Howard Dean talks sense on Ground Zero mosque with Keith Olberman
By: Brendan Patrick Keane | Published Friday, August 20, 2010, 1:10 PM | Updated Friday, September 9, 2011, 9:47 PM
(part two below)
Howard Dean was a breath of fresh air last night when he spoke at length on the "Ground Zero mosque" controversy. He believes Muslims have every right to build the mosque, but should reconsider making a freedom of religion cause out of Ground Zero.
(Self-serving talk show hosts should not co-opt Martin Luther King's speech at the Lincoln Memorial, in a similar can/should problem. The nuns dismantled their memorial on the edge of Auschwitz in a can/should solution that was not afterwards framed as a defeat for free expression.)
Disgusting anti-Muslim rhetoric has been flying on the airwaves, making everyone crazy in ways that seem unAmerican, if only it were so.
Dean defends location-critics unfairly stigmatized and lumped-in with the bigots.
Almost every objection Keith Olbermann makes is against the extreme bigots, which is important, but that leaves the thoughtful location-critics out of the conversation. The center is supposed to be about dialogue, but so far, one side refuses to talk to the Governor, and is adamant to make a legalistic and argumentative stance when there are more pragmatic solutions.
The anti-Muslim rally scheduled for September 11th will be full of out-of-towners flown in special for the occasion. These out-of-towners will be enterained by out-of-town speakers who will be outraged that sacred ground should be defiled in this manner. Then the out-of-towners and the out-of-town speakers will leave, and business as usual will return to New York.
No matter what anybody says, the attack on September 11th didn't have that big an impact on New York itself. The great outcry for justice came from out of town. New Yorkers simply went on about their business and remained as tolerant of foreigners after the attack as they were beforehand. A surprisingly high percentage of New Yorkers don't believe the official story about what happened on September 11th, but aren't about to get worked up about it. Similarly, they're not going to get worked up by out of towners and their talk of sacrilege. As far as New Yorkers are concerned, if Ground Zero is a holy place, add it to the destinations on the tourist bus. See Ground Zero in the morning; see Rockefeller Center in the afternoon.
The reason the Ground Zero sacrilege story isn't going anywhere is that New Yorkers aren't buying into it. Mike Bloomberg is politically astute enough to read the mood of the city of which he is Mayor. He says Let's mnve on; bigotry is not welcome; and New York remains 100% committed to allowing this project to go forward.
hancock | Aug 24, 2010, 11:38 AM EDT
When they fly Budweisers trucks into buildings then people will protest.
DennisQ | Aug 24, 2010, 12:39 AM EDT
Why do the cameras always cut away from the bar that's right next to the Islamic center? It's not a restaurant-type bar, either. It's a working class dive. Go to their website and they proclaim their motto, "Too much is never enough."
I don't know how long this bar has been there, but if a religious center isn't holy enough for Ground Zero, what's up with a saloon that offers cheap eats and reduced prices on Budweiser?
Oh, I know. You get your load on, then you stagger out onto Park Place and tell the world how loyal you are to the martyrs of Ground Zero.
DennisQ | Aug 24, 2010, 12:29 AM EDT
There weren't any big fires in Building Seven. Photographs show some fires burning on the north side, but the available fuel didn't burn hot enough to cause collapse. Typical office contents - furniture, paper, carpets, etc., reach a certain maximum temperature well short of that needed even to deform steel, much less melt it.
The reason Kevin Ryan was fired from his job at Underwriters Laboratories is that he caught them fudging the numbers - and went public with it when he couldn't get the bosses to address it. To this day, the government agency responsible for the report on Building Seven refuses to answer questions about the phony figures. Don't submit a FOIA request - it will be ignored. If an unfriendly reporter shows up at a news conference, they cut his microphone. Is this any way for a government agency to respond to citizens' questions?
There are other issues besides the absence of a fire hot enough to destroy a 47-storey skyscraper. Another issue is the symmetric collapse at freefall speed, defying Newton's Third Law. Who would you rather believe - some Bush administration appointee, or Sir Isaac Newton?
Building Seven is a weak point, but there are lots of weak points in the September 11th narrative. We definitely need a new investigation - the last one was a hodgepodge.
hancock | Aug 23, 2010, 07:08 PM EDT
Building 7 collapsed , it didnt burn like an old barn. Were you there on 9/11. Its steel skeleton and light weight trusses were compromised by 40 fls of fire for 7 hours. You going to take on the holocaust and the moon landing next?
Monsoonman | Aug 23, 2010, 10:21 AM EDT
I have to scratch my head in wonder when howard dean and keith olbermann are considered examples of level headedness and common sense, even though on this particular subject dean is right....The old adage goes: even a broken clock is correct twice a day. I hope Brendan has other sources besides these two to draw on when he presents articles to the proletariat.
DennisQ | Aug 22, 2010, 09:46 PM EDT
As I see it, the Muslims are refusing to accept any "collective guilt" for what happened on September 11th. I completely agree with them! They're no more guilty of the attack than the victims themselves.
Unfortunately, we're stuck with the findings of government commissions that are anxious to shut down debate. For example, Shyam Sunder, director of the group that claimed Building Seven burned to the ground like an old barn, gives few press conferences, and when he does, he acts like Bill O'Reilly. Disagree with him and he shuts down your microphone. Is this any way for the director of a government agency to respond to citizen inquiries?
It appears that Republicans profited from the September 11th attacks and don't want the truth out. They used the events of that day as the basis for military actions that they falsely portrayed as counterattacks.
It's not a surprise that the same people who promoted these unnecessary wars are also imposing collective guilt on all Muslims. The group calling itself "Stop the Islamization of America" (SIOA) plans a rally on September 11. In addition to hatemongers Pam Geller and Robert Spencer, featured speakers will include: John Bolton, Geert Wilders, Andrew Breitbart, Gary Bernsten, Ilario Pantano, and Steve Malzberg - a rogue's gallery of foaming-at-the-mouth war- and hatemongers. Ilario Pantano, a murderer who got away with it, is running for Congress in North Carolina.
Monsoonman | Aug 22, 2010, 08:18 PM EDT
Oh Dennis. The only one on this board who is frustrated lad, is you. No one wants to argue with a Quixotic rosie o'donnel, there is no basis when you are orbiting around yeranus. So don't take the silence directed towards your rants as an acquiescence to your philosophy, it is just the opposite....and we'll wait and see how the American public reacts to your inanity in November.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 22, 2010, 07:50 PM EDT
DennisQ: I'll give a group to hate: the rich oil barrons in Saudi Arabia that fund Wahhabi Islam, 9/11 hijackers, and quite possibly, this mosque you defend like a pawn.
