Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

A Mosque at ground zero. Options · View
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, September 11, 2010 8:35:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
DamonX
Posted: Saturday, September 11, 2010 8:48:25 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 798






I hope someone else with a bit of knowledge or intelligence points out the innacuracies of this travesty of cartoonish ignorance. I would do so...but I don't want to be accused of flaming...angel7
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, September 11, 2010 9:28:02 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
chefkathleen wrote:

I am appalled that so many of my friends are against the mosque near Ground Zero. We should allow it in order to promote tolerance.



I propose that a gay nightclub be opened next door to the mosque to promote tolerance in the mosque. We could call it "The Turban Cowboy" or "You Mecca Me Hot".



Next door could be a butcher shop that specializes in pork and across the street a very daring lingerie store called "Victoria Keeps Nothing Secret”.

Just sayin.


LOL- I agree, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and any possible objections by Muslim worshipers over those kinds of businesses would be just as bogus as the ones people are claiming now ("hallowed ground!").

Also, the lingerie and butcher shops will fit right in between the strip club and fast food joints that are already there in what they're trying to pass off as 'ground zero.'
inepa
Posted: Saturday, September 11, 2010 9:36:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/18/2010
Posts: 139
Location: Alotau
If I were you I would let them build the mosque...After they have done it built striptease joint and porn joint and gambling casinos around it...Muslims hate these things hahahaha

Seriously, why is this such a big deal?



Bunny12
Posted: Saturday, September 11, 2010 10:15:38 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 1,027
Location: My own little world, United States
My hubby brought up an interesting point. In Manhatten the unions have everything rigged and he's guessing not one union construction worker in NY is gonna lift a finger to build that mosque. My take on the whole thing is that the guy wanting to build it really is more concerned with making money black mailing NY to get him to not build it. Trump already offered him 25% more than he paid for the property one year ago and he refused and asked for a MUCH bigger figure instead. That will make ya go Hmmmm?

I still don't think tolerance is the issue here as much as when did Americans become a bunch of politically correct pussy whipped door mats!


Bunny12


Bunny Rabbits cute and fuzzy they want to love you but they have razor sharp teeth - don't piss them off!
Rembacher
Posted: Saturday, September 11, 2010 10:45:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
Bunny12 wrote:
Trump already offered him 25% more than he paid for the property one year ago and he refused and asked for a MUCH bigger figure instead. That will make ya go Hmmmm?


I believe it has been mentioned in this thread before that the area the community centre is going to be built in has lower property costs than most of the rest of New York. If they are going to build somewhere else, they will probably need a lot more money just to buy the property.

Bunny12 wrote:
My hubby brought up an interesting point. In Manhatten the unions have everything rigged and he's guessing not one union construction worker in NY is gonna lift a finger to build that mosque. My take on the whole thing is that the guy wanting to build it really is more concerned with making money black mailing NY to get him to not build it.


I have to question the logic of this argument. If you were correct, there wouldn't be a single mosque in New York. But since there are many, how did they get built?


Bunny12 wrote:
I still don't think tolerance is the issue here as much as when did Americans become a bunch of politically correct pussy whipped door mats!


And that's just inexcusable no matter how late on a saturday it is, or how many alcoholic beverages you consumed tonight.
MousyandWolfy
Posted: Sunday, September 12, 2010 12:26:29 AM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 7/1/2009
Posts: 6
1. I didn't read the previous comments, so don't hate. I just don't want to read.
2. It's not at Ground Zero
3. It's not a Mosque, it's a Community Center-- or whatever.
4. There's a Mosque there that's been there for, like, four years. No one's complained about it.
5. Not all Muslims are radical Muslims.
6. Deal with it.

~~You will love each other!!~~
Guest
Posted: Sunday, September 12, 2010 3:37:41 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 779,301
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/61428/20100911/wtc.htm

Seems the focus is somewhat skewed.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Sunday, September 12, 2010 7:29:18 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,754
Location: Cakeland, United States
eiotis123 wrote:


How is it morally correct to hand out grants to Wall Street (because they are too big to fail) - but kick this proposition down the street for 3 years. All because it might cost less than 1% of what was given out - in the name of keeping the American economy afloat..?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/nyregion/19dust.html

And we are bitching about this other unimportant sideshow crap instead?

