WTC Mosque Part Four!!!

CNN has this roadside blog of a couple of Muslims, a Southern white guy, and an African-american driving thru the South during Ramadan. Kind of interesting for some perspective on this thread, I think: http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/08/30/ramadan.roadtrip/index.html?hpt=C2

Aman has seen this country before. Although he's an award-winning journalist for Gannett News Service, he's also a standup comedian who's traveled a lot. Once, in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, he went into a convenience store. The white guy at the counter walked away, he says, and hollered in the back: "We've got a colored! We need you to serve him." A black man came to take his money.

It's a good thing they didn't have harmless model rocket parts in their trunk after being pulled over by the local police near a military base.

"What it means to be Muslim in America?" she says. "It means to be modest, to be humble."
Blacks in the South learned that lesson long ago.

As the two zipped along the dark highway toward New Orleans, their next planned stop, a police officer in Biloxi, Mississippi, pulled out and followed them for about 15 minutes.

"So tell me," he says, "what do you think about that ground zero mosque?"

Bassam sat, frozen. He and Aman had intentionally avoided driving at night previously, partly for fear of being racially profiled. The answer to this question, he thought, is going to decide whether we're going to spend the night in Biloxi or in New Orleans.

He decided to give the cop the answer he thought he wanted to hear. "For them to build it by ground zero is very insensitive," Bassam said. "... Isn't it just a slap in the face?"

The cop eased up. "I'm not pro-religion or anything, but that's just wrong for them build it there." He sent the two on their way.

"I just sat there wondering, 'Did that just happen?' " Aman told me later.
Sounds like all Muslim-Americans should have bumper stickers that say "I hate the Ground Zero Mosque".
 
Not everyone runs away like you did from those hispanics.

Yeah, I suppose I could have tried violence. Is that what you are suggesting?

Give it a rest. Its my personal life, and I dont have to make excuses to you or anyone else around here.

Sure, you "saved" your family, but that doesn't help the next family to move in after you left. If people keep their heads down things don't magically get better on their own. While the cowards are heading for the hills the real progress is being made by the guys standing their ground. Which is exactly what these muslims are doing.

Except I and my other neighbors didnt keep our heads down at all. In fact, we reported them to the police every chance we got. The frustration came from the authorities not doing their job.

Islam isn't a symbol of 9/11 or terrorism in general, so basically the "protesters" have nothing to be offended about.

I disagree with you on that point. The overwhelming prevlance of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism is indeed making terrorism associated with Islam in general. To deny that is simply to deny that the vast majority of modern day terrorist acts are commited by muslims around the world.

If they are then tough cookies, they'd better man up and educate themselves. These muslims can't possibly do without a mosque in the area where they live and work

As has been previously mentioned, its hardly the only mosque in the area.

so moving away to appease the ignorant is unacceptable (and won't be happening, no matter how much of a tantrum the "protesters" have).

We'll see.

Basically the muslims win, and bigot tears are so delicious. QQ

If you think this is a 'win' for them, then I dont think you comprehend the situation very well.
 
And this applies to the forum-at-large. It's a term we're altogether too fond of, and we are steadily devaluing it.

I don't think so. If anything, the far more persistent and troublesome trend is people who refuse to acknowledge or apologize for logical fallacies, or of course those who like outright lie. I would say it's far more likely to see fair criticism of a strawman or similarly fallacious argument ignored than it is for inaccurate criticisms to be put forward in the first place.
 
And such community centers are referred to as being part of a church, and are most often claimed as part of the churches non-profit status.

And it's been pointed out that in this case, the mosque and community center will be 2 separate non-profits. One a community center, and the other a mosque.

Park51 said:
While a mosque will be located in the planned final structure of Park51, it will be a distinct non-profit. Neither Park51 nor the mosque, which hasn’t been named yet, will tolerate any kind of illegal or un-American activity or rhetoric. The final size and location of the mosque have yet to be determined, but it will only represent a small portion of the final structure.


 
@Forma: Them being reporters, they almost assuredly made up the entire story of being pulled over. I'll refuse to believe that incident until I see videotape of it. Reporters lie to create stories, period.
 
And it's been pointed out that in this case, the mosque and community center will be 2 separate non-profits. One a community center, and the other a mosque.

Actually, this remains to be seen. I strongly suspect you are wrong since the Cordoba group is doing all this, and when such projects are usually done in this manner, they all go under a single non-profit group.