DennisQ | Aug 22, 2010, 03:55 PM EDT
One of the achievements of this forum is that it's revealing the intellectual bankruptcy of the right wing. Over time, right wingers have less and less to contribute to the discussion of important issues. They've now devolved into name-calling just to maintain a presence at the table.
What right wingers need is a defined enemy, one that they can demonize and hate with the kind of viciousness that the late Sen. Joe McCarthy had for Communists. Unfortunately, al Qaeda isn't a group as such, it's a collection of ideas. When right wingers have to deal with ideas rather than identifiable groups, they are completely frustrated. They just don't deal well with ideas. But give them a group to hate, and they are launched.
All you have to do is wait them out. Continue to explain your viewpoints and patiently respond to their objections. Over time, they'll run out of gas!
hancock | Aug 21, 2010, 05:41 PM EDT
You are a lunatic.
DennisQ | Aug 21, 2010, 04:29 PM EDT
We actually need the "who done it" in the equation because nature abhors a vacuum. As Jesus Himself remarked, "When the Devil has been kicked out, he returns with seven devils worse then himself." If you leave the place open and swept, it won't stay that way.
The fear of Wahhabism tracks back to a group "Stop Islamization of America" - SIOA - and its leader, Pamela Geller. Geller quotes Ayn Rand favorably on her "Atlas Shrugged" website, and has links to anti-immigration groups such as Citizen Warrior, which in turn connects back to Geller's live-in, Robert Spencer. It's a small, zealous group of people, but they're running a web petition to put the brakes on immigration:
Does this seem extreme? It's not as unreasonable as it might seem. We already choose who can immigrate and who cannot. We make the rules. This is our country, after all. We are not under any obligation to allow anyone to immigrate just because they want to. They do it with our blessing or they don't do it.
We need to re-open the September 11th investigation and address the many issues that were handled poorly. It's my contention that if you don't have an answer, say so. Don't plug the hole with fanciful stories, such as, for example, the idea that Building Seven caught fire and burned to the ground. That didn't happen - there's no science to support such a possibility.
Let's find out if there's any truth to Citizen Warrior's assertion that there's no such thing as a moderate Muslim. They actually say so!
There may be plenty of Muslims who reject these basic principles of Islamic doctrine, but we have no way to determine who does and who does not. We could ask them on their immigration application, but another Islamic principle allows Muslims to deceive non-Muslims if it helps the spread or dominance of Islam, so we cannot trust their answers.
emer333 | Aug 21, 2010, 11:23 AM EDT
Let's take the "who done it" out of the equation. And focus on the fact that this is sacred, very sensitive, hollowed ground. Let's give the place more time and space to heal. Nothing is permitted to be further built, except trees, and plantlife.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 10:58 AM EDT
hancock: I went to Bronx Science, they're actors. I go by the science and what's debated in scientific journals. As I understand it, Saudi Arabian terrorists, adhering to Wahhabi ideology, using Big Oil money, did 9/11. Now we're supposed to be excited when Saudi money is likely to be used to build a mosque on a building destroyed by the fuselage of the airplane. Without explaining the funding, this is looking like a Saudi prince project posing as moderate Sufism.
hancock | Aug 21, 2010, 10:08 AM EDT
Brendan what about Rosie O'Donnell and Sean Penn?
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 03:17 AM EDT
DennisQ: re WTC7, I don't believe any 9/11 conspiracy theory that is not published in a scientific journal and debated by respected scientists.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 03:15 AM EDT
Bull***t. This is not a right of privacy argument. This is a zoning issue. The Constitution does not provide that we have to allow the Saudis to fund a Wahhabi sympathetic mosque on top of a building destroyed by the airplane on 9/11. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html
DennisQ | Aug 21, 2010, 02:50 AM EDT
Judges routinely instruct juries that if they catch a witness in a lie, they don't have to weigh the truth or falsity of anything else that witness has to say. A single lie destroys the credibility of that witness. The Latin saying is Falsus in unum, falsus in omnia - False in one, False in everything.
I don't believe that Building Seven fell down. That's my cue to disbelieve everything else we've heard about September 11th. I don't know who did it, and I don't know why. Bush told us on the afternoon of September 11th that Al Qaeda did it, because they were jealous of our freedom. I don't believe a word of it.
As to your repeated claims about the role of Wahhabism on September 11th, I don't have either knowledge or belief to dispute anything you say. However, I am skeptical that Wahhabis are likely to finance a Sufi center, because the two groups don't get along.
As to your claim that Park 51 should refuse Saudi money because it's dirty, all we know is that they're not saying. And I don't blame them. Frankly, it's their business what they do with their money.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 02:31 AM EDT
DennisQ: No one was killed in Building 7. You should study the relationship between Big Oil money in Saudi Arabia and extremist Wahhabism. This $100 million project sounds like Big Oil. I don't see why Muslims would want to be associated with Saudi funding. So far organizers have explicitly refused to ban Saudi oil money (or demands attached to donations).
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 02:25 AM EDT
It's said to say but the type of Islam practiced by many of the Big Oil barrons is not moderate Islam. Normal Muslims suffer from the influence of these Wahhabi hobbyists with the money that can make a $100 million project possible. Building a mosque on a building destroyed on 9/11 would be read by Saudi Arabian Wahhabis as a triumph memorial. It's best to keep Saudi oil money away from Ground Zero. If that's anti-Muslim, there is something wrong with your definition of Muslim. Saudi oil and Wahhabis are not Muslims, but it will require their money to build this project on that site. Ignoring that problem is unsatisfying to those who have studied the Saudi funding sources behind 9/11 hijackers.
DennisQ | Aug 21, 2010, 02:22 AM EDT
Uh, no, I don't know what role Wahhabism had in the events of September 11th. I don't know very much about September 11th at all. However, I do know that Building Seven didn't collapse because somebody put a hex on it. And if it collapsed because of a fire, it's an event that's so anomalous that it's almost miraculous.
