Obama and the NYC "Ground Zero" Mosque

[Moontanman]

You know. I've really had it with the ignorance of the powers that be here, as well. Since when could an atheist rightly judge a religion? You wouldn't have the faintest clue about how the values and teachings cultivate such behavior as these extremists. I've seen it up close enough to see the righting on the wall. Now why doesn't mainstream Islam police itself, decry against terrorism? No, it's always "Islam is a peaceful religion," until someone develops a big enough ego to become the next Mahdi. Hello. Goodbye.

 

 

I agree with you Realitycheck, only another religious person could understand the cruelty and violence the religious are capable of. Building a church near a site where Christians did something terrible in the name of god is typical religious behavior and only the religious should understand why it's necessary to rub the faces of another religion in it.... Bravo!

[DJBruce]

Do you guys feel that this issue will have any political impact for either the upcoming mid-term elections or the next presidential election?

 

I have a feel like this may slightly benefit the Republicans in the mid-terms, but I doubt that it will play a large role. I see the boost coming from the fact that the Republicans will use it to attack President Obama and by association the Democrats as going against the will of the people, and will in some cases rely on fearmongering to gain a few votes.

 

As for the long term political impact I doubt it will effect President Obama. By the time the election comes around this issue will be long forgotten by most of the American people. However, I think that this issue could prove disastrous for some of the possible Republican nominees. For example, I can not see how Newt Gingrich will explain away the idiotic comments he has made on this issue, and I would be shocked if he even has a chance at the nomination anymore.

[Pangloss]

Do you guys feel that this issue will have any political impact for either the upcoming mid-term elections or the next presidential election?

 

Well as it turns out Rasmussen released some new polling data this morning that seems to address that very question. They sought to find out whether President Obama's odd injection into the debate has had an impact on the story and the upcoming election. And they compared it with data they collected before he waded in.

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2010/many_more_now_following_mosque_controversy_and_don_t_like_it

 

A lot more voters are paying attention to the plans to build a mosque near the Ground Zero site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City, and they don’t like the idea.

 

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 85% of U.S. voters say they are now following news stories about the mosque planned near Ground Zero. That’s a 34-point jump from a month ago when only 51% said they were following the story.

 

The new finding includes 58% who are following the story very closely, up from 22% in mid-July.

 

Ouch! The mosque controversy will definitely not make the highlight reel in Obama's presidential library.

 

But I tend to agree with you that it's a short-term issue. George Will said yesterday on This Week that it's an "August issue" (referring to the traditional political news slump period when federal politicians are at home in their districts preparing for fall re-election runs) and will be forgotten in a month. And it's hard to argue against the notion that the election will be about jobs and the economy.

[Mr Skeptic]

Exactly — it wasn't government censorship , i.e. not in violation of the first amendment, which was the context of my post.

 

Accomplishing via the carrot and/or the stick, wielded by the people, is the way the system works. If you don't like a business or activity you are free to boycott it or protest it, and the target of such activity may or may not decide to accommodate you. Happens all the time.

 

For example, if a large group of people were to decide to boycott any construction company that built the thing.

[Ringer]

Actually I agree a mosque shouldn't be built and at the same time Here is a map of where all Christian churches should be banned.

[jackson33]

This is like the murderer getting off on technicalities, gloating and sneering. [/Quote]

 

In response Sisyphus, to [agentchange/Realitycheck???] you said;

 

No, it really isn't. [/Quote]

 

Please explain a couple things for me; 1- If the money/power/people to create the means for the 9-11 attacks came from one source and then the money/power/people to create the means come that same source, for any monument/symbol/memorial, how could anything other than "gloating/sneering" be conceive, BY THE VICTIMS? 2- And the theme of those opposed to public opinion viewpoint; This monument is intended to bridge the gap between (Islamic Culture and Religion) and (Western Culture and Religion), what better place to DO EXACTLY THIS, than in Saudi Arabia/Iran or where ever terrorist are. No bridge is needed in a Free Country, where with in some very loose restriction, any religion can be promoted and practiced, where today and into the distant future no such things are EVEN POSSIBLE, in those mentioned places.

 

I don't know. Perhaps because he's moderate? That isn't sarcastic, because I really don't know, but I can definitely see the argument for how it could be a symbol that is both pro-American and pro-Islam, and hence especially aggravating to Al Qaeda types. [/Quote]

 

Under Islamic Culture, it's the Imam's privilege to use his (and I mean HIS) interpreting of the Koran to determine the meaning of most everything on any given day while that person is alive. This includes the Culture and Laws, the people will live with, regardless any figurehead (President/Monarch/Head of State) who by traditional/cultural laws must bend to the Imam's wishes.