However, if this is the case, then why not just drop the Mosque portion of the building while claiming compassion for the victims of 9/11, move forward with community relations via the community center = profit?

Sounds to me like you are making argument that stopping the mosque would be easy...as opposed to saying 'this mosque MUST be built'....

If the mosque is entirely secondary to the project, and not that big a deal, then nix it and lets get past this issue...
 
They may usually go under a single heading, but explicitly not in this case.

And we get to the heart of the matter - somehow a mosque is not "compassionate". Somehow there is or should be a "Mosque-free zone" in a several-block radius around Ground Zero, which is bigger than the "Strip Club-free zone" among others.
 
I'm glad to see the "Help Increase MobBoss' Post Count" thread is still going strong.

Is there any actual new news on this? Has FOXNews relocated its headquarters somewhere outside of the country yet? You know, it is rather insensitive of a terrorist supporting organization such as FOXNews to remain in our country so soon after 9/11.
 
@Forma: Them being reporters, they almost assuredly made up the entire story of being pulled over. I'll refuse to believe that incident until I see videotape of it. Reporters lie to create stories, period.
What part do you have so much difficult believing? That a white cop in Mississippi would profile 3 dark-skinned individuals in a car with out-of-state license plates? Or that he would let them go after one of them properly reinforced his own prejudices?

And no, the vast majority of journalists aren't fiction writers. If they are, they are typically discovered quite soon when obvious inconsistencies are eventually resolved. Or they work for organizations where creative story telling is seen as being a prerequisite. I don't think that can be said about CNN. Plus, in this particular case, it would require collusion amongst four different people.
 
If the mosque is entirely secondary to the project, and not that big a deal, then nix it and lets get past this issue...

Because

1. The mosque *isn't* a big deal
2. They are already using the space to pray, so not much would change.

and

3. It would suck if they lost prayer space
 
Actually, this remains to be seen. I strongly suspect you are wrong since the Cordoba group is doing all this, and when such projects are usually done in this manner, they all go under a single non-profit group.

However, if this is the case, then why not just drop the Mosque portion of the building while claiming compassion for the victims of 9/11, move forward with community relations via the community center = profit?

Sounds to me like you are making argument that stopping the mosque would be easy...as opposed to saying 'this mosque MUST be built'....

If the mosque is entirely secondary to the project, and not that big a deal, then nix it and lets get past this issue...

I was more implying that your 'follow the non-profit status' logic didn't hold up.

The mosque needs to be built there because there is a community of muslims there which is far too large for the mosque that is currently there. If they moved this mosque to jersey or the upper west side, then there would still be the same need for a mosque in lower manhattan. (also, the protests would continue regardless, as the other anti-mosque movements show)

Imagine if your church was full to the point where people were forced to worship outside and in the abandoned store a few blocks away. You'd want a new church built, right? Would you want that church to be in the abandoned building (already owned by your church) a few blocks down the road; or would you gladly buy a new property for it 30 minutes away based solely on objections of people who conflate christianity with catholic-style child abuse? Would you still be as accommodating to the 'majority' if they were picketing your church and calling it a 'child-abuse training center"?
 
I was more implying that your 'follow the non-profit status' logic didn't hold up.

Remains to be seen. And I already admitted my point gets weaker if the organizations within the building are treated as separate charities, but I have not seen any proof that is actually the case.

The mosque needs to be built there because there is a community of muslims there which is far too large for the mosque that is currently there. If they moved this mosque to jersey or the upper west side, then there would still be the same need for a mosque in lower manhattan. (also, the protests would continue regardless, as the other anti-mosque movements show)

Actually, there have already been offers of adequate space by several parties trying to compromise the situation to quell things down.

Imagine if your church was full to the point where people were forced to worship outside and in the abandoned store a few blocks away.

Actually, I have been a member of churches where they did indeed 'outgrow' their facilities. Its not uncommon.

You'd want a new church built, right?

Depends, most churches dont have the cash required to build new. Most simply upgrade into previous space created by other churches growing as well.

Would you want that church to be in the abandoned building (already owned by your church) a few blocks down the road; or would you gladly buy a new property for it 30 minutes away based solely on objections of people who conflate christianity with catholic-style child abuse?

