Obama's Mosque Remarks Reverberate

[Sean1427]

No, problem, Urban. Or no hay problema. Or ma fi mushkala. Mine are always like book chapters so I really don't expect anyone to read it. It just gives me a chance to put in my two cents worth!

Edited August 24, 2010 by Sean1427

[FunkyTown]

Funky, I've been curious as to the position of the Church leadership regarding sausage. My guess is that they side with links rather than patties as being most correct. I am also guessing that they might help mount a campaign on the Pure Pork initiative, as a matter of preserving the sanctity of sausage.

Could you find the scoop on this?

You are preaching false doctrine, brother.

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Family Home Evening—Any Size, Any Situation

Ensign talk mentions sausages. This person made sausage rolls and biscuits.

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Random Sampler

Ensign mentions it again - Both link AND Bulk. The church takes no stance on the purity of sausage.

LDS.org - Liahona Article - A Christmas with No Presents

"A Christmas with no presents" - President James E. Faust himself makes no call, merely that Christmas was made better by the presence of sausage.

You're looking beyond the mark, brother, on the sausage thing.

Probably because you're a socialist.

[Suzie]

Probably because you're a socialist.

Moksha is an emperor penguin AND a socialist too? Scary combination.

[Traveler]

Yes, I'm back. Sorry for the length, but complex issues cannot be easily addressed in a few lines. At least by me. For this, my apologies. Let me say upfront that while I some of the first posts troubling, I’m actually impressed by what some have said here. Please don’t think that the thoughts I now share are directed at you. While I could name those I’ve been impressed with, I wish to say that I particularly appreciated your comments, Yatiri, especially those concerning Imam Rauf.

The Cordoba House project, which everyone is inaccurately referring to as the mosque at ground zero in Manhattan, is actually a proposed $100 million dollar interfaith community center that would be located two blocks from ground zero. But these are two NYC blocks. If you’ve ever been to Manhattan, you know full well that we’re not talking about Nephi, Provo, or SLC blocks. The site is about 500 feet from ground zero, almost the length of two football fields. It cannot be seen from ground zero, and even if it could be seen, no one would recognize it as a mosque given its design and what it contains.

The term mosque is being used heavily by right-wing conservatives and others for political gain in a midterm election year and prior to the presidential election. And the rank-and-file just go right along. The use of the word conjures up an image of a traditional free-standing, domed mosque with a tall minaret, which is completely unlike what Cordoba House has proposed. Using the term mosque is done for different reasons by different people. First, we use it because of our ignorance. I use the term ignorance as it should be used, to define a lack of knowledge. I am not trying to put anyone done. Yet our lack of knowledge derives from a lack of effort to search out the facts of what’s really been proposed and why. We either don’t have the time or we lack the desire to do the homework. Secondly, people are forced to use the term as way of communicating with others who wouldn’t know what you’re referring to if you used a different word. However, this still results in an inaccurate and inappropriate use of a word that contributes to the ignorance that already exists in the minds of many. Lastly, we intentionally use the term mosque to conjure up the traditional image of a mosque because in doing so the issue then becomes a combustible mix in the minds of those who think Islam is inherently evil and in the minds of the average American who, for whatever reason, see Islam as a whole as an enemy and that on 9/11 a over a billion Muslims attacked us, not 19 men who just so happened to be Muslim.

Yes, it’s a 12- to 13-story structure, depending on who you read. But that’s nothing in Manhattan, where the streets are dwarfed by all the structures that rise side-by-side to pierce the sky, thus turning each street into a veritable man-made canyon where the rising and setting sun is almost never seen over a natural horizon. When you think of it in this in this way, you realize that the proposed center is essentially two canyons from ground zero. It is neither on top of ground zero or next door overshadowing the “holy ground.” Muslims are already praying on the site where this community center is projected to be built. This part of Manhattan is full of Muslims. Formerly, police cordoned off a section of the street to for the main Friday prayer. Now Muslims pray in a narrow, crowded basement below a night club.

The proposed center would look nothing like a mosque, as previously noted. It would be a multiple-story glass and steel tower with straight lines, 90 degree angles, and no crescent moon and star anywhere on the façade. It’s modeled after a typical YMCA and would include a swimming pool, a fitness center, basketball court, a performing arts center, meeting rooms, a food court and restaurants, a bookstore, art exhibits, and a 500-seat movie theater. (Sorry, but this is nothing like any of the mosques I’ve seen in the ME!) And yes, it would have a quiet place for Muslims to pray. But even the place for them to pray is not even close to what we think of as a mosque. Rather, it’s a prayer room similar to what you find at some of our airports.

And yes the site was chosen intentionally. First, it was located there as an interfaith center for the community with the hopes it would help bridge the chasm between faiths. Secondly, it provides the numerous Muslims who work in this area a quiet place to pray in a busy city. Downtown Manhattan was chosen because it “suits their needs because it is well-connected by transportation and has a large concentration of jobs there.” (It’s near Wall Street.) According to Professor Peter Awn, a professor of Islamic studies at Columbia, “The downtown place is perfect because it would be a hub for the people of Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and if you work downtown it’s a great place to pop in for noon prayers . . . ”

No insult was meant, no slap in the face intended. When a man does evil, we hold him accountable for the evil he’s done. But we should not impute evil to a man who does good. We do not condemn him, his family, his neighbors, his nation, or his religion. A man is to be held accountable for his own sins. Blaming the innocent for the acts of a few is un-Christian and should be un-American. If we want this privilege for ourselves, we must accord it to others. Moreover, we have a duty to defend others when they are falsely accused and misjudged, if for no other reason than perhaps someday we might want others to come to our aid when we are treated in like manner. If we do not treat others in the way in which we wish and expect to be treated, then it’s hypocritical for us to complain about how others are mistreating us.

