Controversial topic inc: Muslim cultural center+mosque in NY

[thegreatheed]

Although I personally don't like the fact that they're building a mosque so close to ground zero. There really is no legal reason to prevent them from building it. The constitution guarantees religious freedom to everyone, and we can't simply pick and choose who we can or can't provide that to.

There is a legal reason to prevent the mosque. The building it's replacing I believe is over 100 years old, and the landing gear from one of the planes landed in the building. It's perfectly reasonable to protect this building as part of the greater landmark area and the history that's a part of it and the area.

Outside of landmark preservation or whatever, there is no other legal reason to deny the Muslim Cultural Center, and yet the landmark preservation council or whatever is actively denying permission for a Greek Orthodox church to rebuild. The liberals in this country are making this an argument over religious tolerance and property rights. So where is the religious tolerance and property rights for the Greek Orthodox church? This story is the clearest example of selective reporting and hypocrisy in media in recent memory. They are picking and choosing what to report, and shaping it as a narrative.

Let's not forget that the Imam in charge of the mosque financially supported the last flotilla to Israel, and will not declare Hamas to be a terrorist organization. His background and funding are sketchy at best. Why is the landmark preservation board in NYC so quick to approve the request for the NEW mosque, yet so slow to approve the REBUILDING of a Greek Orthodox church?

My personal opinion is that the Mosque should be delayed while an in-depth investigation into the Imam's potential ties to terrorist groups, or at least terrorist money is conducted. When the investigation is finalized, and we can be sure he has no terrorist ties or bad money, let him build. Meanwhile, let's as a country prove our religious tolerance and understanding and immediately approve the rebuilding of the Greek Orthodox Church.

[mew]

Sources about why/how he might be immorally funded?
If he has been a leader in the Muslim community in that area for a while, chances are that he has already been investigated.
Also sources/information about the Greek Orthodox church?

And a little offtopic, I'm kind of wondering how the landing gear from one of the planes physically ended up there.


A friend from NY told me that whenever anyone tries to build a mosque in the city it's met with a lot of problems and resistance, but this is the closest to GZ that they have tried to build one. No group of people should stay quiet and allow discrimination (I don't like using that word too much, it comes off as extra strong, but by definition isn't that what this is?) to keep them from doing something they should rightfully be able to do.

[thegreatheed]

Sources about why/how he might be immorally funded?
If he has been a leader in the Muslim community in that area for a while, chances are that he has already been investigated.
Also sources/information about the Greek Orthodox church?

stopthe911mosque.com

There's a story in there about the funding. Our state dept is funding his overseas fundraising. He has refused to divulge anything more than that. Considering he is getting all his funding from "secret" overseas sources, I personally think it should be investigated.

http://www.projo.com/news/content/GROUN ... e4a58.html

one source for the greek orthodox church, first google response, I've heard of it many times.

And a little offtopic, I'm kind of wondering how the landing gear from one of the planes could have physically ended up there.

Because the plane hit the building way up in the air traveling fast, part of the plane and half of the fuselage exited the other side of the building, including the landing gear, which landed 2 blocks away (2 minutes walking distance)

One of the buildings, at 45-47 Park Place, used to house a Burlington Coat Factory, which closed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. (The top of the building was damaged by the landing gear from one of the planes used in the attacks.

A friend from NY told me that whenever anyone tries to build a mosque in the city it's met with a lot of problems and resistance, but this is the closest to GZ that they have tried to build one. No group of people should stay quiet and allow discrimination (I don't like using that word too much, it comes off as extra strong, but by definition isn't that what this is?) to keep them from doing something they should rightfully be able to do.

This is a landmark area. For example, noone can build anything near or on Civil War battle sites. The landmark commission in the area has EVERY right to preserve the landmark status of the proposed site for the mosque, as it directly ties to the event.


