[subego]

Let's get things started then.

First, in regard to legalities, this is a simple First Amendment case. The right of the owners of the property to build it is pretty much unquestionable to me.

That said, I'm not convinced it's a good idea, nor am I particularly convinced the owners intentions are benign. In fact, I'm pretty close to declaring this as outright abuse of constitutional protection.

Okay... Hearts and minds time. Go!

[BadKosh]

A Mosque that close to the hole left after the towers fell is bound to have every nutcase trying to blow that building up. I sure wouldn't want a storefront next to them. Does freedom of speech trump 'level of offensiveness'??? Many folks are offended by the thought of a Mosque being there. Other types of establishments are not allowed near others for the same offensiveness. Putting a sex toys shop next to the Christian grade school would be such. Hell, they've even banned ROTC officers from recruiting because some said it was offensive to do on campus. Where do we draw the line? Could we keep the ACLU from having offices in a specific location because of its offensiveness?

This is really a zoning issue.

[Wiskedjak]

I don't see what can be done to stop it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

A Mosque that close to the hole left after the towers fell is bound to have every nutcase trying to blow that building up. I sure wouldn't want a storefront next to them. Does freedom of speech trump 'level of offensiveness'??? Many folks are offended by the thought of a Mosque being there. Other types of establishments are not allowed near others for the same offensiveness. Putting a sex toys shop next to the Christian grade school would be such. Hell, they've even banned ROTC officers from recruiting because some said it was offensive to do on campus. Where do we draw the line? Could we keep the ACLU from having offices in a specific location because of its offensiveness?

This is really a zoning issue.

1) In most cases, yes, freedom of speech trumps offensiveness.

2) This isn't just freedom of speech, it's freedom of religion. So we are discussing something that has dual constitutional protection.

3) If all other religious institutions were zoned out of that area, then one could claim it's a zoning issue. Of course, that would be illegal too.

[Dork.]

You do realize there are existing mosques that are closer to the WTC, right? And no one seems to think they are offensive?

The only New Yorkers who I hear complaining about it are the politicians looking to make this into a bigger deal than it is to pander for votes nationally. And most of those politicians are not even from the area. Most actual New Yorkers are more concerned about K-Rod than about this. (Well, at least the folks in Queens)....

Bloomberg has the right attitude about this. That is due to his personal experience being ostracized as a youth because his family was Jewish in a neighborhood where that wasn't, um, kosher. He takes this Religious Freedom thing more seriously than the Republican candidates for Governor do, apparently.

[jokell82]

This also isn't even a mosque. It's more like a YMCA, and it will have a swimming pool, auditorium, bookstores, and restaurants. And it won't be a freestanding building - the only thing that will change on the street is probably a sign.

So what's the big deal?

[Wiskedjak]

I don't think anyone here is making a big deal of the issue. Even Badkosh is calling it a zoning issue. I think it's only an issue where politicians are trying to make it one.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

This also isn't even a mosque. It's more like a YMCA, and it will have a swimming pool, auditorium, bookstores, and restaurants. And it won't be a freestanding building - the only thing that will change on the street is probably a sign.

So what's the big deal?

In fairness, there will be a mosque on the site, so comparing it to a YMCA is not quite valid, unless your local YMCA has a chapel in it. Still, it shouldn't be a big deal. I'll go further and say the folks like Harry Reid who are saying that they shouldn't have chosen that site for the mosque are pandering, too. At least when Obama backpedaled, he said that he wouldn't comment on the wisdom of putting it there, which is different than what Reid said.

There is nothing at all wrong with the location of this facility. Nothing.

(that ought to stir up some lively discussion....)

[The Final Dakar]

No Mosque Thread?

Seemed pointless to me. Either you respect their constitutional right to build a place of worship or you don't. The rest is just opinion.

[SpaceMonkey]

The best part about this was Newt Gingrich comparing it to Nazis erecting a sign next to the Holocaust Museum.

[SSharon]

Count me in favor of letting them build whatever they want within the existing zoning laws. I don't blame every muslim for the acts of a few radicals. Just the opposite, I would be happy to show my support for moderate muslims to emphasize that I don't lump them all in one group.

[subego]

Okay, I'm rethinking my position, but I'm not fully convinced yet.

I see some legitimacy to the claim it's an insensitive choice of location.

[Dork.]

How far away would the Mosque have to be before it's no longer insensitive? three blocks? ten blocks? Hoboken?

[hyteckit]

I rather ban BP from building oil rigs.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

How far away would the Mosque have to be before it's no longer insensitive? three blocks? ten blocks? Hoboken?

