Pat Condell: "Ground Zero" Mosque

[Valandil]

An interesting, non-American perspective on the plans to build the new mosque in Lower Manhattan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4

Personally, I am against all forms of religious extremism/fundamentalism, so I would disapprove of the building of ANY house of worship, regardless of faith or doctrine, within about a 1/2 - 1 mile radius of a site where thousands were killed in the name of religious extremism.

 

[Halifirien]

This is one of the very few times I miss ol' George W. Bush. I still think he's a reprehensible war criminal who helped torch our economy and took a dump on the Constitution, but at the very least the man performed an important service by stressing the difference between the extremists who highjacked the planes and regular Muslims (before he sent our guys overseas killed a bunch of them, anyway). The anti-Muslim hysteria surrounding that building is disturbing to behold. As an atheist, I'm all too aware that a lot of Christians think freedom of religion only means freedom for their religion, but this is really beyond pathetic.

 

[Valandil]

This is one of the very few times I miss ol' George W. Bush. I still think he's a reprehensible war criminal who helped torch our economy and took a dump on the Constitution, but at the very least the man performed an important service by stressing the difference between the extremists who highjacked the planes and regular Muslims (before he sent our guys overseas killed a bunch of them, anyway). The anti-Muslim hysteria surrounding that building is disturbing to behold. As an atheist, I'm all too aware that a lot of Christians think freedom of religion only means freedom for their religion, but this is really beyond pathetic.

I agree, and yet I disagree. Being an atheist as well, I agree with your statement about freedom of religion only applying to a specific religion; however, do you not also feel that even if the desire to build this mosque was made with the most sincere motivations of peace and goodwill that is, at best, a decision made in poor taste. I would share the same sentiment if it were the Catholic Church requesting to build a cathedral next to the the al-Aqsa Mosque after the wanton slaughter of Muslims and Jews in 1099 (in a 21st century context, of course). Not everyone who died in the WTC was a Christian, nor were they all Americans, but they were all victims of ideological extremism. I think everyone would agree that each of the three most prominent monotheistic have two things in common: 1) that they all have had periods of EXTREME violence and intolerance against those whom they perceived as "infidels" and 2) each, either directly or indirectly, can said to be have ambigious doctrines of permissive violence. Given this aspect, I think the the victims' families, NYC, the United States, and even the world would be best served by either not allowing ANY specific religious centers near the area as a statement against their shared history of bloodshed in the name of ideology, OR take the same site of the proposed mosque and build a world religious studies center that would seek to promote peace, cooperation, and interaction amongst the followers of different faiths, particularly those hostile to one another.

If the proposed construction goes ahead as planned, I forsee one of two scenarios playing out: either extremists from the Christian or Judaic sect will commit acts of vandalism and violence against those who worship there and the structure, or there will be an arms race of sorts for everyone to get "equal representation" at the table of public memorial in an effort to appease adherents and appear to be "more peacable than thou." If the political leadership of NYC and those responsible for the proposal can't see the potential antagonism and backlash against this from other extremists, then they're just being naive and failing to address the fundamental cause of the conflict altogether.

 

[Raesvelg]

You can label it however you prefer, but there really needs to be a limit to tolerance.

We wouldn't tolerate it if a skinhead group decided to build a new Nazi museum on the grounds of Auschwitz. (Godwin'd!)

I can't believe, frankly, that the group in question has the gall to want to build their mosque there, and that they have unbelievable gall to name it after Cordoba, because in this particular matter, the guy on the video is absolutely right; it's a city in Spain that was conquered by the Caliphate.

It'd be akin to, say, going to Hiroshima in Japan and opening the "Fat Man & Little Boy House of Pancakes" two blocks from the Peace Memorial there. I mean, the Japanese shouldn't object, right? It's not like the men who were responsible for the atomic bombing are around today, after all. They shouldn't have a problem with it.

Right?

Oh wait.

YES THEY SHOULD.

Edit: Let me amend my statement for slightly improved historical reference: It would be akin to going to Hiroshima in Japan and opening the "Admiral Perry's Black Ship Bar & Grill". It's still a restaurant, of course, because if we Americans worship anything, it would have to be food. But still. Extremely distasteful.

Now, don't get me wrong; I support their right to do precisely what they're doing. And yes, I understand that since this whole mess has started, the project planners have backed down and changed the name of the complex. But for this group to state openly that they didn't think that there would be an issue raised over this plan is, frankly, either indicative of massive stupidity or incredible disingenuousness. It is unsurprising that people are upset. It should have been expected.

And yes, various factions are making political hay over it, because that's what politicians do. This is why none of them should be trusted, quite frankly, and why we have a desperate need to reform the electoral processes in this country. But I digress.

Yes, they have the right to put their community center (with associated worship space) there.

But here's the kicker.

People have a right to be upset about it.

That's what I mean when I say that there should be a limit to tolerance. That people should not be forced to swallow their feelings and not speak up about something that bothers them, simply because it might upset someone else.

 

[Halifirien]

However, do you not also feel that even if the desire to build this mosque was made with the most sincere motivations of peace and goodwill that is, at best, a decision made in poor taste.

I might agree if these were al-Queada members trying to build a mosque and have an architectural victory lap, but they're not and I don't think it's in poor taste. I know I've given the impression that I think all Christians are equally loony tunes, but I generally try to draw a distinction between willfully ignorant fundamentalists (the ones I loathe) and the rest. If you want poor taste, head for Kentucky and look at Ken Ham's Creation Museum. That idiot has displays of dinosaurs wearing saddles, but I don't believe all Christians think the way he does.