Who's going to win American Idol this year?

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, September 12, 2010 11:40:37 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 779,301


....and that is how they do it.
LadyX
Posted: Sunday, September 12, 2010 11:58:08 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
MousyandWolfy wrote:
1. I didn't read the previous comments, so don't hate. I just don't want to read.
2. It's not at Ground Zero
3. It's not a Mosque, it's a Community Center-- or whatever.
4. There's a Mosque there that's been there for, like, four years. No one's complained about it.
5. Not all Muslims are radical Muslims.
6. Deal with it.


you missed very little by not reading the previous hundred posts on this- your grasp of it is pretty firm, mousy.

The 9-11 healthcare issue is a real fiasco, but deserves it's own thread if it's going to be discussed here.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, September 12, 2010 1:52:23 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 779,301
Magical_felix wrote:
What do you guys think about the recent debates about building a Mosque on ground zero in New York.

I don't have a problem with Mosques but I don't see the need or understand the desire from the group wanting to build the Mosque specifically on ground zero. I would think that some kind of memorial or rebuilding the towers with various memorials on the building would be more appropriate.

If this is too heated of a topic please delete.


My response to the original question is that it is not a mosque, and it is not on ground zero. Four pages later my thought is how this question about the "mosque" is, so not an issue, and the only reason for this becoming one is due to the continued slight of hand of our government/media/reactionist tendencies (see previous vid, where people start attacking a guy, who was actually working at the new construction site). My point is that the memorial or rebuilding should be focused on the living, while they have time, and not a need to discuss the healthcare issue.

To truly honor the dead, we do so through life and remembrance.
Conflicted_Feelings
Posted: Sunday, September 12, 2010 5:44:17 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 6/25/2010
Posts: 12
Location: M.D, United States
Technically Muslims have the right to build it there, but it will definitely insult and hurt victims of 9/11 or in wars in the middle east.
But building it so close/ontop of ground zero, makes it seem...rude.

Will I ever find my true love? Try, Try again.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, September 12, 2010 6:13:20 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 779,301
Conflicted_Feelings wrote:
Technically Muslims have the right to build it there, but it will definitely insult and hurt victims of 9/11 or in wars in the middle east.
But building it so close/ontop of ground zero, makes it seem...rude.




LadyX
Posted: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:57:41 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
eiotis123 wrote:
My point is that the memorial or rebuilding should be focused on the living, while they have time, and not a need to discuss the healthcare issue.

To truly honor the dead, we do so through life and remembrance.


Right on, baby- I read a great article just this morning that makes that same point, and at that point it clicked, "ok, that must be what eiotis meant..." Here's the last paragraph, and I agree completely.

Quote:
I'm all for remembering the murdered, preserving dignity and memory, and even building memorials. I don't defile graveyards. I don't desecrate churches, synagogues, mosques, or Buddhist temples. I don't burn Qurans. I respectfully observe funeral motorcades. I blaspheme, but that's my own business. But I draw the line at spiritualizing the WTC site and its vicinity. We honor the dead not by fetishizing the memory of their gruesome death but by respecting the living.


Guest
Posted: Monday, September 13, 2010 5:36:27 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 779,301
Now you're getting my point. Why concentrate our collective spirit into something negative. The reference to MLK in the article also stirs the same sentiment to me, in that, Martin did not build anything, he changed the collective perception and consciousness into something positive, treating all people equally, hell, it's in the our own declaration of independence, of course it should be amended to say "all human beings". To this day, Martin's actions and thoughts caused that slight ripple that has us all in a slightly better place.

Take it a step further, Muslim community center at, actually on that land, along with a center of all peoples, faith's and ethnicities showing who made up that building...Americans. Not some skyscraper to make a company money, not any kind of political token for politicians and power brokers to use as they please, but a part of eminent domain for the people. Families of the victims can go there to heal, and generations can go there to learn what horror can come of differences and ignorance.

LadyX
Posted: Thursday, September 16, 2010 1:39:13 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
....says a lot....


