NYC community board OKs ground zero mosque plans

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

I don't think people are upset about muslims practicing their faith, I think it boils down to a large group of people that think putting this center near ground zero is in bad taste and they are being very vocal about it.

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

[agzg]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Some of the other things in similar proximity are OTB and a titty bar.

Just saying is all.

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

But, obviously, NO muslims are REAL AMERKINS.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by agzg

I was under the understanding (and it may be mistaken) that this was more than "just a mosque" - I thought it was supposed to be a multi-level community center.

The comparison may not fit completely with what the Y has become in recent decades, but I think it certainly fits with JCC in terms of place of worship/community center/athletics facilities/daycare and all the other things a JCC does in a community.

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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

[MasTNX]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

He really should of left it alone, and NO it's not in the realm of the Federal government. The only instance where I could see the Gov's getting involved in this is if NYC or the state had banned the construction of the mosque, which they didn't. This muslim group itself confuses me. They claim to be a community outreach center devoted to the understanding of Islam yet they seem oblivious to the outrage they are stirring up with all of this. Talk about getting off on the wrong foot.

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.

[Drolefille]

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

[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."

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by MasTNX

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.

Agree, this is the bottom line.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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

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.

[Nanners52674]

TEMECULA, Calif. (KABC) -- Demonstrators clashed Friday over the proposed construction of a mosque right next to a church in Temecula.

As worshipers at the Islamic Center of Temecula Valley arrived to pray, a small but vocal group of about two dozen protesters waved American flags and shouted through bullhorns, denouncing a plan to build a new mosque in another part of the Riverside County town.

"I just don't agree with their beliefs," said Cynthia Daum, who assembled with the protesters across the street from the center.

The existing Islamic center has been operating in Temecula out of an industrial building for almost 10 years. Members have saved the funds to build a new mosque on a 4-acre plot of vacant land in a different area of the city.

Members of the community showed up in front of the Islamic Center to lend support, outnumbering the protestors by about 10 to one. They said they won't let the anger of some community members scare them away from building a mosque because it all comes down to civil rights.

"We respect everyone's opinion - we're American," said Hadi Nael. "They have the right to freedom of speech, we have the freedom of religion."

The proposed location of the mosque, in close proximity to a church, has stirred emotions over what some people see as an intrusion on the community.

"I have witnessed what happens to many nations in the world by the expansion of Islamic ideology," said Mano Bakh. "They destroy the community, they destroy the country."

The Islamic Center will submit its building proposal to the city's Planning Commission in August. Meanwhile, protestors are circulating a petition to stop its progress.
(Copyright ©2010 KABC-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...ire&id=7585147

[Kevin]

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.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

[Animate]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

FTW!

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.

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...

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 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.

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.

You're right of course.