'Ground Zero mosque'

Professional spleen Charlie Brooker has a fun and seemingly factual take on the 'Ground Zero mosque'...

(*EDIT* ~ quote removed for being a bit tasteless)

Cheeky hyperbole aside, the first points seem pretty fair, and pretty key.

What do statesiders think? Is it all overblown nonsense?

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

I think it's overblown if only because the news relies on the "fact" that it's a mosque to have a point at all. That survey that says 70% of americans are opposed doesn't really mean anything because 1/3 of americans don't know where Iraq is on a map. It's still a bad idea to build it because it is New York, and the locals will probably do something outlandish

Like what? Open a Jews for Jesus centre next door? Walk around dressed as giant beards? Sell bacon products shaped like The Prophet?

I was thinking more throw molotov cocktails in the "mosque's" windows. New Yorkers are silly people like that

oh geez I'm bordering on propaganda I should be a reporter

Yeah there's always that. Damn Commies.



Wouldn't it be giving in to 'extremists' to not build it on those grounds tho?

Well yeah you could look at it that way in that we have a boo-boo and don't want any alcohol near it, but alcohol is useful in the long run for preventing future infection

They should absolutely be allowed to build it, and it is absolutely a bad idea. Assuming the panel that approves these things has acted responsibly (there's some question about them denying similar applications from other religious buildings, from what I've heard).

I have no idea what Brooker means when he says it "isn't a mosque." At no point in the article does he seem to explain this statement. If I had to guess, I think he might mean that it isn't only a mosque, which is a pretty ridiculous distinction in these circumstances.

And, not to start some off-topic fight, but those polls about finding places on maps always end up being horrendously skewed. The only one I can recall, for example, had a higher number, but was limited to people 18-24. Do you have a cite?

Either way, it seems they only ever conduct such polls on populations everyone already expects to fail. I think the numbers in most first-world countries, even Enlightened Europe, would surprise people, but I'm not sure making even-handed comparisons is usually the aim of the people conducting them.

From everything I've read about it, it just seems like an Arabic YMCA with an area to pray, but yeah, it basically comes down to this:
I will be utterly shocked if nothing happens to it when and if it gets built. I'm not nearly as offended by 9/11 as I should be I guess

A bad idea because of proximity to Ground Zero? But surely that's somewhat undermined by it being several streets away?

He paints it as being a 'centre' which includes a prayer room, yeah. Whether that's accurate, and if so whether a prayer room alone is considered a mosque, I don't know. I was kinda fishing for details from your side. My impression is that it won't have a minaret or calls to prayer ringing out or what have you.

I don't know if this makes any difference, and not to get off into a bunch of discussions about 9/11, but the point that always brings 9/11 home for me is that these were just people going to work. They weren't soldiers, or on some foreign battlefield. They didn't live near an airfield, a nuclear reactor, or a missile silo. The target was not crucial or strategic; just symbolic. It was the very definition of terrorism: targeting civilians to inflict horror and despair, and it killed 3,000 people. That's almost as many Americans as have died in Iraq in 7 years, killed in one morning, and none of them signed up for any of it. For all the hyperbole in politics, this is one event that is difficult to exaggerate.

As for whether or not something will happen to it...it wouldn't surprise me, either. I hope it doesn't.

I think most people would say it would be undermined if it was in a completely different district, not that they'll even be able to see it from ground zero anyway

Yes, a bad idea because of the proximity. I wouldn't call two "several," and while this sounds like nitpicking, apparently the two blocks are the smaller of the two blocks (the blocks in New York City are rectangles, not squares). I'm not sure what this equals in total distance.

I've heard conflicting reports on whether or not the mosque will be visible from Ground Zero. That seems a rather important point, too. That said, it's still awfully close, and many of its supporters are citing the proximity as a reason to support it, so we're getting conflicting arguments (though not from you) as to why it's supposed to be acceptable.

Honestly, I have no idea whether or not anything will be audible. But if it's disingenuous to just call it a "mosque" because it's surrounded by other things (though I don't think that it is), it's certainly more disingenuous to retort that it isn't for the same reason.

Frankly, that article really gets under my skin. He just doesn't adequately support such a stark claim, and it seems he's more concerned with being pithy than being accurate. And since the entire column's premise seems to be to cut somewhat dispassionately through the rhetoric, that's pretty galling.

Yeah he's a satirist by trade, but one who's dabbled successfully/accurately in political commentary too on his TV shows, so I'm giving him some leeway. Mainly wanted to see how accurate his core accusations were (I agree he doesn't back them up in the article, as the column is primarily 'rant' themed). Soz if it caused any offence incidentally.