There are already plenty of mosques in the area. There's nothing special about this one except the people trying to score cheap political points because of religious intolerance. The First Amendment applies to everyone or it applies to no one.

 

[Tymon]

I don't know enough about this to take sides.

If they're building this with express intent to ruffle people's feathers.. sure, fuck them.

I do think that it should be left up to the people of the city to decide if they want it there. Just the location. Not the existence of the mosque in general. There's plenty of other locations it could be built.

 

[Dejavu]

It'd be akin to, say, going to Hiroshima in Japan and opening the "Fat Man & Little Boy House of Pancakes" two blocks from the Peace Memorial there. I mean, the Japanese shouldn't object, right? It's not like the men who were responsible for the atomic bombing are around today, after all. They shouldn't have a problem with it.

That would be an awesome place... the fat man breakfast platter the little boy kids menu and for lunch... nuclear wings.

Kidding aside both sides on this issue need to come to their senses a bit. There is a difference between disrespectful and illegal. I cannot fathom this building being built... if it gets build i might have to piss on it the next time I'm in NYC. Now with my personal feelings on the subject where they may be so long as nothing illegal has happened or does happen at that location it is not right to allow them to use our "intolerance" as a weapon against us. If we block it we are going against our principles making them worthless because principles you only have when they are convenient are not worth having. If we don't block it something will happen to that place and it will still be a recruiting tool for them. This is really a no win situation for us. On the other hand from their perspective it is both good and bad. If they are looking to further polarize the ordeal and start a fire... this is probably one of the fastest way to do so as i think this thing would be burned to the ground 4 times before it ever got finished. So if conflict or pity is their goal this is a good move. The one thing this wont do is the one thing they are claiming it for which is the bad part... this will in no way promote tolerance. This is like getting trying to get desegregation to occur and having a black guy rape a white woman to prove that the devil doesn't materialize why it happens.

As far as this mosque specifically is concerned. I first though it was just poor taste but now i am not so sure. Firstly they picked the worst possible opening date it couldn't have been a coincidence. I mean they could have done it on on Good Friday and proclaimed they were commemorating the death of the infidel Jesus and gotten less flack. Someone needs to explain the train of thought on that date because it makes no sense unless your being malicious. The second issue is the imam of the mosque who more or less said we deserved what we got on 9/11.

Honestly i am heartbroken that their congregation or possible congregation has not publicly stated that they will not support the mosque and worship somewhere else and make it stand empty as a testament to the ignorance of those pushing for it but i don't believe that will happen...

All that aside... Principles are not convenient if they want it built... we shouldn't stop them. If they want a trophy, let them build a sculpture to their transgressions and let it become a symbol of our resolve that we will no longer abandon our principles when they become hard to maintain. And i cannot imagine something much harder to do than maintain your principles in the face of this mosque.

Slight ADD moment but we actually have a history of religious intolerance with locations of churches. The Mormons were chased out of the east coast and settled in Utah because they were not able to build temples anywhere (although they could practice their religion...).

What needs to happen is the Muslim community needs to stand up and stop this atrocity due to the horrendously disrespectful and non empathetic nature of it... any other way and we lose because restraint will not be a trait held by everyone involved.

 

[Halifirien]

The second issue is the imam of the mosque who more or less said we deserved what we got on 9/11.

Maybe he was channeling Ron Paul, who said pretty much the same thing. Pointing out that our Middle East policies makes some Muslims hate isn't exactly controversial... or at least it shouldn't be.

 

[Dejavu]

Maybe he was channeling Rand Paul, who said pretty much the same thing. Pointing out that our Middle East policies makes some Muslims hate isn't exactly controversial... or at least it shouldn't be.

ya... no. Paul stated that US policies were a contributing factor to the extremism but never stated in any way we deserved it. Just that we are not necessarily innocent either.

 

[Halifirien]

Bah. I put Rand Paul instead of Ron Paul. Either way, they still made the same point: our policies inspired extremism.

 

[Dejavu]

our policies do inspire extremism... it would be intellectually dishonest for anyone to think they don't but that is not the same as saying we deserved it.

I ski down a hill too fast and wipe out. Did i deserve to wipe out .. no not really. Am i a part of the reason i did wipe out.. yes most definitely. This is not a hard distinction.

 

[Lukas]

Oh my, here we go. So much antagonism and clamour over how one should worship a fucking invisible, supernatural being. You know what, torch all of them down - temples, mosques, cathedrals, synagogues. Maybe when people stop investing so much in inane mysticism, everyone will realise that what your shitty deity demands in exchange for eternal salvation is incongruous with basic notions of human compassion.

 

[Nicolette]

no idea why this isnt embedding.


http://www.youtube.com/v/6dXFo0UUACM


olbermann to the rescue

 

[Raesvelg]

Olbermann, as always, casting it all in high drama, obfuscating the issue as often as not, though in this case I largely agree with the core of what he's saying.

As I mentioned in my expanded post, we have to let them build it. But I find it frankly rather hypocritical of the various pundits in support of the project to tell the people who are opposed to it to, basically, shut up and accept it.

They have a right to be pissed off over it.

 

[Tyrath]

They have a right to be pissed off over it.

Sure they do. Just as racists and bigots have a right to their opinions, however stupid they are.

I ski down a hill too fast and wipe out. Did i deserve to wipe out .. no not really. Am i a part of the reason i did wipe out.. yes most definitely. This is not a hard distinction.

Well, to be fair the guy said we had a hand in the reason that 9/11 happened, not that we deserved it.