all before their own monument could even be built. A submission to Allah by the Americans - or maybe it's the power of Allah over the Americans. Who knows how they'll spin it.

 

Well, again, Islam is not the enemy. What would be weak would be letting Al Qaeda make us like them. America's strength is its openness. We can be the "bigger person," because we are strong. By persecuting Muslims specifically, we prove them right. We "let the terrorists win." They're not trying to plant a flag, they're trying to maintain a conflict.

 

But they're not right. They're not fighting for Islam, because Muslims are Americans too, whether Osama Bin Laden and Glenn Beck like it or not.

 

I do want a monument though. And I do think the 9/11 event is the kind of event we should always respect and be reminded of. Just like any other defining event or catastrophe in our history.

 

There will be a monument at ground zero. It's worth noting that this Islamic center is in fact not at ground zero at all, but two blocks away. Personally I think a metaphorically outstretched hand would be the best possible monument, if it's actually going to mean something. (In fact, that's essentially what the Statue of Liberty is.)

 

But that's irrelevant, because we're not even talking about ground zero.

[Mr Skeptic]

Building the mosque has to be allowed, of course, and we should also do our best to prevent people from burning it to the ground after it's built. Religious freedom applies to everyone and to all religions, not just the ones we like.

[ParanoiA]

The idea is to just not be imperialist. Not wage a war against Islamic culture, as conservatives in both the United States and the Islamic world would like, but against terrorism. Our side, if we want to be the good guys, promotes liberty and tolerance.

 

And, guess what, those Muslims in New York are also my countrymen.

 

Oh, I absolutely agree. But I'm talking about the perceptions of those conservatives and Christians that perceive this as a victory flag for Islamic extremism.

 

Why do we care so much for how Muslims receive our bombs in their countries when we're clearly aiming for terrorists? Because perception is reality for people, and we know this. So many of us argue that those bombs may be justified for some small number of terrorists, but that they aren't worth dropping because the perception by their residents is that we're imperialists that need to be countered - just as we would do if they invaded america to kill Christian terrorists.

 

So, why not look to these conservatives and Christians and offer the same level of understanding? Don't their perceptions matter too?

 

I guess what I'm saying is, we all know this is about contrasting Islam from Islamic terrorism. We've decided that political point is more important than extending respect to the perceptions of a majority of our population. Your anger, suggests a disparity in treatment between Muslims and Christians.

 

Of course, I'm talking more about sentiment here. Like I told my conservative buddies, the law is the law and it is, and should be, blind to our emotional baggage.

 

Well, again, Islam is not the enemy. What would be weak would be letting Al Qaeda make us like them. America's strength is its openness. We can be the "bigger person," because we are strong. By persecuting Muslims specifically, we prove them right. We "let the terrorists win." They're not trying to plant a flag, they're trying to maintain a conflict.

 

But they're not right. They're not fighting for Islam, because Muslims are Americans too, whether Osama Bin Laden and Glenn Beck like it or not.

 

Again, of course I agree with you. I know we're the "bigger person" for it and we're refusing to be driven by fear. And guess what? I also know we're in the right to invade Afghanistan. Big deal. The perception is we are imperialist bastards for invading that country. And the perception enjoyed by extremist Islamic terrorists is that Allah is making an ass out of America as they build a Mosque for him to celebrate the victory of slaying their own people. Do you remember how much mileage they got out of the Americans "running" away in Somolia?

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/miller.html

 

"After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians," bin Laden said. "The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda ... about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."

 

Now how do you think they'll use this Mosque? Recruitment propaganda is a bitch.

 

There will be a monument at ground zero. It's worth noting that this Islamic center is in fact not at ground zero at all, but two blocks away.

 

It is very worth noting. I need to remember to toss this out at my conservative buddies.

 

Like I've said before, you're either free or you're not. It's not right to deny this Mosque. I've tried to make the point with conservatives that freedom isn't free, it costs. And when we say that, we're not just talking about war, we're talking about everyday tolerance to things that offend us. Whether that's due to our own perceptions, or not.

Edited August 14, 2010 by ParanoiA

[jackson33]

Personally, I don't expect that particular Mosque will ever get built*. NYC, is not the place for any questionable symbol to be erected. Where some of you wish for a reminder of the event, some memorial, there are Countless Imam's (clergy) and a definable portion of Islamic's (terrorist, traditionalist and the ISLAMIC BROTHERHOOD) that want a memorial built in the heart of what they feel is the Mecca of Western Traditional Culture. As too often happens people are equating Religion and Cultures and no culture has a distinct right to impose their culture on another, IMO...