Muslims pray in the Pentagon chapel, about 80 feet from where Pentagon employees were killed in 9/11. No one has complained. And the truth is that far more Muslims have lost their lives because of the terrorist acts of a small minority of Muslims than Americans have. Yet in this present exercise in self-absorption by many Americans we think and act as though we are the only victims. In truth, most of those (not all) who oppose this mosque by claiming Muslims need to be sensitive to the families of the victims are not doing so because of their sensitivity for the victims’ families. They’re simply dressing up their hate for Muslims in the respectable garb of sensitivity. For those of us who are sincere, we need to remember that the victims of 9/11 were not all Christian and American. There were Muslim victims of 9/11 just as Muslims numbered among the police, paramedics, firefighters and others trying to save people that day. And while I understand why some sincerely believe that Muslims should be more senstive to "our feelings," we should also be sensitve to theirs. After all, when we say "our" feelings, who does "our" refer to? Many, perhaps most, of these Muslims in NYC who would like a place to pray in Manhattan are American citizens. (There were actually Muslims America at the time of the Revolution.) Do we really wish to say that if you're Christian American you're truly one of us, but if you're Muslim American you're somehow not one of us? Then there are those who fear that any mosque near ground zero is dangerous. Yet we need to think of logical conclusion of this line of thought, which has now begun to sweep the country. For if a mosque is too dangerous there then what makes it safe in my neighborhood? Maybe we could herd them onto reservations like we did the Indians, where we can force them to dress like us, give them names like us, force them to cut their hair like us, and convert them to Christianity. Perhaps we could treat them like the Japanese during WW II and put them holding pens where we can watch them. Or maybe we can simply force them to leave the country as we did to the about 350,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans, who were citizens, during the Great Depression. No mosques, no Muslims (American or otherwise), no problem. This will make America a safer nation, a purer people. (Of course, this then means that we’re more like many of those in Germany in the 1930s than we care to admit.) Most on this site would agree that any of these steps would be wrong, and rightly so. Yet using the fear-of-mosques card naturally leads to such a conclusion. This fear, however, is rooted in ignorance, which can be overcome if people are willing to study and do their homework and not listen to all the different voices in the world with all the hidden agendas those voices have.

For 9 years many fellow members of my faith have told me that we need to invade Muslim lands to spread the gospel, the Good News, or as it was called in the Greek NT, "The Way." (Sounds like a “forced conversion” to me!) Many Americans believe that Muslim lands need democracy such as we have. But as a Mormon and an American who lives and works in the Middle East I would ask this--how can we honestly tell Muslim countries that we want a democracy for them when we won’t allow them to experience it here in any form other than what amounts to mob rule based on people’s ignorance, raw-emotions, and runaway passions? How can we expect them to eagerly fight alongside our troops in a war on terrorism when they know how much we despise them and their religion? While it’s not politically correct to lynch blacks anymore, Muslims seem to be the new blacks on the block. Yet Muslims across the world are watching us and are very much attuned to what we’re saying and doing about the proposed Cordoba House project. Yet they have problems hearing what we say about all the good America has to offer the Muslim world when what we do rings so loudly in their ears. For my fellow Mormons, this current debate reminds me of Alma’s words to his son Corianton. While doing missionary work among the Zoramites, Corianton committed acts that undermined the missionary effort. Alma tells his son, “Suffer not yourself to be led away by any vain and foolish thing . . . how great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites; for when they saw your conduct they would not believe my words.” This “mosque” issue is trivial and should have never become a national controversy. It’s been blown completely out of proportion by politicians, the media, the internet, and fear and ignorance masquerading as informed opposition. Such conduct as I’ve seen by many Americans, many Mormons included, are not helping us in the ME—these attitudes and this conduct are not helping move the gospel or positive American values/principles forward among the Muslim people. I would have thought that given our history as a church that we Mormons, of all people, would realize that what has happened to us has also happened, and continues to happen, to Muslims, and it’s all done for the same reasons. Evidently, however, some of us have not learned this lesson since our attitudes toward Muslims are hauntingly similar to those of critics and detractors of Mormonism. And were America’s founding fathers alive today, I suspect that they would say the same thing to us that Alma said to his son. In essence, as a nation we need to stop whining, quit dressing our hatred or ignorance up in the respectable garb of sensitivity, stop being offended when no offense was intended, live what Christianity teaches, diligently apply those decent and wise values/principles our nation was founded on, and get on with life.