BigDaddyRich
Posted: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:12:00 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/9/2010
Posts: 705
Location: Florida, United States
It's really a tricky thing. Yes this country was founded on Freedom of Religion, as well as free speech, but. Muslims attacked the World Trade Center. Twice as a matter of fact. My honest feeling is they should put it somewhere else. All this group is doing, is causing problems, not just for Americans, but for themselves as well. Several cities who were building Mosques are in turmoil. I saw one in Kentucky on the news, these people have lived her for 20 years or more, and Americans have burned construction equipment and even beaten children. I love this country, I was born in Alabama in the 50's and grew up through the Civil rights crises, and now this. Why can't we all live together in peace and harmony, but I know that impossible. Now we have that stupid pastor in Gainesville wanting to burn the Koran. Donald Trump offered them a 25% profit on the land and they claimed it was a stunt. Well take the money and build it somewhere else. These few know it's going to be trouble. My bet is when it's built, someone will blow it up.

Well that's just my opinion, sorry if you don't like.

BigDaddyRich
LadyX
Posted: Friday, September 17, 2010 8:22:32 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
It's interesting you bring up civil rights, I think this is every bit the Civil Rights struggle, too. They should no more back down to the bigots and the money than those first African-American kids should've backed down from attending white schools, or sitting where they please on a bus, or ordering from the same counter as everyone else. People of color suffered hate crimes- hell, they still do- but you don't cower in fear of them occurring. People back then talked about how rude and disruptive those efforts at equality were, yet now, we're all better for it. I hear people talk about how pansy-ish and PC this country has gotten- and in this case, I totally get it. To let religious prejudice rule the day because some people have their feelings hurt over things being done near "sacred ground" would definitely be quite wimpy of us as a society.

Tolerance is worth the struggle- if only everyone could be honest about what the facts are instead of playing on fears.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, September 18, 2010 1:58:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
Tolerance is worth the struggle- if only everyone could be honest about what the facts are instead of playing on fears.


Fear can be healthy. Fear can be rational. The only time fear is a negative is if it impairs your normal functioning in society. Here's an example of "fear" that some people call "paranoia", but seems perfectly rational and normal to me...


El Al Airlines.

Israel's state-owned airline always is, and always has been, a prime target for terrorists. In the late 60's and early 70's, they suffered numerous hijackings, bombings, and terrorist attacks, resulting in a large number of deaths and property losses. As a result, the airline has developed very stringent security measures, in place both on the ground and in the aircraft themselves. Although many consider some of these security measures "controversial", in 2008, the airline was named by Global Traveler magazine as the world's most secure airline.


Quote:

Airport security measures

Passengers are asked to report three hours before departure. All El Al terminals around the world are closely monitored for security. There are plain-clothes agents and fully armed police or military personnel who patrol the premises for explosives, suspicious behavior, and other threats. Inside the terminal, passengers and their baggage are checked by a trained team. El Al security procedures require that all passengers be interviewed individually prior to boarding, allowing El Al staff to identify possible security threats. Passengers will be asked questions about where they are coming from, the reason for their trip, their job or occupation, and whether they have packed their bags themselves. The likelihood of potential terrorists remaining calm under such questioning is believed to be low.

At the check-in counter, passengers' passports and tickets are closely examined. A ticket without a sticker from the security checkers will not be accepted. At passport control passengers' names are checked against information from the FBI, Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Scotland Yard, Shin Bet, and Interpol databases. Luggage is screened and sometimes hand searched. In addition, bags are put through a decompression chamber simulating pressures during flight that could trigger explosives. El Al is the only airline in the world that passes all luggage through such a chamber. Even at overseas airports, El Al security agents conduct all luggage searches personally, even if they are supervised by government or private security firms.

Flight security measures
Undercover agents (sometimes referred to as sky marshals) carrying concealed firearms sit among the passengers on every international El Al flight. All El Al pilots are former Israeli Air Force pilots. The cockpits in all El Al aircraft have double doors to prevent entry by unauthorized persons. A code is required to access the doors, and the second door will only be opened after the first has closed and the person has been identified by the captain or first officer. Furthermore, there are reinforced steel floors separating the passenger cabin from the baggage hold.

Following an attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner in 2002, all aircraft in the fleet have been equipped with an infrared countermeasures system called Flight Guard, developed by Israeli Aerospace Industries to defend them against anti-aircraft missiles. Although comparable systems such as CAMPS are now available for civilian aircraft, there is no information to date about any other airlines deploying such a system. Switzerland and other European countries have expressed concern that flares dropped by the Israeli system could cause fires in the vicinity of an airport.