 

*No Construction plans have been offered, no means to support the contracting and building of the Mosque and NYC has very strict regulations on both. I seriously doubt any Union would oblige any member to take part in this one venture, or in fact if (elected) those involved in permitting or promoting the construction will be in office, when these items are offered. If Bloomberg, doesn't care where the money comes from, maybe a quick review of the goals of the Islamic Brotherhood, would be in order...

 

As for the Mosque, four blocks from "Ground Zero" (symbolic word in itself), it was there long before 9-11 or I'd bet it would be receiving the same arguments today, if it had not been there. I wonder, just how many people Muslims actually live in the area, to begin with.

[ydoaPs]

By the way, it's a community center rather than a mosque.

[Sisyphus]

 

Why do we care so much for how Muslims receive our bombs in their countries when we're clearly aiming for terrorists? Because perception is reality for people, and we know this. So many of us argue that those bombs may be justified for some small number of terrorists, but that they aren't worth dropping because the perception by their residents is that we're imperialists that need to be countered - just as we would do if they invaded america to kill Christian terrorists.

 

So, why not look to these conservatives and Christians and offer the same level of understanding? Don't their perceptions matter too?

 

Perhaps you're right. We're not in Afghanistan because terrorists deserve to die (though I'm not saying they don't). We're in Afghanistan to stop terrorism, and that's a public relations war much more than a military war. So I guess, analogously, the "war" to prevent a culture war in the U.S. is also a public relations war. The people opposing this might deserve to be called idiots and worse, but I guess that isn't productive. I'll try to calmly explain to anyone who will listen.

 

On the other hand, perception is important, and that is the point. If we're willing to prevent - or even loudly complain - about a mosque near ground zero, that sends a terrible message both in our country and abroad. If we're not, that sends a powerful message highlighting what's really great about America, and America which is part Muslim and promotes liberty and tolerance, and makes Al Qaeda look ridiculous.

 

And the perception enjoyed by extremist Islamic terrorists is that Allah is making an ass out of America as they build a Mosque for him to celebrate the victory of slaying their own people.

 

Well, naturally they'll try to spin it whatever happens. It's not whether they spin it, but how effective the spin will be in each circumstance. Perhaps they'll try to spin it to make us look "weak." But is that worse than being a country that is hostile to Muslims? Highlight that we are not only not hostile to Islam, but that there are Muslim Americans, too. Some of them died on 9/11, too. And they're there, in New York, 2 blocks from Al Qaeda's monument to hate, being New Yorkers. I have to believe that is good for public relations, too.

 

It is very worth noting. I need to remember to toss this out at my conservative buddies.

 

While you're tossing that out, don't forget to add that there is already a mosque four blocks from ground zero that nobody seems to care about, as well as about ten nearby churches of various denominations. It's downtown Manhattan: there's lots of stuff around.

[Pangloss]

Great post, Sisyphus. And that was interesting, catching up on the thread just now and watching you take a short trip from lashing anger to recognition that anger won't accomplish much here. That's where I went with this as well, from initial anger over FNC's trumpeting and my conservative friends' dogmatic reactions, to seeking some sort of tolerance middle-ground. (Though I have another bit I can "toss out there" while we're planning ParanoiA's next encounter with his conservative friends (grin): Ask them how they justify this objection with their staunch believe in preventing government interference the rights of private property owners!)

 

Getting back to the point, in particular my bold bit from the OP, I've talked to enough *moderate* conservatives on this issue to know that they're *well aware* of the arguments on this issue, and *still* think it's provocative, mean-spirited, and possibly part of some sort of general effort to produce more Islamic fundamentalists within the US. This perception is deeply ingrained and won't be changed overnight. And it won't be changed via direct provocation.

[jackson33]

Constitution of the

North Austin Muslim Community Center, Inc., Austin, Texas

(A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION)

 

ARTICLE 1: NAME AND AFFILIATION

 

The name of this corporation is North Austin Muslim Community Center (NAMCC), Inc. The

principal office of the corporation shall be located in the City of Austin, Texas. This corporation

may be affiliated with any national Muslim organizations such as Islamic Society of North

America (ISNA), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) or Muslim American Society (MAS).