 

Why where? It's not at ground zero, it's two blocks away. Where would be acceptable, if that close is SO offensive? And on what grounds is that decided, especially by a bunch of non-New Yorkers who have never even been there and have no idea what "two blocks" even means?[/Quote]

 

If it had been a Mosque prior to 9-11, nobody would be arguing your point. As far as I'm concerned Ground Zero, is what the US Population considers is the area. I doubt any building of anything that could be in any way be perceived a Memorial/Reward to the efforts of the attacking entity, would be opposed on any US Territory.

 

I have been to NYC on many occasions and anything in the area for many more than 2 blocks from the actual Twin Towers is considered the Financial Center of America. In fact if 9-11 had not been, this particular area and others, would have long been modernized and guessing this particular area a major, high income residential area, itself.

 

Do you guys feel that this issue will have any political impact for either the upcoming mid-term elections or the next presidential election?[/Quote]

 

Bruce, it remains my opinion this building will never be erected or attempted to be at the site now being considered. Even if the primary organizer (Imam Rauf) wishes to continue the fight, the actual owners of the property and liable to Con Edison for an annual lease are not going to turn down a profit, or take on the legal actions headed their way. What ever the motives might have been, those are and will be for a generation viewed as having been insensitive.

 

As for the 2010 Elections; Any political impact based on the Mosque, if any, will be demographically oriented. Older folks remembering WWII and Korea, some Jewish Folks that remember the formation of their State and its History, women who are aware of Sharia Law for females/children (even in this Country, to a lessor degree) and so on. Since many Senator and Representatives (both parties) have already voice their opinions according to the State/Districts, in November it might influence a half dozen House Votes, likely no Senate Races. There are simply too many other issues driving this years election.

 

The Elections of 2012, IMO are going to become very interesting but having nothing to do with the GZ Mosque, which should be long settled. Here I believe the Administration or those trying to guide Obama's campaign strategy into the elections, have a series of other problems and short of some major economical progress, I don't see Obama even gaining the nomination, much less winning the election. In fact, in my sometime conspiratorial thinking, I feel he might not even run in 2012, thinking he could do better in 2016 and probably right. Since whoever is in power or whichever party, they are going to be inundated with left over policy and their cost. Additionally, voting demographics will be much different by then, the Greatest Generation and a good portion of the "Baby Boomers" will be gone or retired and dependent for all Medical and/or financial assistance, not to mentions "Immigration Reform" which has to be address and a massive reduction in Social Services cut back or discontinued. Simply stated, by 2016 and for out of necessity what the Country must tackle 2011-2016, their might be an appetite for Socialism.

 

swonsont; Has the "backlash" begun?

 

"This is like a metastasized anti-Semitism," said Daisy Khan, wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. "That's what we feel right now. It's not even Islamophobia, it's beyond Islamophobia - it's hate of Muslims. And we are deeply concerned." [/Quote]

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7960454/Wife-of-Ground-Zero-mosque-imam-speaks-out-on-US-hate-of-Muslims.html

[Pangloss]

Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf gave a speech at Daniel Pearl's funeral. Some interesting quotes:

 

We are people of faith and perhaps people without any professed religion:

practicing and perhaps not. Today we are members of many faiths: Christian, Jew

and Muslim. But we have come together to confirm the common ground of our

faiths, on which we all stand united, to assert our common values, values that

constrain us to act in the highest sense of what it means to be human.

 

We are here especially to seek your forgiveness and of your family for what has

been done in the name of Islam.

 

But as you have asked of us, we are here to go further, and to affirm the value of

this service today both for the shaping of shared convictions and for the action that

we can accomplish together. Further, we intend to deepen our belief that effective

public engagement around difficult issues facing our faith communities can include,

and in fact, requires, our collective religious voices. From our own experience, we

affirm that multiple religious voices praying together can serve our deepest common

good.

 

Our conversations must continue where many end. Some of us may be suspicious

of the religious voices and believe that these voices ought to be kept out of public

discussion and policy. Others may fear that entering into constructive dialogue and

common ground with the “other side” must be wrong, sinful or at best useless and

naïve. We disagree.

 

Sure sounds like a bridge builder to me. Why anybody would cast aspersions on that, particularly without a shred of evidence, is beyond my comprehension.

