Muslim Center on Ground Zero APPROVED By Board.

[Peikko 1,575]

Is Lee Hanson a bigot? No, he has suffered emotional trauma and the mosque reminds him of the event. Is he wrong? Yes.

That is where the difficulty arises. The emotional trauma he suffered is profound and it is not surprising that there are triggers that stimulate remembrance of that trauma, and of course simply telling him that one or more of those triggers is due to a bigoted understanding of the nature of the terrorists who destroyed the world trade center, and with it thousands of lives is hardly helpful to his trauma, but is it acceptable to gloss over the misguided and bigoted rationale because the subject is sensitive? That would be even more foolish, particularly if that leads to decision making at city level that is based on placating those who hold bigoted views. It is even less acceptable to suggest that allowing a religious structure to be built that those who misguidedly feel is insensitive is a slap in the face of Americans, as though those who understand how misguided this sensitively is, are "unamerican".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This reminds me of those arguments about how the death penalty is justifiable if only people could put themselves in the shoes of the victim's relatives. Such an epic Fail. Decisions ought to be made need to be made by clear-thinking people, not those who are emotionally compromised and incapable of thinking about anything beyond their own pain.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

That is where the difficulty arises. The emotional trauma he suffered is profound and it is not surprising that there are triggers that stimulate remembrance of that trauma, and of course simply telling him that one or more of those triggers is due to a bigoted understanding of the nature of the terrorists who destroyed the world trade center, and with it thousands of lives is hardly helpful to his trauma, but is it acceptable to gloss over the misguided and bigoted rationale because the subject is sensitive? That would be even more foolish, particularly if that leads to decision making at city level that is based on placating those who hold bigoted views. It is even less acceptable to suggest that allowing a religious structure to be built that those who misguidedly feel is insensitive is a slap in the face of Americans, as though those who understand how misguided this sensitively is, are "unamerican".

Certainly not, but it is important to look at things from both view points and try to be receptive to both points of view. Calling a guy a bigot who lost his son is not going to help anything, nor would highlighting his plight be bigotry. Of course the government should not ban a mosque under such a situation. Do you see where I'm coming from?

[sandinista! 1,816]

Certainly not, but it is important to look at things from both view points and try to be receptive to both points of view. Calling a guy a bigot who lost his son is not going to help anything, nor would highlighting his plight be bigotry. Of course the government should not ban a mosque under such a situation. Do you see where I'm coming from?

so how much of this are we supposed to swallow then, and look the other way as a society to viewpoints that are just inherently wrong, regardless of what events preceded them? how receptive do i need to be then, if there were a guy walking around in a kkk hood protesting in front of the headquarters of the naacp, whose son had been murdered 9 years prior by a black man?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

so how much of this are we supposed to swallow then, and look the other way as a society to viewpoints that are just inherently wrong, regardless of what events preceded them? how receptive do i need to be then, if there were a guy walking around in a kkk hood protesting in front of the headquarters of the naacp, whose son had been murdered 9 years prior by a black man?

Well I agree that you have to cut people a little slack when they've been through a horrible experience, but clearly bigoted and prejudiced opinions cannot and should not go unchallenged.

[Peikko 1,575]

Certainly not, but it is important to look at things from both view points and try to be receptive to both points of view. Calling a guy a bigot who lost his son is not going to help anything, nor would highlighting his plight be bigotry. Of course the government should not ban a mosque under such a situation. Do you see where I'm coming from?

I thought I was clear. Perhaps I was not? I can see no useful purpose behind confronting someone who was personally effected by the tragedy with their prejudice. The triggers for his trauma are what they are. However, someone who is not so affected should not feel that this personal sensitivity should colour their own actions and perceptions. Anyone not personally affected should not view the decision to allow a mosque to be built somewhere near ground zero as a slap in the face to Americans, such a view userps a legitimate personal sensitivity and uses it to fuel bigotry and that has no place as a representation of what it is to be an American.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Kathryn41 3,205]

This is obviously a very polarized topic and while I can appreciate that emotions run high, it does not give anyone here the right to insult or make personal attacks against another member. Keep your comments on the topic and not on each other.

[Peikko 1,575]

.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I thought I was clear. Perhaps I was not? I can see no useful purpose behind confronting someone who was personally effected by the tragedy with their prejudice. The triggers for his trauma are what they are. However, someone who is not so affected should not feel that this personal sensitivity should colour their own actions and perceptions. Anyone not personally affected should not view the decision to allow a mosque to be built somewhere near ground zero as a slap in the face to Americans, such a view userps a legitimate personal sensitivity and uses it to fuel bigotry and that has no place as a representation of what it is to be an American.