The difference between me and people who readily accept wildly improbably official theories is that I'm modest enough to recognize that something that could not have happened did not happen. In that respect, I acknowledge my debt to George Boole, whose statue stands on the campus of University College Cork.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 02:08 AM EDT
Sufis don't have a hundred million. Normal Muslims don't have that kind of money. Of course they'd want a beautiful center. But it's not their money. Wahhabists do have that money. It will be Muslim hopes, but Wahhabist money. The Saudis are going to build a mosque on a building destroyed on 9/11. That's what you want people to get cool with. It's outrageous the more I think about the refusal of center organizers to divulge financial backers.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 01:46 AM EDT
Everyday Muslims have nothing to do with extremists. It just so happens that the rich Muslims that pay for lots of new mosques in the Middle East lean Wahhabist. Wahhabists would love to build a victory memorial on some piece of land the jihadists destroyed on 9/11. There should be strict guarantees about what the $100 million backers believe this mosque will symbolize to them. Building it off Ground Zero would prevent any symbolic messing about.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 01:40 AM EDT
DennisQ: Was Wahhabism a contributing factor to 9/11? Would Wahhabists view a mosque on that spot as a victory mosque? In the event the Catholic Church developed a sect that bombed something, then that religion has passed into the realm of sleeper cell. It would be racism if Wahhabists were a race, you argumentless dolt. They are violent ideologues that use religion to escape your scrutiny. To raise $100 million, Persian Gulf oil money may want to have their Wahhabist views reflected somehow in this as of now koombayyah pie in the sky vision of a center that has no financial backers we can know about it. Muslims are enamored by this wonderful prospect of getting a wonderful complex, and I understand that, but it's not a community coming forward with money. The money is a separate thing. The money is going to have to come from Wahhabist oil barrons.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 01:27 AM EDT
Give up on Imam Rauf. He's just the salesman. They sold Tara Circle the same way. It's all about the money. The spirit of that mosque will be determined by the people willing to fork up $100 million. In the Middle East, the Persian oil money interests like Wahhabism.
DennisQ | Aug 21, 2010, 01:25 AM EDT
Brendan, can you imagine the uproar if some politician demanded to review the books of the Catholic Church? Why is it OK to demand a look at the books of the Park 51 group? It's because Muslims have a collective guilt for September 11th, isn't it? Well, nuts to your theory of collective guilt. That's not religious tolerance, it's racism.
DennisQ | Aug 21, 2010, 01:17 AM EDT
Brendan, you've now crossed over to a serious discussion of abridging freedom of religion. I don't even know where you got this Wahhabism stuff from; it sounds like you got it from some Muslim-bashing website. We don't have the right to vet religions - what a repulsive idea!
Tell us where you got this Wahhabism talk from, Brendan. Why do you believe that the Wahhabis and the Sufis are suddenly friends, after centuries of animosity? I take Imam Rauf at his word about his intentions - he deplored the attack on September 11th, but he won't allow anti-Muslim prejudice to prevent him from building a community center.
By the way, 100 million dollars is a fair piece of change, but it's not immense. You're just throwing things at the wall.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 01:06 AM EDT
DennisQ: What are you talking about? The organizers have refused to define its funding sources. The organizers have refused to talk to the Governor of New York. How is that dialogue? Get some facts and spare me the PC bullshit. People just want answers. And the Burlington was a five story building, three floors knocked out when the fuselage from the plane crashed through the roof. I'm not parsing that, you ghoul.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 01:02 AM EDT
DennisQ: Are the same people who financed the Wahhabi mosques going to contribute to this center? The terrorists that hijacked the airplanes were financed by Saudi Arabian sources that are not vetted well. This is a 100 million dollar project for a "community" that is undefined and not located in that neighborhood. Dean is calling for dialogue so that these financing concerns, for example, prevent Wahhabi-ists from contributing to a mosque that will be built on a building destroyed on 9/11--it's potentially symbolic in that way and until the financing issue is understood publicly there is right to be concerned about the pet projects of Saudi Arabian oil barrons. Many believe these unpunished financiers escaped scutiny. Where is this 100 million coming from? Why must the Muslim community be defined by immense money that does not have to tell us who is providing that money?
DennisQ | Aug 21, 2010, 01:02 AM EDT
Hancock, it's you who's attributing magical properties to inanimate objects, not me. Yeah, the wind knocked down Building Seven. Or the flying debris. No, it was the fire. Yeah, that's right, it was the fire.
DennisQ | Aug 21, 2010, 12:59 AM EDT
Brendan, some of the stuff you write doesn't stand up to simple fact-checking. Your claim that Burlington Coat Factory's building was "destroyed" was easily disproven. All I had to do was go to their website and look and their annual report.
Where did you get this stuff about Saudi princes wanting to take a swim in Ground Zero? I actually looked for it and couldn't find it. You're certainly wrong about Wahhabism and Sufism - there's no way the Wahhabis are financing construction of a Sufi community center.
You also seem to be buying into this notion that Muslims share some collective guilt for the attacks on September 11th. Collective guilt is the basis for racism, and it was used as such to attack Arab countries that had nothing at all to do with September 11th. You accuse me of making excuses - what's your excuse for what America did to the people of Iraq? And it's ongoing.
DennisQ | Aug 21, 2010, 12:48 AM EDT
Here's what you are stumbling over. The Park 51 group not only has every legal right to build on the site they've chosen, they also have every moral right as well. People are saying that they have the legal right but not the moral right, but they are wrong about that.
Muslims have as much right to build at the World Trade Center as anyone. Their moral rights in the matter are in no way abridged because some family members of the victims blame the entire Muslim faith for what happened on September 11th. You can have a certain amount of sympathy for such people, but not enough to agree with them that Muslims need to be "sensitive" to where they locate their centers.
I'm not spinning your words; I'm just about quoting you. I'm telling you you're wrong and you're being hateful. You have some nerve claiming compassion as your reason for calling for collective punishment.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 12:13 AM EDT
DennisQ: You have an excuse for everyone.
McNamara31 | Aug 20, 2010, 11:39 PM EDT
DennisQ...The way you have blatantly attempted to spin my words and intentions would give Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck a run for their money. The point of my response is empathy, understanding and healing on both sides, not an attack on the Muslim faith, as you are desperately attempting to “frame” it.
hancock | Aug 20, 2010, 10:58 PM EDT
CUCKOO- CUCKOO
DennisQ | Aug 20, 2010, 10:48 PM EDT
Brendan, get your facts straight. It wasn't the fuselage that came down on top of the building, it was the landing gear. And it didn't destroy the building, it damaged the roof. Burlington Coat Factory is not a factory, it's a big retail chain like J.C. Penney or The Gap.
Burlington was not driven out of business by the damage to the roof at the 51 Park Place location. They could have fixed the roof and soldiered on if they'd wanted to do that. Management decided instead to relocate where the foot traffic was better. Indeed, quite a number of retailers made exactly the same decision in the aftermath of September 11th. It's erroneous for you to suggest that the physical damage to the building was the sole deciding factor.
And here's something else you could check on, Brendan. Because the Park Place center will be run by Sufis, it's unlikely that Saudi Wahhabi money will pay for it. The Wahhabis and the Sufis hate each other. You might as well say that the IRA are collecting money to build a recreation center for the British army. Think Notre Dame and Purdue, if you need a sports analogy.