[DJBruce]

I have to agree with you and say that Imam Rauf seems to be a bridge builder, and it seems that this has been his strategy all along, and is not just a ploy right now.

 

Here is a very nice New York Times article about the life and positions of Imam Rauf:

 

“To stereotype him as an extremist is just nuts,” said the Very Rev. James P. Morton, the longtime dean of the Church of St. John the Divine, in Manhattan, who has known the family for decades.

...

“He hurtles in, to the dead-center eye of the storm simmering around Muslims in America, expecting it to be like at his mosque — we all love each other, we all think happy thoughts,” Mr. Ahmed said.

 

“Now he has set up, unwittingly, a symbol of this growing tension between America and Muslims: this mosque that Muslims see as a symbol of Islam under attack and the opponents as an insult to America,” he added. “So this mild-mannered guy is in the eye of a storm for which he’s not suited at all. He’s not a political leader of Muslims, yet he now somehow represents the Muslim community.”

Edited August 24, 2010 by DJBruce

[Pangloss]

Thanks for passing that along, it was an interesting read.

 

I think that whole bit about him traveling in the Middle East at the behest of the US government is interesting. He's out there trying to fight what 60 Minutes recently called "The Narrative" -- the belief in the Middle East that Americans hate Islam and are actively trying to wipe it out through the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Obama administration apparently came up with the idea of sending him over there before the mosque fury broke, and that strikes me as a brilliant move. I hope it isn't undermined by this controversy.

[DJBruce]

I agree that it this seems like a good move by the Obama Administration. However, some pundits are already mischaracterizing this tour or are using it to stoke the fire. Some have apparently hinted that the State Department is hiding Imam Rauf. Others are suggesting somehow that this tour is a conflict of church and state:

 

"I think there is no place for this," said the Rev. Franklin Graham, who is the son of evangelist Billy Graham and opposes the Islamic center and mosque. "Can you imagine if the State Department paid to send me on a trip anywhere? The separation of church and state – the critics would have been howling."

 

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's Goodwill Tour Comes Amid 'Ground Zero Mosque' Furor

[Pangloss]

Yeah, but that's the same guy that said that Obama was born a Muslim because his father was Muslim and religion transfers with the father. (What, religion is a genetic disease now? Can't people decide what religion they want to be for themselves? And as if it matters anyway! Yeesh.) (Yeah I know, he was trying to explain why he felt that some people have the mistaken belief that Obama is a Muslim, but it was still a pretty knuckleheaded thing to say, IMO.)

 

I wonder if the CTR crowd is overplaying its hand here. I've seen some interesting signs of backing off the last couple of days. Todd Shnitt (who follows Rush Limbaugh in our market) was speaking out today against the Koran burning project, and even Mark Levin (a particularly vile night-time CTR worm who never met a straw man he didn't like) was sounding kinda conciliatory about Rauf as I was driving home tonight (or maybe I just didn't listen long enough). And I'm pretty sure Laura Ingram is smarting from Jon Stewart's revelation that she praised the mosque project back in December -- she seemed a lot tamer subbing for BOR tonight. Also, Rush Limbaugh (though I only heard him briefly) seemed to be mainly focusing on liberal demonization of conservatives peripherally to the mosque story, rather than the mosque project itself.

 

I'm thinking they may be feeling that they pulled the tiger's tale just a wee bit too hard on this one. But I could be wrong.

[swansont]

In case anybody missed it and wants to see, The Daily Show did a bit about this last week, and included a tape of Charlton Heston speaking about the NRA's decision to go forth with their convention in Denver soon after the Columbine shootings, over protests that it was insensitive (Heston part is at the end)

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homeland-edition

 

Alos, an observation I have seen a few places:

 

Al Qaeda : Islam :: KKK : (Protestant) Christianity

[DJBruce]

Great segment by the Daily Show. Probably one of the best and most moving Jon Stewart has done, and I would have to agree with Charlton Heston's opinion that we should not sacrifice what makes this country great because we are saddened over a tragedy.

 

Jon Stewart did another interesting piece last night were he discussed Fox News' coverage of the Ground Zero mosque and its funding. The piece plays off of some of the stuff in Swansont's video so you may want to watch that before you watch this one.

Edited August 24, 2010 by DJBruce

[jackson33]

I'm thinking they may be feeling that they pulled the tiger's tale just a wee bit too hard on this one. But I could be wrong. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss, maybe there are two things to consider; 1- There was no tail to pull, to begin with and some radical fringe groups are trying to carry this issue too far.

