Correct. And this is why I say “misguided” as opposed to stupid. In many places, perhaps most places, two blocks is nothing. In Manhattan, it can be a dramatic difference in neighborhoods.
That’s silly. It’s a community center. The purpose of the center, as I understand it, is to provide the community of Lower Manhattan a place for enriching recreational, social, and artistic activities. The fact that it has a prayer center is incidental to its purpose and largely to accommodate a very active and plentiful Islamic community. The fact that it’s a large prayer center speaks to its populous location in, you know, Manhattan.
An analogous example with which you may be familiar is the YMCA, which is a community center steeped in Christian values that provides its surrounding community with enriching activities of a recreational and social nature. They, too, often contain chapels within their walls, but they are not centers that are synonymous with churches. A church is much more than just a place one goes to pray.
Absolutely correct. And it doesn’t matter if there were to be a mosque all by its lonesome built on the very spot of the WTC (after purchasing the land from the government entities currently holding it, of course). Freedom of religion is an important liberty. Allowing bigots to have their way erodes liberty.
In case anyone is wondering, the project is currently stalled because of a lack of financial backing, but there’s a small protest planned near the site on September 11 anyway. Plus, Congressman Allen West is hosting screenings of a movie about the project produced by some wingnut advocacy group.
Well, maybe.
Such a mosque would unquestionably be legal. I would not call it the wisest use of public relations capital.
“Dykes on Bikes” are a staple of Gay Pride events, but are not the best image to use in a campaign for same-sex marriage rights… even though they too are unquestionably legal.
Depending on local helmet laws.
There is no debate here, provided the group are the rightful owners of the property (or properly renting it) they are perfectly free to exercise their constitutional right by using it as an Islamic prayer centre or even a mosque.
I disagree. It’s no more a mosque than a YMCA is a church or a JCC is a synagogue.
That’s not equivalent.
Show me a YMCA that has a “prayer space” for two thousand people. There’s no comparison. I don’t have anything against this center, but I just don’t think it’s inaccurate to call it a mosque.
A mosque is a religious structure. This isn’t. Do you have a cite that the prayer space particularly for Muslim worship can hold 2000 people?
I don’t think churches should be allowed to be built near ground zero. Christians always make everything about religion
Plus, what’s the occupancy load in a room designated for a religious activity for a building containing that room to qualify as a religious structure? I think we can safely conclude that 2000 is at or above that number. Is the actual number 2000? Is it 1000? What about 25? Is 25 not enough people? I need to know soon. I’m calling my parents tonight and it’d be nice to reassure them that the church where they got married was, in fact, a church and not just “some building.”
Come to think of it, the last religious marriage ceremony I attended was in the Seoul Korea Temple and there were only about 20 people there, since the room can’t hold more than that. I guess that means the Temple’s not a religious structure either. Or is it? After all, we haven’t really set a number.
Let’s be honest here. It’s not merely an issue of numbers. Those against this edifice aren’t upset about the number of people. They’re upset about the number of people who happen to be Muslim being greater than one. The whole issue is prejudice. To assert otherwise is pandering to the bigots.
What’s so interesting to me is that disapproval of the community center is directly proportional to how far you are from the WTC site. That is to say, the closer you are to the actual WTC site , the more likely you are to approve of the construction of the Park51 community center.
When the issue was very much in the news,
Nationally, 71% opposed the plan
In New York City, 52% opposed the plan
In Manhattan, 36% opposed the plan
The Community Board of the neighborhood where the WTC stood approved the plan 29-1
Interesting, innit?
And then you got your Muslims who were directly responsible for preventing terrorism. Did anyone stop and ask “Who was that mosqued man? I wanted to thank him…”?
Here (er…NY Daily news, eh)
Maybe that’s where he’s getting it from?
I would be opposed to the idea of a mosque/center that appeared to be created to incite people, not to fill a need, not to mention the questionable politics of the backers of the project. It does seem grossly insensitive and flashy.
As far as their rights go, of course they have a right to build a mosque, just as the people of Mosborough, Tennessee do. So if I had been sitting on the neighborhood board who voted to let the center be built, I would have voted ‘yes’ as well.
The Community Board did not say “they have a right to it so we have to let them.” It was a non-binding advisory vote, and they stated it would be a positive for the neighborhood. A Board member called it “a seed of peace.”
In other words, CB1 said they not only have a right to build, they should do it and are welcomed.
It doesn’t change my vote. I thought I explained that if it wasn’t for once principle, it would be another…?
I’m not in the business of questioning motives when people want to exercise their religious freedoms. I really try not to.
The vote was not a zoning vote, it was an advisory vote whether the planned construction was a good idea. Since you don’t think it was, it WOULD change your vote. It wouldn’t change the vote of anyone on the CB, because when asked if they thought it was a good idea, they said “definitely yes.” I bet you don’t live in CB1, right? Therefore, as predicted, you are more likely to think its a bad idea than people who actually live there. As predicted by the poll numbers.
Apparently, you need to try harder.