I've yet to find anyone in my circle of family, friends, etc. who supports the burning of the Qurans...

Regarding the Islamic Ctr. near the 9/11 "ground zero."

There's no question its controversial. The question I ask myself is it worth it? Muslims have lived, in peace in this Country for quite awhile. Many if not most have moved here deliberately to live in a more tolerant society. If we as a people decide for whatever reason, that they're not welcome here or there or there, then we're on shaky ground.

Let's agree we don't want them 5 blocks from the ground zero. What about 8 blocks? What about 10, 15 or 20...at what point does it go from being reasonable to being racist? Who decides what's reasonable?

Muslims died that day in those towers and in our Pentagon as well. Not to mention in both wars abroad. There have been Muslim Calls to Prayers in the Pentagon on a daily basis since a month after the attacks. Not a mile away, not 2 or 5 or 10 miles. Right on the land where people died from the attack in DC. Now, no ones asked to build a Islamic Community Center or a Mosque on the Pentagon property, but you get my point, right?

My friends in NYC are unanimous that after careful and in-depth vetting of this Imam and his associates, if everything comes back clean, then as Mayor Bloomberg said, we should apply our American Values and embrace them. His speech really resonated with me and most of my friends in NYC. It appeals to the best within us. It doesn't advocate recklessness but it does speak to our "exceptionalism." To shun them, provided they pass muster, I think exposes our weak, fearful and unattractive underbelly.

Could it all turn out bad? Yes, it could...But if we start filtering out who can and can't be an American based on religion, then we've really lost something special.

If there's any resistance on their part to undergoing background checks, and a look into their finances, then its a deal breaker. We can't & shouldn't ignore what happened on 9/11. If they want to build a center that close to ground zero, then they'll need to understand the special circumstances that go along with it.

------------------
Bill in Dayton

Yikes! I haven't posted on this thread since may. Here it is August and still going strong. Wow.

To my way of thinking, Islam has just not developed or evolved yet to the level of some other religions. Islam still cuts off people's noses and stones people and kills doctors who are accused of spreading Christianity. Christianity once did brutal things too, but really not so much these days. Islam seems to not quite be over that though. Even though many muslums don't agree with those things or practice them, it still seems to be going on more in the Islam religion than any other well-established religion. So it still has some growing up to do.

There is no good way to stop the building project near ground zero. I think it's distasteful personally, but it certainly shouldn't be illegal.

Regarding the Islamic Ctr. near the 9/11 "ground zero...

Bill and Russ, these are two of the best posts I've ever read. I wholeheartedly agree.
--------------------------------------------
Bill, yes, I remember the thread on NHC. That's why I mentioned that we've learned more about each other here in the Bar then we ever did on the General Arranger Forum. I am happy that the Bar has taken a new dimension.

It's not often that I have the opportunity to talk about what interests me. Superficial talk bores me to death. So do endless posts on gear. Ha! Ha!

Let me also take this opportunity to say that I have as much respect for Mr. G as I do for you. I don't know him on a personal level so I have no reason to dislike him.

Different opinions make life so much more interesting. Compromise is a pillar of society, for it restores harmony, overcomes distrust and suspicion, and leads to cooperation. It's not an ideal world and probably never will be, but at least we can try to make to make it better. I like to tell people that I learned more from a rainbow than I have from anyone else. Think about it...
--------------------------------------------
On a slightly different note, I thought it'd be interesting to let this thread evolve into what I call a "natural converation evolvement". In other words, let a conversation run its own course into whatever topic instead of sticking to the same topic and then call it quits. I've never quite liked abrupt endings or the need to start new threads. It'll let us cover many subjects without the need of multiple threads. What'd you guys think?

Regards

Taike

ps. I just noticed the "sad" emoticon. I must've inadvertently clicked on it. Just disregard it. Thx.

------------------
Bo pen nyang.



[This message has been edited by Taike (edited 08-14-2010).]

Published on Tuesday, August 10, 2010 by CommonDreams.org

A �Mosque� Should be Built at Ground Zero
by Brita Rose

Almost a decade since 9/11 it is surprising how little we have learned. Still plagued by xenophobia and Islamophobia in the U.S., it is hard for many Americans to identify who the enemy actually is in this so-called �war on terror'. Sadly nothing has brought this to light more clearly than the current controversy over the supposed Mosque to be built at Ground Zero. The troubling aspect of this controversy is that it is not about merely a mosque; it is about Muslims in America, religious freedom and America's character as an immigrant nation. This is only reinforced by the epidemic of mosque controversies we see nationwide.

Firstly, the debate itself is riddled with inaccuracies. The proposed building - now called �Park 51 Project' - is to be not only a mosque, but a Cultural Center backed by the Cordoba Initiative1 and will contain a prayer room among its many facilities. Thereby even use of the term mosque for such a space is up for debate. Secondly, the building will not be at Ground Zero, but two blocks away and dwarfed by surrounding skyscrapers. Thirdly, there over 100 mosques in New York City - one of which already exists four blocks from Ground Zero. Following the detractors' reasoning these mosques should be eliminated.

