So I happened to turn on CNN briefly before I went the the gym this morning, and I happened to see this Abraham Foxman chap from the Anti Defamation League talking to one of the CNN blokes about an Islamic center that is going to be put up soon a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. Good show. This is just the type of argument I love.
The situation breaks down like this: The site of the new Islamic center is currently occupied by the old Burlington Coat Factory building. A panel just ruled that it was not architecturally or historically significant enough to be designated for protection, so plans for the center are a go. This unleashed a hail of criticism and support. Palin's against it, says its a slap in the face, unnecessary (shoddily paraphrasing here). Bloomberg says if it doesn't go up in that location, the terrorists have won. (that is literally what he said). Interestingly enough, the aforementioned ADL, which is a Jewish organization against bigotry, is against it, taking the position that it would be in better taste to put it somewhere else. The are receiving heavy criticism for this sentiment. This is what I think:
There is no doubt that its placement is perfectly legal, I do not dispute this at all. The main point of Bloombergs's speech, with Statue of Liberty in the background for effect, was to confirm and emphasize its legality. I think the real argument however is whether, as the ADL pointed out, this placement is in good taste. I don't believe it is. Of all the places to put an Islamic center, they have to place it two blocks from Ground Zero, where the bloodiest wound ever inflicted by Muslims on America (as radical as they may have been) is still fresh and oozing blood? Their mission of course is to show Americans that mainstream Islam is not the enemy, but rather a friend in the fight against terror. The truth, however, is that they probably won't convert anybody per say (not to the religion of course, but to that way of thinking), especially those with their minds already set. The large majority of average people will simply see it and write it off, becoming enraged at the perceived brazen lack of respect that these Muslims are showing. I think that now, and for the foreseeable future, Ground Zero needs to be given some space. There are plenty of other less sensitive places to establish the center.
Now I sit back and eagerly wait for our student body president, Sumeer Sandhu, to disagree with me.
7 comments:
I've really tried to argue for the other side to play devil's advocate, but my conscience won't let me. Besides, I can't even think of a good argument. Now I can see why Sumeer won't post. I'm posting because I just want to give my thoughts too. I haven't read anything into it yet, but I'd have to agree with you. They (the people putting that up)are obviously aware of the location and they can't be oblivious to the fact that they're going to be causing a huge mess. Establishing that fact, like you said, it seems to me that they are doing it just to prove the point that Islam is not all about running your flying Whoopdi's (sp?) into giant buildings.
The intention is good. Bad images about Islam have been spread, and they want to clear it up. But, why do it at Ground Zero? They must realize that by doing so, they are provoking thousands of Americans to hate the religion even more. I really fear for these people and the Muslim population there. All this is going to do is upset people and cause some retards to destroy the place "in retaliation," which then, the terrorists will really have won. Yes, it's legal. Yes, preventing it would be racist. But thinking logically, it's just dumb.
I shall await Sumeer.
I think that they should really have the freedom to build the mosque wherever they see fit, I simply believe that the actions of few should not condemn the fate of so many. Around 1 billion people practice Islam internationally and 99.9% of these people have had nothing to do with the tragedies that unfolded that day. I mean, in all honesty a religion is a religion, and in America they should be allowed to practice freely where they choose fit. Its honestly not like Christianity has been too different than Islam in terms of violence when looking back in history. Having said that, I myself wouldn't build there if I were them, I simply believe that its inviting more violence in the area.
They should be allowed to build it wherever they see fit, but they shouldn't see their current location plans as fitting.
It is true that Christianity has had a very violent history, but we're not discussing anything related to Christianity here. Christian churches don't cause stirs when built near GZ because Christians didn't kill thousands 9 short years ago. Both Christianity and Islam are historically violent religions, but Islam is the one that is posing a real threat today, right now as I type this. That is why people are opposed to this Islamic center and mosque, however peaceful the majority of Muslims are.
Also there is an update on this story, a group is filing a lawsuit against the city organization that is allowing the razing of the old Burlington building, saying the decision was rushed, not sufficiently researched, and ulteriorly motivated.
I'm really tired, as I've been up most of the night/morning before stumbling on this page, but let me see if I can make my point clear. I agree with Sumeer's point that this organization should be allowed to build this mosque wherever they see fit. Yes they probably decided on this particular spot to make a point, but I believe their point is valid. If they aren't allowed to put the Mosque there and the people preventing them from doing so give them no reason from doing so except to say, "You Caused this" "We hate You"; Then what really is the state of "Freedom of Religion" in modern America. When Presidential delegates are ridiculed if they are Mormon, or when Barack Obama has to prove he is without a doubt that he is not a Muslim I think we have a problem. Further in response to the whole Christianity vs. Islam debate going on between Sumeer and AJ as recently as the 1990's Serbs and Bosniaks were fighting over, among a number of issues caused by the breakup of Yugoslavia, religious rights. And the FBI has been recently concerned that one of the greatest threats in the United States may not be from Islamic extremists but rather the rise of predominantly Christian hate groups in the South. Just some thoughts......
I was just about to write about the KKK, but anonymous stole my thunder
I think the point is being blurred here. Islamic Extremists do not seek to destroy Christianity, they seek to destroy all of Western culture. This is not an issue of religion. It is true there are extremist hate groups in the south, but they have yet to kill thousands of people. Yes, the Serbs and Bosniaks fought 15 years ago. Islamic Extremists on the other hand number in the hundreds of thousands, and they are killing people right now. Today. Yesterday. Every day for over a decade. I ask you this question: should the majority of Americans feel threatened by southern hate groups? By the KKK? Do these groups seek to destroy America? No. Now, Islamic Extremists? Yes.
Now, getting back to the mosque, indeed they should be allowed. There is no way that they won't be allowed unless the board somehow changes its mind and decides that the old building is historically significant. I simply believe that Feisal Abdul Rauf should have the decency to realize that it is a very sensitive area, and by putting it there he will anger more Americans than he will enlighten, undermining its purpose. 68% of Americans, by CNN pole, oppose the mosque's proposed location.
ha, I will try out my thought, your post bring me some good ideas, it's really amazing, thanks.
- Norman
Post a Comment