There's a number of interesting points emerging for me as an outsider tho:

• Is it 'two minutes walk away'? (And here I think Brooker's point is fair - 'How far away would make it acceptable?'. For myself I'd think it could be very close indeed, so long as it wasn't promulgating an extremist brand of Islam - and Lord knows, people will keep an eye on it)
  
  
• Is it visible from GZ? (Altho if it doesn't look 'provocatively' like a mosque, does it matter massively?)
  
  
• Is it audible from GZ? (Call to prayer etc).
  
  
• Does the prayer room perform the same function as a mosque? (I'm assuming it must to a degree, as a core argument for its placement is that it's replacing a previous community mosque).

This Q&A with the Imam proposing the centre makes for interesting reading.

It doesn't answer the above per se, but one thing they seem to stress is this idea that the placement is about staying within a particular community, not about proximity to GZ per se. (Altho it includes a 9/11 memorial apparently).

After this surface skim I'd say it still seems a reasonable proposal. But obviously you guys are gonna have more dirt and detail available to you.

All mosques are the same in a simple way. They all celebrate Islam. It would be ridiculously inappropriate to build a mosque where the very religion being exhalted was most disgraced.

Sure, they should be able to build a mosque. Just move it.

I have no problem with American Muslim's, or even visiting Muslim's practicing their faith in our country - but really? By the location that your religion was completely humiliated and commited one of the worst crimes in the history of existence?

I wouldn't be any more tolerant of any other faith building a place of worship where it was at its lowest.

__________________
If I had a dollar for every existential crisis I've ever had, does money really even matter?

But that falls foul of two key points:

• It's not at the actual site.
  
  
• Muslim=Terrorist is a duff equation. Islam was indeed disgraced by 9/11, but identifying the two that strongly does it a disservice from the outside. Unless the 'centre' in question espouses similar views to those which drove the terrorists it's pretty questionable to hold them responsible for the same sins.

It is my understanding that the proposed site for the Mosque is the old Burlington factory building which is approximately 600 feet from where the World Trade Center buildings stood... and that the building sustained damage during the 9/11 attack... it's been a while now, so my memory is faulty, but I believe they recovered parts of one of the planes out of that building... and also body parts. If that is the case, then that building is part of ground zero....

Should they be allowed to build a Mosque? Yes... but not there. The wounds from 9/11 are still much too raw....

__________________

I read an article that said the landlord of this proposed mosque is not a very good landlord. This is it:

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/Vi...andlord_100902

It's in TERRIBLE taste and I hate the thought of it. My feeling is that this landlord is probably just seeking attention. Hopefully the mosque doesn't happen. I certainly wouldn't go to that mosque. I say the landlord just wants attention. It probably won't happen -- but if it does, someone will burn that mosque down.

That's the story I'm more interested in speculating on because what will happen judicially? If the (lets go with) arsonist(s) gets off easy, that could spark outrages. If he gets tried hard...well that could also spark outrages

I think freedom of religion is a wonderful thing but I believe you do have to weigh the sensitivities of other religions when making your decisions. While it's true that far more "Christians", Jews and non-religious people died at Ground Zero, there were several Muslims (I don't mean the hijackers) who died there too. Having a place for anti-terrorist Muslims to meet and worship is not really a slap in the face of all Americans, but I don't actually recall anybody stating that as a point of putting the building in its present location.

I'm pretty sure that it will be erected and opened ASAP and that there will be protests and demonstrations on a daily basis. We do tend to get violent when emotions run high so that it was I'm most fearful of. It seems like it may be against the foundations laid in the creation of the U.S., but it would also seem the wise and safe thing would be to build it a bit further away from its current site. However, since that's the case, it probably won't happen. From what I understand, the owner/developer needs money and wants it now, so it's probably a done deal.

I hope this doesn't turn into another thread where people claim that religion is responsible for everything evil and backwards in the world...

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

That does put a different complexion on it. I can't find anything about remains being found on site, but it does seem that parts of one of the planes damaged it. Certainly that ties it to the actual event far more closely. (Even though it doesn't seem to be anyone's last resting place, as such, the damage and the plane parts are potent and symbolic in their own right).

I still feel the second point remains however. Should average Islamic believers be treated as terrorists-by-association?

So long as the centre is run respectfully (and there are signs that it will be, in terms of the memorial etc), I'd say that association is a step too far, and unhelpful in terms of moving on from 9/11.