I think there is a serious disconnect in understanding concerning the 9/11 marmoreal in down town New York City. It is largely believed by the entire nation that innocent lives were lost in down town New York City by violent acts of terrorism specifically thought out, planned and executed against innocent peoples. That is the purpose of the 9/11 marmoreal – to symbolize that innocence lives were deliberately and maliciously targeted and taken by the worse kind of evil that exist among mankind. Not every citizen of the USA believes that there should be a 9/11 marmoreal but the overwhelming majority does. They believe this area is sacred because of the malicious and evil loss of innocent lives. This is most important to understand concerning the 9/11 marmoreal.

The primary purpose of a mosque is for prayers. These prayers are done kneeling and facing the Ka`ba in Mecca. This is why mosques are deemed sacred in Islam. There is a desire to build a mosque near to the 9/11 marmoreal in down town New York City. We are told that this is to be a symbol of peace and understanding between Islam and the people of New York City and the country of The United States of America - a bridge between peoples of different beliefs. I am not sure that such is really the case.

If the mosque is really intended to provide a symbol of actual importance of peace and understanding then all should agree that should the mosque ever be used by Muslim or follower of Islam to say prayers at that mosque while holding sympathy towards anyone even remotely involved in the planning or carrying out of 9/11 or in the process of being involved in any similar act against the citizens of New York City or the USA that the proper response would be to destroy the Ka`ba in Mecca - an offering of respect of sacred ground for sacred ground or an eye for an eye.

If this is the understanding, commitment and intent of such a mosque then I would shout for joy and proclaim it to be one of the greatest symbols of understanding between peoples ever devised. But if this is not the understanding, commitment and intent by those desiring to have it built – it is one sided symbolism ignoring the sacredness of the other and in all truth and honesty such a mosque should be and must be built somewhere else if we are ever to hope to someday achieve a “common” ground.

The Traveler

[Sean1427]

Traveler, I agree very much with your most recent reply to what I posted. But when it comes to intent, don't we have to trust people in the same way we expect others to trust us? Don't we have to basically take people at their word instead of twisting it into something else? Or do we choose to live by different standards, one standard that applies to "us", and another for 1.6 billiion Muslims because of the acts of 19 individuals? Do we really have the ability to judge the intent of another?

Cordoba House is an American group of Muslims; Rauf has worked with both the Bush and Obama administrations; and his wife is on an advisory team for the National September 11 Memorial and Museum. When we cry for moderate Muslims to step forward and they do, look what we do. We accuse them of being essentially no better than the 19 men who were directly responsible for 9/11?

Americans and Christians were not the only ones who died there. As I wrote, it's an act of self-absorption to believe that American Christians were the only ones who suffered. Regarding the supposed sacred nature of the site I'll address in a later post, but I don't accept for a minute that this is the reason for the controversy. Moreover, it's wrong to continue to speak of this as a mosque, which it is not. It perpetuates a falsehood. The proposal was for an interfaith community center that happens to contain a prayer room in it for Muslims. But worse, this anger and hysteria is now spreading to the point where people don't want mosques anywhere near them as well. Ater all, isn't your home sacred even though no one has yet died there?

But I'm not really talking about the masses here. I'm talking about ignorance which is the result of failing to do our homework on the one hand and being continually manipulated through lies, deceit , and propaganda from those in positions of power and influence on the other.

[Sean1427]

While I had another post ready today regarding what you wrote in one of your more recent posts, Byotor, I would prefer addressing something you wrote in your very first post. When you began the thread, you mentioned that while you tended to agree with Obama’s statement, you believed that perhaps Obama should have distanced himself from this issue. On both these points I agree. However, on another level, I believe that Obama had no choice but to express his views on this issue. Indeed, one can make a good argument that Obama had not only the right but the duty to speak out. In fact, Obama, on a national level, was the only one who should have spoken out. All other politicians, Republican or Democrat, should have been the ones to distance themselves. In saying this, I include Reid as well as Romney, Palin, Gingrich, and Giuliani. Perhaps it just goes to show that we’re truly living in times when the wisdom of our wise men has perished. Let me preface my thoughts as to why Obama perhaps should have spoken out by reminding all of us of our very recent history.

From 9/11 until the day Obama took office, the White House and the Congress were controlled by Republicans. During those years, the American Right and the neocons were quick to accuse any and all critics of the Bush administration and its policies of undermining the president, aiding and abetting terrorists, causing national disunity at a time of war, not supporting the troops, putting the lives of the troops in jeopardy, being un-American, and even treason.

With this reminder of what Republicans of those years were saying as preface, let me now explain why on one level an argument can be made that Obama had the right and duty to speak out.

Michael Gerson, former speechwriter for President Bush, spoke the other day on this very issue: “A president not only serves Muslim citizens, not only commands Muslims in the American military but also leads a coalition that includes Iraqi and Afghan Muslims who risk death each day fighting Islamic radicalism at our side. How could he possibly tell them that their place of worship inherently symbolizes the triumph of terror?” I would also remind us that both the Bush and Obama administrations have attempted, as part of US policy, to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, both at home and abroad, and especially in those lands in which US troops are currently fighting.

Whether we like it or not, Obama is now president. He is also the commander-in-chief of the military in a time of war. As president of a nation that includes citizens who are Muslim, the president has the duty to promote national unity. As commander-in-chief during a time of war, the president has a duty to promote unity in the ranks, preserve a coalition that consists of Muslim troops, and show Muslims worldwide, especially those in Iraq and Afghanistan, that this is not a war against Islam. If Obama, as president and as commander-in-chief, were to do otherwise, we would all be quick to condemn him for dereliction of duty, for failing to do what he is obligated to do.

