Muslim Center on Ground Zero APPROVED By Board.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

But this is partly the point, isn't it? Mecca existed before Islam, and continued as a city with a variety of inhabitants for many years until it became too uncomfortable and finally prohibited for non-Muslims to even visit there. On the other hand, the Vatican did NOT exist until it was established. It was only established as a center for the Church. It consists of several buildings, not an entire city, and people of ANY and ALL faiths are and have always been WELCOME to visit. In fact, while the places are limited, you can stay for as long as your (legal) purpose requires, whether you are Catholic, Christian, of other faiths or no faith at all.

Regardless, a synagogue in Mecca is a ridiculous idea and a meaningless argument for anything. I don't think we need to bring the Vatican into it at all, and doing so muddies the argument for me because I don't see the parallels. I understand it in response to the comment that was made. As such, it was not unwarrented.

I agree, the comment that synagogues aren't allowed in Mecca is meaningless to this argument. Mecca does allow freedom of religion as Sofiyya mentioned. New York City does, I think we can all agree that we don't want New York or any city for that matter including the Vatican or Rome to be like Mecca.

The Vatican is not at all like Mecca. How do you compare a sovereign state that's what? 50 hectares? to a city that has 1.7 million people?

Edited May 31, 2010 by Sousuke

[Kathryn41 3,205]

A number of unacceptable racist comments violating TOS - and posts quoting the same have been removed. Any further posting of similar comments will lead to this thread being closed.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I agree, the comment that synagogues aren't allowed in Mecca is meaningless to this argument. Mecca does allow freedom of religion as Sofiyya mentioned. New York City does, I think we can all agree that we don't want New York or any city for that matter including the Vatican or Rome to be like Mecca.

The Vatican is not at all like Mecca. How do you compare a sovereign state that's what? 50 hectares? to a city that has 1.7 million people?

Just noticed a typo...I meant to say Mecca does NOT allow freedom of religion as Sofiyya mentioned. Wow the more I read about Mecca the scarier it seems!

[Darnell 8,478]

More and more thread drift. You folksen wanna focus back at the building plans for the center in NYC ? or no?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

More and more thread drift. You folksen wanna focus back at the building plans for the center in NYC ? or no?

You mean the part where the mosque isn't at the trade center at all and is in fact two blocks away?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I agree, the comment that synagogues aren't allowed in Mecca is meaningless to this argument. Mecca does allow freedom of religion as Sofiyya mentioned. New York City does, I think we can all agree that we don't want New York or any city for that matter including the Vatican or Rome to be like Mecca.

The Vatican is not at all like Mecca. How do you compare a sovereign state that's what? 50 hectares? to a city that has 1.7 million people?

The size of the city is meaningless to the point. One point is, sovereign nations make their own rules. We like that for us, we have to allow it to others. It bothers me not at all that there are no synagogues, protestant churches or masjids in The Vatican. If the Saudis want to leave Mecca off limits to non-Muslims, so be it. None of that makes all Catholics or all Muslims terrorists.

Another point is, Ground Zero and the area around it isn't The Vatican nor is it Mecca. It's privately owned, valuable commercial property. The ignorance and narrow-mindeness of Pamela Geller, Steve Emerson and others who believe that Muslims are not part of the closure that 9/11 families are seeking don't know that 400 Muslim victims died in the attacks. They believe that Islam and its symbols are only adversarial to the American memory of 9/11, but they are wrong.

There are Muslim who are Americans, too, and others who are happy to be here and to participate in the opportunities this country affords. We are not going to sit still to be defined by by self-righteous non-Muslims who feel they have a right to dictate the parameters of our participation in the mourning over 9/11. Nor will we be forced to accept the biased and inaccurate lexicon of the discussion that crudely depicts us and our faith as the enemy. We shouldn't have to be called on to denounce terrorism only to have to fight with fellow Americans over what right we have to worship our faith, and where. If that is what they want, then they are more like what they say they abhor than they realize.

[GabiandVi 34]

The size of the city is meaningless to the point. One point is, sovereign nations make their own rules. We like that for us, we have to allow it to others. It bothers me not at all that there are no synagogues, protestant churches or masjids in The Vatican. If the Saudis want to leave Mecca off limits to non-Muslims, so be it. None of that makes all Catholics or all Muslims terrorists.

Another point is, Ground Zero and the area around it isn't The Vatican nor is it Mecca. It's privately owned, valuable commercial property. The ignorance and narrow-mindeness of Pamela Geller, Steve Emerson and others who believe that Muslims are not part of the closure that 9/11 families are seeking don't know that 400 Muslim victims died in the attacks. They believe that Islam and its symbols are only adversarial to the American memory of 9/11, but they are wrong.

There are Muslim who are Americans, too, and others who are happy to be here and to participate in the opportunities this country affords. We are not going to sit still to be defined by by self-righteous non-Muslims who feel they have a right to dictate the parameters of our participation in the mourning over 9/11. Nor will we be forced to accept the biased and inaccurate lexicon of the discussion that crudely depicts us and our faith as the enemy. We shouldn't have to be called on to denounce terrorism only to have to fight with fellow Americans over what right we have to worship our faith, and where. If that is what they want, then they are more like what they say they abhor than they realize.

TOTALLY agree with everything you have said. I think the person you were replying to does as well. The only point was that the Vatican and Mecca are not the same in terms of the argument EXCEPT THAT what other religions' places of worship do not exist within them has NOTHING to do with it.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

TOTALLY agree with everything you have said. I think the person you were replying to does as well. The only point was that the Vatican and Mecca are not the same in terms of the argument EXCEPT THAT what other religions' places of worship do not exist within them has NOTHING to do with it.

