I think that they're a subtle way of changing the focus of the subject away from something that actually happened and presumably has verifiable information surrounding it to something that only exists in someone's imagination and thus can't really be argued against.

For instance: Let's not talk about what's happening in reality, let's talk about those mean old libs that exist in Pan's imagination. Because the way they're acting is just shameful, so shameful that I have a hard time showing sympathy towards people who actually exist outside of Pan's imagination who may or may not have a legitimate gripe with things that are actually occurring in reality.

Subtle? I think you are being too kind.

I did stay on topic... I talked about how the roles would be reversed if a church or synagogue were going up and the media would be arguing against those going up.

Then my reply was to a post specifically addressing my beliefs. Which you totally ignore the fact that is what I was doing. So to insinuate that I tried to change focus or whatever.... I go back to where I once said it is easier to start pointing fingers at me than what i am saying. You can't debate what I am saying so let's just point a finger.....

...

Pan, try to steer clear of victim mode, please.

When you accuse CNN of being 'left leaning' it sends up all kinds of red baiting flags.
It reminds me of how children, decades ago,
who wrote left handed & were encouraged, (bullied) to write
right-handed, because writing left-handed was either a sign you were a devil-worshipper
or a communist.

That's how silly your conclusions appear.

No, I oppose the way the media portrays this and uses it to further divide. And agin, they would use this to divide if it were the other way around... I am simply trying to point that out.

First, how many mosques are in that area? You can tell me how many churches, how many mosques? How many synagogues, Buddhist temples, any Hindu houses of worship around there?

Secondly, if CNN could find opposition to it they would and use it... sounds like you pointed out a good point they would use... "There are 3 there why should another go up".

Thirdly, I don't understand the whole argument and maybe that's why I look at it the way I do. I don't care what goes up there and I find it foolish to argue about. Again, is this an issue because there was enough of a cry against it, or is it an issue because the press desired to make it such and build up a frothing?

Either way, it helps take focus off a war, off an economy falling apart, off high unemployment and all the issues that we truly should be focussed on.

But this is just a paranoidal rant against the pres....lol, me trying to take the focus off something that should truly be a non issue and is being made into one.

I don't think I've ever heard of someone protesting the building of a church, anywhere (I'm sure its happened but it isn't very common) and I certainly couldn't imagine a dust up over a group of Christians building a church 2 blocks from ground zero.

But that's not really the issue here, its about telling US citizens that because they choose to worship a certain way they don't deserve the right (which lets be honest would be afforded to other religions without a millionth of the hoopla) to build a temple of worship were they choose because it might be offensive to others. I could understand zoning problems or something like that causing them to find another location but simply because its in the vicinity of ground zero? That's wrong and it would be wrong no matter what the faith involved.

So let me get this straight: both the right and the left are guilty of being led by the media?

For the sake of this discussion, does that mean this talk of the right and the left and the media cancels itself out?

We're all just sheeple, aren't we? I'm angry at whatever CNN wants me to be!

Yeah, the Tower of Pisa is closer to the left than CNN.

Ok how about this: build the mosque near the crater, but local businesses must also be allowed to put a strip club on one side of it, a deli on the other and a 10-story bacon factory across the street. Any objections?

If it bleeds, it leads. If it doesn't bleed, stab it. Welcome to infotainment. I don't see this as a left or right issue.

I had a cursory glance using Google maps. I didn't see any other houses of worship. Though it's possible they are there, or maybe a bit further away. I would be a bit surprised to find something else that close.

This goes back to my point above.

Um, I'm not entirely sure who is responsible for the frothing. The media to me seems more like a vehicle than the cause.

Just like the World Cup!

If the strip club, bacon factory and deli aren't breaking any zoning laws or other regulations then they absolutely should be able to do that regardless of the mosque.

i'm really unclear what point you could possibly be trying to make, powerclown. is that what passes for humor in the world of the krach party? and you wouldn't have a Problem with folk who are muslim, now would you? just wondering, given your kahane-style views when it comes to questions that involve palestinians.

it's good to sort through different levels of Problems when the right is in a froth.

There is no Synagogue in that vicinity I can say that.

