Ground Zero Mosque

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Suppose that a crazed group of fundamentalist Christians went to Saudi Arabia or Indonesia and committed a huge mass murder ostensibly in the name of their religion.  Suppose that the event was hugely traumatic for the citizens of the country.  If that happened and if a few years later another Christian group, let us even assume it was a Christian group that abhorred violence, proposed building a Christian church at the site or near the site I'd say, "hey, you're being a douchebag, build your church somewhere else and show some sensitivity". 

I embrace the right of people to practice their religion where and when they want and I wouldn't call on the government to block attempts to, say, build a mosque near the NYC Ground Zero site.  However, I also wouldn't be really gung ho about the idea and would think it's an obnoxious thing to do.   In other words, I think I mostly agree with the Anti-Defamation League upon whom all sorts of criticism is being heaped for being inconsistent and/or hypocritical.  I suspect this is another case of confusing the issue of whether or not X has a legal right to do Y with the question of whether or not X is morally justified in doing Y.  We should, of course, vigorously defend the rights of people to practice their religion in any way they see fit within the constraints of the law.  But just because I defend it doesn't mean I don't think they are being douchebags. It's perfectly consistent for me to vigorously defend your right to do Y and strongly oppose your doing it.

WDYT about the Ground Zero Mosque:  (a) morally and legally okay (b) legally okay, morally questionable (c) government should put a stop to it. (d) other?

Comments

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

If the Christians that did the bombing were fundies who take the bible literally and throw acid in the face of women who want education, and the Christians who wanted to build the church were Quakers or Universal Unitarians, I'd say that the people who are "annoyed" need to get a fucking grip on reality--and, uh, maybe learn something about the different groups within a religion.

There's, ya know, also the fact that it's a community center
And this community center *includes* a prayer room. But it also includes a fuckton of other stuff that nobody seems to be covering.

13-story Mosque? That's a lot of praying!

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I mean, for fucking real, if this community center were to remove the prayer room from the building, would this suddenly be OK?

Or is it that ignorant fucking hicks (who may or may not live in NYC--I've met some here) don't want them damn dirty sandniggers anywhere near the fallen Heroes of America?

I mean give me a fucking break.

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

My opinion: legally okay, morally okay, but in really bad taste.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think that things that are in really bad taste are immoral too, or morally blameworthy to use a less loaded term.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Your analysis is perfect.

Building the Mosque at that location is a Douchebag thing to do and shows at BEST extreme insensitivity and more likely the real motivations for at least some behind it's construction are in fact what conservative pundits claim (a memorial to honor Islam's great victory over America).

That said, government at no level (Federal, State, or Local) has any business banning it.

They have a right to build it. That doesn't mean it is an appropriate thing to do.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"to honor Islam's great victory over America"

What victory are you talking about?!

The people building the mosque are NOT Wahhabis! Shit, even if they, what victory? Getting the US to invade and kill untold numbers of innocent Muslims?

Oh yeah! Great fucking victory that was.

I mean...I know you're the raving liberal in your family, and like all of us, you think your own views are perfectly justified, but to stand up for the conservative pundits claims is beneath you.

[sailor-moonbeam.livejournal.com]

this is morally and legally okay. islam.ne.terrorism.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Classic:

"I embrace the right of people to practice their religion where and when they want and I wouldn't call on the government to block attempts to, say, build a mosque near the NYC Ground Zero site. However..."

"We should, of course, vigorously defend the rights of people to practice their religion in any way they see fit within the constraints of the law. But..."

You left out the bit where some of your best friends are Muslims, but hey, we can't have everything.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

So you reject my distinction between embracing the right to do X and thinking X is a good/proper/decent thing to do?

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Good thing Christians have never committed mass murder in the Middle East!

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

We all know Christians are peaceful people. They wouldn't harm a fly. (unless the fly performed abortions or was gay)

[rainynights.livejournal.com]

Legally I am sure its fine, morally however I find it disgusting. I do not think the government is the answer to every problem either.

Here is how I see it. They see how upset Americans are over this issue. They keep saying "We are trying to mend the wounds and build a bridge of friendship and get along."