But each of these facts misses the point. Were they not the case, we should still be asking what is the true objection here - given that the religious/cultural center in question is being built by legal permit cleared by the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission in a country founded upon religious freedom? What is wrong with building the center at Ground Zero? In fact, a facility that promotes moderate Islam, fosters religious tolerance, and encourages greater understanding is precisely what is needed at the re-emerging site. This Islamic cultural center offers the perfect antidote to radicalism and the opportunity for co-existence and cooperation. Our sense of humanity, justice and freedom ought to demand it. As writer Pierre Tristam expresses, "it should be an integral part of the rebirth of ground zero because that's what America stands, or ought to stand, for."

We do not have to look back very far to be reminded that we can co-exist, as did Jews, Christians and Muslims in the city of Cordoba (the very place after which The Cordoba Initiative was named), a flourishing culture of 10th century Spain that was the envy of the medieval world. The promoters of Park 51 are the kind of Muslim moderates that Americans, particularly conservative critics, should be welcoming with open arms. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a Sufi, the mystical and pacifist branch of Islam, and his statement following 9/11 was in no way an endorsement of violence, but rather a geo-political explanation. His wife, Daisy Khan, won an Interfaith Center Award for Promoting Peace and Interfaith Understanding. According to its stated mission, the Cordoba Initiative they founded has the stated mission of striving for "mutual recognition and respect." In the Imam's statement the new complex is to be "a landmark in New York City's cultural, social and educational life, a community center to promote the American values we all aspire towards and to realize a better city for all." In Daisy Khan's words its aim is "to reverse the trend of extremism and the kind of ideology that the extremists are spreading."

We hear the case for extending sensitivity towards those who lost loved ones in the 2001 attacks, but what are the implications of this argument. Implicit in such rhetoric is a direct connection between those Muslims involved in the cultural center and the terrorists who commit heinous acts of terror, such as those of 9/11, and a false assumption that they are complicit in some way. So Muslims should forfeit their religious freedoms in order to kowtow to such false sentiments under the guise of sensitivity or consideration for the feelings of others. What about showing sensitivity and respect to the peace-loving and law-abiding Muslims who condemn terror in all its forms, who contribute to this society and, who too pray at Ground Zero for the family members they lost that day.

So what is at the heart of the matter? People are still resorting to the simplistic and reductionist idea that Islam is a monolithic religion. They assume that those Muslims who do not subscribe to the methods of Al-Qaeda and the like are still in some way culpable for these acts of terror; that if an individual does not explicitly support international terrorist groups, by virtue of being part of Islam as part of a collective enemy, they must in some implicit form either fund, support, or give silent consent to terrorism. This could not be further from the truth. Of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world today the vast majority are moderates who have nothing to do with the extremist ideology of Al-Qaeda. Islam itself constitutes a plethora of traditions that have not only changed throughout the centuries, but that vary from country to country. The overtly political Islam of today's Islamists is a reaction to a number of 21st century political realities that are steeped in a complex history of geopolitical relations and tensions between the Arab/Muslim world and the West. On top of this, the interpretation and application of the Quranic text varies among individuals and groups across the spectrum of Islam. Those who take the �lesser jihad'2 surahs3 as a call to arms against both the West and mainstream Islam, subscribe to a specific version of Islam and are anathema to most Muslims. As Author Kamran Pasha reminds us, "truth is a treasure that is often buried in a minefield of complex facts that is just too much trouble to explore for most people."

While it is completely understandable that people react viscerally to issues surrounding 9/11, and are often coming from a place of genuine emotion, reactions from the political right, such as the current opposition to the proposed building, are not only insulting to Muslims, but given that they are based on ignorance, hatred, and fear, they are downright dangerous. The mainstream, moderate, progressive Muslim community is our most effective ally against extremist, radical, militant Islamists, who have no more to do with mainstream Islam than the Crusaders have to do with the message of Christianity. By discriminating against Muslims and Islam at large, we discredit ourselves and give credence to the very extremists we wish to undermine, and thereby only encourage others to join their ranks. Such bigotry only reinforces their claim that the West hates Islam and will stop at nothing to destroy it. Make no mistake this type of collaboration advanced by the planned initiative is not what the radicals want. It undermines their agenda and sends an alternative message to those who might be enticed by their own death-cult ideology, both at home and abroad.