The Museum of Jewish Heritage - A Living Memorial to the Holocaust is not far.

Map showing Ground Zero and Museum location

closest one is in Battery Park, probably just several hundred yards from Ground Zero.

Welcome to bpsynagogue.org

and the other Beth Din Zedek-America DIN in the other direction.

synagogue lower manhattan - Google Maps

My bigger question is why can't they build anything at ground zero? I mean Dubai and other major cities have built huge skyscrapers in the past 9 years, we still have a hole in the ground.

Like building a vietnamese restaurant next door to a dog & cat shelter. Tacky. And tasteless...to westerners.

so you're not actually making any kind of point, powerclown.
you're just being stupid.
great.

this is a non-issue.

Well let's start telling Baptist churches they can not build, or should be moved away from, women clinics that have been bombed for providing abortions. Cause we all know that all baptists are christian soldiers willing to kill for their cause.

Point--Tully

"Islamic values in their truest form" what is that, what is Judaism in it's truest form, or Christianity for that matter? From what I understand of religion and human ideologies, any of them in their "truest" form is not something I find unifying for humanity in general AT ALL, most are more dehumanizing and segregating and fear inducing and hate breeding and tyrannical than any thing I have ever read, including fantasy.

Somebody define for me how any religion "in its truest form" can equal what a simply and smartly and scientifically non-religious community center for all Americans of any religion would not do better (if you really want to open the doors to all humanity, this is what you create and this is what you allow, NON-religious, non-ideological). Why create anything within the heart of the melting pot that leans in any direction other than a cohesive center that does NOT define itself within the confines of any religion.

I see organized religion in general as a leaning from one side to another, instead of a direction that leads people together, it tears people apart. Islam just as Christianity just as Judaism or any other ideology or faith dictates that believes BELIEVE in the teachings of "leaders", in the end these teachings are inherently from HUMAN leaders, with human perspectives and human desires and human needs for human fulfillment.

One would think in a place of freedom, such as Americans claim to be, one would either build a huge conglomeration that museums all faiths and religions together as one TFPer' has already mentioned (something like a Bahá'í House, but more like a religious/ideological museum) or you build nothing in the vicinity that draws or "leans" toward anything except freedom, FREEDOM from religion, freedom from others "truisms," freedom from others perspectives of their inherent reality that are defined within the history of their foundlings (and created as such, a museum of history and why and how humans have and continue to use these "religions" as tools of control). If you want to build a mosque, than build a synagogue, build a cathedral, better yet, build nothing, for in the reality of faith, God does not live inside walls at all, humans do.

Build a business complex where the real religion of humans is apparent, money, or better, build a simple garden, build a playground for the children of mankind, where people can sit together and watch their children play under the trees together in a park for lovers and friends. Nothing that defines mankind by a specific interpretation of ones "god" is going to "truly" bring a societies people together, at least not for long..... especially when the confines of ones gods' truisms negate the freedom of a humans right to be equal merely because of who, what or how they are themselves.

Leave the hole, remind us of what empty means, we are all empty when we feel one people controls another, for whatever reason, for whatever purpose, religion, money, gender, race, without freedom what does any of it matter. Religion removes freedom, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. are religions. imho they "are" the hole, why fill the hole with something that brings humans together if you are only going to surround it with something that tears humans apart. No buildings of any "specific" religion should be built, doors for humans' unity should be open to all, build a house of freedom, freedom from each others judgments and condemnations, freedom from tyranny and freedom from segregation, freedom from racism and hatred and ignorance, freedom from persecution, freedom from fear, freedom for each other in recognizing ALL of humanities painful histories, what religion, what ideology can claim this freedom..... Build a Freedom House, and then mean it!

You do understand that this planned mosque isn't actually ON ground zero, right? And that there are other churches and temples of other religions that are as close if not closer to ground zero, right?

idyllic, i have no objection in other faiths building their centres and places of worship wherever the municipalities and councils deem fit. If it fits within the planning policies, and is passed through councils, then there really is no reason not to build whatever the private developer has invested into - be it a religious, commercial or residential building.

what people need to realise is the city needs to service the people that live within it. Refusing to acknowledge that there is a need for religious community centres will only drive those centres into ill-equipped and badly controlled underground centres in the hands of the wrong people.