I don't have a hard and fast answer here, which I believe is your point to some extent.

If you'll indulge me in reversing the question, is there any distance you would consider insensitive? Across the street?

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't have a hard and fast answer here, which I believe is your point to some extent.

If you'll indulge me in reversing the question, is there any distance you would consider insensitive? Across the street?

The question is not whether it is insensitive or not, it's whether it should be allowed.

Freedom of religion exists to protect things that others deem insensitive, otherwise we wouldn't need it.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by subego 

If you'll indulge me in reversing the question, is there any distance you would consider insensitive? Across the street?

I would put them anywhere I would put a chapel or a synagogue, up to and including the top floor of the new tower, provided they meet all local laws and pay the rent on time. I honestly don't see why what happened at the WTC prevents law-abiding and peaceful Muslims from practicing their religion near or at the site.

[subego]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

The question is not whether it is insensitive or not, it's whether it should be allowed.

Not that I can stop you here, but I pretty specifically outlined in the OP that that's not the question.

With one exception, all the participants in this thread as of yet think it should be allowed. If whether it should be allowed is the question, we have a dull thread ahead of us.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not that I can stop you here, but I pretty specifically outlined in the OP that that's not the question.

With one exception, all the participants in this thread as of yet think it should be allowed. If whether it should be allowed is the question, we have a dull thread ahead of us.

Well then I would say what does it matter if it's insensitive or not? That should really only matter to the people who live there, as after it is finished everyone else is simply going to forget about it anyway.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

we have a dull thread ahead of us.

I think that's case. Resistance to the Mosque is pretty much going to be founded in anti-Muslim sentiment or PC "we don't want to offend anyone" thoughts.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

How far away would the Mosque have to be before it's no longer insensitive? three blocks? ten blocks? Hoboken?

This is exactly what I asked my father in law when I discussed it with him. I also added a time element though and asked if it would be ok to build the mosque there in 5, 10, or 50 years.

Edit: to make this more relevant to the thread, I think the time element has more to do with this being insensitive than the exact location.

[lpkmckenna]

Everyone complaining about this mosque/cultural centre is either an idiot (Palin), or a politician trying exploit idiots (Gingrich).

[Shaddim]

Someone's gonna blow it up, so it's kinda a moot point. We can just hope no one's inside when it happens.

[Gee-Man]

I really don't understand the "people might be offended" argument at all. So what? America is not at war with Islam itself. America has never been at war with Islam itself. So why would a nothing-special Muslim community center, built on the site of an old Burlington Coat Factory for pete's sake, be considered offensive? I've tried to come up with a logical reason for this, but the only obvious conclusion you can make from this is that people who might be are offended are blaming ALL muslims and all of Islam for the murderous acts of a nutjob few, which says a lot more about those people than the ones who are building the community center.

It's akin to arguing that any church built nearby the site of the federal building in Oklahoma City is "insensitive" because Timothy McVeigh called himself a Christian.

[BadKosh]

Zoning and danger to others is my concern. We are NOT saying they can't worship, just that the mosque should be elsewhere. Where is the compromise from those wanting to build the place? I think they should deny the zoning request on the grounds that they are making this a volatile issue. Let them pick a different spot.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Zoning and danger to others is my concern. We are NOT saying they can't worship, just that the mosque should be elsewhere. Where is the compromise from those wanting to build the place? I think they should deny the zoning request on the grounds that they are making this a volatile issue. Let them pick a different spot.

You'll be relieved to know that your concerns are unfounded. There are two mosques "already within several blocks of the proposed center," safe and sound. Apparently Muslims and their neighbors already feel comfortable with each other in that area. Whether this new center is built (or not) doesn't change that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/u...osque.html?hpw

[BadKosh]

With those other mosques so happy in their locations why have another unless it was as some have suggested, a slap in our faces by those who are radical Muslims, and are driving the whole thing.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

With those other mosques so happy in their locations why have another unless it was as some have suggested, a slap in our faces by those who are radical Muslims, and are driving the whole thing.

Too many Muslims (Oh no!). From the article I just linked to:

"Two mosques, founded in 1970 and 1985, are already within several blocks of the proposed center. They are so busy and crowded that a search was begun for more space."

[The Final Dakar]

The goal posts, they are a movin'.

[andi*pandi]

This zoning issue terminology is interesting to me. I always thought of zoning in the "commercial vs residential" kind of way. Is there a zoning ordinance for churches? Is it different for other religions? Should each religion have its own zone? Would you need a pass to get in or out of these zones?

