# Resolved: WTC Site is not "sacred ground" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 7, 2010, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473 "2010-08-07T01:33:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![jaxbus4000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c89c15/32.png) [@jaxbus4000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jaxbus4000)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473/61 "2010-08-11T18:34:27Z")
> [@Gregg64](#): > > Quite a few people were equally up in arms at the statue of Robert E Lee in the Virginia Memorial at Gettysburg. > > Whatever we decide, let’s get it over with before the politicians and talk radio get too involved. > > Glen Beck will be on Hannity yelling that the place is really a secret spy outpost and where they’ll hide the nukes for the next attack. > Hannity will go on Glenn Beck and whine that no government money should go into it. > Of course, no government money was, but Charlie Rangall sees the show anxd decides to call the people who know people and see if they can pay for him to go to Jamaica and study whether there should be some federal funding. > Fox News/Cartoon Channel finds out about the trip and hosts all their shows live from Kingston and theme a whole week of programming to getting the ethics committee to investigate whether Rangall used any federal funds to buy adult beverages. Seven different congressional investigations are started > Finally, in the end, the National Park Service acquires the land at three times it’s market value, and erects on the spot of the actual towers a 1,776 structure christened the > "Mohammad Atta Memorial and a group with ties to Al Sharpton gets the contract run the Visitors Center where if you can show a passport from an arab country you get in free. Jesse Jackson secures the rights to the gift shop and all T Shirt/souvenir sales within 42 nautical miles of the site, 14% of this income is donated to PUSH. The people running that company of course get so rich they become conservatives and the employees are mostly illegal aliens making $1.35 and hour. > All of that is outed by Bill O’Rielly in an appearance promoting his new book. Shortly after this, Jesus Christ himself returns, along with Allah, Hindu and Bhudda and tell the world (in a spot on Oprah) that all the religions are full of crap, and a lot of other new age claptrap. Kieth Oberman that night on his show awards “Worst Person on the Planet” to Jesus, for criticizing religion. > When the Mohammid Atta Memorial is dedicated, Maxine Waters sees that guy giving the speech is black and secretly slips in a rider on a bill about testicular cancer research that doubles the funding. > > So please…let’s work this out over lunch, okay? You forget that Katie Couric will come out and tell us that babies really do come from a cabbage patch and Oprah herself will part the atlantic ocean and pay someone to carry her to Europe to join Mz. Obama in Spain. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473/62 "2010-08-11T19:10:48Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I do note that with all the hate groups that are up in arms about CI, no one has actually turned up any terrible links–and they have had plenty of time to do it. Terrible? Hell, none of them have turned up any even remotely questionable links. Unless you happen to think any Muslim funding source is “questionable” by virtue of being Muslim. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473/63 "2010-08-11T19:14:08Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It does not. Look at the map. You have a real estate map showing a space closer to the WTC that is up for sale? > [@Marley23](#): > > These people do not deserve some type of abnormal scrutiny based on where they are putting their building. They already had the money for the land because they bought it a year or two ago and started using it for overflow prayer space. They don’t have the money for the construction, obviously. Who are “these people” exactly? Where is the money coming from? When you have a city that finds it objectionable then who is being insensitive? > [@Marley23](#): > > I’ll thank you respectfully for not speaking on behalf of the citizens of New York. [Marist Poll.](http://maristpoll.marist.edu/810-bloomberg-approval-rating-below-50-for-first-time-in-five-years/) showing the majority of New Yorkers. ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473/64 "2010-08-11T19:16:04Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > [I can’t cite this but it stands to reason the location represents the closest possible location to ground zero. You would be incorrect. There are plenty of unoccupied buildings and vacant lots closer to the WTC site. > [@](#): > > It is also an expensive chunk of real estate to put a mosque and that takes the argument back to who is financing it.. It isn’t, actually. Land in this area is pretty much bargain basement by Manhattan standards – there are numerous unoccupied buildings, some still structurally damaged, around the WTC site. The building site they propose to use, is, in fact, currently both unoccupied and damaged. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473/65 "2010-08-11T19:20:15Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Then we are in agreement that it should be investigated. Why should it, exactly ? What do you expect an investigation would/could uncover ? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473/66 "2010-08-11T19:26:39Z")