So instead of having a transparent centre that is willing to engage in interfaith dialogue and speak to the community, you set the tone where a centre believes that they have been marginalised and this breeds resentment.

Freedom from everything leaves you with nothing. Dont deny the contituants of your city and they'll show that gratitude back.

I'm thinking that anything that isn't in all caps is subtle.

powerclown, there are already two strip clubs (new york dolls and wild west entertainment) very near the proposed site.

i would be shocked if there weren't a deli.

no idea about the bacon factory though...

On a more serious note, I am still having a hard time understanding what your objection to the project is - my earlier question was genuine. If your issue is not with their stated mission, then to what do you object?

Freedom from religion? After all, what is religion but a set of rules and limitations?

It defeats the purpose here. This is an issue of the Islamic community. Are you suggesting that Muslims shouldn't be Muslims in designing their community centre?

That this thread even exists is indicative that we are not the nation we claim to be. We either allow the free expression of religion or we don't.

Again, I simply ask, what is meant by the words "Islamic values in their truest form" as I go to the website Cordoba Initiative and move around the site I am greeted with many different perspectives of what this means, of the interests in the Shar’iah Project and how this will mesh with the secular perspectives of American society, will this new Mosque also become a place for Imams “rule” of Muslim American citizens based in a form of Shar’iah.

Another thing I found interesting is that this website, that has been in service for at least 2 years, has just now begun to recognize the necessity to include the “freedoms” of Muslim women and have yet to create a voice of their own in that interest, they instead steer one to another site, Home Page | Cordoba which makes me wonder why this aspect of it’s “congregation” and those it anticipates to serve didn’t involve women in general to begin with.

I have many questions as to the basic functioning of this mosque and whether is will truly permit equality of all faiths to enter and pray within its walls, it will house a pool, but will women be slowed to swim in it, and will they be required to wear certain garb to participate (burkinis), will they continue to be required to be segregated during prayer or to pray behind men or will they finally be able to kneel next to their brothers to pray, will they accept Bahá'í Faith members to participate in activities and will they promote Americanism as a means to unify citizens just as they promote Islam. And as base as this may sound, as simple and odd and whatever you think of this question, will they allow a woman who is on her period to carry a Quran (I know, this seems like a petty question, but it is about more than the question itself it is about the way women in general are viewed as being “clean” or “unclean” and why, it’s about the inherent self view that women take of themselves based in the Shar’iah perspectives), I would like to know the answers to these questions as to prevent a woman from touching a “holy” book in a “holy” house because she is “unclean” due to her menses and to allow this to be promoted as O.K. in the U.S. to me is a problem in any “house” of faith that is to be considered a public community forum atmosphere.

So these answers need to be put forth and understood by most who view many of the stricture and confines of Islam as creating a sense of inequality for humans in general, like building a house where rules of religion trump the freedom of the world that surrounds it, a haven from the reality that is the humanity of New York, I have questions and the website does not answer them. I realize that if they have the money, and the permits, in the American way I say build it, will it bring Islam to the NY people or maybe it will bring some NY/US/secular mentality to Islam, even better. Yes, build it, it is very hard to live in American Freedom and not become immersed in the sensations of what this freedom offers, and as generations grow within the multitudes of this freedom they will also progress towards basic freedoms outside religious “laws” because that IS the eventual evolution of mankind.

This is from the The Cordoba Inititive Website

Home Page | Cordoba
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf: What Shariah Law Is All About

In the end, it's all very exciting to watch unfolding this progression of mankind in religious "smelting" take Bahá'í for example, they basically draw together all prior religions to form a new concept of religious evolution, interesting indeed. Smelt away all ye religions in the great melting pot, what better place than that. I still want to know the answers to the "unclean" woman thing.