I think its non issue in this case because of this distance to the WTC, but lets assume for one second that the mosque is being built on the site (which I admit I thought was the case at first). These are my personal thoughts regarding the situation from the point of view of the mosque leadership. If I were the leadership, I would feel it would be insensitive of me, "us" to place our mosque there knowing it might cause people pain. So am I bigoted by holding this view? (You can answer yes, I won't consider it a personal attack since I'm actually asking the question)

To me its just a personal question of ethics. Do I build something in a spot that hurts people? There is nothing "wrong" with placing the mosque there, and really no one has the right to stop me from doing it, but should I?

Anyway the above is kind of my thoughts on the subject, and its obviously hypothetical given the mosque is being placed off site. I agree that even if it were built at the top of the tallest new tower it should not be seen as a slap in the face of America.

[Peikko 1,575]

I think its non issue in this case because of this distance to the WTC, but lets assume for one second that the mosque is being built on the site (which I admit I thought was the case at first). These are my personal thoughts regarding the situation from the point of view of the mosque leadership. If I were the leadership, I would feel it would be insensitive of me, "us" to place our mosque there knowing it might cause people pain. So am I bigoted by holding this view? (You can answer yes, I won't consider it a personal attack since I'm actually asking the question)

To me its just a personal question of ethics. Do I build something in a spot that hurts people? There is nothing "wrong" with placing the mosque there, and really no one has the right to stop me from doing it, but should I?

Anyway the above is kind of my thoughts on the subject, and its obviously hypothetical given the mosque is being placed off site. I agree that even if it were built at the top of the tallest new tower it should not be seen as a slap in the face of America.

That is not the issue, the issue is, should American muslims be made to feel as though they are somehow responsible for the actions of those non Americans who committed atrocities under the guise of adherence to their religion? Should the mosque, a place of worship, and symbolic of that religion be allowed to become synonymous with terrorism? Should we allow feelings of sensitivity to those personally affected by 9/11 to guide our view of what is ethical when choosing sites for the building of mosques? I think the answers to these questions are no, vehemently not.

Speculating on the ethics of some mythical muslim planning to build a mosque on ground zero is pointless and a waste of everyone's time.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

That is not the issue, the issue is, should American muslims be made to feel as though they are somehow responsible for the actions of those non Americans who committed atrocities under the guise of adherence to their religion? Should the mosque, a place of worship, and symbolic of that religion be allowed to become synonymous with terrorism? Should we allow feelings of sensitivity to those personally affected by 9/11 to guide our view of what is ethical when choosing sites for the building of mosques? I think the answers to these questions are no, vehemently not.

Speculating on the ethics of some mythical muslim planning to build a mosque on ground zero is pointless and a waste of everyone's time.

If we look at other people's perspectives and value their feelings, the world would be a better place. That's all I'm saying.

[Peikko 1,575]

If we look at other people's perspectives and value their feelings, the world would be a better place. That's all I'm saying.

All I am saying is if you validate those feelings of sensitivity toward something that should not engender such feelings, then you are playing to a reality where a mosque is synonymous with terrorism. Why should American muslims be made to feel that a perfectly legitimate desire to build a mosque must be tied up with people's feelings of sensitivity over 9/11? A mosque is not a symbol of terror and planning on building one should have no more ethical questions attached to it than planning any other legitimate religious structure.

That said, no one we know of is planning on building any denominated religious structure on ground zero, so again, speculating on whether specifically a muslim should consider this a place of unique sensitivity is entirely moot. For all we know, there is a complete embargo on even considering such a move.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Darnell 8,478]

but instead of actually paying attention to what I'm saying all you want to do is come in here and spill your bullshit and flame all over me.

So ask for this topic to be closed, ah ? go to the first post in this topic, click on 'report', and then send off nice msg to the moderator, asking for this topic to be closed.

That will quench the flame, in this topic. Good Luck !

[mawilson 2,133]

For many Americans, Ground Zero is sacred ground.

Anything that is built there should honor the people who died on 9/11 - not God, and

especially not a God that causes mankind to commit acts of unspeakable evil.

[sandinista! 1,816]

a little consistency would be nice. how is the concept of ground being "sacred" any less ridiculous or rational? dirt is dirt regardless of what happened on it.