Incidentally, the reason I called for a new September 11th commission is to keep people from running around blaming everyone and anyone with anything in common with the attackers. First it's Muslims; then it's Saudis. At one time it was Iraqis, thank God that's over! But we definitely need to get a better handle on who did this and why.
Did you know that Building Seven was made of paper-mâché? They didn't find it out till it was too late. Don't tell me that's ridiculous - there are people who believe the wind knocked it over.
DennisQ | Aug 20, 2010, 10:19 PM EDT
Monsoonman - McNamara didn't have the moral guts to own her own statements. Instead of directly calling for the Muslims to abandon their plans to build a center on Park Place, she hides behind the victims of the attack on September 11th.
The grieving families of the dead may blame the Muslim faith for the loss of their loved ones, but they are wrong. Maybe you are missing the point the same as McNamara. Imam Rauf and his congregation are as innocent of the September 11th attacks as anyone else. They don't share in some collective guilt for what other Muslims did.
It's particularly irritating that this woman calls for collective punishment in the name of justice. How dare she do that? She's got some nerve presenting herself as Suzy Pious while she calls for flogging Muslims.
DennisQ | Aug 20, 2010, 10:05 PM EDT
McNamara, I read all your disclaimers, and all your protests to the effect that you only want to do what's right spiritually. But like many others, you are blaming the Muslim faith for the attack on the World Trade Center. Whether you see yourself as a hateful person or not, blaming an entire faith on the actions of a few of its believers is hateful.
When I call on your to respect the rights of the innocent, I am including Imam Rauf and all of his followers. It's wrong and hateful to blame them for what other people did.
I took note of your implicit claim to be sensitive, spiritual and concerned for everyone's feelings. However, to the extent that you side with people who want to chase these innocent people away solely because of their faith, you are neither sensitive, nor spiritual, nor concerned with everyone's feelings. You are just as much a bigot as all the rest of them.
Monsoonman | Aug 20, 2010, 09:02 PM EDT
McNamara: Sensitively and well written, it could not have been said better. Dennis read McNamaras post again, there was absolutely no anti anything in it.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 20, 2010, 08:03 PM EDT
Yeah and Saudis also flew airplanes into the World Trade Center, the fuselage of which came crashing down on the Burlington Coat Factory. So it's a site of destruction. To build anything with Saudi money or any Big Oil money on that ridiculously $100 million site is highly suspect considering the open questions about the hijackers funding, the funding of Wahhabi mosques, and the gradiosity of this complex with unknown funds. Dialogue must precede the zoning decision here, especially since part of the building is owned by Con Edison, namely the people of New York, represented by Governor Patternson.
McNamara31 | Aug 20, 2010, 06:26 PM EDT
DennisQ.....Did you really read my response? You miss my point completely. My response speaks to mutual understanding and empathy from both sides for people who are still in grief. There was not a drop of "anti" anything in my words.
DennisQ | Aug 20, 2010, 06:13 PM EDT
McNamara, you are being unfair to the Muslims who had nothing at all to do with the attacks of September 11th. You think that their rights to worship when and where they choose should be abridged because of some collective responsibility for what the hijackers did.
Your call for collective punishment against an entire group isn't based on spirituality, it's based on vengeance, and an ill-informed vengeance at that.
If you're going to claim that God informs your understanding, you should respect the rights of the innocent.
McNamara31 | Aug 20, 2010, 05:47 PM EDT
If there was ever a need for a spiritually based decision, versus a political decision, this is the one. I live within thirty minutes of the Trade Towers sight. I lost friends, and know many who lost family. Back then we felt the wakes and funerals would go on forever. My husband was on a plane that morning and my son was in first grade. My brother was stuck in a subway tunnel for eight hours, but worst of all my niece’s husband was in the towers and would have been killed if he had listened to the instructions to not exit the building at that time. It was 10 hours before the family located him. The memories and images will never leave us along with our love and deep respect for all those who responded to the strangers in need. America is a beacon of religious freedom in the world. In New York we coexist with virtually every ethnic and religious group to be found, and we feel we are better for it. We must always support our values of religious freedom however in this case hearts, minds, laws and principles must be used in an empathetic and common sense solution. This problem addresses the sight of a religious institution that some in their continued grief connect with the actions on 911. In respect and empathy for their grief, a spiritually based decision that respects those still emotionally wounded and moves the proposed Mosque somewhat further away would be the truly religious answer and another step towards healing.
DennisQ | Aug 20, 2010, 05:22 PM EDT
Money doesn't care who owns it. It's no surprise that the Imam would go to the Saudis for funding - they are the ones that have it. I wouldn't read too much into Saudi motivations, unless you have reasons to suspect triumphalism - or in your words, their wish to "take a swim at Ground Zero."
There's also the possibility that you are inappropriately bringing in class resentment. Saudi princes come by their wealth legitimately - they inherited it. If you're going to take up that cause, it's a separate issue. Not many Americans are turning down Saudi money because they think they're too good for it.
Incidentally, you keep repeating the assertion that the Islamic Center is being built at Ground Zero - it's not. Park Place is two blocks away, and there are all sorts of vulgar shops as a buffer between the Center and the holy ground it is alleged to defile.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 20, 2010, 01:23 PM EDT
DennisQ: Some see it as a community center for a community that is not resident in that area. Others see it as a multi-million dollar complex to be funded by Saudi Arabian princes who want to have a swim on Ground Zero. You're not even allowed to talk about these latter concerns, as sensational as they become--but the whole 9/11 event was full of maddening symbolism best avoided in the memorial. All these suspicions disappear if a non-symbolic parcel is used instead. At least have a non-recriminating dialogue. So far the center is a big mystery of hundred million dollar ambitions without any discussion of where this money is coming from. I wish Mychal Judge's firefighters had such money to build a relaxation resort. People are rightly suspicious of Saudi interference on Ground Zero. It's a shame that all Muslims and Americans are being asked to rally around this unnecessarily divisive symbol. I will admit to having a prejudice against Saudi Arabian oil barrons. It's not all my fault that Muslim identity gets confused with Saudi money, and I work at disassociating the two things. Meanwhile, how is the Muslim community going to pay for a hundred million dollar center except that it's another Saudi prince project. I'm wrong to be prejudice against Saudis, but on Ground Zero, I have too many questions unanswered about Saudi terrorist funding to be blind to Saudi ambitions on that parcel.
DennisQ | Aug 20, 2010, 12:40 PM EDT
We don't know the motivations of the September 11th attackers, but they were likely political, not religious. The Bush administration deliberately played up the religious angle to gather up support for a more aggressive policy towards Arabs - not Muslims as such.
Howard Dean is buying into the religious argument by accepting the premise that the September 11th attack was motivated by religion. After all, the only connection between the attackers and the Islamic center is their common faith.