---------- Post added at 11:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 AM ----------

Until the religion is the law B_G, Shariah Law. If a religious sect begins to place the laws of their faith over the laws of man then it becomes an issue, when citizens become afraid to have pre-marital sex because the Imams can punish them, to these subjects the religion IS the law, no more no less that NYPD, it is Shariah. There can be no religious punishments that reach outside the walls of a building, if they wish to shut their doors to a member because the member does not conform that is one thing but to punish a member, for breaking a religious law is, imho, morally wrong. Shariah Law cannot be secular in it's very nature Shariah Law is the law of the Islamic faith, so yes, freedom from religion and its inherent "laws". A community center is for the community, everyone within that community, not specifically Muslims as that would be against the nature of improving the community altogether, unless of course this is a private community center that only permits Muslims, in which case how will this help their mission.

It is being built as a community center for all faiths B_G, not just the Islamic community, or is it? I am suggesting that a Community Center that is NON-religious or ALL-religions together would be better than one that conforms to a specific religion wherein the membership still lingers within one group as the defining genre.

It's my understanding that it's a Muslim-led initiative to allow interfaith communication and community so that people can learn more about the Islamic faith and that Muslims can learn more about other faiths.

I say the debate is an Islamic issue because it's a Muslim group wanting to share their religion and culture. The tack you're taking is that the centre should be either non-religious or fully multi-religious. The problem with that is it's like asking this Muslim group to go about their vision without being so Islamic about it. Why can't they either eschew their religion when it comes to building this centre or dilute the focus by making it a multi-religious museum?

The problem is that it's a Muslim initiative. It is instilled with Muslim values. And this is viewed as a threat.

That's the problem.

Once again, the conservatives show us that it's ok to be a bigot, just make sure the victim is a Muslim.

---------- Post added at 09:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 AM ----------

There is a St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church across the street from Ground Zero.

Kinda like racial profiling is ok, as long as you sweep up a few illegals.

It's not a good time to be brown.

But with the left it's ok if the victims are WASPs, Catholics, Jews, or people who do not see their views.

Same thing said just on the opposite side of the fence

What left are you talking about? Are these phantoms, or are you thinking of a group or two in particular?

...

Perhaps it's a swimmer's ear issue causing that list.

Hey silent-jay...I need your water reference, back! It didn't need to be edited in my opinion.

Oh heck.

...

Who, exactly, is ok with bigotry towards wasps, jews and catholics?

Can you substantiate any of that? Or is this more of the same bullshit as always?

We get this typical structural fallacy all the time on TFP: If something occurs, then the inverse would probably be true.

So, if we get a group of conservatives (Palin is the first to come to mind) opposing or otherwise attacking the idea of an Islamic cultural centre equipped with a mosque in the proximity of "Ground Zero," it must follow that the opposite is probably true.

In this case, Christians and Jews are the opposite or the inverse of Muslims, and "the left" is the opposite or the inverse of conservatives. So it must follow that the left would react much like the conservatives have if Christians and/or Jews tried to build a cultural centre equipped with either a chapel or a synagogue.

Well, duh. Of course it's true. The universe works this way all the time. That's how it's so easy to keep track of it.

I don't see it. I don't see how it would be a liberal or social democratic thing to oppose the peaceful social or cultural enrichment of a society, which is pretty much what this is sold as. It wouldn't matter what the religious group is, and that's the difference. But I don't speak for all liberals and social democrats. I'm just speaking towards their values. Multiculturalism being one of them. Religious tolerance another.

All I can sense is that Pan is speaking from a place of fear & paranoia,
because the current state of media that most folk rely on,
has done its job very well at whipping
a lot of people into a frenzied frothed state.

Keeping people in a state of fear & uncertainty is one of the top ten
identifiers that fascist regimes use to gain control.

I'm not saying I've ever been immune to these tactics. There have been times I've reacted, just how they wanted me to. Being able to recognize the tone & tempo
of orchestrated propaganda is a life lesson skill that's idyllically learned
at an early age.

I'm confused & disheartened that some people who seem to know better,
decide to keep mainlining the fear they've become accustomed to.

I never really understood the inverse argument anyway. "Sure we're doing something horrible...but..but...you guys are doing other horrible things!" As though that somehow excuses being a jackass? On either side of any issue there is going to be narrow minded idiots with an agenda but that shouldn't detract from the rest of us having a rational discussion over weather or not a group of Muslims should be able to build near ground zero.