Security controversy and passenger profiling

Critics of El Al note that its security checks on passengers include racial profiling and have argued that such profiling is unfair, irrational, and degrading to those subject to such screening. Supporters of El Al argue that there is nothing inherently racist about passenger profiling and that special scrutiny of Muslims may often be necessary for security purposes.

The airline was also criticized by the Hungarian courts for refusing to search luggage with the passenger present, acting against Hungarian domestic laws which stipulate that only authorized officials are able to undertake such searches. A civil case was brought to the Supreme Court of Israel on 19 March 2008 alleging that El Al's practice of ethnic profiling singles out Arabs for tougher treatment.


Does the perceived need for increased security justify the infringement on someone's civil rights, no matter if that infringement is actual or perceived? When do the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many? Not being a New Yorker, I really can't know how the majority of Manhattan residents feel about this. If construction on the center goes ahead as planned, will it become a target for radical Christina groups, both during construction and after? Another question I'd ask is this: "Just how are the civil rights of the center founders being infringed upon if a building permit is denied for that location, but approved for another one?" What's so special about THAT location that the center HAS to be built there? This is something, I'd have to say, that would have to be left up to the local residents to decide. Only they know how much risk they're able to tolerate, and how much fear they can endure before they have to have an increased security presence in order to feel safe again. Only they know how what tolerance means to the average New Yorker.

Personally, I wish the people building the center would ponder moving it to a warmer climate - say South Florida. We could use the money...
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, September 18, 2010 2:46:25 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
MrNudiePants wrote:

Does the perceived need for increased security justify the infringement on someone's civil rights, no matter if that infringement is actual or perceived?


The key word is 'perceived.' Fear is used as a tool to prod us into allowing our rights to be taken away. It's like that essay that I posted says- why do we not even discuss whether this patriot act bullshit is worth it? Instead, we and our lawmakers both just allowed it to happen. After all, you wouldn't want to be victim to the 'evil-doers' again, would you? So, we demand 100% safety, even if we'll never get it. Point being, we allow our freedom to erode, when supposedly it's "freedom" that makes this country so special and worth fighting for.

MrNudiePants wrote:
When do the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many? Not being a New Yorker, I really can't know how the majority of Manhattan residents feel about this.


MrNudiePants wrote:
Only they know how much risk they're able to tolerate, and how much fear they can endure before they have to have an increased security presence in order to feel safe again. Only they know how what tolerance means to the average New Yorker.


Most probably oppose it, the margin is depending on which poll you trust. Are you saying that 'the needs of the few' refers to the organizers of this community center? (again, it's not really a mosque). Are 'the many' you speak of those bigots who oppose it, hiding behind- here's that word again- FEAR? Either that, or they cry about "sacred ground", because who would want a community center among the hallowed atmosphere created by strip clubs, betting parlors, and fast food? Perish the thought, how disrespectful!! LOL Talk about allowing our country to be ruled by the feelings of others! Tough up, nobody's stomping on your loved one's grave by having this thing built- no matter how partial you are to the special way that boarded up empty building that's there now honors their memory.

In either case, hell yes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. To say otherwise would be to say that the needs of the many prejudiced whites in the 1950s and 60s outweighed the needs of the fewer minorities who did not have equal rights. People seem to suggest that if the majority of people oppose or agree with something, then we should go along with that- and in this case, assuming most want it moved or done away with, that would be letting prejudice prevail.

This thing should get built if that's what the people behind it want- and then if somebody acts the fool and commits crimes there in any way, they should be prosecuted. But to suggest that it shouldn't be done because bad things might happen- well that just plays into fear politics, which is exactly what I'm referring to. You might be interested in Stephen Colbert's rally, LOL:

MARCH TO KEEP FEAR ALIVE!


MrNudiePants wrote:
If construction on the center goes ahead as planned, will it become a target for radical Christina groups, both during construction and after? Another question I'd ask is this: "Just how are the civil rights of the center founders being infringed upon if a building permit is denied for that location, but approved for another one?" What's so special about THAT location that the center HAS to be built there? This is something, I'd have to say, that would have to be left up to the local residents to decide.