Yeah not the way to do it.. It just is common sense to me. Even if they do build this monstrosity I do not see the building standing very long. I am sure some nut job or zealot will find a way to blow it up. Not that I would shed any tears =)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

WOW
you are an awful, awful person

[mijan.livejournal.com]

"Suppose that a crazed group of fundamentalist Christians went to Saudi Arabia or Indonesia and committed a huge mass murder ostensibly in the name of their religion."

Saudi Arabia doesn't have freedom of religion. The United States does. I'd like to think that makes us BETTER than Saudi Arabia.

When I think of American freedoms, I'd like to think that Americans could look at the freedoms granted to citizens by other nations, and be ABLE to say "We're still the pinnacle of freedom." However, we're not. More and more, other nations are pushing ahead of the United States in terms of their citizens' liberties. More and more, we're looking like a backwards bunch of religious nutbags in the eyes of the world. If we start restricting religious freedom because one group did something evil, where do we stop? Do we become a theocracy? Do we start relegating SOME religions to second-class status? If so, which ones? Who gets freedom of religion and who doesn't?

No, a group of Christians could NOT go to Saudi Arabia and build a church in the middle of the recovery site from a Christian-committed crime. But we're not Saudia Arabia, and thank fates, God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the ghost of Thomas Jefferson for that. I'd like to think we're better than Saudi Arabia. I think a barometer of that would be whether we continue to hold up our ideals of religious freedom, even if things get ugly. If we don't, then what's become of America?

As to your finally question - it's morally and legally okay to build a mosque near the site of the old World Trade Center. I think it would be good. People need to see moderate Muslims as part of the community, and I think seeing that would let people realize that these people are NOT the terrorists, and they mourn the losses of the victims of September 11th, too.

[majortom-thecat.livejournal.com]

(a) morally and legally okay

It sounds like it's going to be a pretty nice place. All of the nice and normal Muslims shouldn't be made to feel like they have to hide under rocks just because of what some crazies did.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

I would go with option B

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

What is morally questionable about it?

[blorky.livejournal.com]

Morally ok, legally ok, government shouldn't put a stop to it.

It's only in bad taste if you aren't smart enough to distinguish between terrorists and non-terrorists.

Minor notes
- there's a mosque in the Pentagon (whoops!)
- the argument about decency and sensitivity is predicated on a willingness to restrict other people's religious freedom. (RKBA people will recognize this as the "your carrying a gun makes me frightened so you should stop it".)
- this (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/08/bloomberg-stands-up-for-mosque.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+nydnrss/blogs/dailypolitics+(Blogs/The+Daily+Politics)) is a worthwhile read.

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

"It's only in bad taste if you aren't smart enough to distinguish between terrorists and non-terrorists."

If you can't figure out that sometimes people's emotional responses aren't always based on cold logic, I can see how you would think this.

[thies.livejournal.com]

I really don't get why there need to be ill fitting comparisons to other countries at all. The US has a constitution declaring freedom of religion. Unless these guys who want to build a community center are linked to terrorists it's retarded to banish them. That is, unless you want the US to be more like Saudi Arabia, beacon of freedom and all which is good in the world insha'Allah.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

just out of curiosity, did you read my post or only the first paragraph?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually the simpler response would be what if a Maronite with connections to the Phalange paramilitaries responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacres sought to build a Christian Church there? That's the actual equivalent. Not that the West gives a shit about Christians massacring Muslims in carload lots, to judge by responses to the Chechen and Azeri genocides.

That said I'd support it....as a propaganda move designed to discredit Bin Laden's apocalyptic ideas. This way it becomes a perfect Xanatos Gambit that sets the Fountainheads up to lose no matter what they do.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

(d) Other. Non-issue. Complete and utter non-issue. Only an issue because of a few shrieking haironfire conserva-twits with a very typically skewed sense of what "patriotism" actually means, and the press who is more than happy to write down whatever they say and print it verbatim because there is no more journalism.