There's no Muslim monolith, as made clear in the ongoing struggle between Shia and Sunni. Al Qaeda are Sunni; al-Sadr is a Shi'ite; and these guys are Sufi. The groups are quite separate.
Location-critics aren't bigots like the extreme anti-Muslims, but they are still wrong. The group that attacked the World Trade Center were Arabs, and it's likely that they were Muslims. We ought to know more about them than we do after nine years - and the reason may be that these guys were too secular to easily fit the stereotype.
47 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.hancock | Aug 26, 2010, 07:01 AM EDT
Is Boston, Ireland, and Saudi Arabia out of town?
DennisQ | Aug 25, 2010, 11:19 PM EDT
The anti-Muslim rally scheduled for September 11th will be full of out-of-towners flown in special for the occasion. These out-of-towners will be enterained by out-of-town speakers who will be outraged that sacred ground should be defiled in this manner. Then the out-of-towners and the out-of-town speakers will leave, and business as usual will return to New York.
No matter what anybody says, the attack on September 11th didn't have that big an impact on New York itself. The great outcry for justice came from out of town. New Yorkers simply went on about their business and remained as tolerant of foreigners after the attack as they were beforehand. A surprisingly high percentage of New Yorkers don't believe the official story about what happened on September 11th, but aren't about to get worked up about it. Similarly, they're not going to get worked up by out of towners and their talk of sacrilege. As far as New Yorkers are concerned, if Ground Zero is a holy place, add it to the destinations on the tourist bus. See Ground Zero in the morning; see Rockefeller Center in the afternoon.
The reason the Ground Zero sacrilege story isn't going anywhere is that New Yorkers aren't buying into it. Mike Bloomberg is politically astute enough to read the mood of the city of which he is Mayor. He says Let's mnve on; bigotry is not welcome; and New York remains 100% committed to allowing this project to go forward.
hancock | Aug 24, 2010, 11:38 AM EDT
When they fly Budweisers trucks into buildings then people will protest.
DennisQ | Aug 24, 2010, 12:39 AM EDT
Why do the cameras always cut away from the bar that's right next to the Islamic center? It's not a restaurant-type bar, either. It's a working class dive. Go to their website and they proclaim their motto, "Too much is never enough."
I don't know how long this bar has been there, but if a religious center isn't holy enough for Ground Zero, what's up with a saloon that offers cheap eats and reduced prices on Budweiser?
Oh, I know. You get your load on, then you stagger out onto Park Place and tell the world how loyal you are to the martyrs of Ground Zero.
DennisQ | Aug 24, 2010, 12:29 AM EDT
There weren't any big fires in Building Seven. Photographs show some fires burning on the north side, but the available fuel didn't burn hot enough to cause collapse. Typical office contents - furniture, paper, carpets, etc., reach a certain maximum temperature well short of that needed even to deform steel, much less melt it.
The reason Kevin Ryan was fired from his job at Underwriters Laboratories is that he caught them fudging the numbers - and went public with it when he couldn't get the bosses to address it. To this day, the government agency responsible for the report on Building Seven refuses to answer questions about the phony figures. Don't submit a FOIA request - it will be ignored. If an unfriendly reporter shows up at a news conference, they cut his microphone. Is this any way for a government agency to respond to citizens' questions?
There are other issues besides the absence of a fire hot enough to destroy a 47-storey skyscraper. Another issue is the symmetric collapse at freefall speed, defying Newton's Third Law. Who would you rather believe - some Bush administration appointee, or Sir Isaac Newton?
Building Seven is a weak point, but there are lots of weak points in the September 11th narrative. We definitely need a new investigation - the last one was a hodgepodge.
hancock | Aug 23, 2010, 07:08 PM EDT
Building 7 collapsed , it didnt burn like an old barn. Were you there on 9/11. Its steel skeleton and light weight trusses were compromised by 40 fls of fire for 7 hours. You going to take on the holocaust and the moon landing next?
Monsoonman | Aug 23, 2010, 10:21 AM EDT
I have to scratch my head in wonder when howard dean and keith olbermann are considered examples of level headedness and common sense, even though on this particular subject dean is right....The old adage goes: even a broken clock is correct twice a day. I hope Brendan has other sources besides these two to draw on when he presents articles to the proletariat.
DennisQ | Aug 22, 2010, 09:46 PM EDT
As I see it, the Muslims are refusing to accept any "collective guilt" for what happened on September 11th. I completely agree with them! They're no more guilty of the attack than the victims themselves.
Unfortunately, we're stuck with the findings of government commissions that are anxious to shut down debate. For example, Shyam Sunder, director of the group that claimed Building Seven burned to the ground like an old barn, gives few press conferences, and when he does, he acts like Bill O'Reilly. Disagree with him and he shuts down your microphone. Is this any way for the director of a government agency to respond to citizen inquiries?
It appears that Republicans profited from the September 11th attacks and don't want the truth out. They used the events of that day as the basis for military actions that they falsely portrayed as counterattacks.
It's not a surprise that the same people who promoted these unnecessary wars are also imposing collective guilt on all Muslims. The group calling itself "Stop the Islamization of America" (SIOA) plans a rally on September 11. In addition to hatemongers Pam Geller and Robert Spencer, featured speakers will include: John Bolton, Geert Wilders, Andrew Breitbart, Gary Bernsten, Ilario Pantano, and Steve Malzberg - a rogue's gallery of foaming-at-the-mouth war- and hatemongers. Ilario Pantano, a murderer who got away with it, is running for Congress in North Carolina.
Monsoonman | Aug 22, 2010, 08:18 PM EDT
Oh Dennis. The only one on this board who is frustrated lad, is you. No one wants to argue with a Quixotic rosie o'donnel, there is no basis when you are orbiting around yeranus. So don't take the silence directed towards your rants as an acquiescence to your philosophy, it is just the opposite....and we'll wait and see how the American public reacts to your inanity in November.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 22, 2010, 07:50 PM EDT
DennisQ: I'll give a group to hate: the rich oil barrons in Saudi Arabia that fund Wahhabi Islam, 9/11 hijackers, and quite possibly, this mosque you defend like a pawn.
DennisQ | Aug 22, 2010, 03:55 PM EDT
One of the achievements of this forum is that it's revealing the intellectual bankruptcy of the right wing. Over time, right wingers have less and less to contribute to the discussion of important issues. They've now devolved into name-calling just to maintain a presence at the table.
What right wingers need is a defined enemy, one that they can demonize and hate with the kind of viciousness that the late Sen. Joe McCarthy had for Communists. Unfortunately, al Qaeda isn't a group as such, it's a collection of ideas. When right wingers have to deal with ideas rather than identifiable groups, they are completely frustrated. They just don't deal well with ideas. But give them a group to hate, and they are launched.