No one else among the Democratic and Republican leadership has this duty and responsibility. Not one. Representatives such as Reid and Romney and wannabes such as Palin and Newt do not have this duty. Yet now that Republicans are on the out, Republicans--at least among US congressional representatives, wannabe politicians, and opinion leaders-seem to be marching by the beat of a different drummer. Now it’s OK to criticize and undermine a president; now it’s OK to criticize this administration’s policies; and, more to the point, now it’s OK to create national disunity during a time of war. In fact, one could—by using the Republicans’ own standards during the Bush years—accuse these Republicans of whom I speak of endangering the troops, undermining the war efforts, and expanding a “War on Terrorism” into a “War on Islam,” thus helping OBL make his point that America despises Islam.

Obama’s words did not turn this into a national hot-button issue. That had already been done by Republicans both before and after Obama’s remarks. All anyone needs to do is compile a timeline. A good source to start, where the details can be independently corroborated, would be a Salon.com article which shares the following--

Dec. 8, 2009: The Times publishes a lengthy front-page look at the Cordoba House project. It quotes Imam Rauf who, speaking of the proposed project, states, “We want to push back against the extremists.” Two Jewish leaders and two city officials, including the mayor’s office, support the idea. The mother of one of the 9/11 victims also supports it. The FBI states the Imam Rauf has worked the FBI.

Dec. 21, 2009: Conservative media personality Laura Ingraham interviews Rauf’s wife, Daisy Khan, as a guest-host on Fox’s “The O’Reilly Factor.” Ingraham states, “I can’t find many people who really have a problem with [the Cordoba project].” At the end of the interview, Ingraham states, “I like what you’re trying to do.”

May 6, 2010: After a unanimous vote by the NYC community board committee to approve the project, the AP runs a story. It quotes relatives of the 9/11 victims, who offer differing opinions. Meanwhile, Robert Murdoch’s New York Post runs another story with the inaccurate headline, “Panel Approves ‘WTC’ Mosque.” Conservative Pamela Geller, whose blog is Atlas Shrugs, entitles her post that day, “Monster Mosque Pushes Ahead in Shadow of World Trade Center.” In that post she writes, “This is Islamic domination and expansionism. The location is not accident. Just as Al-Aqsa was built on top of the Temple in Jerusalem.” (Geller is the one who also asserted that Obama’s father was really Malcolm X.)

May 7, 2010: Geller’s group, Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), launches “Campaign Offensive: Stop the 911 Mosque!” (SIOA’s director is Robert Spencer who makes his living speaking of the evils of Islam.) Geller posts the names and contact information for everyone on the community board and encourages people to write. The board chair later states that they receive “hundreds and hundreds” of calls and e-mails.

May 8, 2010: Geller announces SIOA’s first protest against the “911 monster mosque” for May 29, a day specifically chosen to mark that terrible day of “May 29, 1453, [when] the Ottoman forces . . . broke through the Byzantine defenses . . .” of Constantinople. New York Times columnist Andrea Peyser writes in a note at the end of her column a couple of days later that “there are better places to put a mosque.”

May 13, 2019: Peyser does a follow-up column entitled “Mosque Madness at Ground Zero.” This article is critical because it’s the first actual newspaper article that mirrors what Geller has been writing in her blog and saying all along. In fact, Peyser quotes Geller at length and also promotes the efforts of the SIOA to stop the “mosque.”

From this point on what should have been and remained a local issue ballooned into a national controversy, dwarfing all other issues. The Salon.com article states in its conclusion,

“Lots of opinion makers on the right read the Post, so it's not surprising that, starting that very day, the mosque story spread through the conservative — and then mainstream — media like fire through dry grass. Geller appeared on Sean Hannity's radio show. The Washington Examiner ran an outraged column about honoring the 9/11 dead. So did Investor's Business Daily. Smelling blood, the Post assigned news reporters to cover the ins and outs of the Cordoba House development daily. Fox News, the Post's television sibling, went all out.”

Now we can argue back and forth about Salon.com’s article or the website itself. I simply share its timeline because it’s a convenient place to start to do one’s homework, to ask questions and to dig for answers. But my point is not the timeline. Rather, my point in sharing the timeline is to show that this was already a national controversy when Obama spoke out the evening of August 13, 2010, at a dinner celebrating the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. After all, on June 10, 2010, a month after Peyser’s “Mosque Madness” article and two months prior to Obama’s statement, Giuliani was on the Jeff Katz radio show where he went on record saying that the project was a “desecration.” July 18, 2010, one month after Giuliani’s remarks and a month before Obama’s, Palin sent out her “refudiate” tweet (which she slightly edited later), which became public knowledge by July 19 when it was reported widely by the mainstream media. Gingrich’s Muslim “triumphalism” and Nazism remarks didn’t come until the day after Obama’s statements.