Yep!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

TOTALLY agree with everything you have said. I think the person you were replying to does as well. The only point was that the Vatican and Mecca are not the same in terms of the argument EXCEPT THAT what other religions' places of worship do not exist within them has NOTHING to do with it.

Actually, they do have something to do with the topic, and that is why I responded to the original statement about synagogues in Mecca. Some people are calling for the Muslim center to be banned out of respect to the 9/11 victims and sensitivity to the families because they regard the grounds as sacred to the victims and the memory of 9/11. They believe that this reasoning precludes the participation of Muslims because people claiming to be Muslims caused the damage and loss of lives in the name of Islam. So, Muslims who want to do more than grovel are not welcomed.

This logic holds that are all Muslims and the symbols of their faith are perpetrators of 9/11, and only non-Muslims are victims of 9/11 with the right to enter and "reseed" the "holy Ground Zero". That is why the analogy of Mecca comes up, and often has in this debate. Those in opposition to the Cordoba Initiative want to treat Muslims at and around Ground Zero as Saudis treat non-Muslims at Mecca. They want to keep them out because their presence defiles "their" sacred site.

But, NYC is not Mecca, and Ground Zero is not a site defined by a certain segment of the population with an interest in keeping the site "pure" for those who share their faith and/or their agenda, and who want to treat Muslims as "the Other". Their vision is clouded by misplaced hatred and they cannot be allowed to lead nor to win.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Actually, they do have something to do with the topic, and that is why I responded to the original statement about synagogues in Mecca. Some people are calling for the Muslim center to be banned out of respect to the 9/11 victims and sensitivity to the families because they regard the grounds as sacred to the victims and the memory of 9/11. They believe that this reasoning precludes the participation of Muslims because people claiming to be Muslims caused the damage and loss of lives in the name of Islam. So, Muslims who want to do more than grovel are not welcomed.

This logic holds that are all Muslims and the symbols of their faith are perpetrators of 9/11, and only non-Muslims are victims of 9/11 with the right to enter and "reseed" the "holy Ground Zero". That is why the analogy of Mecca comes up, and often has in this debate. Those in opposition to the Cordoba Initiative want to treat Muslims at and around Ground Zero as Saudis treat non-Muslims at Mecca. They want to keep them out because their presence defiles "their" sacred site.

But, NYC is not Mecca, and Ground Zero is not a site defined by a certain segment of the population with an interest in keeping the site "pure" for those who share their faith and/or their agenda, and who want to treat Muslims as "the Other". Their vision is clouded and they cannot be allowed to lead or to win.

Well I would argue that no religious building should be placed at ground zero (the obvious fact being that this Mosque is NOT at ground zero.)

By the way, what is your few on Saudi keeping Muslims out of Mecca? Do you support it or are you against it?

Edited June 1, 2010 by Sousuke

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Well I would argue that no religious building should be placed at ground zero (the obvious fact being that this Mosque is NOT at ground zero.)

By the way, what is your few on Saudi keeping Muslims out of Mecca? Do you support it or are you against it?

I'm no fan of the Saudis, so, frankly, I'd like to get them out of Mecca. They have not been good stewards of our history nor of the faith.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I think the placement of the mosque is tasteless. However I would agree that it is in absolute keeping with freedom of religion in this country.

[GabiandVi 34]

Actually, they do have something to do with the topic, and that is why I responded to the original statement about synagogues in Mecca. Some people are calling for the Muslim center to be banned out of respect to the 9/11 victims and sensitivity to the families because they regard the grounds as sacred to the victims and the memory of 9/11. They believe that this reasoning precludes the participation of Muslims because people claiming to be Muslims caused the damage and loss of lives in the name of Islam. So, Muslims who want to do more than grovel are not welcomed.

This logic holds that are all Muslims and the symbols of their faith are perpetrators of 9/11, and only non-Muslims are victims of 9/11 with the right to enter and "reseed" the "holy Ground Zero". That is why the analogy of Mecca comes up, and often has in this debate. Those in opposition to the Cordoba Initiative want to treat Muslims at and around Ground Zero as Saudis treat non-Muslims at Mecca. They want to keep them out because their presence defiles "their" sacred site.

But, NYC is not Mecca, and Ground Zero is not a site defined by a certain segment of the population with an interest in keeping the site "pure" for those who share their faith and/or their agenda, and who want to treat Muslims as "the Other". Their vision is clouded by misplaced hatred and they cannot be allowed to lead nor to win.

I think we agree on that except that we are coming at it from opposite angles. My point would be that Mecca not having synagogues has NOTHING to do with whether Ground Zero should or should not have a mosque, and even more importantly, CANNOT have anything to do with whether or not a mosque should be built off site of Ground Zero.

[sandinista! 1,816]

I think the placement of the mosque is tasteless. However I would agree that it is in absolute keeping with freedom of religion in this country.

dying to know what random distance pulled out of yr ####### would be deemed "tasteful" then. is there a tasteful distance you want muslims to observe at other various sites around the rest of the nation as well?

[Darnell 8,478]

Whoo-ouch ! Some radio talk show host in Houston last week got into some heated conversation with a caller about this topic, then said (paraphrased) that he hopes someone does blow it up. He's enraged the Muslim community here, even issued an apology, but I gotta wonder just what the #### his illegal drugs were, for dosing, on that day. Geez !

for more info - see http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7025777.html

I do feel that the placement is going to enrage a certain element in the USA, you betcha - I can't wait to learn what Pat Robertson is gonna spew about this.