Well, since a church like this either lives or dies by its community presence, I would advise a church board to move into the area which would promote more growth among the community as opposed to alienating it. Given that the mission of a church is to outreach to the non-religious, it doesnt make much sense to piss a community off right from the beginning.

At least to me it doesnt.

Btw, 30 minutes away isnt that far to go to church. Finding a church that you really like and feel at home in is hard, and its well worth driving 30 minutes to one if you actually happen to find one.

Finding such a church is like driving your kid to another school district to go to a better public school. Its worth the time it takes to get there.

Would you still be as accommodating to the 'majority' if they were picketing your church and calling it a 'child-abuse training center"?

Absolutely. Those are the people Jesus has told us to try and save. I would do my best to educate them, assuage their fears and build bridges with them. Not piss them off and simply be inconsiderate of their feelings. That's simply not how 'building peace' works....
 
Btw, 30 minutes away isnt that far to go to church. Finding a church that you really like and feel at home in is hard, and its well worth driving 30 minutes to one if you actually happen to find one.
Oh, you crazy Protestants with your "choice" and "happiness". :crazyeye:

Edit:

Given that the mission of a church is to outreach to the non-religious, it doesnt make much sense to piss a community off right from the beginning.
Is it? Can't say it's been that way in my experience. Perhaps it's merely because I live in the UK, so most people's religious orientation is generally defined by personal heritage, particularly in areas- like the West of Scotland- with traditionally prominent ethnoreligious communities. Most organisations are certainly open to converts, but only the more evangelical Protestant sects are actually interested in active proselytising.
 
A 30 minute drive is nothing. You weird city people who think it's a long drive are just goofy in the head :)
 
Well, I have usually had to drive around 20 minutes to get to church . . .

If they were building a new one 5 minutes from me (and bear in mind, Muslims can go as often as 5 times per day, not just a few times a week) and people protested, for no good reason other than the fact that other people were also protesting, I would start finding that 20 minute drive unnecessary.
 
Well, since a church like this either lives or dies by its community presence, I would advise a church board to move into the area which would promote more growth among the community as opposed to alienating it.

A church lives and dies by its community presence... but you'll be hard-pressed to make an argument decreeing the church would die when there's so much demand for the church from believers that they seriously need an expansion/rebuilding, just because there are a bunch of people with wrong opinions protesting against this expansion/rebuilding.

Given that the mission of a church is to outreach to the non-religious, it doesnt make much sense to piss a community off right from the beginning.

That's certainly one of its missions. I would say a more primary mission would be to facilitate church services to the believers. People don't go around building churches for non-believers. They do it for the believers that want a place of worship, and a community of their own.

You also have to consider your demographic. Who are you appeasing? Is it relevant people? You'll be hard-pressed to make an argument for appeasing a group of people that are wrong in their opinions, especially when most of these people wouldn't be that appeased anyways either. (Think mosque - most of those people are bigots and would still hate Islam)
 
Muslims can go as often as 5 times per day, not just a few times a week)...
I think this is a very important point. There should be mosques all over downtown Manhattan, or anyplace else were a large number of Muslims can be found.
 
Newsweek just had an article about the community center that will have a mosque in it:
Newsweek article said:
“By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor,” Taliban operative Zabihullah tells NEWSWEEK. (Like many Afghans, he uses a single name.) “It’s providing us with more recruits, donations, and popular support.”

Zabihullah also claims that the issue is such a propaganda windfall—so tailor-made to show how “anti-Islamic” America is—that it now heads the list of talking points in Taliban meetings with fighters, villagers, and potential recruits. “We talk about how America tortures with waterboarding, about the cruel confinement of Muslims in wire cages in Guantánamo, about the killing of innocent women and children in air attacks—and now America gives us another gift with its street protests to prevent a mosque from being built in New York,” Zabihullah says. “Showing reality always makes the best propaganda.”
Here is the link:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/30/taliban-using-mosque-controversy-to-recruit.html

It looks like the Islamophobes are aiding the enemy.
I seem to remember the people who aren't opposed to Park51 have been saying this almost since the get-go.
 
Is it? Can't say it's been that way in my experience. Perhaps it's merely because I live in the UK, so most people's religious orientation is generally defined by personal heritage, particularly in areas- like the West of Scotland- with traditionally prominent ethnoreligious communities. Most organisations are certainly open to converts, but only the more evangelical Protestant sects are actually interested in active proselytising.

Try actually reading the bible. Its amazing what you can learn by doing that. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom