[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by agzg

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.

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

Originally Posted by agzg

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).

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.

Originally Posted by agzg

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.

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."