First of all- I hope the question in bold is rhetorical. You really don't see how their rights are violated if they are turned down for that location, when there is no law on the books that would otherwise disqualify it? Think about that- the grounds for refusal would be what, other than religious? "Potential Danger"? As a defender of the constitution, which I know you are from countless other posts, I have to wonder if you're not just playing devil's advocate here. This would be like Rwandans rounding up the minorities to 'protect them' from other groups. We all know what really happened to those poeple, and if you think it's crazy to make that analogy, then you don't see how transparently disingenuous it would be to deny the rights of certain groups because those in power supposedly fear for their safety. At best, it's fear politics, at worst, its institutionalized refusal of rights based on race and/or creed.

If you leave it up to the locals to decide, you bypass the protections in place specifically to guarantee everyone's equal rights. A fear-motivated New York population will of course oppose this- after all, it's less potential trouble, disruption, and yes, danger, for them if it just relocates. But it's not up to them, nor should it be. I'll bring it up again, only because it's a direct parallel. Would locals in Selma, Alabama have voted to give African-Americans their equal rights? Of course not, and not just because they all hated blacks, most probably held no ill will at all. A large part of them just didn't want the disruption, or the violence, or the upheaval, whatever it might have been. The status quo, eventual rioting aside, might have been somewhat tense, but as far as the white people were concerned, "what was the big deal?" Same can be said for non-Muslims in New York or elsewhere. "What's the big deal", right? It's not your religion getting demonized.

No, they weren't all racists in the South, but either way, thank god that local Southern residents didn't vote on the rights of those among them. If they did, my kind- or who knows, maybe all non-whites, might still be ordering lunch from the broken out screen door in the back, and peeing outside. Not all Americans that oppose this community center are bigoted toward Muslims, but at the very least they are misguided, either by their own misconceptions or by fear, and neither is anything less than a terrible reason for denying them what they are perfectly legally allowed to do in the first place.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, September 18, 2010 9:02:00 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
Well, yes I am a strong supporter of the Constitution, just as I'm a strong supporter of personal freedom, as long as it's matched by personal responsibility. I don't see any reason why the center shouldn't be built there. I'd happily welcome a center like that in my own community as we need the money and jobs it would bring. But our needs here are different than the needs of Mahattanites. I can't claim that I know what's best for them.

As far as I know, there's no Constitutional guarantee that you have the right to build any kind of building wherever you want. I deal with building departments and government bureaucrats quite often - I don't claim to know all the rules they operate under; sometimes it seems as if they make the rulings they do on a whim. Several years ago, my family tried to buy a parcel of land - some ten acres about a mile outside of downtown. It was an old orange grove - the trees had stopped producing, and the owner had just let the whole plot go. Our plan was to develop the parcel enough to build houses for all of us - four homes, and then more for other later on. To do that, the acreage had to be re-zoned from agricultural to residential. Our contract with the seller was based on getting the land re-zoned. There was no reason for the city to deny our petition, but they did. Because of that, the land stayed non-productive, earned the city less taxes, and we looked elsewhere for housing.

If you pay attention to construction news, you quite often see cities and counties condemning perfectly good, working properties, so some developer can build a high-rise building that will bring in more tax revenue. I'm not saying that's right - but it's law. If you deal with building departments, you often see them denying building permits because the proposed development doesn't fit in with the "architectural theme" of the area, or because of zoning issues, or because of commercial/residential balance issues. I'm not saying that any of those issues are in play in this case - I don't know all the issues. What I do know is I don't have any right deciding the matter on behalf of the New Yorkers concerned.

And, for what it's worth, I tend to side with the diner owners on the racism issue. The downside to "freedom" is that people are free to do things we don't like. I don't think restaurants should be forced to serve clientele they don't want to - if they want to give away the business, someone else will come along soon to pick it up like found money. If I were alive back then, and had investment capital to spend, I'd probably want to open up a chain of diners that catered ONLY to "people of color." I'm sure business would have been grand. Okay, okay -- I realize that things aren't that simple. Back in those days, the "establishment" needed a violent wake-up call because all those agencies that had been established to provide educations, and hospital care, and enforce laws weren't doing their job... if the victims happened to be non-whites. Those days have passed.