 

ARTICLE 2: PURPOSES OF THE CORPORATION

The corporation is primarily organized and shall be operated exclusively for the practice,

promotion and advancement of the Islamic faith as established by the Holy Quran and the

Sunnah of the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, as followed by the rightly-

 

2.1 To provide a suitable place and atmosphere for Muslims to perform the five daily

prayers, the Friday (Juma) prayer, Ramadan Taraveeh, and the two Eid prayers.

[/Quote]

 

http://www.namcc.org/files/docs/Proposed_Draft_ConstitutionCommittee.pdf

 

By the way, it's a community center rather than a mosque. [/Quote]

 

ydoaPs; Since your aware of the proposed "Charter" of the "Ground Zero Community Center" and I can't seem to find it, I'll offer the one in Austin Texas. In short, whatever you wish to call a Mosque, they all serve the same purpose.

 

 

Ask them how they justify this objection with their staunch believe in preventing government interference the rights of private property owners!) [/Quote]

 

Pangloss; To my knowledge no conservative is worried about "private property rights" in this case or is Government seemingly concerned with public opinion. We have all agreed any Church Affiliation have certain rights to where and how they practice or teach their belief's and discarding the fact, this one particular building site has specific meaning to TWO different CULTURES. There is nothing in the traditions or cultural foundation of the US that can possible be classified as consistent with the Quran, Sharia Law or the Preaching of 'Traditional Islamic practices". Said another way, any other place than Ground Zero, or at some other time than today or for 30-50 years from now, this entire subject could have been meaningless.

[Pangloss]

To my knowledge no conservative is worried about "private property rights" in this case

 

Which makes them hypocrites if they believe private property rights to be an absolute.

 

 

We have all agreed any Church Affiliation have certain rights to where and how they practice or teach their belief's and discarding the fact, this one particular building site has specific meaning to TWO different CULTURES.

 

Right, which has been arbitrarily determined to include two blocks away and not four blocks away. Like I said, there are some deeply ingrained (albeit not very logical) beliefs amongst conservatives on this issue.

 

 

There is nothing in the traditions or cultural foundation of the US that can possible be classified as consistent with the Quran, Sharia Law or the Preaching of 'Traditional Islamic practices".

 

Sure there is.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_amendment

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

 

100% consistent.

 

-------------

 

Aaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnddddddddd right on queue, the Obama Administration issued a "clarification" today.

 

One day after President Obama defended the freedom of Muslims to build an Islamic complex near New York's Ground Zero, he offered a less forceful version of that position on Saturday: Yes, Muslims have that right, Obama said -- but that doesn't mean he believes it is the right thing for them to do.

 

A comment which will almost surely generate more criticism from the far left.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/14/AR2010081401796.html?wprss=rss_print

[swansont]

The problem I have with this whole situation is that the solution to "they hate us for our freedom" is to jettison freedom.

[jackson33]

The problem I have with this whole situation is that the solution to "they hate us for our freedom" is to jettison freedom. [/Quote]

 

swansont; If any right or PRIVLEGE, imposes on those of others, yet no law prevents that intrusion the only remaining recourse is for that society to speak up and fix that change in an orderly manner. This is the process offered by the Constitution and has been instrumental in most all change in the History of the US.

 

Which makes them hypocrites if they believe private property rights to be an absolute. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss; Property rights or my preferred word privilege, has always had limitations of some kind, where ever a community of Citizens is involved. There are thousands of zoning laws around the Country with various degrees of intrusion into who can own, how to construct, what can be built, or what that property can be used for. Here we're talking about, what some believe to be sacred grounds, not only for those that died there, but for the massive havoc introduced, by a competing culture, that the entire National Conscience had and still does embraced. Millions of Americans were effected in hundreds of ways directly (including myself), millions others indirectly and millions more that have joined the armed forces to enforce their personal appreciation for whatever they feel was wronged in that attack, over the years.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/Quote]

 

Which includes both those opposed to or in favor of any issue, but again I'm trying to bring in the idea CULTURE, is not necessarily a religion. We DOT ALLOW the Mormon Religious concept of Polygamy into our culture (as of today), or the killing of people or animals by a few Sadist Religions and I personally frown on "Bible Baptist", which I'd rather not have in my town, much less neighborhood.