Reactions to the innovative Cordoba Initiative - a progressive group which promotes peace and cross-cultural understanding - are very telling. Clearly we are at a loss when the dominant Manichean4 type, fundamentalist narrative of �black and white', �us and them' in a �clash of civilizations' does not add up. Such a worldview undermines the presumption of both radical Muslims and xenophobic non-Muslims, that the West and Islam are inevitable enemies, which in turn threatens to invalidate much of our foreign policy. Fighting extremism will take a far more nuanced approach than that offered in this type of reductionism. You do not win hearts and minds with oppression and discrimination, neither of which reflect our values as Americans.

From a historical perspective, Islam in New York began near Ground Zero, where one of the first Arab-American communities settled. Christians and Muslims from Ottoman Syria migrated in the 1880s as some of the earliest Arabic immigrants to America. As writer Edward Curtis also points out, shrouds at the African Burial Ground (discovered in 1991) six blocks away from the proposed community center suggest that Muslims were also among those enslaved people who helped build Manhattan. Over half a million Muslims now reside in New York City, and the anti-Muslim rhetoric flooding the media over this issue is a slap in the face to the many Muslim immigrants, past and present, who, like other immigrant communities living and working in the city, came here for freedom and opportunity. The best testimony for the area would be churches, synagogues and mosques co-existing in peace.

Any Christian, rightly so, would denounce the brutality of the medieval Crusaders and point out that they have nothing to do with Christianity, despite what the Crusaders themselves believed. And rightly so, most Muslims today do not blame the entire Christian community for the actions of but a segment. The Crusaders' atrocities provoked the Sultan Saladin to defeat Jerusalem in the 12th century, but instead of retaliation, what they received instead was amnesty, protection, and access to Christian holy sites. Many who pride themselves as being part of a �Christian nation' yet advocate the bigoted fear-mongering that we are currently hearing from the likes of Pat Robinson, seem unaware of the following irony. As Saladin would no doubt recognize, such thinking has nothing to do with the true teachings of Christ, who taught us to love our enemies, welcome the stranger, and have mercy on those who are marginalized.

Saladin's legendary magnanimity confounded those who were convinced that Muslims were entirely barbaric, and they were forced to re-think their perceptions. He was able to overcome the emotional impulse to scapegoat and implicate the entire group for the actions of but a few. He was able to discern truth from error, and our reaction to this issue and our treatment of our neighbors as a whole, will determine whether or not, we, are able to do the same.

------------------
Bo pen nyang.

Nice article...Most of the points I've heard elsewhere but the author did a nice job of bring them all together, along with a few points I'd yet to read anywhere.

Two things...

Most Americans are ignorant. I don't say to disrespect anyone but most people don't make much of an effort to learn about issues like this, the historical context, etc. We're too happy to flick on our favorite cable news channel or talk show for 20 minutes, accept most if not all of what we hear and then feel as if we're informed.

Most of us aren't.

I try to follow politics on a daily basis and the one thing I've discovered is that there's always another layer to peel back for more info or insight.

The other point I want to make is while the Constitution protects their right to proceed on that location, it would be a very smart marketing move to simply find another spot simply out of politeness and respect.

------------------
Bill in Dayton

[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 08-16-2010).]

I can't help but agree with you, Bill.

Very few people actually know what the Crusades were really about. One major factor is that textbooks are very one-sided. It's the main reason why I was never a fan of history textbooks. Too much whitewashing going on while the real facts are either obliterated or mere footnotes that aren't part of the curriculum.

Taike

------------------
Bo pen nyang.

So long as someone builds a barbecue shack right next door to the mosque, I'm totally cool with it. I think smelling pork cooking on a smoker would be so appropriate while praying. My point is, it's just a little insensative.

Rory, it's not a mosque but a cultural center.

Do you think it's fair to blame each and every Muslim for what a couple of fanatics have done because this is pretty much what it amounts to, IMO.

I'm afraid that many prefer conflict over peace.

Taike



------------------
Bo pen nyang.

A few thoughts...

1) I too have been confused by is it a mosque or not question? My reading tells me its a 13 story cultural ctr. with a large performance hall, meeting and classroom, a gym and yes, a small mosque as well. There won't be any spires or any other trademark architecture associated with it.

2) I think Rory's just making a point, but its kind of a crass one. While this cultural center offends some people, its intention is NOT to. Its mission is to "build bridges" and bring various denominations and races closer together. Under Rory's example, the pork eatery would only be put there to offend.

I understand he was kidding, but I hear this stuff over and over again. Pork eateries, gay bars, etc. Its the sort of flip, cocky, confrontational remark that a lot of conservatives are making these days that does them no good, IMO.

------------------
Bill in Dayton

As long as we blame innocent people for what a couple of fanatics have done, we're as much to blame as the fanatics.

Christianity hasn't always shown its good side as history will tell. Most countries outside of Europe would have enough cause to ban the christian faith, the erection of churches or other houses of worship.

I think we should all sit back and do some serious pondering and soul searching.

Taike

[This message has been edited by Taike (edited 08-17-2010).]