There you go Dakar.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Zoning and danger to others is my concern. We are NOT saying they can't worship, just that the mosque should be elsewhere. Where is the compromise from those wanting to build the place? I think they should deny the zoning request on the grounds that they are making this a volatile issue. Let them pick a different spot.

And why do they have to compromise and not you? If they start denying zoning requests over arbitrary grounds what happens when you're on the wrong side?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

This zoning issue terminology is interesting to me. I always thought of zoning in the "commercial vs residential" kind of way. Is there a zoning ordinance for churches? Is it different for other religions? Should each religion have its own zone? Would you need a pass to get in or out of these zones?

There you go Dakar.

If SimCity taught me anything, it's that you forgot a third zone, Industrial. It's yellow.

[Gee-Man]

With those other mosques so happy in their locations why have another unless it was as some have suggested, a slap in our faces by those who are radical Muslims, and are driving the whole thing.

Zoning and danger to others is my concern. We are NOT saying they can't worship, just that the mosque should be elsewhere. Where is the compromise from those wanting to build the place? I think they should deny the zoning request on the grounds that they are making this a volatile issue. Let them pick a different spot.

One, it's not fully accurate to call it just a mosque. There is a mosque, but it's run separately from the facility according to the official web site. It's mostly a community center kind of like a YMCA, with recreation facilities, a theatre, and other bunch of other services open to the public.

Two - who cares how many mosques are already in the neighborhood? Is there some kind of quota that the government needs to enforce? The very notion to ask "why do they need another mosque?" is ludicrous and insulting (not to mention unconstitutional), and would never be asked of any Christian or Jewish church wanting to build anywhere in America.

Three - why do they need to compromise? They didn't invite this controversy - they already had permission from the local zoning board (unanimous, in fact), they already had funding, and none of this was even remotely controversial until a few right-wing nuts discovered it and started raising a fuss about it, which then was picked up by idiotic politicians as an election-year wedge issue. Should anyone really give a sh*t what Sarah Palin or Harry Reid thinks about this, two politicians who have absolutely nothing to do with a local New York issue?

Four - the idea that this whole thing is being run by "radical Muslims" is false. The man involved with this project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is well-known as a strong opponent of Al-Qaeda. So much so, in fact, that he was sent by the Bush Administration's State Department on a number of speaking tours to the Middle East to preach about how well Muslims can co-exist in America with other religions:

...The State Department says its choice of Mr. Rauf to represent the US in a forthcoming trip to Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, reflects the religious leader’s established record of moderation and his past experience in taking Islamic life in America to foreign audiences.

“His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well-known and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it’s like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States,” State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said Tuesday. He added that the department’s public-diplomacy offices “have a long-term relationship with” Rauf – including during the past Bush administration, when the religious leader undertook a similar speaking tour.

But ultimately, none of that is relevant to the core question here. Either we honor religious freedom, or we don't - and I don't think protests and negative national attention devoted to the supposed "wisdom" of building a mosque, community center, or any other religious facility speaks well to our commitment to these constitutional ideals.

[Gee-Man]

I like this picture a lot:

[The Final Dakar]

Because I took the time to find it:

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

With those other mosques so happy in their locations why have another unless it was as some have suggested, a slap in our faces by those who are radical Muslims, and are driving the whole thing.

Do the limits of your idiocy know no bounds?

[OAW]

I was going to comment but Gee-Man has already stated everything I was going to say. And I suspect none of the opponents of the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque"* will even attempt to come up with a point-by-point logical rebuttal of what he said.

People can try to dress it up all the want to but this so-called "sensitivity" issue is anti-Muslim bigotry ... plain and simple.

OAW

* Which is a misnomer in and of itself since it's two blocks away and not even visible from the WTC area

[chabig]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Freedom of religion exists to protect things that others deem insensitive...

No. The Bill of Rights is a document that limits federal power. Freedom of religion exists to prevent the United States Government from imposing religion on us. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" It has nothing to do with insensitivity.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

With those other mosques so happy in their locations why have another unless it was as some have suggested, a slap in our faces by those who are radical Muslims, and are driving the whole thing.

Radical Muslims don't push for mosques. Conservative Muslims do.

[hyteckit]

The Mosque doesn't violate any local zoning laws.

So stop saying it's a zoning issue when it's not.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Because I took the time to find it:

Ah, thanks for clarifying. However, I don't see any purple squares for religious zoning.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

With those other mosques so happy in their locations why have another unless it was as some have suggested, a slap in our faces by those who are radical Muslims, and are driving the whole thing.

