Some people are very upset about Muslims practicing their faith. It's sad.

Didn't you know? Titties and gambling are things that REAL AMERKINS DO.

But, obviously, NO muslims are REAL AMERKINS.

It's a mosque with a tennis court. :) The YMCA is a "church with a tennis court" and the JCC is a "synagogue with a tennis court" in many areas where their foundations have never been hidden under their community centers theme.

Some of this depends on how things are in the areas that we have lived. The YMCA is still the YMCA for many of us (it will never just be "the Y" to me) and the JCC will always be the JCC. The clientelle and services provided are in line with their Christian and Jewish foundations (part of which emphasizes outreach), as far as I'm concerned. I enjoy both the YMCA and the JCC. I use the YMCA and the JCC (because I have Jewish family members and I'm one of the few nonJewish customers and staff that I usually see there).

So, it is no surpise if people can't overlook the "place of worship" image. Also, as you stated regarding the age of the YMCA as compared to the JCC, the Islamic community center theme is new for many people. It isn't a more mainstream concept. The Jewish community center theme used to be new and some areas had to adjust to it. If the Islamic community center is ever built and the newness wears out, people may eventually think of the ICC similar to how they view the YMCA and JCC.

I know this is semantics, but I wasn't comparing the age of the YMCA to the age of the JCC or the age of this potential ICC, and in my opinion it's an important distinction which is central to my point.

A. Just because it's older doesn't mean it's better and while it may be more commonplace to society as a whole, there's little benefit to saying "well, the Y is better because we're used to it and it's all white people there" or "oh, well, Pittsburgh has a JCC in Squirrel Hill, and no one died there, so JCCs are OK but ICCs are not" or something equally ridiculous (yes, I realize these are exaggerations to what people may be saying/thinking but I'm trying to make a point that splitting hairs between religions when the proposed function is essentially the same is pretty ridiculous as well).

B. My point with the whole "what the YMCA has become in recent decades" was that the YMCA has actively been distancing itself, at least on the outside, from its original mission in an attempt to be more inclusive, while at least most of the JCCs that I'm familiar will have not done so.

If people want to characterize it as a mosque, that's fine, but the correlation between the Y and JCCs is not irrelevant when considering the actual FUNCTIONS that the proposed structure would be there to perform. One cannot make the assumption that because it includes a place of worship that the primary function would be "a place of worship" in practice, just like many JCCs don't function primarily as a place of worship (at least those that I know, YMMV based on the community in question and the resources available) and (also YMMV) none of the YMCAs that I have ever even been to function primarily as a place of worship.

I don't speculate as to what the breakdown of function would be, it could totally be used as a mosque. But, I'm OK with that, anyway.

I don't like that people are emphasizing religion so much with Ground Zero, anyway, but I don't need to preach as to the blindness that extremists of any religion or nationality or what-have-you tend to see "outsiders" to their particular line of thinking.

It's an election year, I doubt THEY are the ones stirring up trouble. Even the name "Ground Zero Mosque" strums up too much emotion and almost paints a picture. I believe that it was a trained political team that constructed this mass hysteria about plans that have been in the works for years.

Someone compared the current attitude towards Muslims to the anti-communist witchhunts of the 50s. I'm not sure it's a bad comparison.

That is semantics. The point was that the newness and shock value may wear out with time just as it did with the JCC.

LOL. This isn't an NPC tier thread. The point, again, was that the newness and shock value may wear out and the age of the YMCA and JCC is a factor in how people have grown accustomed to the ideas. This has nothing to do with being better. Although it is not shocking that some Jews prefer the JCC and that some Christians prefer the YMCA. That's no coincidence.

And my point was that it will always be the YMCA and JCC to people such as myself. The same goes for this "mosque with tennis courts." :)

Agree, this is the bottom line.

Keith Olbermann had a monologue a couple nights ago where he said this. I'm not a super huge groupie of his or anything but this was spot on.

What the hell is it about 9/11 victims which makes them any better than victims of any other tragedy? They've had nine years and have pretty much all received pretty serious cash settlements which victims of other tragedies didn't get. I don't really understand this unthinking, unquestioning reverence towards these people.

We had the bombing in OKC in 1995. In 2004, victims of that tragedy still have their annual memorial ceremony--some dignitaries give speeches, Clinton makes an occasional appearance, someone semi-famous sings Amazing Grace, the end.

These 9/11 victims apparently believe certain religious groups should but $100MM+ projects on hold (or cancel them altogether) because to go on would not be 'compassionate.' For the lack of a better word, bullshit.

However insensitive this may come off, I have to agree with you.

FTW!

What the hell is it?

Bombing 2 extremely well known buildings that everyone in the US can identify, and trying for a 3rd. I mean if a random person would watch a movie filmed in OKC in 1989, they probably wouldn't know which building it was that was bombed. If that same random watched a movie filmed in NYC and DC in 1999, they could easily pick out the WTC and the Pentagon and feel sad when they looked at them.

I absolutely agree with the rest of your post, but you asked why - simplistic as it is, I think that might be a big part of it.

Probably not even then. The Memorial that sits there now is much more memorable than the building which existed before it. As an aside, the new federal building looks more like a bomb shelter than an office building. Ugly as sin...

I get it what you're saying. 9/11 victims are much more recognizable, hence easier to utilize for political gain. That doesn't make it right.

You're right of course.