All you have to do is wait them out. Continue to explain your viewpoints and patiently respond to their objections. Over time, they'll run out of gas!
hancock | Aug 21, 2010, 05:41 PM EDT
You are a lunatic.
DennisQ | Aug 21, 2010, 04:29 PM EDT
We actually need the "who done it" in the equation because nature abhors a vacuum. As Jesus Himself remarked, "When the Devil has been kicked out, he returns with seven devils worse then himself." If you leave the place open and swept, it won't stay that way.
The fear of Wahhabism tracks back to a group "Stop Islamization of America" - SIOA - and its leader, Pamela Geller. Geller quotes Ayn Rand favorably on her "Atlas Shrugged" website, and has links to anti-immigration groups such as Citizen Warrior, which in turn connects back to Geller's live-in, Robert Spencer. It's a small, zealous group of people, but they're running a web petition to put the brakes on immigration:
Does this seem extreme? It's not as unreasonable as it might seem. We already choose who can immigrate and who cannot. We make the rules. This is our country, after all. We are not under any obligation to allow anyone to immigrate just because they want to. They do it with our blessing or they don't do it.
We need to re-open the September 11th investigation and address the many issues that were handled poorly. It's my contention that if you don't have an answer, say so. Don't plug the hole with fanciful stories, such as, for example, the idea that Building Seven caught fire and burned to the ground. That didn't happen - there's no science to support such a possibility.
Let's find out if there's any truth to Citizen Warrior's assertion that there's no such thing as a moderate Muslim. They actually say so!
There may be plenty of Muslims who reject these basic principles of Islamic doctrine, but we have no way to determine who does and who does not. We could ask them on their immigration application, but another Islamic principle allows Muslims to deceive non-Muslims if it helps the spread or dominance of Islam, so we cannot trust their answers.
emer333 | Aug 21, 2010, 11:23 AM EDT
Let's take the "who done it" out of the equation. And focus on the fact that this is sacred, very sensitive, hollowed ground. Let's give the place more time and space to heal. Nothing is permitted to be further built, except trees, and plantlife.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 10:58 AM EDT
hancock: I went to Bronx Science, they're actors. I go by the science and what's debated in scientific journals. As I understand it, Saudi Arabian terrorists, adhering to Wahhabi ideology, using Big Oil money, did 9/11. Now we're supposed to be excited when Saudi money is likely to be used to build a mosque on a building destroyed by the fuselage of the airplane. Without explaining the funding, this is looking like a Saudi prince project posing as moderate Sufism.
hancock | Aug 21, 2010, 10:08 AM EDT
Brendan what about Rosie O'Donnell and Sean Penn?
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 03:17 AM EDT
DennisQ: re WTC7, I don't believe any 9/11 conspiracy theory that is not published in a scientific journal and debated by respected scientists.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 03:15 AM EDT
Bull***t. This is not a right of privacy argument. This is a zoning issue. The Constitution does not provide that we have to allow the Saudis to fund a Wahhabi sympathetic mosque on top of a building destroyed by the airplane on 9/11. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html
DennisQ | Aug 21, 2010, 02:50 AM EDT
Judges routinely instruct juries that if they catch a witness in a lie, they don't have to weigh the truth or falsity of anything else that witness has to say. A single lie destroys the credibility of that witness. The Latin saying is Falsus in unum, falsus in omnia - False in one, False in everything.
I don't believe that Building Seven fell down. That's my cue to disbelieve everything else we've heard about September 11th. I don't know who did it, and I don't know why. Bush told us on the afternoon of September 11th that Al Qaeda did it, because they were jealous of our freedom. I don't believe a word of it.
As to your repeated claims about the role of Wahhabism on September 11th, I don't have either knowledge or belief to dispute anything you say. However, I am skeptical that Wahhabis are likely to finance a Sufi center, because the two groups don't get along.
As to your claim that Park 51 should refuse Saudi money because it's dirty, all we know is that they're not saying. And I don't blame them. Frankly, it's their business what they do with their money.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 02:31 AM EDT
DennisQ: No one was killed in Building 7. You should study the relationship between Big Oil money in Saudi Arabia and extremist Wahhabism. This $100 million project sounds like Big Oil. I don't see why Muslims would want to be associated with Saudi funding. So far organizers have explicitly refused to ban Saudi oil money (or demands attached to donations).
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 02:25 AM EDT
It's said to say but the type of Islam practiced by many of the Big Oil barrons is not moderate Islam. Normal Muslims suffer from the influence of these Wahhabi hobbyists with the money that can make a $100 million project possible. Building a mosque on a building destroyed on 9/11 would be read by Saudi Arabian Wahhabis as a triumph memorial. It's best to keep Saudi oil money away from Ground Zero. If that's anti-Muslim, there is something wrong with your definition of Muslim. Saudi oil and Wahhabis are not Muslims, but it will require their money to build this project on that site. Ignoring that problem is unsatisfying to those who have studied the Saudi funding sources behind 9/11 hijackers.
DennisQ | Aug 21, 2010, 02:22 AM EDT
Uh, no, I don't know what role Wahhabism had in the events of September 11th. I don't know very much about September 11th at all. However, I do know that Building Seven didn't collapse because somebody put a hex on it. And if it collapsed because of a fire, it's an event that's so anomalous that it's almost miraculous.
The difference between me and people who readily accept wildly improbably official theories is that I'm modest enough to recognize that something that could not have happened did not happen. In that respect, I acknowledge my debt to George Boole, whose statue stands on the campus of University College Cork.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 02:08 AM EDT
Sufis don't have a hundred million. Normal Muslims don't have that kind of money. Of course they'd want a beautiful center. But it's not their money. Wahhabists do have that money. It will be Muslim hopes, but Wahhabist money. The Saudis are going to build a mosque on a building destroyed on 9/11. That's what you want people to get cool with. It's outrageous the more I think about the refusal of center organizers to divulge financial backers.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 01:46 AM EDT
Everyday Muslims have nothing to do with extremists. It just so happens that the rich Muslims that pay for lots of new mosques in the Middle East lean Wahhabist. Wahhabists would love to build a victory memorial on some piece of land the jihadists destroyed on 9/11. There should be strict guarantees about what the $100 million backers believe this mosque will symbolize to them. Building it off Ground Zero would prevent any symbolic messing about.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 01:40 AM EDT
DennisQ: Was Wahhabism a contributing factor to 9/11? Would Wahhabists view a mosque on that spot as a victory mosque? In the event the Catholic Church developed a sect that bombed something, then that religion has passed into the realm of sleeper cell. It would be racism if Wahhabists were a race, you argumentless dolt. They are violent ideologues that use religion to escape your scrutiny. To raise $100 million, Persian Gulf oil money may want to have their Wahhabist views reflected somehow in this as of now koombayyah pie in the sky vision of a center that has no financial backers we can know about it. Muslims are enamored by this wonderful prospect of getting a wonderful complex, and I understand that, but it's not a community coming forward with money. The money is a separate thing. The money is going to have to come from Wahhabist oil barrons.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 01:27 AM EDT
Give up on Imam Rauf. He's just the salesman. They sold Tara Circle the same way. It's all about the money. The spirit of that mosque will be determined by the people willing to fork up $100 million. In the Middle East, the Persian oil money interests like Wahhabism.
