59155 - Sauron on mosques and memorials

[Yarjka]

Five blocks further would put it seven blocks away. Is seven really that much more of a difference than two?

YES. In New York, five blocks means the difference between neighborhoods. It would be like moving from Provo to Orem -- not that big of a deal or distance, but actually a pretty big difference.

So if a hypothetical new stake center was going to be built a short distance from your house, but then, due to opposition, had to be moved to Orem instead, how would that make you feel? The reason for building the Community Center two blocks away from Ground Zero is that it is intended to serve the people in that particular neighborhood, and not the neighborhood five blocks over.

[Craig Jessop]

The purpose of the community center is to serve Lower Manhattan. Five blocks away is still in Lower Manhattan. If the stake center were to serve the Utah Valley, then it wouldn't be that big of a deal.

[Marduk]

The purpose of the community center is to serve Lower Manhattan. Five blocks away is still in Lower Manhattan. If the stake center were to serve the Utah Valley, then it wouldn't be that big of a deal.

So by that argument, you've just refuted your point. If it is still the same neighborhood, why is it critical that it be moved that five blocks?

[Craig Jessop]

The purpose of the community center is to serve Lower Manhattan. Five blocks away is still in Lower Manhattan. If the stake center were to serve the Utah Valley, then it wouldn't be that big of a deal.

So by that argument, you've just refuted your point. If it is still the same neighborhood, why is it critical that it be moved that five blocks?

But it's not in the same neighborhood! It's five blocks away! The center is to serve Lower Manhattan. Moving it five blocks is like moving it from Provo to Orem. That's like saying you're going to build a temple to serve the Utah Valley in Provo. Then, when people complain, you move it to Orem. That's not that big of a deal, unless you're trying to make a point out of "look, we're building a temple in Provo because you can't stop us."

[wired]

I'm just interested to know how far away is good enough. Is 7 blocks really the limit, or would 5 blocks be good enough? 4? 3? Also, I find the whole argument about which community it is servicing a bit contradictory. You are changing the scope of the community that matters. That is to say, two blocks is too close because of the community it is in, but seven blocks is okay because that same community can have access to it. I think your temple analogy may fall flat. While a Mormon temple is generally attended on a monthly or less basis, an Islamic community center would be meant to serve the same group of people daily.

[Marduk]

Moving it at all is a problem. Why should they be forced to move? They've done nothing wrong. A Muslim community center is no more offensive than the Burlington Coat Factory that was there before.

[Yarjka]

Considering the temple analogy, Orrin Hatch compared the opposition to the Mosque with the opposition Mormons faced in building a temple in Belmont, Massachusetts (which we went ahead and built, as was our right). Full story here.

[Craig Jessop]

Moving it at all is a problem. Why should they be forced to move? They've done nothing wrong. A Muslim community center is no more offensive than the Burlington Coat Factory that was there before.

So why is it such a big deal then, to so many people? Of course they haven't done anything wrong, that's not the issue at all!

[Craig Jessop]

Considering the temple analogy, Orrin Hatch compared the opposition to the Mosque with the opposition Mormons faced in building a temple in Belmont, Massachusetts (which we went ahead and built, as was our right). Full story here.

It would be like the Church building a temple at Mountain Meadows. Sure, the Church had absolutely nothing to do with what happened there, it was a bunch of people -- radicals, even -- using their religion as an excuse to commit a monstrosity. Just like 9/11. The people building the center had nothing to do with it, but their religion was the excuse the terrorists used. Building a temple at Mountain Meadows would be inappropriate (even though we own the land and legally can do whatever we want there), and I believe that building a Muslim center near Ground Zero is inappropriate.

[bobtheenchantedone]

So why is it such a big deal then, to so many people?

Considering you and Vorpal are two of the most talkative in this thread, should you really be asking us why it's such a big deal?

[Katya]

Considering the temple analogy, Orrin Hatch compared the opposition to the Mosque with the opposition Mormons faced in building a temple in Belmont, Massachusetts (which we went ahead and built, as was our right). Full story here.

It would be like the Church building a temple at Mountain Meadows. Sure, the Church had absolutely nothing to do with what happened there, it was a bunch of people -- radicals, even -- using their religion as an excuse to commit a monstrosity. Just like 9/11. The people building the center had nothing to do with it, but their religion was the excuse the terrorists used. Building a temple at Mountain Meadows would be inappropriate (even though we own the land and legally can do whatever we want there), and I believe that building a Muslim center near Ground Zero is inappropriate.

So, do you believe that no Christian denomination should be allowed to build a church anywhere near Mountain Meadows? (Setting aside the issue of building permits in a national forest . . .)

[wired]

Considering the temple analogy, Orrin Hatch compared the opposition to the Mosque with the opposition Mormons faced in building a temple in Belmont, Massachusetts (which we went ahead and built, as was our right). Full story here.

It would be like the Church building a temple at Mountain Meadows. Sure, the Church had absolutely nothing to do with what happened there, it was a bunch of people -- radicals, even -- using their religion as an excuse to commit a monstrosity. Just like 9/11. The people building the center had nothing to do with it, but their religion was the excuse the terrorists used. Building a temple at Mountain Meadows would be inappropriate (even though we own the land and legally can do whatever we want there), and I believe that building a Muslim center near Ground Zero is inappropriate.

Meh, this falls flat again. It was a group of Mormons under the direction of a Mormon leader who executed the people at Mountain Meadows. They weren't radicals because it was pretty obvious that general sentiment of Mormons was hostility even to the level of violence. Whether or not the central Church leadership (i.e. Brigham Young) was involved is also a matter of debate that isn't solidly settled.

A better analogy would be the one Katya offers - can any Christian religion build a place of worship near Mountain Meadows?