But remember, the primary point of this post is that a good argument can be made that if anyone on the national level should have spoken out o n this national controversy, it should have been Obama because of the responsibilities his offce entails. No one else has his responsibilities, at home or abroad. No one else should have spoken out, before or after, especially in an attempt for political gain prior to upcoming elections. The Republicans, in my estimation, should have followed the precedent and standards they themsevles set during the Bush Administration. To do otherwise is utter hypocrisy. And for better or worse, the Republican Party own this controversy, what it becomes, and the damage it does.

I trust that anyone who reads this knows that I’m not accusing all Republicans for what I see as hypocritcal behavior on the part of many Republicans, who say one think while doing another and who use the tactics of a demogague in their thirst for political and personal gain. I trust you know whom and what I’m referring to.

PS Did I ever tell anyone on this site that the greatest threat you face in Saudi is the possibility of dying from the sheer lack of boredom? This site certainly lessens that possibilty!

Edited August 25, 2010 by Sean1427

[Traveler]

Traveler, I agree very much with your most recent reply to what I posted. But when it comes to intent, don't we have to trust people in the same way we expect others to trust us? Don't we have to basically take people at their word instead of twisting it into something else? Or do we choose to live by different standards, one standard that applies to "us", and another for 1.6 billiion Muslims because of the acts of 19 individuals? Do we really have the ability to judge the intent of another?

Cordoba House is an American group of Muslims; Rauf has worked with both the Bush and Obama administrations; and his wife is on an advisory team for the National September 11 Memorial and Museum. When we cry for moderate Muslims to step forward and they do, look what we do. We accuse them of being essentially no better than the 19 men who were directly responsible for 9/11?

Americans and Christians were not the only ones who died there. As I wrote, it's an act of self-absorption to believe that American Christians were the only ones who suffered. Regarding the supposed sacred nature of the site I'll address in a later post, but I don't accept for a minute that this is the reason for the controversy. Moreover, it's wrong to continue to speak of this as a mosque, which it is not. It perpetuates a falsehood. The proposal was for an interfaith community center that happens to contain a prayer room in it for Muslims. But worse, this anger and hysteria is now spreading to the point where people don't want mosques anywhere near them as well. Ater all, isn't your home sacred even though no one has yet died there?

But I'm not really talking about the masses here. I'm talking about ignorance which is the result of failing to do our homework on the one hand and being continually manipulated through lies, deceit , and propaganda from those in positions of power and influence on the other.

My friend Sean1427, There are many forces that are playing out against the landscape. I have served in the military during a time of war. I have lost some very beloved friends to the insanity of conflict. There are better ways than conflict. There is in ancient scripture one interesting example from a lady name Abigail that went out to meet an army intent of her death and she prevented a war. It is most interesting what she said to the leader of the army.

There is a way to peace – there are raw nerves at ground zero and the current approach to establish a mosque will not soothe the extremes of either side. I fear in all honesty that with many things in conflict that one side, even seeking something better will escalate the conflict. I have no doubt that the US has done this in the past – that despite advice to the contrary - thought their plan would work; only to find it to escalate the conflict. I fear this mosque plays to the wrong interest on both sides more than it plays to sense of humanity on both sides.

You are right – Americans should appreciate the gesture. But the majority do not. So what is the will of Allah? A step towards conflict or a step towards peace? And who should take that step first?

The Traveler

[bytor2112]

From 9/11 until the day Obama took office, the White House and the Congress were controlled by Republicans. During those years, the American Right and the neocons were quick to accuse any and all critics of the Bush administration and its policies of undermining the president, aiding and abetting terrorists, causing national disunity at a time of war, not supporting the troops, putting the lives of the troops in jeopardy, being un-American, and even treason.

Um...NO.....Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 and are scheduled to likely lose control very soon. :)

And not sure what your point is regarding time lines and reporting. The majority of Americans are opposed to the building and New York City is a VERY liberal place. President Obama is being criticized for his remarks because he is, as usual, out of touch with main stream America. It isn't that what he said was incorrect, it's that what he said failed to show any empathy or compassion for those who still struggle and yes harbor ill feelings toward Islam itself.

[bytor2112]

Yes, I'm back. Sorry for the length, but complex issues cannot be easily addressed in a few lines. At least by me. For this, my apologies. Let me say upfront that while I some of the first posts troubling, I’m actually impressed by what some have said here. Please don’t think that the thoughts I now share are directed at you. While I could name those I’ve been impressed with, I wish to say that I particularly appreciated your comments, Yatiri, especially those concerning Imam Rauf.

The Cordoba House project, which everyone is inaccurately referring to as the mosque at ground zero in Manhattan, is actually a proposed $100 million dollar interfaith community center that would be located two blocks from ground zero. But these are two NYC blocks. If you’ve ever been to Manhattan, you know full well that we’re not talking about Nephi, Provo, or SLC blocks. The site is about 500 feet from ground zero, almost the length of two football fields. It cannot be seen from ground zero, and even if it could be seen, no one would recognize it as a mosque given its design and what it contains.