It's not even a mosque and it's not even at ground zero. Leaving ground zero empty is stupid empty symbolism (which makes it again, typically American tyvm) when the best thing to do would be to build an even MORE ostentatious center of even MORE commerce and finance and name it The Fuck You Radical Islam World Trade Center and Pork-Roasting Barbecue Joint Where Alcohol Is Served By Naked Women Who Vote And Drive.

[thies.livejournal.com]

sidenote: wasn't one of the initial plans for the WTC site to include a community center representing all faiths?

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

You're comparison needs to add a layer -- the majority of the people making hay out of the alleged offense actually don't give a shit about the place that suffered the terrorist attack and under other circumstances constantly question the residents' morals, value to society and patriotism.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

And on top of this they couldn't possibly give less of a shit about the people who were permanently injured and/or debilitated while trying to rescue people from the wreckage.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

Actually, let me ask the question a different way. What distance would suffice for you not to be offended by the placement of mosque?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I asked a friend of mine who is opposed to it that question.
He said midtown/34th street.

My jaw fell to the 5th level of hell.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Hey, did you know that there was a daily prayer space in the WTC?

Yeah, and somewhere around 50 Muslims died when the towers collapsed so go figure that they might want a prayer space near to the old one.

FFS Americans are reactionary tools. Terrorists bomb buildings and we used that as an excuse to kill 200,000+ Iraqis who had nothing to do with it, pretend that never happened, and now whine about the building of a Muslim Community Center near the water-filled crater that is all that we've been able to put up for a 9/11 memorial.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

This is why terrorists bomb buildings, because it makes people do stupid things in return and polarizes the sides against each other.

[enasisabitch.livejournal.com]

so if a bunch of fundamentalist right wing Christians bombed a abortion clinic and 9 years later a completely different sect of Christians wanted to build a church a block or two away from it would that make them insensitive or does this only apply to Muslims?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The distance away sort of relates to the size of the building and the impact of the bombing on the area, so in your example, two blocks away might be sufficient where building in on the same block would be insensitive.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Muslims aren't any less crazy than Christians, so of course my answer is a).

I saw this on Fark

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Best article re-title ever:
Pay attention, butthurt teabaggery right-wing palinbots mad at the Mooslimosque at Ground Zero: know what's right around the bend from the Pearl Harbor memorial? A Shinto shrine.

Call-and-Response ownage:

Once Radical Islam has been beaten and they get their heads out of their asses and start acting like a civilized group of people like Japan did

Yeah! Once Islamics stop committing war crimes, mass raping, and killing POWs, they can upgrade in civility to groping women on trains and sleeping on their girlfriend pillows clutching the young girls' underwear they bought from a vending machine after watching a cartoon child get raped by tentacle demons!

And once they pass our arbitrary test that would allow them to do something they legally can do in our nation where they hate us for our freedoms, they can build a treehouse somewhere we dictate.

Re: I saw this on Fark

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

There's some Reverse Funny Aneurysm here when you realize that Japanese PMs have bowed to Shrines honoring WWII war criminals.......

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

I agree, it's a douchebag kinda thing to do. Trying to name it after Cordoba was another aspect of the douchebaggery. :P Legally they shouldn't be stopped but if they claim to be as reasonable ans sensible as they are they'd either move it or wait (at least until the new buildings are finished). Time healing all wounds and all that.

I remember when certain people tried to blame Oklahoma City on "hate talk radio" and get it banned/censored using that line of reasoning.

Funny how opinions change based on the situation, isn't it?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

IT'S. NOT. A. MOSQUE!!!!!!!!!

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

(c)*

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

(b) legally okay, morally questionable

There's nothing wrong with a mosque being built in NYC, but that particular building that they're tearing down had a small part in the 9/11 attack. It should be turned into a remembrance site (since they have yet to construct the memorial that was promised at the Ground Zero site itself)

[foolsguinea.livejournal.com]

a) morally & legally okay.

1. I don't think these are the same sect & culture as Atta's bunch. Those guys weren't building any mosques.

2. I want those Muslims to see the reminders of what extremism does as they leave their place of prayer. If the mosque is in fact radically anti-Western (it doesn't seem to be) or later becomes so, then I'm glad it's RIGHT THERE. A congregation further away could be tempted to forget or distort the reality.