Let's take an example from our own history, Disney wanted to build an amusement park near a Civil War battleground. They had the property rights and land to be able to build there, and had every right as a business to expand. Yet the public pressure to not build next to a national landmark eventually caused them to change their mind. This mosque and Ground Zero are no different. This building was historically significant, this Imam should respect the wishes of the vast majority of Americans.

Apart from that, I think this guy should be investigated and not allowed to start demolition or construction until he's cleared.

[Dorvan]

There is a legal reason to prevent the mosque. The building it's replacing I believe is over 100 years old, and the landing gear from one of the planes landed in the building. It's perfectly reasonable to protect this building as part of the greater landmark area and the history that's a part of it and the area.

You can look at the building in the link I've posted earlier. It has no great history, it's nothing particularly special. I don't think there's any good reason to freeze all development for several blocks around the ground zero site. While it may be able to meet the letter of the law, such a landmark move would be a clear abuse of it's spirit.

Outside of landmark preservation or whatever, there is no other legal reason to deny the Muslim Cultural Center, and yet the landmark preservation council or whatever is actively denying permission for a Greek Orthodox church to rebuild. The liberals in this country are making this an argument over religious tolerance and property rights. So where is the religious tolerance and property rights for the Greek Orthodox church? This story is the clearest example of selective reporting and hypocrisy in media in recent memory. They are picking and choosing what to report, and shaping it as a narrative.

I've heard rumors of this, do you have any solid information to report? In general though, I find "they screwed up this other call" as a bad reason to make an error yet again.

edit -- the article linked doesn't provide much information...but it appears that the issue isn't that the authorities don't approve of the church, but that the church is seeking some amount of money from the government for the rebuilding project. Again, the information you've provided is sparse, but I don't see anything particularly unusual or out of order there.


@mew: fwiw, it's pretty easy to believe a piece of the landing gear could have ended up on the building....it's only about 600 feet from the towers. Take an object moving at high velocity hundreds of feet above the rooftop level and it's not hard at all the believe that trajectory.

[mew]

Yeah, I looked at the map again and rephrased my question. It's closer than I had mentally pictured it.

Edit: I wasn't there when it happened, I heard it was pretty scary, but I didn't think there were large chunks of debris falling. I think also when you said "landing gear" I imagined the whole landing gear as opposed to maybe just a part of it.

Is the building officially a landmark?

[Flex]

yet the landmark preservation council or whatever is actively denying permission for a Greek Orthodox church to rebuild.

No they aren't.

The Church was actually at ground zero and is not located blocks away and thus has to deal with a shit-ton of more politicking and rebuilding concerns. See my previously posted image.

The Church and The Port Authority are in disagreement over location to rebuild the church and funding for rebuilding. To say it is anything else is to willfully mislead the argument, much like your claim about a SWAT team with automatic weapons invading a carwash due to back taxes of pennies when in the real world it was two guys in suits serving the notice.

Is the building officially a landmark?

Probably not and I doubt much of any of that area will be designated as such due to the high property values and limited real estate there.

[knaughty]

Fire up Google Maps wand walk around the area they want to build a mosque on.

Strip clubs, fast-food, gambling, discount stores.

This is NOT a special wonderful area replete with historic significance. It's down-town New York.

You made the rules when you founded your country. Live with them. The mosque should be allowed.

[mew]

So I heard somewhere that they are planning to build some sort of shopping center where GZ is, does anyone know anything about this (this being just what they do plan to build there)?
I've heard some things every now and then, I saw the monument plans they had a few years ago and all that, but it's not something that I have kept up with.

[knaughty]

So I heard somewhere that they are planning to build some sort of shopping center where GZ is, does anyone know anything about this (this being just what they do plan to build there)?
I've heard some things every now and then, I saw the monument plans they had a few years ago and all that, but it's not something that I have kept up with.

The retail portion of the twin towers site had a 99-year lease signed by Westfield, which is a monumentally big shopping centre company that own and run most Australian shopping malls. Lease was signed about six months before 9/11.