The term mosque is being used heavily by right-wing conservatives and others for political gain in a midterm election year and prior to the presidential election. And the rank-and-file just go right along. The use of the word conjures up an image of a traditional free-standing, domed mosque with a tall minaret, which is completely unlike what Cordoba House has proposed. Using the term mosque is done for different reasons by different people. First, we use it because of our ignorance. I use the term ignorance as it should be used, to define a lack of knowledge. I am not trying to put anyone done. Yet our lack of knowledge derives from a lack of effort to search out the facts of what’s really been proposed and why. We either don’t have the time or we lack the desire to do the homework. Secondly, people are forced to use the term as way of communicating with others who wouldn’t know what you’re referring to if you used a different word. However, this still results in an inaccurate and inappropriate use of a word that contributes to the ignorance that already exists in the minds of many. Lastly, we intentionally use the term mosque to conjure up the traditional image of a mosque because in doing so the issue then becomes a combustible mix in the minds of those who think Islam is inherently evil and in the minds of the average American who, for whatever reason, see Islam as a whole as an enemy and that on 9/11 a over a billion Muslims attacked us, not 19 men who just so happened to be Muslim.

Yes, it’s a 12- to 13-story structure, depending on who you read. But that’s nothing in Manhattan, where the streets are dwarfed by all the structures that rise side-by-side to pierce the sky, thus turning each street into a veritable man-made canyon where the rising and setting sun is almost never seen over a natural horizon. When you think of it in this in this way, you realize that the proposed center is essentially two canyons from ground zero. It is neither on top of ground zero or next door overshadowing the “holy ground.” Muslims are already praying on the site where this community center is projected to be built. This part of Manhattan is full of Muslims. Formerly, police cordoned off a section of the street to for the main Friday prayer. Now Muslims pray in a narrow, crowded basement below a night club.

The proposed center would look nothing like a mosque, as previously noted. It would be a multiple-story glass and steel tower with straight lines, 90 degree angles, and no crescent moon and star anywhere on the façade. It’s modeled after a typical YMCA and would include a swimming pool, a fitness center, basketball court, a performing arts center, meeting rooms, a food court and restaurants, a bookstore, art exhibits, and a 500-seat movie theater. (Sorry, but this is nothing like any of the mosques I’ve seen in the ME!) And yes, it would have a quiet place for Muslims to pray. But even the place for them to pray is not even close to what we think of as a mosque. Rather, it’s a prayer room similar to what you find at some of our airports.

And yes the site was chosen intentionally. First, it was located there as an interfaith center for the community with the hopes it would help bridge the chasm between faiths. Secondly, it provides the numerous Muslims who work in this area a quiet place to pray in a busy city. Downtown Manhattan was chosen because it “suits their needs because it is well-connected by transportation and has a large concentration of jobs there.” (It’s near Wall Street.) According to Professor Peter Awn, a professor of Islamic studies at Columbia, “The downtown place is perfect because it would be a hub for the people of Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and if you work downtown it’s a great place to pop in for noon prayers . . . ”

No insult was meant, no slap in the face intended. When a man does evil, we hold him accountable for the evil he’s done. But we should not impute evil to a man who does good. We do not condemn him, his family, his neighbors, his nation, or his religion. A man is to be held accountable for his own sins. Blaming the innocent for the acts of a few is un-Christian and should be un-American. If we want this privilege for ourselves, we must accord it to others. Moreover, we have a duty to defend others when they are falsely accused and misjudged, if for no other reason than perhaps someday we might want others to come to our aid when we are treated in like manner. If we do not treat others in the way in which we wish and expect to be treated, then it’s hypocritical for us to complain about how others are mistreating us.

Muslims pray in the Pentagon chapel, about 80 feet from where Pentagon employees were killed in 9/11. No one has complained. And the truth is that far more Muslims have lost their lives because of the terrorist acts of a small minority of Muslims than Americans have. Yet in this present exercise in self-absorption by many Americans we think and act as though we are the only victims. In truth, most of those (not all) who oppose this mosque by claiming Muslims need to be sensitive to the families of the victims are not doing so because of their sensitivity for the victims’ families. They’re simply dressing up their hate for Muslims in the respectable garb of sensitivity. For those of us who are sincere, we need to remember that the victims of 9/11 were not all Christian and American. There were Muslim victims of 9/11 just as Muslims numbered among the police, paramedics, firefighters and others trying to save people that day. And while I understand why some sincerely believe that Muslims should be more senstive to "our feelings," we should also be sensitve to theirs. After all, when we say "our" feelings, who does "our" refer to? Many, perhaps most, of these Muslims in NYC who would like a place to pray in Manhattan are American citizens. (There were actually Muslims America at the time of the Revolution.) Do we really wish to say that if you're Christian American you're truly one of us, but if you're Muslim American you're somehow not one of us? Then there are those who fear that any mosque near ground zero is dangerous. Yet we need to think of logical conclusion of this line of thought, which has now begun to sweep the country. For if a mosque is too dangerous there then what makes it safe in my neighborhood? Maybe we could herd them onto reservations like we did the Indians, where we can force them to dress like us, give them names like us, force them to cut their hair like us, and convert them to Christianity. Perhaps we could treat them like the Japanese during WW II and put them holding pens where we can watch them. Or maybe we can simply force them to leave the country as we did to the about 350,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans, who were citizens, during the Great Depression. No mosques, no Muslims (American or otherwise), no problem. This will make America a safer nation, a purer people. (Of course, this then means that we’re more like many of those in Germany in the 1930s than we care to admit.) Most on this site would agree that any of these steps would be wrong, and rightly so. Yet using the fear-of-mosques card naturally leads to such a conclusion. This fear, however, is rooted in ignorance, which can be overcome if people are willing to study and do their homework and not listen to all the different voices in the world with all the hidden agendas those voices have.