[Craig Jessop]

Meh, this falls flat again. It was a group of Mormons under the direction of a Mormon leader who executed the people at Mountain Meadows. They weren't radicals because it was pretty obvious that general sentiment of Mormons was hostility even to the level of violence. Whether or not the central Church leadership (i.e. Brigham Young) was involved is also a matter of debate that isn't solidly settled.

A better analogy would be the one Katya offers - can any Christian religion build a place of worship near Mountain Meadows?

For the record, I wouldn't agree with any church that decided to build a high profile house of worship next to Ground Zero, including our own.

I suppose that another Christian group could build a church at Mountain Meadows. It's not like the immigrants were an explicitly Christian party; I'm sure they all were, but that wasn't the point of their immigrating.

And I'm interested to see where there is any evidence at all about Brigham's involvement in the massacre. From what I've read -- and it's quite a bit -- most recent evidence has shown that he wasn't involved beyond some fiery sermons given in Salt Lake. Even our dear friend Juanita Brooks didn't find evidence to suggest Brigham encouraged the attack. The speeches might have been a reason the Cedar City crowd acted as they did, but the Quran was also an impetus to the 9/11 attackers. Blaming a Brigham Young sermon would be like blaming the Quran for 9/11 -- which we all know is ridiculous.

[Marduk]

So no house of worship can be anywhere near Ground Zero, huh? How is this worse than a place of business? If it indeed is "sacred," why can Burlington sell coats there?

[Imogen]

a friend of mine who lives up in the city pointed out that a sex and pornography shop AND a bathhouse were opened in the years since the attacks closer to ground zero than the islamic center (let's not just call it a mosque since it's supposed to serve the community at large, and just happens to be owned by some muslims) would be. how is THAT less offensive to people? no one protested a BATHHOUSE, but heaven forbid someone build something to serve and better the community.

[Craig Jessop]

@Marduk: Apparently Burlington COULDN'T sell coats there. Just sayin'. And as for whether or not any house of worship should be built there, it's because the location necessarily brings out a lot of emotions in people, and whoever it is that owns the location would be very obviously playing off the connection.

@Imogen, the reason it's more offensive is because neither the pornography business nor the bathhouse business had anything to do with 9/11. Neither did the owners of Park51, but members of their religion did. I'm sure if Hugh Hefner had financed the terrorists that there would be an equal outrage.

[Emiliana]

For clarification, Craig et al.: There are varying levels of being opposed to something like this. You could argue that it's in poor taste, that it's morally wrong, or that it shouldn't be allowed. Which of these are you arguing? Or something else? I think you and others have made some valid arguments that it could be in poor taste (arguments that I still disagree with, but that I can respect as valid), but I don't see any compelling arguments about why it shouldn't be *allowed.*

[Craig Jessop]

I'm arguing that it's in poor taste. I acknowledge that there is no legal reason they can't build it there, but I don't think they should.

[Emiliana]

Okay, I can accept that. Carry on, then, and I'll most likely go back to being a silent observer.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Craig,

Although you've said that you don't think any church should be able to be built in the area, you've implied that Muslims especially shouldn't build there. Is that right?

Your first argument in this thread was that the mosque is like Mormons building a temple at mountain meadows. If you haven't read it, can I suggest you read the board question for which this thread was started? I don't want to repeat myself here, but I would really like you to read it, and let me know if you disagree with anything I said there.

I also want to point out that this is one of the most populated parts of the city. People live and work there; it's living and vibrant. In fact, the 17th floor of the South Tower had a prayer room serving local muslims while it was still standing. Dozens of other muslims, not having time to walk 4 blocks to the nearest mosque, would use a stairwell between the 106th and 107th floors for prayers, where they would "lay a tablecloth atop the concrete landing in the stairwell and flatten cardboard boxes from food deliveries to serve as prayer mats." This is an area where quite a few muslims have lived and worked; at least 60 muslims died in the WTC.

I think it is also worth noting that unlike some other religions who operate churches and other religious centers, Islam requires daily worship rituals. Thus, it's a little bit hard to compare to not being able to build a temple, or even a stake center or chapel in an area. Our religion doesn't really have anything analogous to a prayer room. Imagine that we were mormons encouraged to attend the temple to pray for a few minutes five times a day. Like the temple's current role in the church, it wouldn't be required to attend the temple as frequently if you live further away — but it would be seen as a huge blessing if there was a temple close enough to attend multiple times daily. The Park51 community center expects to serve a lot of local muslims with their prayer room — though it is small percentage of their total square footage, it is planned to have a capacity of around a thousand people. Were the mosque moved several blocks away, it would mean lots of people who are daily unable practice their religion as they would like.

This packed neighborhood — far from a remote meadow in the mountains — is a place where lots of people live and want to worship. On ground zero proper, many things are being added to the neighborhood mall, a huge public transportation center, a museum, theaters, restaurants, offices, and banks. In the blocks surrounding ground zero are built all the sorts of things you'd expect in a city - shopping, apartments, churches, porn shops, etc. Certainly some of the shops opening at the Ground Zero Mall are going to profit off the site's ability to "bring out a lot of emotions in people," as you say. Is it likewise wrong in your eyes to profit from opening at such a high-traffic site for tourists?

And finally, don't you at least acknowledge that Imam Rauf is, in his eyes trying to do good: he wants to serve the local community, to espouse a moderate world-view among muslims, to promote understanding between cultures, including the understanding that moderate, good muslims live, work, worship, and die in this neighborhood. It may not be doing that — in fact, the backlash against the mosque has, I think, inadvertently fed widespread Islamophobia. But I have no doubt that Rauf's heart was in the right place.

Love,
and Sauron