Have you seen how many Christian churches feel the need to be in the area? Who's face are *they* slapping?
World Trade Center, New York, NY 10006, USA - Google Maps

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The Mosque doesn't violate any local zoning laws.

So stop saying it's a zoning issue when it's not.

He's trying to say that the proposed mosque will eventually be bombed by some radical Americans, and that an eventual bombing represents a public safety risk which in turn represents a zoning violation.

So, in summary, because some radical Americans are going to kill a bunch of people, the proposed mosque shouldn't be built in that location.

I assume that he would also demand synagogues not be allowed to be built in areas that might drive anti-semites toward violence.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Have you seen how many Christian churches feel the need to be in the area? Who's face are *they* slapping?
World Trade Center, New York, NY 10006, USA - Google Maps

A needlessly pedantic point, but the WTC towers had their own zip code, 10048. Many buildings in NYC have their own zip code. I'm not sure whether or not they plan on retiring 10048, or using it for the new tower.

On a related note:

Sarah Palin Continues To Hate America

[ironknee]

as a new yorker who lived through 9-11...i don't mind it at all

i'm more concerned that 9 years afterwards, nothing is built at ground zero yet...

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

He's trying to say that the proposed mosque will eventually be bombed by some radical Americans, and that an eventual bombing represents a public safety risk which in turn represents a zoning violation.

So, in summary, because some radical Americans are going to kill a bunch of people, the proposed mosque shouldn't be built in that location.

I assume that he would also demand synagogues not be allowed to be built in areas that might drive anti-semites toward violence.

radical (conservative) americans would bomb the "mosque" so NEAR to the sacred place as ground zero?

isn't that a slap in the face to the ones who died there?

[OldManMac]

An interesting take on the subject, and a correct one IMO.

Why America Needs More Muslims | World | AlterNet

[dcmacdaddy]

Others have articulated the counter arguments as to why this is not a big deal so I will just offer up my first response when I heard about this issue . . . Meh. A mosque near Ground Zero or the Pentagon is ONLY an issue if one thinks that all Muslims are suspect because some Muslims perpetrated attacks on us on 9/11.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Others have articulated the counter arguments as to why this is not a big deal so I will just offer up my first response when I heard about this issue . . . Meh. A mosque near Ground Zero or the Pentagon is ONLY an issue if one thinks that all Muslims are suspect because some Muslims perpetrated attacks on us on 9/11.

That's the problem; too many ignorant people do equate all Muslims with few who attacked on 9/11. After all, someone has to keep the war business going, so what better way than to instill fear, by stereotyping?

[smacintush]

I've struggled with this a bit more than it seems many of you have. I don't find it so easy. Let me attack some the different components of this story:

Property rights. I've stated before that property rights are "absolute". This is an overstatement of my position. There are certain situations when property rights are over ridden, such as when there is a threat to people's lives. Some have said that a mosque this close to ground zero will be used as a symbol of victory and serve to embolden the wackos. I'm not convinced of this.

Religious freedom. Duh.

Zoning. I don't see what the hell zoning has to do with anything here, and frankly zoning laws are idiotic and antithetical to property rights in the first place.

The Islamic religion. The idea that terrorists are fringe and the majority of Muslims are innocent is naive nonsense. There is no great outcry against terrorism, I've seen zero evidence of some "great schism" between the radicals and the so-called moderates. The average muslim is simply passive. Very few seem to actually be outspoken and outraged, and they are excoriated for it if they do. It's also important to note that it is not merely a religious belief, it also has a totalitarian political component that most other religions do not that is antithetical to freedom, individuality, civil rights and thought. This does deserve mentioning in the context of the war. At what point do we stop kissing the collective asses of such an ignorant, backwards, evil, religious culture?

Feisal Abdul Rauf. Here is someone who has said: "I don't believe in religious dialogue.", he supports sharia law, he has refused to refer to hamas as terrorists, and his wife refused to deny that at least some of the money for this center would be coming from foreign countries. None of this makes him guilty of anything, but he certainly seems duplicitous despite his "kindly visage".

Sensitivity to the families of the victims. Firstly, sensitivity is completely irrelevant when it comes to rights. Secondly…exactly how many years do we have bow to their feelings. I fully realize the magnitude of the tragedy, but it was 9 years ago. They are simply being used as a political wedge in an election year.

Taking this all into account I would have to say that the government has no place to stand in the way of having a mosque there, but we are all…especially the local citizens…morally justified in protesting, speaking out against and trying to push this mosque out of the neighborhood in whatever way we can without using government force. All the while keeping the nature of islam and Mr. Rauf in mind and not being naive about the potential ramifications.