> [@Hello\_Again](#): > > It isn’t, actually. Land in this area is pretty much bargain basement by Manhattan standards – there are numerous unoccupied buildings, some still structurally damaged, around the WTC site. The building site they propose to use, is, in fact, currently both unoccupied and damaged. Bargain basement by Manhattan standards has no dollar per square foot meaning in real estate. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473/67 "2010-08-11T19:30:04Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > You have a real estate map showing a space closer to the WTC that is up for sale? I thought you were saying this property was as close as possible to the WTC, which it is not. They did deliberately pick a site near the WTC. Whether it’s the closest, I don’t know. > [@](#): > > Who are “these people” exactly? If you’re so curious, [read their web page and find out](http://www.cordobainitiative.org/). The Imam behind this project has been in New York and leading a mosque for decades, so he’s not exactly a shadowy man of mystery. And plenty has been written about them in recent months. They bought this space more than a year ago. > [@](#): > > Where is the money coming from? > **[Muslim Prayers and Renewal Near Ground Zero (Published 2009)](https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1)** > > A building damaged on 9/11 and then abandoned has become a prayer space, envisioned as a future Islamic cultural, educational and recreational center. > [@](#): > > Kukiko Mitani, whose husband, Stephen Pomerantz, owned the building at the time, tried to sell it for years, at one time asking $18 million. But when the recession hit, she sold it in July to a real estate investment firm, Soho Properties, for $4.85 million in cash, records show. One of the investors was the Cordoba Initiative, an interfaith group founded by Imam Feisal. There is no money for the much more expensive construction of the Park51 building, as far as I know. > [@Magiver](#): > > When you have a city that finds it objectionable then who is being insensitive? The people who are suggesting without evidence that a land deal is a terrorist plot. > [@](#): > > [Marist Poll.](http://maristpoll.marist.edu/810-bloomberg-approval-rating-below-50-for-first-time-in-five-years/) showing the majority of New Yorkers. 53 percent is a bare bones majority and does not equate to “the citizens of New York have questions about this project.” Particularly considering how many people have busied themselves with lying about it over the last three months. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473/68 "2010-08-11T19:37:21Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > > [@Magiver](#): > > > > Then we are in agreement that it should be investigated. > > Why should it, exactly ? What do you expect an investigation would/could uncover ? The source of the funding behind a building that the majority of New Yorkers currently object to. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473/69 "2010-08-11T19:41:16Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > > [@Kobal2](#): > > > > Why should it, exactly ? What do you expect an investigation would/could uncover ? > > The source of the funding behind a building that the majority of New Yorkers currently object to. … yes, I got that. My question was : what do you expect this source of funding could be ? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473/70 "2010-08-11T19:43:48Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The source of the funding behind a building that the majority of New Yorkers currently object to. “Slightly more than half the people in your general area don’t like you” is not grounds for an investigation. That’s a combination of a bad _argumentum ad populi_ and bad police work. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473/71 "2010-08-11T19:54:07Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > There is no money for the much more expensive construction of the Park51 building, as far as I know. A planned building without funding. What does that mean? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473/72 "2010-08-11T19:55:57Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > > [@Marley23](#): > > > > There is no money for the much more expensive construction of the Park51 building, as far as I know. > > A planned building without funding. What does that mean? It means they haven’t raised the money for their project yet. They already own the property and they have been using the existing building, and they have announed their plans for a new building but don’t have the money for it yet. I don’t think they even have a final design for the building. This place is years from being complete. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473/73 "2010-08-11T19:56:54Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > > [@Magiver](#): > > > > The source of the funding behind a building that the majority of New Yorkers currently object to. > > “Slightly more than half the people in your general area don’t like you” is not grounds for an investigation. That’s a combination of a bad _argumentum ad populi_ and bad police work. It is grounds for acceptance when the structure is meant to be a cultural bridge. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473/74 "2010-08-11T19:58:41Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > > [@Marley23](#): > > > > “Slightly more than half the people in your general area don’t like you” is not grounds for an investigation. That’s a combination of a bad _argumentum ad populi_ and bad police work. > > It is grounds for acceptance when the structure is meant to be a cultural bridge. So they can’t do cultural outreach unless their culture is already accepted and popular. That’s some catch, that Catch-22. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473/75 "2010-08-11T20:18:07Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > > [@Magiver](#): > > > > It is grounds for acceptance when the structure is meant to be a cultural bridge. > > So they can’t do cultural outreach unless their culture is already accepted and popular. That’s some catch, that Catch-22. The Imam’s remarks regarding 9/11 were not received in the spirit of cultural bridge building. Your catch 22 analogy does not really apply here. Whether you admit it or not the location of the Mosque is a sensitive place and because of his remarks people question the motives of a building whose funding is unknown. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473/76 "2010-08-11T20:33:43Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Rejecting a national culture that is openly hostile to women and other religions is not xenophobia. True. It’s called “being anti-Republican.” ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473/77 "2010-08-11T20:42:45Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > > [@Magiver](#): > > > > Rejecting a national culture that is openly hostile to women and other religions is not xenophobia. > > True. It’s called “being anti-Republican.” Heh, zing! Magiver has no intention of admitting he’s incorrect. He argued against basic physics for like ten pages in the monkey-punching thread. Magiver, can I ask? They own the land. They want to build. Do you support denying them the freedom to build based on your personal feelings? Where does that line end? Do you want to live in a free country or not? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473/78 "2010-08-11T20:50:07Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Magiver, can I ask? They own the land. They want to build. Do you support denying them the freedom to build based on your personal feelings? Where does that line end? > Do you want to live in a free country or not? Yes, I want to live in a free country. That mean expressing my opinion on whether or not something is considered sacred ground and the motives behind the proposed building. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473/79 "2010-08-11T20:59:08Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > > [@Marley23](#): > > > > So they can’t do cultural outreach unless their culture is already accepted and popular. That’s some catch, that Catch-22. > > The Imam’s remarks regarding 9/11 were not received in the spirit of cultural bridge building. Your catch 22 analogy does not really apply here. Whether you admit it or not the location of the Mosque is a sensitive place and because of his remarks people question the motives of a building whose funding is unknown. The building _is_ located in a sensitive place. It’s not on the WTC site but it’s near it, and that’s by design. It’s a statement and they have been upfront about that. Your implications about the financing of the building don’t make any sense. Do you think Saudi radicals are going to give them money so they can build their basketball court? Do you think Bin Laden is going to want to put his name on the library? Do you think they are planning a terrorist training camp in lower Manhattan? That would be quite a step up in visibility for them! They already bought the land, so presumably the investors received whatever approval they needed for that. I am sure their funding will receive whatever vetting is standard, and given that they’re Muslims they’ll probably get a good deal of extra scrutiny on top of that. But this stuff about funding is a canard. It’s about distrust of Muslims in general. These particular Muslims have been in the area for decades. Why they would suddenly be sinister now is left unexplained because nobody can think of a reason. [Here’s some of the sinister stuff they are planning:](http://www.park51.org/vision.htm) > [@](#): > > Park51 will grow into a world-class community center, including the following facilities: > fitness facilities (swimming pool, gym, basketball court) > a 500-seat auditorium > a restaurant and culinary school > cultural amenities including exhibitions > education programs > a library and art studios > childcare services > a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community > dedicated meditation rooms ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473/80 "2010-08-11T21:24:54Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The building _is_ located in a sensitive place. And New Yorkers want assurances the $100 million dollar cost is not funded by those who made it a sensitive place. It’s not a court of law, it’s a court of public opinion. Do you not see the value in the knowledge of where the money comes from for this cultural bridge? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wtc-site-is-not-sacred-ground/549473.md?page=5)