Ground Zero Mosque

RDM · 15 Jul 2010 at 17:09

Thiassi said:
This.

Sadly, your post will fall on many deaf ears.

Not really. It is idealism at its best where as the rest of us have to live in reality. In reality this is a stupid idea that will be seen primarily as an insult even if it isn't meant as such. Either the person that came up with it is stupid, or deliberately trying to provoke.

stulid · 15 Jul 2010 at 17:10

Ground Zero- where the first person got AIDS

lunarwolf · 15 Jul 2010 at 17:11

Hank_Marvin said:
They should build a huge multi-faith building to bring some unity.

not sure, i think a memorial at ground zero is enough and i don't think any religion should be involved. this is really putting oil on the fire.

Thiassi · 15 Jul 2010 at 17:13

RDM said:
Not really. It is idealism at its best where as the rest of us have to live in reality. In reality this is a stupid idea that will be seen primarily as an insult even if it isn't meant as such. Either the person that came up with it is stupid, or deliberately trying to provoke.

So...deaf ears then?

OriginalJonty · 15 Jul 2010 at 17:15

lunarwolf said:
not sure, i think a memorial at ground zero is enough and i don't think any religion should be involved. this is really putting oil on the fire.

It'd be better to have an interfaith community centre than a building that promoted one religion. At least then there is a platform for dialogue between different communities.

RDM · 15 Jul 2010 at 17:17

Thiassi said:
So...deaf ears then?

No, I read the post, I just happen to disagree with it. As I said, it is idealism. Do you honestly think a mosque there is going to improve relations?

lunarwolf · 15 Jul 2010 at 17:17

OriginalJonty said:
It'd be better to have an interfaith community centre than a building that promoted one religion. At least then there is a platform for dialogue between different communities.

you may be right and i agree with you that promoting dialogue is a good thing. I am just not sure that it would so close to the "wound" if you will allow that expression.

Deadbeat · 15 Jul 2010 at 17:18

RDM said:
Not really. It is idealism at its best where as the rest of us have to live in reality. In reality this is a stupid idea that will be seen primarily as an insult even if it isn't meant as such. Either the person that came up with it is stupid, or deliberately trying to provoke.

I see where you're coming from, and thanking whatever god you believe in that it's not the fatuous, puritanical stance of righteous outrage I was expecting (not from you specifically, but from posters in general), but the only thing that makes this a bad idea is the ignorance, fear and prejudice born thereof of the general population. To me, that's not a good enough reason to scrap the plans. Dragging these people into the glaring light and forcing them to really admit why they take such offence at the plan is the only way to really dispel separatism - just like AA, you can't get better if you don't admit you have a problem.

Edit: To summarise; it's radical, but radical in a good way that'll ultimately benefit the progression of intercultural cohabitation.

Edit 2: That was a really long time frame to still allow a ninja edit

Hank_Marvin · 15 Jul 2010 at 17:18

lunarwolf said:
not sure, i think a memorial at ground zero is enough and i don't think any religion should be involved. this is really putting oil on the fire.

I agree, but if one religions getting on the ground then all should have a chance.

sigma · 15 Jul 2010 at 17:23

Deadbeat said:
Personally, I can't think of any better structure to go on the site, especially since the proposed "inter-faith community center and mosque" sounds like a mosque with a dedicated goal of spreading information and understanding. These people need to remember that it wasn't Muslims who destroyed the WTC, it was actual, real-life terrorists - hate-mongering fanatics launching an attack against a culture with the express view of cowing and wounding a society which they violently oppose. As mentioned, thousands of people died on that day, and they weren't all white Christians. Ignorance of where to draw the line is why such racial and religious tension is still so prevalent among the panicky masses, and comments like the one quoted hammer home just how blurred people's understanding really is.

OriginalJonty · 15 Jul 2010 at 17:24

lunarwolf said:
you may be right and i agree with you that promoting dialogue is a good thing. I am just not sure that it would so close to the "wound" if you will allow that expression.

I suppose it could be seen that way but then again such a place of open dialogue could 'heal the wound' if you will.

RDM · 15 Jul 2010 at 17:25

Deadbeat said:
I see where you're coming from, and thanking whatever god you believe in that it's not the fatuous, puritanical stance of righteous outrage I was expecting (not from you specifically, but from posters in general), but the only thing that makes this a bad idea is the ignorance, fear and prejudice born thereof of the general population. To me, that's not a good enough reason to scrap the plans. Dragging these people into the glaring light and forcing them to really admit why they take such offence at the plan is the only way to really dispel separatism - just like AA, you can't get better if you don't admit you have a problem.

Edit: To summarise; it's radical, but radical in a good way that'll ultimately benefit the progression of intercultural cohabitation.

Edit 2: That was a really long time frame to still allow a ninja edit

And when this radical plan for peace backfires and causes even more problems for an already embattled community? Your idealism is admirable, but the execution of this particular plan is just plain stupid.

muon · 15 Jul 2010 at 17:27

So no mosques allowed in Lower Manhattan from now on? Otherwise it'll be near ground zero.

It's not literally at Ground Zero. It's also telling how protesters are having to come from around the country to build up numbers. New York itself clearly doesn't feel that outraged.

Deadbeat · 15 Jul 2010 at 17:27

Milkybk said:
Awful idea in my opinion. For once I can actually understand Americans getting angry, I would find this offensive. I visited the site when I was last in America and think it should be left pretty much how it is.

This is the sort of thing I would expect to happen in the UK though.

Why? Why should it be left as it is? I totally understand people's need to respect the event and honour the victims, but if you cut yourself, you don't keep the wound open. You do all you can to heal the injury, close the flesh, repair the damage and move past it. You'll always have the scar to remember it by, why not take what good you can from the experience, instead of leaving it open to fester?

Ok, got a bit carried away with the metaphor there, but I think it's applicable - on a physical & geographical level, and in a psychosocial sense too.

GJ02 · 15 Jul 2010 at 17:28

how on earth can this even be considered ?
if this happens things will kick off BIGTIME in the US

neoboy · 15 Jul 2010 at 17:28

I can sort of see the sentiment behind it, but out there in the real world I really can't see this raising any awareness and improving the relations of the community.

avec · 15 Jul 2010 at 17:30

Enough said.

starfighter · 15 Jul 2010 at 17:30

Abit dodgy yes, but it would help if people understood that islam and radical islam aren't the same.

It's a ******* mosque, not a terrorist training camp, assuming there are churches and synagogues what's the problem?

There are lots of muslims in NYC that probably pay tax.

deuse · 15 Jul 2010 at 17:31

OMG first they voted in a Half cast idiot in now this :mad:

If it does go ahead then I think some people in the Southern and Mid west states won't be to happy.