For 9 years many fellow members of my faith have told me that we need to invade Muslim lands to spread the gospel, the Good News, or as it was called in the Greek NT, "The Way." (Sounds like a “forced conversion” to me!) Many Americans believe that Muslim lands need democracy such as we have. But as a Mormon and an American who lives and works in the Middle East I would ask this--how can we honestly tell Muslim countries that we want a democracy for them when we won’t allow them to experience it here in any form other than what amounts to mob rule based on people’s ignorance, raw-emotions, and runaway passions? How can we expect them to eagerly fight alongside our troops in a war on terrorism when they know how much we despise them and their religion? While it’s not politically correct to lynch blacks anymore, Muslims seem to be the new blacks on the block. Yet Muslims across the world are watching us and are very much attuned to what we’re saying and doing about the proposed Cordoba House project. Yet they have problems hearing what we say about all the good America has to offer the Muslim world when what we do rings so loudly in their ears. For my fellow Mormons, this current debate reminds me of Alma’s words to his son Corianton. While doing missionary work among the Zoramites, Corianton committed acts that undermined the missionary effort. Alma tells his son, “Suffer not yourself to be led away by any vain and foolish thing . . . how great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites; for when they saw your conduct they would not believe my words.” This “mosque” issue is trivial and should have never become a national controversy. It’s been blown completely out of proportion by politicians, the media, the internet, and fear and ignorance masquerading as informed opposition. Such conduct as I’ve seen by many Americans, many Mormons included, are not helping us in the ME—these attitudes and this conduct are not helping move the gospel or positive American values/principles forward among the Muslim people. I would have thought that given our history as a church that we Mormons, of all people, would realize that what has happened to us has also happened, and continues to happen, to Muslims, and it’s all done for the same reasons. Evidently, however, some of us have not learned this lesson since our attitudes toward Muslims are hauntingly similar to those of critics and detractors of Mormonism. And were America’s founding fathers alive today, I suspect that they would say the same thing to us that Alma said to his son. In essence, as a nation we need to stop whining, quit dressing our hatred or ignorance up in the respectable garb of sensitivity, stop being offended when no offense was intended, live what Christianity teaches, diligently apply those decent and wise values/principles our nation was founded on, and get on with life.

I get it now. Basically, ignorant, bigotted, uninformed, Fox news watching conservatives have misread the whole thing and you have the inside track to the mind of these people and are certain that they have only the best of intentions and don't mean to offend.

Um...poppycock.

[bytor2112]

Representatives such as Reid and Romney and wannabes such as Palin and Newt do not have this duty. Yet now that Republicans are on the out, Republicans--at least among US congressional representatives, wannabe politicians, and opinion leaders-seem to be marching by the beat of a different drummer. Now it’s OK to criticize and undermine a president; now it’s OK to criticize this administration’s policies; and, more to the point, now it’s OK to create national disunity during a time of war. In fact, one could—by using the Republicans’ own standards during the Bush years—accuse these Republicans of whom I speak of endangering the troops, undermining the war efforts, and expanding a “War on Terrorism” into a “War on Islam,” thus helping OBL make his point that America despises Islam.

Romney isn't a representative. Not sure why you disparage Palin, ignorance perhaps? I only say ignorance which is the result of failing to do our homework on the one hand and being continually manipulated through lies, deceit , and propaganda from those in positions of power and influence on the other.

I wonder if you were equally critical when the Dems sought to "undermine" the President? Or when Reid declared the war lost or other Dems accusing our troops of war crimes. National disunity is what the Democrats are famous for...where pray tell...are all of the anti-war protesters? Hmmm....I guess that little ole' conflict in Afghanistan doesn't count.

There are plenty of stinkers on both sides of the political spectrum. You sound a bit sanctimonious and elitist and frankly, if this guy wanted to spread unity he would simply not force the issue and recognize the damage HE is doing and move the building to another location.

[Faded]

On a side note, where was all this moral outrage every time that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints went to build a temple and the anti-Mormon machine tried to blackball the whole thing??? We've had to accommodate the community COUNTLESS TIMES and on many occasions we've agreed to change the location in the interests of being diplomatic.

Were all these bleeding heart advocates for freedom of religion asleep? Sure it wasn't front page national news, but they could have at least got organized behind the banner of "freedom of religion" at a local level.

I won't begrudge Islam success in building their religious structure where and when they want -- but it does seem that those making all the noise supporting them wouldn't stick up for a new LDS temple site in a million years. It does seem a little unfair that our religion gets pushed around quite regularly by local governments, and the national media is completely oblivious. But it's apparently a lot more important to protect religious freedom for Muslims than anyone else. Equal consideration would be nice.

[Wingnut]

Mormon extremists didn't fly planes into the Twin Towers or the Pentagon.

[SanctitasDeo]

Yes. I've been thinking lately about how it might have been had an extreme FLDS splinter group, angry at the treatment of their leader and fanatic about polygamy and the heathens that outlaw the practice, hijacked planes and flown them into the World Trade Center towers. What would the fallout have been? Would we see the same sort of persecution and national prejudice? Would temples perhaps have been vandalized (as mosques have been)?