A different company had a similar lease for the office space.

By about 2003, Westfield wanted out of the lease - the Freedom Tower thing that was going to be built was crap for retail. Apparently the company with the office space lease also had the shits with the design. And the whole thing was taking ridiculously too long from their perspective.

But yeah, there was a shopping centre (Mall) in the Twin Towers, and a real estate trust specialising in malls just signed a 99-year lease on it six months before it got destroyed. Of course they wanted a new mall built. They be acting illegally if they didn't try and get a mall built - they are required to act on behalf of the shareholders.

No idea what's happened since.

Personally, I'm somewhat surprised that the USA didn't go "FUCK YOU, TERRORISTS!" and just rebuild basically the same pair of buildings, except 20 stories taller. You'd be done by now, instead of angsting about it.

[Brekkie]

I think it should be built. Anything else would be morally hypocritical and intellectually dishonest.
In fact, I want them to build it. Let's stop living in a bubble and actually have some real dialogue and cultural exchange.

[Arnock]

Personally, I'm somewhat surprised that the USA didn't go "FUCK YOU, TERRORISTS!" and just rebuild basically the same pair of buildings, except 20 stories taller. You'd be done by now, instead of angsting about it.

that's what I always thought we should do.

[mew]

So after a few days of talking to people about this, I think I finally summed up my view of the argument:

Religious (and racial) equality versus a lot of people feeling insulted/disrespected, and which one is more important to each person involved in the discussion.

[Thalia]

Personally, I'm somewhat surprised that the USA didn't go "FUCK YOU, TERRORISTS!" and just rebuild basically the same pair of buildings, except 20 stories taller. You'd be done by now, instead of angsting about it.

that's what I always thought we should do.

Me too, but this week I heard they are still finding bones/human remains in the hole Maybe they should make it part cemetery/memorial park if there is still people parts down there almost 10 years later.

[Arnock]

So after a few days of talking to people about this, I think I finally summed up my view of the argument:

Religious (and racial) equality versus a lot of people feeling insulted/disrespected, and which one is more important to each person involved in the discussion.

That's pretty much it. Although I'm sure that the builders of the center are probably trying to encourage tolerance and try to show that not all muslims are extremists/terrorists, I do think it's bad taste and a bit insulting. However, there's little, if any, legal ground to prevent the construction of a mosque because it might 'offend someone.' That and we do have a constitution that guarantees religious freedom.

[Thalia]

I don't know if naming the mosque the Cordoba House translates into tolerance.

Cordoba was a decisive battle the Muslims had against Spain before southern Spain fell to them. From there they took the oldest church in the town, destroyed it and built a mosque on top of it. As I said before, that is a practice that has held through the centuries, conquering areas and building Mosques atop the most sacred sites of the enemies they just crushed or had victories over. Naming the Mosque "Cordoba" is either a taunt in itself, or again deft tone and dumb.

Some people feel the Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf is controversial himself, and the the funding backers behind the mosque have said they are open to taking money from Saudi Arabia and Iran (most of the terrorists who flew into the towers where from Saudi Arabia.

I still think they have the right to build whatever they want on their land, property rights is sacred to me. But honestly, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. I don't think it's smart because as I stated before there are some people who see as it a big bulls-eye and I don't want any people to be bystanders to any crazies who are extremely opposed to the mosque being built there.

IMO: I personally feel the people behind the mosque building don't care about reconciliation or tolerance, if they did they would take into account the feelings of 70% of the American people. This country though, as far as rights are concerned, are there to protect the minority from the masses. So just because a majority of American's feel it's insulting to build a mosque called "Cordoba", possibly funded by countries that train and harbor terrorists, run by a controversial Imam, doesn't mean they do not hold every right to do it, conversely, those opposed to it have every right to exercise their free speech and be vocal about their distaste to the mosque being built so close to ground zero.