 

1- When the issue first broke, Rauf and the Cordoba Project were the assumed benefactors of the permit/project. Few realized this project was simple an investor in the Real Estate Company that bought the BC Factory (think $18,000, about like owning 5 shares of FMC) or that the RE Firm actually didn't own needed prime piece of real estate (Con Edison Property), probably lying to get that original permit. Soho Properties and/or the actual owners of the Property are NOT the controversy and are catching the undeserved wrath.

 

While I could make a case against Rauf and his personal history toward what IMO he considers a logical connection to the American DoI and Constitution to the Koran and the Islam culture (my opinion, there is none) this is not the issue. He, Soho or any entity in the US have certain rights or if you prefer Government cannot restrict, the purchase and building of anything otherwise legal on public land, with in the limitations of the jurisdictions laws (zoning etc). Even here, where I feel those permits were granted on falsely promoted credentials (must own the property), the request could be resubmitted when quantified and would out of precedence be properly granted.

 

(Aug. 18) -- The New York Observer has just published a profile of the developer behind Park51, better known as the controversial "Ground Zero mosque." And except for the fact that his religion happens to be Islam, it appears that 37-year-old Sharif El-Gamal, owner of SoHo Properties, is much like any other successful developer in the city. That...[/Quote]

 

http://www.aolnews.com/tag/soho-properties/

 

2- Movements to squash other new Mosque, for other reasons or other Anti-Muslim programs, have been building on the idea the "sensitivity issue" for GZ, should be extended to other areas around the Country. Those that oppose the current GZ Mosque on this particular site, whether based on "where the money is coming from", the sensitivity to the victims, the political issues or whatever the reason are not interested in starting any Anti-Muslim Movement.

 

Over the weekend Donald Trump, in a Telephone interview with Geraldo Rivera, pretty well confirmed what I've been thinking this thread and during the first thread on the issue. Simply stated the cost to continue the effort to build the GZM, at least for Soho RE/El-Gamal (Primary Owner) is simply not practical...Rivera, further thinks moving the site to East of Broadway, out of the Business District, yet still with in walking distance to GZ. would receive an entirely different public opinion review. I'll repeat then, there are probably a dozen developers including Soho, that could take the entire Park 51 Site, leased Con Edison property, buy up addition property on the block and develop IMO what would be a very high priced residential area, possibly including a Hotel. I'd almost bet Trump, himself would be in the middle of something like this and is already investigating.

[Pangloss]

Al Qaeda : Islam :: KKK : (Protestant) Christianity

 

It's a great comparison. The unfortunate rebuttal I've seen amongst conservatives is that the KKK no longer exists. It's unfortunate (IMO) because it doesn't recognize that this comparison shows two important things: That times when Christianity supported violent action are actually quite recent, and that the KKK was not eliminated through intolerance for Christianity!

 

(Though I think the point is better made in plainer English, so as to be more clear to those not inclined towards science and math. But of course then it's not as catchy.)

 

 

Jon Stewart did another interesting piece last night were he discussed Fox News' coverage of the Ground Zero mosque and its funding. The piece plays off of some of the stuff in Swansont's video so you may want to watch that before you watch this one.

 

Yeah I enjoyed that piece and I sought to make hay of it on a conservative forum last night, but I stopped when I realized that it didn't have much substance. The problem is that that guy isn't really an owner of Fox News Channel, he just owns some stock. Yeah he's the second-largest stock owner, but it's still only something like 7%.

 

Now if he sat on the board of directors or something then that might be useful. But that doesn't appear to be the case. I'm basically waiting to see if there is some evidence of his direct involvement in Fox News.

[pioneer]

Another way to look at this issue is connected to economics. It has been nine years and the too many bickering boneheads can't agree on what to build on the WTC site. NYC is broke and needs jobs. So out of frustration, the pivotal moment of crap or get off the pot, was reached. The Mosque project came along, scratched the right palms and offers an economic step move forward.

 

This may put a fire under the foot dragging bones heads, to finally crap and get off the pot. Now the bidding starts at about $250M. From a tactical point of view, the Mayor has all the cards and can play the hand backwards to a memorial project, making use of public outrage to gracefully change the site plans. He comes out looking clean and might still be able to get a secondary Mosque project somewhere else in the city. 2 for 1 economic deal.