Kind of an interesting thought experiment.

[bytor2112]

The term mosque is being used heavily by right-wing conservatives and others for political gain in a midterm election year and prior to the presidential election. And the rank-and-file just go right along

Hmmm....walks like a duck...quacks like a duck....must be a....duck?

But the website for the project, once called the "Cordoba House" and now known as "Park51," explicitly refers to "the mosque," although it tries to minimize the mosque's importance for some reason:

The Mosque

While a mosque will be located in the planned final structure of Park51, it will be a distinct non-profit. Neither Park51 nor the mosque, which hasn’t been named yet, will tolerate any kind of illegal or un-American activity or rhetoric. The final size and location of the mosque have yet to be determined, but it will only represent a small portion of the final structure.

While Park51's website claims the "final size and location of the mosque have yet to be determined," Sharif El-Gamal, head of Soho Properties, Inc., and developer, of the “Ground Zero mosque,” advertises the project on a Muslim website updated as recently as June 5, 2010, in expansive terms different from those the GZM team has lately addressed to the broader public. Al-Gamal’s group declares, “We are trying to establish a full fledged Islamic Center in the lower Manhattan, only 2 blocks from World Trade Center, New York City, NY. It is a neat and clean facility and can accomodate [sic] 1,000 people to pray in Jamat [i.e. collectively] at one time.” Soho Properties notes on the Muslim site IslamicFinder: Accurate Prayer Times, Athan (Azan), Mosques (Masjids), Islamic Center, Muslim Owned Businesses, Hijri Calendar, Islamic Directory worldwide., which inventories mosques open around the country, that a mosque known as “The House” (Musallah – without Rauf’s “Cordoba” identification) already provides morning and evening prayer services, as well as Friday collective prayer and a weekly “networking event,” at 51 Park Place.

Thus Al-Gamal disclosed that, contrary to what Frank Rich and friends say, the real intent of the project was that for which it was questioned: an ambitious mosque, capable of drawing a large crowd of believers, close to the former World Trade Center.

[Faded]

Mormon extremists didn't fly planes into the Twin Towers or the Pentagon.

Right so shouldn't we get hassled WAY LESS??

[SanctitasDeo]

Not if the Mormon extremists were disgruntled members of the FLDS.

“We are trying to establish a full fledged Islamic Center in the lower Manhattan, only 2 blocks from World Trade Center, New York City, NY. It is a neat and clean facility and can accomodate [sic] 1,000 people to pray in Jamat [i.e. collectively] at one time.”

Interesting that at least some see it differently. Perhaps all of them. I think they should let them build it, then watch them like hawks.

Edited August 26, 2010 by SanctitasDeo
to add

[Moksha]

Um...NO.....Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 and are scheduled to likely lose control very soon. :)

Then those who take over can put the kibosh on any of those religious groups beginning with the letter M who want to build their religious edifices in our cities and neighborhoods.

[bytor2112]

Then those who take over can put the kibosh on any of those religious groups beginning with the letter M who want to build their religious edifices in our cities and neighborhoods.

New York City is FULL of Democrats Moksha and fully 70% of the people nationwide...that means Democrats too are opposed to the cultural center/mosque at the location so close to ground zero.

And why would any one want to stop the Methodists from building a church in their neighborhood?

[SanctitasDeo]

And why would any one want to stop the Methodists from building a church in their neighborhood?

Oh they're all kinds of trouble where I used to live...

[bytor2112]

Why oh why is it that two of the most liberal U.S cities practice religious intolerance? Hmmm...maybe they aren't really that tolerant after all?

[FunkyTown]

Why oh why is it that two of the most liberal U.S cities practice religious intolerance? Hmmm...maybe they aren't really that tolerant after all?

Well, tolerance doesn't seem to have anything to do with that one.

"We want to build a mosque in this former commercial zone."

"That's a commercial zone. Your tax exempt status as a mosque would stop commercial tax dollars coming in. Tax dollars that are currently sorely needed."

"Intolerant bigot!"

[Wingnut]

Then those who take over can put the kibosh on any of those religious groups beginning with the letter M who want to build their religious edifices in our cities and neighborhoods.

Not to mention putting the kibosh on the Bill of Rights...

[MarginOfError]

Think Progress Laura Ingraham To Co-Founder Of Ground Zero Mosque In December 2009: ‘I Like What You’re Trying To Do’

Turns out Fox News was for the Mosque before they were against it. Well, at least Laura Ingraham was. I wonder what's changed.

[SanctitasDeo]

Public opinion, apparently.

[bytor2112]

Think Progress Laura Ingraham To Co-Founder Of Ground Zero Mosque In December 2009: ‘I Like What You’re Trying To Do’

Turns out Fox News was for the Mosque before they were against it. Well, at least Laura Ingraham was. I wonder what's changed.

I don't see this as a left-right issue.Over 70% of Americans are opposed to the building of the cultural center/mosque. New Yorkers are opposed and New York is a very liberal place. So why spin this to the right?

Without a doubt opinions on this matter are emotion driven, but so what. My view is that if they were really trying to heal...they would move to another location.

Edited August 27, 2010 by bytor2112