DennisQ | Aug 21, 2010, 01:25 AM EDT
Brendan, can you imagine the uproar if some politician demanded to review the books of the Catholic Church? Why is it OK to demand a look at the books of the Park 51 group? It's because Muslims have a collective guilt for September 11th, isn't it? Well, nuts to your theory of collective guilt. That's not religious tolerance, it's racism.
DennisQ | Aug 21, 2010, 01:17 AM EDT
Brendan, you've now crossed over to a serious discussion of abridging freedom of religion. I don't even know where you got this Wahhabism stuff from; it sounds like you got it from some Muslim-bashing website. We don't have the right to vet religions - what a repulsive idea!
Tell us where you got this Wahhabism talk from, Brendan. Why do you believe that the Wahhabis and the Sufis are suddenly friends, after centuries of animosity? I take Imam Rauf at his word about his intentions - he deplored the attack on September 11th, but he won't allow anti-Muslim prejudice to prevent him from building a community center.
By the way, 100 million dollars is a fair piece of change, but it's not immense. You're just throwing things at the wall.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 01:06 AM EDT
DennisQ: What are you talking about? The organizers have refused to define its funding sources. The organizers have refused to talk to the Governor of New York. How is that dialogue? Get some facts and spare me the PC bullshit. People just want answers. And the Burlington was a five story building, three floors knocked out when the fuselage from the plane crashed through the roof. I'm not parsing that, you ghoul.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 01:02 AM EDT
DennisQ: Are the same people who financed the Wahhabi mosques going to contribute to this center? The terrorists that hijacked the airplanes were financed by Saudi Arabian sources that are not vetted well. This is a 100 million dollar project for a "community" that is undefined and not located in that neighborhood. Dean is calling for dialogue so that these financing concerns, for example, prevent Wahhabi-ists from contributing to a mosque that will be built on a building destroyed on 9/11--it's potentially symbolic in that way and until the financing issue is understood publicly there is right to be concerned about the pet projects of Saudi Arabian oil barrons. Many believe these unpunished financiers escaped scutiny. Where is this 100 million coming from? Why must the Muslim community be defined by immense money that does not have to tell us who is providing that money?
DennisQ | Aug 21, 2010, 01:02 AM EDT
Hancock, it's you who's attributing magical properties to inanimate objects, not me. Yeah, the wind knocked down Building Seven. Or the flying debris. No, it was the fire. Yeah, that's right, it was the fire.
DennisQ | Aug 21, 2010, 12:59 AM EDT
Brendan, some of the stuff you write doesn't stand up to simple fact-checking. Your claim that Burlington Coat Factory's building was "destroyed" was easily disproven. All I had to do was go to their website and look and their annual report.
Where did you get this stuff about Saudi princes wanting to take a swim in Ground Zero? I actually looked for it and couldn't find it. You're certainly wrong about Wahhabism and Sufism - there's no way the Wahhabis are financing construction of a Sufi community center.
You also seem to be buying into this notion that Muslims share some collective guilt for the attacks on September 11th. Collective guilt is the basis for racism, and it was used as such to attack Arab countries that had nothing at all to do with September 11th. You accuse me of making excuses - what's your excuse for what America did to the people of Iraq? And it's ongoing.
DennisQ | Aug 21, 2010, 12:48 AM EDT
Here's what you are stumbling over. The Park 51 group not only has every legal right to build on the site they've chosen, they also have every moral right as well. People are saying that they have the legal right but not the moral right, but they are wrong about that.
Muslims have as much right to build at the World Trade Center as anyone. Their moral rights in the matter are in no way abridged because some family members of the victims blame the entire Muslim faith for what happened on September 11th. You can have a certain amount of sympathy for such people, but not enough to agree with them that Muslims need to be "sensitive" to where they locate their centers.
I'm not spinning your words; I'm just about quoting you. I'm telling you you're wrong and you're being hateful. You have some nerve claiming compassion as your reason for calling for collective punishment.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 21, 2010, 12:13 AM EDT
DennisQ: You have an excuse for everyone.
McNamara31 | Aug 20, 2010, 11:39 PM EDT
DennisQ...The way you have blatantly attempted to spin my words and intentions would give Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck a run for their money. The point of my response is empathy, understanding and healing on both sides, not an attack on the Muslim faith, as you are desperately attempting to “frame” it.
hancock | Aug 20, 2010, 10:58 PM EDT
CUCKOO- CUCKOO
DennisQ | Aug 20, 2010, 10:48 PM EDT
Brendan, get your facts straight. It wasn't the fuselage that came down on top of the building, it was the landing gear. And it didn't destroy the building, it damaged the roof. Burlington Coat Factory is not a factory, it's a big retail chain like J.C. Penney or The Gap.
Burlington was not driven out of business by the damage to the roof at the 51 Park Place location. They could have fixed the roof and soldiered on if they'd wanted to do that. Management decided instead to relocate where the foot traffic was better. Indeed, quite a number of retailers made exactly the same decision in the aftermath of September 11th. It's erroneous for you to suggest that the physical damage to the building was the sole deciding factor.
And here's something else you could check on, Brendan. Because the Park Place center will be run by Sufis, it's unlikely that Saudi Wahhabi money will pay for it. The Wahhabis and the Sufis hate each other. You might as well say that the IRA are collecting money to build a recreation center for the British army. Think Notre Dame and Purdue, if you need a sports analogy.
Incidentally, the reason I called for a new September 11th commission is to keep people from running around blaming everyone and anyone with anything in common with the attackers. First it's Muslims; then it's Saudis. At one time it was Iraqis, thank God that's over! But we definitely need to get a better handle on who did this and why.
Did you know that Building Seven was made of paper-mâché? They didn't find it out till it was too late. Don't tell me that's ridiculous - there are people who believe the wind knocked it over.
DennisQ | Aug 20, 2010, 10:19 PM EDT
Monsoonman - McNamara didn't have the moral guts to own her own statements. Instead of directly calling for the Muslims to abandon their plans to build a center on Park Place, she hides behind the victims of the attack on September 11th.