The situation we're discussing about the community center can't honestly be compared to racism in the South. Nobody is trying to prevent the Muslim population from practicing their faith. Nobody is trying to force them to accept a substandard education system, or prevent them from accessing emergency services. Here, the only issue is "Is this the right place for this community center." I can't make that call.
DamonX
Posted: Saturday, September 18, 2010 9:16:45 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 798
Oh! I finally get it! The hallowed Constitution is merely a "buffet-type" document, from which you can pick and choose which parts you feel are reasonable to uphold. I guess the freedom of religion part only extends to the Christian religion though... Or I guess you can always interpret it as you see fit... I guess that is the greatness of such a unassailable document. You can never be wrong!
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, September 18, 2010 9:25:33 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
MrNudiePants wrote:
Well, yes I am a strong supporter of the Constitution, just as I'm a strong supporter of personal freedom, as long as it's matched by personal responsibility. I don't see any reason why the center shouldn't be built there. I'd happily welcome a center like that in my own community as we need the money and jobs it would bring. But our needs here are different than the needs of Mahattanites. I can't claim that I know what's best for them.

As far as I know, there's no Constitutional guarantee that you have the right to build any kind of building wherever you want. I deal with building departments and government bureaucrats quite often - I don't claim to know all the rules they operate under; sometimes it seems as if they make the rulings they do on a whim. Several years ago, my family tried to buy a parcel of land - some ten acres about a mile outside of downtown. It was an old orange grove - the trees had stopped producing, and the owner had just let the whole plot go. Our plan was to develop the parcel enough to build houses for all of us - four homes, and then more for other later on. To do that, the acreage had to be re-zoned from agricultural to residential. Our contract with the seller was based on getting the land re-zoned. There was no reason for the city to deny our petition, but they did. Because of that, the land stayed non-productive, earned the city less taxes, and we looked elsewhere for housing.

If you pay attention to construction news, you quite often see cities and counties condemning perfectly good, working properties, so some developer can build a high-rise building that will bring in more tax revenue. I'm not saying that's right - but it's law. If you deal with building departments, you often see them denying building permits because the proposed development doesn't fit in with the "architectural theme" of the area, or because of zoning issues, or because of commercial/residential balance issues. I'm not saying that any of those issues are in play in this case - I don't know all the issues. What I do know is I don't have any right deciding the matter on behalf of the New Yorkers concerned.


From all I've read, they have a green light from the city, so a discussion of why they might be turned down doesn't seem to apply here. Your take is that only New Yorkers should have a say in whether it gets built. Mine is that they have no business ruling on it at all. If they meet all codes, everyone else can just swallow it and like it. Just because a majority of people agree on something doesn't make it a good idea.

We'll agree to disagree about whether the comparison to race and civil rights can apply here- but if the organizers of the center were to be told "you can't build your center here, you'll have to do it elsewhere," then they would be discriminated against, just as the African-Americans were. I don't care how much "hallowed ground" horseshit people try to build an argument around, this opposition is rooted in prejudice.

Quote:
Nobody is trying to prevent the Muslim population from practicing their faith.


Wrong, plenty of people are. To re-address your previous question: how would their rights be infringed upon if they were allowed on one site and not another? Let's not hide behind unknown building code concerns and discuss this. Why would that location not be acceptable? Other than the whole "my feelings are hurt because you're Muslim and so were the hijackers", there is none. So we force them to worship where the rest of us feel like it's acceptable? That's preventing worship, and that's discrimination.

They have been issued their permit from what I've read. The organizers are under enormous pressure to move, but none of their arguments are rooted in anything other than fear, bigotry, or 'feelings'.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, September 18, 2010 9:48:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:

From all I've read, they have a green light from the city, so a discussion of why they might be turned down doesn't seem to apply here. Your take is that only New Yorkers should have a say in whether it gets built. Mine is that they have no business ruling on it at all. If they meet all codes, everyone else can just swallow it and like it. Just because a majority of people agree on something doesn't make it a good idea.

We'll agree to disagree about whether the comparison to race and civil rights can apply here- but if the organizers of the center were to be told "you can't build your center here, you'll have to do it elsewhere," then they would be discriminated against, just as the African-Americans were. I don't care how much "hallowed ground" horseshit people try to build an argument around, this opposition is rooted in prejudice.

Quote:
Nobody is trying to prevent the Muslim population from practicing their faith.


