My point was that people have said so and so had bad motives. Of course I’d oppose the center based on that - as have others, Muslims included. Some people who oppose the Islamic center are bigots. Others think it’s a matter of tact.
If anyone asked, I’d share that they have the legal right to do it. In the beginning, I automatically thought anyone who opposed it were bigoted assholes. I have since tried to see other people’s point of view.
Beyond your understanding, I presume.
Maybe. But 1,000 to 2,000 Muslims praying over the course of a Friday is not the same claim as the building having a prayer room that holds 2,000 people.
It’s not a “mosque/center” and you know it.
If you say so. :rolleyes:
Then what is it?
I don’t think that people who are opposed to the place are necessarily bigots. I’m saying that I can see where some people are coming from. It doesn’t mean they are right. It means they may have some logical thought process going on there.
Trying to place a disclaimer in front of your position, such as, “it’s not a mosque”, “it’s a community center”, or “it’s just like the JCC” isn’t helping your POV if it isn’t factual.
People have to correct you when your descriptive terms belie an agenda or bias. Calling it a mosque, or a “mosque/center”, or any other term that attempts to convey that it’s primarily a mosque, is inaccurate. The plan is for 13% of it to be a mosque.
It’s a lot like referring to the president as B. Hussein Obama. It’s a descriptive term that has a root in fact, but it makes it clear the speaker has an agenda.
It’s a community center that has a prayer room in it. It’s purpose is not to “incite people.”
See above.
You’re right, of course. My intention was to convey that the majority of the plan has nothing to do with prayer or worship. The 13% was in reference to a plan for a 15 story building, two floors of which were to be used as a prayer space.
At any rate, it doesn’t matter if it’s a mosque, or a community center, or a mosquenity center. If someone wants to build a mosque in Manhattan, they have a perfect right to do so. Building a mosque does not qualify as “inciting people”.
I found the following, though I’m not sure how accurate the information is.
http://www.excal.on.ca/edop/ground-zero-mosque-not-actually-a-mosque/
While I can appreciate the comparison (I was one of the zillion who put “Hussein” as her middle name on Facebook in mock protest), it’s not a good one.
There is a community center and a mosque. They are now two separate fundraising ventures. That’s why I put the “/” in there.
The “Prayer Space” is the mosque. Check out their website. While it certainly needs development, it is currently in function as a, well, mosque for Muslims.
Eh; no. You see above.
The original plan had one development with a mosque in it. Now they are separate, but people are still protesting it regardless…perhaps out of ignorance. I donno. It would appear that supporters of the mosque/center are unaware of some of the facts as well.
The article I linked to in the Times upthread said that the space will not be 15 stories. Five is more likely.
Indeed.
Building a mosque in and of itself is not an incitement. But some - and by some I mean rightwing Christians to Muslim leaders - have criticized the original plan, the supporters, and the way it was gone about. This is why I said I thought that people who opposed it were just bigots. Then I actually read what some of the not-Glenn-Becks-of-the-world had to say and I started to consider their reservations.
That’s sweet and all, except the center that he talks about hasn’t been furnished with a pool and 13 stories of glory. And he failed to mention the mosque next door. So, again, it would appear that some people in this thread are confused about the site (or sites) and current plans for it.
A prayer space is not a mosque. Just as hospitals don’t have “churches” in them, community centers don’t have “mosques” in them.
You claimed that it appears the purpose of the center was to incite people, not that right-wing Christians had criticisms.
Okay. I just took a better look at the prayer space website. It is indeed separate from Park 51.
Really? :rolleyes:
How do you know there’s no pool? Park 51 isn’t 13 stories?
CitizenPained: I’m still waiting for an answer on what the occupancy load is for that structure to be considered primarily a place of worship. As I mentioned upthread, my parents might like to be reassured that the place where they got married was, in fact, “in a church.” Also, a few of my friends here in Korea might like to be reassured that their nuptials were, in fact, “in church” also.
I wouldn’t be surprised, either, that the federal government would like to know that it has been operating one building at least (the Pentagon) that isn’t really the headquarters of the Department of Defense but is rather a church, a synagogue, and even a mosque!
I’ll come right out and ask you straight, CitizenPained: What other religions besides Islam do you think should be prohibited “out of tact”? And don’t tell me that’s not your position. It is as you’ve stated that you think it shouldn’t be practiced at that center in Manhattan, meaning that you think it should be prohibited.
By the way, what you call tact, I’m calling pandering to bigots.
No, the two are not in fact the same.
That said, I’m still awaiting either a citation or a retraction on the claim that the centre was built with the purpose to incite people.
There are people among us who are specially gifted, who can peer into the hearts and minds of people they know nothing about, and take the inventory. For them, it is child’s play to uncover the hidden motivation, the secret agenda, the merest glance is enough. While lesser minds are mired in complexity and a futile search for understanding, they leap nimbly to the simple and solid center of the thing, they are not burdened with doubt. We are blessed, for they are abundant, they are Legion, and they are always with us.
There are many different names for such as these. I have mine own.
Actually, in this case, they certainly are.
Me, too. I’m also awaiting an answer on my query regarding occupancy load to qualify as a primarily religious structure.
Sorry, just to clarify: I meant that “people shouldn’t X” and “X should be prohibited by law” are different in both concept and practice. I wasn’t referring to the tact/pandering thing.
I think the average New Yorker would say that right wing Christians are a hell of a lot less welcome in Lower Manhattan than the ultra-liberal muslims who want to build this center. They’re like the Unitarians of Islam. Believing they are intending to incite anything would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.