Edited August 25, 2010 by pioneer

[Ringer]

Another way to look at this issue is connected to economics. It has been nine years and the too many bickering boneheads can't agree on what to build on the WTC site. NYC is broke and needs jobs. So out of frustration, the pivotal moment of crap or get off the pot, was reached. The Mosque project came along, scratched the right palms and offers an economic step move forward.

 

This may put a fire under the foot dragging bones heads, to finally crap and get off the pot. Now the bidding starts at about $250M. From a tactical point of view, the Mayor has all the cards and can play the hand backwards to a memorial project, making use of public outrage to gracefully change the site plans. He comes out looking clean and might still be able to get a secondary Mosque project somewhere else in the city. 2 for 1 economic deal.

 

You know that the community center is not actually at the WTC site

[jryan]

Imam Rauf is more complicated a figure than the two prevailing views of him. For myself, I read the Pearl speech and find it heartening, but then I read articles like this one and feel that the man just doesn't get it. He is a poor bridge builder and seems incapable of accepting his own council. He also has a bad habit of blaming the victim far too often. In fact, the Pearl speech is a bit of an outlier when it comes to positions he has taken that I can agree with.

 

That isn't to say that I don't agree with the notion that he is perfectly within his rights to build the mosque and community center. But it's not like I can't strong disagree with him doing so and find his expressed purpose for the center to be 180 degrees different than the actual outcome.

[DJBruce]

jryan, what in the article made you think that Imam Rauf "just doesn't get it"?

 

I read the article and found it very uplifting, and thought it was an excellent example of his attempts at bridge building and his renouncing of violent and radical acts. I mean looking at passages like:

 

Islam and Christianity are at their roots religions of peace and tolerance. A certain amount of competition will always exist among religions. Good competition is to compete in good works. Bad competition is trying to undermine the other faith

...

Fire bombing churches? From the beginning of Islam, the Prophet said our faith requires us as Muslims to protect houses of worship of all other faith traditions. Islam was able to spread throughout the world, not only because of its own ideas, but also because it protected people’s rights to practise religion freely.

...

Our goal must be living together harmoniously. Our goal is freedom of conscience.

...

And like him, we should all practise our religions in a way that does not provoke others.

 

I seems to me that Imam Rauf is doing an excellent job of being respectful to all religions, and asking everyone to simply respect each other.

[jryan]

It was this passage in particular:

 

My message to the Christian community in Malaysia is that using the word Allah to mean the Christian God may be theologically and legally correct, but in the context of Malaysia, it is socially provocative. If you want to have influence with people in Malaysia, you must find a way to convey your message without provoking this kind of response.

 

The message here is to not provoke the Islamists, even though in theory Muslims and Christians pray to the same God. Imagine a priest instructing American Jews to stop using the word "God" because some backwards Christians get upset... he wouldn't seem much like a bridge builder would he?

 

Rather than taking the opportunity to admonish the very real discrimination in Malaysia against the Christians he takes the side of the Muslims in principle but argues that burning down churches isn't the best response. This will accomplish nothing. He is taking the middle road on something that has no real middle road. "Ladies, you should stop dressing so provocatively, and to the gentlemen I say that raping isn't the way you should be relieving your frustration."

[Pangloss]

Imagine a priest instructing American Jews to stop using the word "God" because some backwards Christians get upset... he wouldn't seem much like a bridge builder would he?

 

I think that's a lot to read into a couple of sentences. If you know Malaysian culture well enough to know precisely how that paragraph will be read in that environment, and if the rest of his speech didn't qualify his remarks, fine. But otherwise I think that's a good example of what's been part of the problem here -- taking Imam Rauf's words out of context and extrapolating them into a critical conclusion. (Though I applaud you for not reaching as far-gone a conclusion as many on the right have been reaching.)

[DJBruce]

It was this passage in particular:

 

The message here is to not provoke the Islamists, even though in theory Muslims and Christians pray to the same God. Imagine a priest instructing American Jews to stop using the word "God" because some backwards Christians get upset... he wouldn't seem much like a bridge builder would he?

 

Imam Rauf recognizes the fact that Christianity has the right to use the word Allah. In my opinion all he is telling the Chirsitan community is that although they can use the word it might not be responsible for them to do so and that it will not advance their cause. I find nothing wrong with this message. He is not saying don't do this he is saying if you do use the word Allah realize that some might find it offensive, and is offending people really the goal of a religion.