Wrong, plenty of people are. To re-address your previous question: how would their rights be infringed upon if they were allowed on one site and not another? Let's not hide behind unknown building code concerns and discuss this. Why would that location not be acceptable? Other than the whole "my feelings are hurt because you're Muslim and so were the hijackers", there is none. So we force them to worship where the rest of us feel like it's acceptable? That's preventing worship, and that's discrimination.

They have been issued their permit from what I've read. The organizers are under enormous pressure to move, but none of their arguments are rooted in anything other than fear, bigotry, or 'feelings'.



The local building department and the local city council (or whatever the local government is called) are the voice of the people. If they've given permission, then by extension, the people have also given permission. I would imagine that anybody that wants to go to the trouble could file suit and request an injunction halting the project, but I doubt that the injunction would be granted. So since the people have already spoken and given permission, why is this a part of the discussion again? If they were told they couldn't build here, but could build there, the only way you can honestly say that they had been discriminated against is if you went through the entire project folder, all the objections, looked at all the red flags, and proved that there was no actual merit to the city's case against the project. Since the project hasn't been red-tagged at all, then the point is moot.

And how is anybody trying to stop Muslims from practicing their faith? Are they passing laws against Islam? Are they rounding up Muslims and putting them in jail for anti-worship statutes? Are they fire-bombing mosques? Nobody is trying to stop them from practicing their faith.
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, September 18, 2010 10:03:04 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
MrNudiePants wrote:


The local building department and the local city council (or whatever the local government is called) are the voice of the people. If they've given permission, then by extension, the people have also given permission. I would imagine that anybody that wants to go to the trouble could file suit and request an injunction halting the project, but I doubt that the injunction would be granted. So since the people have already spoken and given permission, why is this a part of the discussion again?


LOL, seriously? Dude, you were the one that brought the whole city/code red-tape issue up in the first place. I should be asking you this question.

MrNudiePants wrote:

If they were told they couldn't build here, but could build there, the only way you can honestly say that they had been discriminated against is if you went through the entire project folder, all the objections, looked at all the red flags, and proved that there was no actual merit to the city's case against the project. Since the project hasn't been red-tagged at all, then the point is moot.


In a case this high-profile, I'm sure a few dozen journalists would be picking through that magic folder for us- and so again, if the city has cleared it, what could there be other than citizens objections? I applaud the mayor for supporting this, in the face of so many red-faced objectors.

MrNudiePants wrote:

And how is anybody trying to stop Muslims from practicing their faith? Are they passing laws against Islam? Are they rounding up Muslims and putting them in jail for anti-worship statutes? Are they fire-bombing mosques? Nobody is trying to stop them from practicing their faith.


If they are told arbitrarily that they can't worship in a certain place, they are being discriminated against, and prevented from practicing their faith in the way they otherwise would be able to. No they aren't being rounded up, no laws are being passed of course, and nobody has been firebombed...yet. Your extreme examples aren't applying, but clearly and obviously, millions of others would be perfectly happy to dictate where Muslims can and can't worship. I'm not dropping my guard simply because laws aren't being passed- and I can guarantee you that 18 million American followers of Islam aren't dropping that guard either. We can marginalize extremist opposition all we want, but the opposition is real, and it's in big numbers.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, September 18, 2010 10:19:01 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:


The local building department and the local city council (or whatever the local government is called) are the voice of the people. If they've given permission, then by extension, the people have also given permission. I would imagine that anybody that wants to go to the trouble could file suit and request an injunction halting the project, but I doubt that the injunction would be granted. So since the people have already spoken and given permission, why is this a part of the discussion again?


LOL, seriously? Dude, you were the one that brought the whole city/code red-tape issue up in the first place. I should be asking you this question.


Right. And all I was doing was giving examples of non-discriminatory reasons why such a project could be halted, not assuming that any of those reasons apply in this instance.


LadyX wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:

If they were told they couldn't build here, but could build there, the only way you can honestly say that they had been discriminated against is if you went through the entire project folder, all the objections, looked at all the red flags, and proved that there was no actual merit to the city's case against the project. Since the project hasn't been red-tagged at all, then the point is moot.


In a case this high-profile, I'm sure a few dozen journalists would be picking through that magic folder for us- and so again, if the city has cleared it, what could there be other than citizens objections? I applaud the mayor for supporting this, in the face of so many red-faced objectors.