 

A comment which will almost surely generate more criticism from the far left. [/Quote]

 

You might be surprised where the far left falls on this issue or for that matter the far right. It appears to me, there is a general emotional feeling that this particular Mosque for one reason or another, has no business being built near 'Ground Zero', I might add by some Moderate Islamic advocates...

 

As for Obama saying anything, he has a way of saying EVERYTHING (both sides any issue) and some of his base, only hear what they want to hear. Most that have since realized this, have long left his flock and have no idea just who is actually running things in this country, IMO.

[Pangloss]

Property rights or my preferred word privilege, has always had limitations of some kind, where ever a community of Citizens is involved.

 

Of course. But your argument isn't with me, it's with conservative libertarians, who don't acknowledge that point. You said that no conservative "is worried about private property rights in this case". "No" is an absolute -- you spoke for all conservatives -- and therefore required a response.

 

 

Which includes both those opposed to or in favor of any issue

 

I'm not arguing against their right to object, I'm arguing against their objection. Which, as you just said, is my right to do.

 

And I noticed that you didn't acknowledge that the 1st Amendment is a direct refutation to your statement that the Islamic religion and culture are not compatible with the Constitution. Darned inconvenient at times, that Constitution.

 

 

but again I'm trying to bring in the idea CULTURE, is not necessarily a religion.

 

That argument would carry more weight if opponents agreed to call it an Islamic center instead of a mosque. Not that the name change wasn't an example of spin by its supporters, but if the argument is against culture rather than religion, then opponents need to drop the arguments that are directly aimed at the Islamic religion, such as the history argument (e.g. "for thousands of years Muslims have put monuments at the sights of their victories", etc).

 

And if that doesn't represent your view then perhaps you should re-think your earlier attempt to speak for all conservatives.

 

 

We DOT ALLOW the Mormon Religious concept of Polygamy into our culture (as of today), or the killing of people or animals by a few Sadist Religions and I personally frown on "Bible Baptist", which I'd rather not have in my town, much less neighborhood.

 

Sure, and if you want to talk about how hypocritical progressive liberals have been on this issue I'm happy to go there with you. They sure seem to love supporting religious freedom when it's NOT christians, don't they? Any other time it's whoa nellie, somebody stop the crazies!

 

But that's neither here nor there. As I said, I'm not arguing against their right to object, I'm arguing against their objection.

[mississippichem]

The city should have rebuilt the WTC twice as high as before, to show that we are not weak. Then they could have let them build the Mosque/Community Center nearby to show that we Americans are in fact a strong, tolerant, and freedom loving people. It would send a message to terrorist groups the world over:

 

If you push us down, we will stand again.

We will fight for our freedom, but will not sink to your level.

 

Whether any of this is true is up for debate, but I reckon that would send a positive message of strength and fairness to our enemy.

[ydoaPs]

Sure, and if you want to talk about how hypocritical progressive liberals have been on this issue I'm happy to go there with you. They sure seem to love supporting religious freedom when it's NOT christians, don't they? Any other time it's whoa nellie, somebody stop the crazies!

Um, no. Nice try, though.

 

Not that the name change wasn't an example of spin by its supporters

Name change? It's the Muslim equivelant of a YMCA.

 

http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm

[swansont]

swansont; If any right or PRIVLEGE, imposes on those of others, yet no law prevents that intrusion the only remaining recourse is for that society to speak up and fix that change in an orderly manner. This is the process offered by the Constitution and has been instrumental in most all change in the History of the US.

 

 

Which right, specifically, is being imposed on anyone else? Are New Yorkers going to be forced to attend the community center?

 

——

 

Question: what do we do with the half-dozen other places of worship that are about the same distance of Ground Zero, or closer? (Trinity, St. Paul's, John Street United Methodist, St. Peter's, Battery Park Synagogue, St. Josephs) Do they get torn down, or what? Are they "imposing" something on the citizenry?

[ydoaPs]

Which right, specifically, is being imposed on anyone else? Are New Yorkers going to be forced to attend the community center?

 

——

 

Question: what do we do with the half-dozen other places of worship that are about the same distance of Ground Zero, or closer? (Trinity, St. Paul's, John Street United Methodist, St. Peter's, Battery Park Synagogue, St. Josephs) Do they get torn down, or what? Are they "imposing" something on the citizenry?

Swansont, that's not fair. Most of those are Christian institutions; everyone knows Christians never do anything bad like molest children or blow up clinics.