 

Rather than taking the opportunity to admonish the very real discrimination in Malaysia against the Christians he takes the side of the Muslims in principle but argues that burning down churches isn't the best response. This will accomplish nothing. He is taking the middle road on something that has no real middle road. "Ladies, you should stop dressing so provocatively, and to the gentlemen I say that raping isn't the way you should be relieving your frustration."

 

As for this I cannot comment on the state of religion in Malaysia. However, taking what you say as truth I find that the Imam's speech is telling people to respect one anothers religion, and that any violent actions are wrong. He does not claim Christians. He simple tells them that the should recognize that their actions might be upsetting to some.

[jryan]

I think that's a lot to read into a couple of sentences. If you know Malaysian culture well enough to know precisely how that paragraph will be read in that environment, and if the rest of his speech didn't qualify his remarks, fine. But otherwise I think that's a good example of what's been part of the problem here -- taking Imam Rauf's words out of context and extrapolating them into a critical conclusion. (Though I applaud you for not reaching as far-gone a conclusion as many on the right have been reaching.)

 

 

Maybe so, but the news on the bridge building Imam doesn't get any better -- which is likely contributing to how I read his words. He is apparently also a slum lord, for instance. Which makes me really wonder how much he actually cares about his religion of peace and charity. He doesn't seem to practice it uniformly, at any rate.

 

Then there is the curious story of the waiter with a history of legal troubles who somehow managed to plunk down $5 million to buy the damaged building that will be replaced by the Muslim community center (so far from ground zero apparently that pieces of the building severely damaged the roof) and then promptly failed to make any tax payments on the land ($227,000 in arrears as of today).... but may still get $70 million in public funding for the mosque.

 

So for me it doesn't really matter what religion will be practiced inside the building for the deal to still stink... while also strongly questioning the Imam's methods of bridge building even IF he is on the up and up.

[Pangloss]

Maybe so, but the news on the bridge building Imam doesn't get any better -- which is likely contributing to how I read his words. He is apparently also a slum lord, for instance. Which makes me really wonder how much he actually cares about his religion of peace and charity. He doesn't seem to practice it uniformly, at any rate.

 

See there you go again, drawing conclusions based on facts not in evidence. There's nothing comparative in that article that would tell me how he rates against other building owners with tenants. And this is significant:

 

In response to the tenant complaints, Khan said: “All of these complaints are being addressed as they come up. Bedbugs: We fixed it. Every violation that comes up, we have addressed.”

 

Records show that in general the problems were resolved after complaints were lodged with officials; often, the problems reoccurred.

 

Khan blamed tenants for some of the problems at the Central Avenue building, where Balko lives.

 

“The tenancy is the kind of tenancy where there is vandalism,” Khan said, adding that they have had to repeat repairs.

 

So there are two sides to the story, not one, and yet you drew a conclusion -- that he doesn't practice his religion and charity uniformly.

 

The rest of the article only tells us about other people that the Imam did business with, which is pure guilt by association.

 

I'm sitting here wondering if I should even bother looking at your other three links. Won't this just be more of the same? And that's my point -- people are drawing conclusions based on hyperbole and agenda.

[ParanoiA]

So, the notorious "Steakhouse" killer murders an entire neighborhood after his T-bone steak tells him to do it and promises juicy fillets for eternity in the afterlife and the survivors erect a memorial for the neighborhood victims. Shortly after, Ryan's Steakhouse wants to build a restaraunt across the street from the infamous memorial. Bad taste? ( get it?...ok, that was stupid).

 

But seriously. I believe it would be the same kind of insensitivity and the same kind of opposition. Scale it up to a national event and it's a controversy. It's not that anyone believes Ryan's Steakhouse is evil, or had something to do with the neighborhood slaughter, or that eating steak is wrong or any such nonsense - it's the obvious symbolic connection. Sorry, but humans make these connections and as irrational as it may be to oppose a silly restaurant, I believe they would.

 

To pretend as if there's no symbolic, poetic connection to 9/11 and Islam is just as ridiculous as assuming Islam is an evil religion that caused 9/11. Both extremes serve both agendas. One does not have to oppose Islam in any way to oppose the insensitivity of forcing the issue. With the freedom to build this center will come the freedom to accept the consequences of a society that was dismissed. Also, those that oppose the center must accept the consequences as well - the sentiment won't be forgotten.

 

In an odd way, I think the builders are actually taking it too personally. The symbol of the terrorist's belief system is being rejected, not the people of Islamic faith. Feels very much the same, I understand, but it's more complicated than the overly simplified presentation we've been getting.