The grieving families of the dead may blame the Muslim faith for the loss of their loved ones, but they are wrong. Maybe you are missing the point the same as McNamara. Imam Rauf and his congregation are as innocent of the September 11th attacks as anyone else. They don't share in some collective guilt for what other Muslims did.
It's particularly irritating that this woman calls for collective punishment in the name of justice. How dare she do that? She's got some nerve presenting herself as Suzy Pious while she calls for flogging Muslims.
DennisQ | Aug 20, 2010, 10:05 PM EDT
McNamara, I read all your disclaimers, and all your protests to the effect that you only want to do what's right spiritually. But like many others, you are blaming the Muslim faith for the attack on the World Trade Center. Whether you see yourself as a hateful person or not, blaming an entire faith on the actions of a few of its believers is hateful.
When I call on your to respect the rights of the innocent, I am including Imam Rauf and all of his followers. It's wrong and hateful to blame them for what other people did.
I took note of your implicit claim to be sensitive, spiritual and concerned for everyone's feelings. However, to the extent that you side with people who want to chase these innocent people away solely because of their faith, you are neither sensitive, nor spiritual, nor concerned with everyone's feelings. You are just as much a bigot as all the rest of them.
Monsoonman | Aug 20, 2010, 09:02 PM EDT
McNamara: Sensitively and well written, it could not have been said better. Dennis read McNamaras post again, there was absolutely no anti anything in it.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 20, 2010, 08:03 PM EDT
Yeah and Saudis also flew airplanes into the World Trade Center, the fuselage of which came crashing down on the Burlington Coat Factory. So it's a site of destruction. To build anything with Saudi money or any Big Oil money on that ridiculously $100 million site is highly suspect considering the open questions about the hijackers funding, the funding of Wahhabi mosques, and the gradiosity of this complex with unknown funds. Dialogue must precede the zoning decision here, especially since part of the building is owned by Con Edison, namely the people of New York, represented by Governor Patternson.
McNamara31 | Aug 20, 2010, 06:26 PM EDT
DennisQ.....Did you really read my response? You miss my point completely. My response speaks to mutual understanding and empathy from both sides for people who are still in grief. There was not a drop of "anti" anything in my words.
DennisQ | Aug 20, 2010, 06:13 PM EDT
McNamara, you are being unfair to the Muslims who had nothing at all to do with the attacks of September 11th. You think that their rights to worship when and where they choose should be abridged because of some collective responsibility for what the hijackers did.
Your call for collective punishment against an entire group isn't based on spirituality, it's based on vengeance, and an ill-informed vengeance at that.
If you're going to claim that God informs your understanding, you should respect the rights of the innocent.
McNamara31 | Aug 20, 2010, 05:47 PM EDT
If there was ever a need for a spiritually based decision, versus a political decision, this is the one. I live within thirty minutes of the Trade Towers sight. I lost friends, and know many who lost family. Back then we felt the wakes and funerals would go on forever. My husband was on a plane that morning and my son was in first grade. My brother was stuck in a subway tunnel for eight hours, but worst of all my niece’s husband was in the towers and would have been killed if he had listened to the instructions to not exit the building at that time. It was 10 hours before the family located him. The memories and images will never leave us along with our love and deep respect for all those who responded to the strangers in need. America is a beacon of religious freedom in the world. In New York we coexist with virtually every ethnic and religious group to be found, and we feel we are better for it. We must always support our values of religious freedom however in this case hearts, minds, laws and principles must be used in an empathetic and common sense solution. This problem addresses the sight of a religious institution that some in their continued grief connect with the actions on 911. In respect and empathy for their grief, a spiritually based decision that respects those still emotionally wounded and moves the proposed Mosque somewhat further away would be the truly religious answer and another step towards healing.
DennisQ | Aug 20, 2010, 05:22 PM EDT
Money doesn't care who owns it. It's no surprise that the Imam would go to the Saudis for funding - they are the ones that have it. I wouldn't read too much into Saudi motivations, unless you have reasons to suspect triumphalism - or in your words, their wish to "take a swim at Ground Zero."
There's also the possibility that you are inappropriately bringing in class resentment. Saudi princes come by their wealth legitimately - they inherited it. If you're going to take up that cause, it's a separate issue. Not many Americans are turning down Saudi money because they think they're too good for it.
Incidentally, you keep repeating the assertion that the Islamic Center is being built at Ground Zero - it's not. Park Place is two blocks away, and there are all sorts of vulgar shops as a buffer between the Center and the holy ground it is alleged to defile.
BrendanPKeane | Aug 20, 2010, 01:23 PM EDT
DennisQ: Some see it as a community center for a community that is not resident in that area. Others see it as a multi-million dollar complex to be funded by Saudi Arabian princes who want to have a swim on Ground Zero. You're not even allowed to talk about these latter concerns, as sensational as they become--but the whole 9/11 event was full of maddening symbolism best avoided in the memorial. All these suspicions disappear if a non-symbolic parcel is used instead. At least have a non-recriminating dialogue. So far the center is a big mystery of hundred million dollar ambitions without any discussion of where this money is coming from. I wish Mychal Judge's firefighters had such money to build a relaxation resort. People are rightly suspicious of Saudi interference on Ground Zero. It's a shame that all Muslims and Americans are being asked to rally around this unnecessarily divisive symbol. I will admit to having a prejudice against Saudi Arabian oil barrons. It's not all my fault that Muslim identity gets confused with Saudi money, and I work at disassociating the two things. Meanwhile, how is the Muslim community going to pay for a hundred million dollar center except that it's another Saudi prince project. I'm wrong to be prejudice against Saudis, but on Ground Zero, I have too many questions unanswered about Saudi terrorist funding to be blind to Saudi ambitions on that parcel.
DennisQ | Aug 20, 2010, 12:40 PM EDT
We don't know the motivations of the September 11th attackers, but they were likely political, not religious. The Bush administration deliberately played up the religious angle to gather up support for a more aggressive policy towards Arabs - not Muslims as such.
Howard Dean is buying into the religious argument by accepting the premise that the September 11th attack was motivated by religion. After all, the only connection between the attackers and the Islamic center is their common faith.
There's no Muslim monolith, as made clear in the ongoing struggle between Shia and Sunni. Al Qaeda are Sunni; al-Sadr is a Shi'ite; and these guys are Sufi. The groups are quite separate.
Location-critics aren't bigots like the extreme anti-Muslims, but they are still wrong. The group that attacked the World Trade Center were Arabs, and it's likely that they were Muslims. We ought to know more about them than we do after nine years - and the reason may be that these guys were too secular to easily fit the stereotype.