Skip to main content

View Diary: MSNBC feeds ignorance of Park51 (60 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, I do agree that the protests against (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ardyess

    the GZM do create a certain amount of fear amongst the Muslims that I know and I also agree that sometimes it's best to just listen to folks, rather than to try to debate, which is what I said I mostly do once I determine that someone's personal identity is so intimately connected with a particular political position.

    That said, however, I mentioned above that I also don't happen to agree with my Jewish friends and family members on matters related to Israel/Palestine. Now, they also have quite a bit of "fear" about what may or may not happen if Jews didn't have a state, or if the Palestinians did have one, or if Iran has a nuclear weapon. I can recognize that fear as perfectly legitimate based on the very real history of the Holocaust, and continuing anti-Semitism, or even just the geopolitics around Israel, but I still may radically disagree with them about Middle East policy.

    Now, it's also true that the third holiest site in Islam, the al Aqsa Mosque, is built on top of the holiest site in Judiasm, the site of the original Jewish Temple. The millenia-long dream of the Jewish people is to rebuild that Temple on its original site, and in fact, that is a precondition for the return of the Jewish Messiah. They have the legal right to do that, but it would also be a profound disrespect to the Muslim world, and might even set-off a religious war like we've never seen in human history. So should they? Probably not.

    All that is to say that these issues are not cut and dry, and what can be done legally is clearly not always what should be done morally and ethically, and religious sites and symbols clearly have meaning that has to be considered before actions are taken.

    •  okay, thank you for the clarification that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pilkington

      I thought maybe missing, at least from my POV.

      As for the I/P issues, I've learned a long time ago to avoid as best I can these discussions, because they soon and very easily go beyond the discussion phase.

      Back to the community center, I don't know if you've ever been in NYC, or spent any time here.  If you did the latter, you would know how space is at a premium.  Suppose they took a compromise and decided to move to another location?  Besides the time, money, paperwork and every other logistic to move to another place, how do we know this other place isn't going to be too close to a school, or bridge, or power plant, or...?
      More protests?  More compromise?  Move to another site not so near something?  Hmmmmm? Maybe the middle of North Dakota, or Nevada?  No, I'm sure there's something near there as well.

      Maybe I'm overboard a slight bit, but I think you understand the premise.  Yet, the local community board voted 29-1 in favor of the community.  I would think that they have the best sense of their community, and most of them probably lived through the horrors of 9/11.  And whose protesting?  A lot of people from Staten Island, miles away and separated by a big body of water.  

      So, between the elected officials in office voted into office by the residents of the city, the administrators in place basically because of the elected officials, and the local community board with influence into this matter, and by default knowing what's in the best interest of their community, after open public meetings, decide overwhelmingly in the best interest of the community to support the community center.

      I find it rather difficult to accept those who, besides the outright display of despicable bigotry, would know better than to get involved in local matters, especially since these groups overtly pontificate the gospel of total local jurisdiction of these matters.  Just sheer hypocrisy, and with the sinister political goal of promoting division and bigotry.    

      And again, Ground Zero is one thing.  And if one is familiar with NYC, unless one knows and would really look for this community center, one wouldn't even know it's there if visiting the WTC site.  

      So yes, I do find it sad and even hitting that place inside of me of resentment fomenting that those who haven't a clue resort with blatant hypocrisy to disrupt, divide, and spread fear and hate. But that seems to be that standard mode of operation for these batsh*t brain lunatics, and pathetically enough, it's almost expected.  But what is really more disappointing to the point of being very scary is that a lot of basically, decent, thoughtful, intelligent people are with compromise, or mixed feelings, and in apparent disregard for a victimized community acting in it's best interest.  

      •  From what I understand the whole issue around (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ardyess

        the "29-1" vote is kind of blown out of proportion. 98% of people on all sides of the political spectrum agree that it's not the role of government to make a determination based on the religious character of a proposed project, and so a "29-1" vote of a governmental body to that effect would seem par for the course.

        The same would hold true for any other government entity in the City of New York. It's not their role to get into the pros and cons of the religious nature of the project.

        I acknowledge that an alternative space may be difficult to find. That's why my statements were appended with "were one to be made available".

        I find arguments to the effect that it's not "really" at Ground Zero not particularly compelling. The building was functionally destroyed in the 9/11 attacks. Would you really feel any different if it were actually on the WTC site itself? If so, why?

        I don't really see the Muslim community as being any more or less victimized than any other group in America. There are typically ten times more hate crimes against Jews on an annual basis than Muslims, but we don't really call Jews a "victimized" group in America.

        I would suggest that you take the fact that "basically decent, thoughtful, intelligent people" have "mixed feelings" about this project as an indication that there may be sides to the story that you haven't fully considered.  

        •  Okay, so why are those (0+ / 0-)

          who know it's not the government's role to determine the religious character of proposed projects so opposed when the community supported the project?

          Also, if there is an ambiguity here, my apologies, I meant the community that is living around the WTC site.  They too were victimized by this.  I'm sure most experienced firsthand the devastation of the event. It wasn't a picnic to have their bags searched two or three times for cameras etc, by security of national guard and such to get to their homes which they haven't been to for a  few days while still smelling the burning remains.  

          As for any religious sites on or within the WTC, personally, I would prefer none.  But if any one is allowed, all need to be allowed. Right?

          And lastly, I've considered all of the sides, and there can be many views, and still am disappointed in a number of people.

          And just as an FYI, I had a friend today, an elderly sweet lady, who shocked me with her view about this whole thing,  She thought that they should move the center (from her, yes shocking when she said it) but then her reason was because she thinks that with all of the commotion now about this, she's afraid someone is going to get hurt there and it's going to become a target for bad things to happen.  I didn't quite know quite what to say, so I let it go.  I'll sleep on this and maybe continue with her later....

          and with you, later......

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site