I still wish they would come down here where we desperately need the work...


LadyX wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:

And how is anybody trying to stop Muslims from practicing their faith? Are they passing laws against Islam? Are they rounding up Muslims and putting them in jail for anti-worship statutes? Are they fire-bombing mosques? Nobody is trying to stop them from practicing their faith.


If they are told arbitrarily that they can't worship in a certain place, they are being discriminated against, and prevented from practicing their faith in the way they otherwise would be able to. No they aren't being rounded up, no laws are being passed of course, and nobody has been firebombed...yet. Your extreme examples aren't applying, but clearly and obviously, millions of others would be perfectly happy to dictate where Muslims can and can't worship. I'm not dropping my guard simply because laws aren't being passed- and I can guarantee you that 18 million American followers of Islam aren't dropping that guard either. We can marginalize extremist opposition all we want, but the opposition is real, and it's in big numbers.


I disagree. There's nothing special about that location to them - it's not Mecca, it's not sanctified in any way. It's just convenient. They can practice in their homes, in parks, on rooftops, in any other building at all. We tell Christian organizations where they can build churches and where they can't. We do it all the time. Or our government functionaries do, depending on zoning laws, Dept of Environmental Protection rules, architectural appearance committees, etc. They should be no different, and they should get no special treatment because they're Muslims.
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, September 18, 2010 10:22:49 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
MrNudiePants wrote:

I disagree. There's nothing special about that location to them - it's not Mecca, it's not sanctified in any way. It's just convenient. They can practice in their homes, in parks, on rooftops, in any other building at all. We tell Christian organizations where they can build churches and where they can't. We do it all the time. Or our government functionaries do, depending on zoning laws, Dept of Environmental Protection rules, architectural appearance committees, etc. They should be no different, and they should get no special treatment because they're Muslims.


It doesn't matter how convenient it is. It is zoned correctly for this use, as it turns out. For the second time, they face no bureaucratic hurdles, only discriminatory ones from the outside. Therefore, to in turn deny it is discrimination, just as it would be for any religious group. You're damn right it's not sanctified in any way, it's just their right to have their facility there. Nobody is arguing that Muslims are special for it.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, September 18, 2010 10:39:30 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:

I disagree. There's nothing special about that location to them - it's not Mecca, it's not sanctified in any way. It's just convenient. They can practice in their homes, in parks, on rooftops, in any other building at all. We tell Christian organizations where they can build churches and where they can't. We do it all the time. Or our government functionaries do, depending on zoning laws, Dept of Environmental Protection rules, architectural appearance committees, etc. They should be no different, and they should get no special treatment because they're Muslims.


It doesn't matter how convenient it is. It is zoned correctly for this use, as it turns out. For the second time, they face no bureaucratic hurdles, only discriminatory ones from the outside. Therefore, to in turn deny it is discrimination, just as it would be for any religious group. You're damn right it's not sanctified in any way, it's just their right to have their facility there. Nobody is arguing that Muslims are special for it.


Then it's okay. They're not being discriminated against. I just get tired of all the hand-wringing going on about how you can't stop this project, because it's "discrimination" and so on. There are plenty of valid reasons why the project could be halted, and none of them would be discriminatory. If there are no zoning issues, or architectural issues, or issues with DERM, or DEP, or any of the other alphabet-letter agencies, and they're told they can't build "just because we say so"... then yes you're right. It would be discriminatory. Dammit. (LOL)
Guest
Posted: Saturday, September 18, 2010 10:41:47 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 779,301
"I realize that things aren't that simple. Back in those days, the "establishment" needed a violent wake-up call because all those agencies that had been established to provide educations, and hospital care, and enforce laws weren't doing their job... if the victims happened to be non-whites. Those days have passed. "

No, they haven't. However, for most white people it has, since on the face of most political/social norms nowadays, it is well understood that one should not be openly racist or overtly repressive against a group due to race/religion.

"They should be no different, and they should get no special treatment because they're Muslims."

They weren't until hate filed ignorant fellow citizens made them different. They did not ask for special treatment, but they are getting it because they are Muslim. However, the "special treatment" is being likened to those crazy bastards that brought the Trade Center down. I don't believe Germans nowadays would want to be likened to Nazi Germany, and I don't think white people would want to be likened to the good ol boys of the clan.

Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.