Park51, as simple as I can make it.

Aug 26, 2010 15:32

‪This entire "Ground Zero Mosque Controversy" continues to baffle me. When I first heard of it‬ I passed it off as simple fear mongering rhetoric. The kind that would disappear when no one gave it any attention and treated it like the ridiculous escapade that it was. Except, the manufactured controversy only seems to have grown, feeding on itself. ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 17

cowboyneal August 26 2010, 22:53:31 UTC
Agreed. This issue should have been settled long ago when the zoning board in lower Manhattan voted 29 to 1 in approval of it. They're the folks who live there. They should know best. Why the rest of America cares one way or the other is irrelevant. Pissed off guy in bumfuck Kansas or wherever else is never going to visit the community center, or Ground Zero, or the island of Manhattan anyway ( ... )

Reply

montieth August 27 2010, 01:46:29 UTC
Of course, the former WTC site itself was designed by a Muslim architect, and wonderfully blended a Muslim aesthetic with a modern design

Minoru Yamasaki was muslim? His designs were inspired by Gothic Architecture, certainly the World Trade Center was.

I think your facts are a bit skewed.

Reply

montieth August 27 2010, 03:08:00 UTC
I'm simply not finding that.

In fact I found this quote that points to Gothic Architecture as an inspiration.

"But now I know that it is very important that all buildings should be consistent, that this is the quality of the Gothic cathedral, for instance, that we like. "
-Minoru Yamasaki

Moreover....

... )

Reply


montieth August 27 2010, 01:49:42 UTC
Opposition to a plan does not equate to violations of the rights of the planners. In fact, it is very much just as protected speech as the religious institution is.

If Fred Phelps wants to build a church next to Matthew Shephard's grave (with a big God Hates Fags Sign out front), people opposed would certainly have the right to oppose such actions and protest it vehemently, even vitriolically.

Reply

roninspoon August 27 2010, 02:13:11 UTC
You are correct, voicing opposition to Park51 is protected speech. Almost all speech is. I have not now, nor have I ever, advocated for denying people the right to speak their mind. It's something I feel very strongly about, and one of the reasons I joined the military, to protect that right for all people, as best as I could ( ... )

Reply

montieth August 27 2010, 02:25:24 UTC
A Great many of the opponents don't want the Mosque there. This is just as well as someone saying that they don't want a sign that says "God Hates Fags" at their son's funeral or "Kill all Niggers" sign across from Doctor King's Memorial in Atlanta.

Until the government actually halts the construction of the Mosque, there is no standing for a violation of their First Amendment Rights.

Speech that disagrees with your position is not a violation of rights. A great many people appear to be missing this point.

Reply

trunkbutt August 27 2010, 17:25:43 UTC
If they don't want a mosque there, then they're getting their wish! Because the project does not include the construction of a mosque.

(Unless, of course, the local Young Men's Christian Association w/ chapel is actually a church.)

Reply


nidea August 27 2010, 02:55:36 UTC
The end of that was great... crushinator August 27 2010, 20:10:52 UTC
If we don't let Park 51 to be built... then the terrorists have won.

Reply


trunkbutt August 27 2010, 17:22:41 UTC
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK YEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Reply


creases August 27 2010, 17:48:38 UTC
I am on board except for the part where you say, "Which is all rather beside the point because, and listen carefully here, IT IS NOT A FUCKING MOSQUE."

What difference does it make? Yeah, so the builders are saying it isn't actually a mosque per se - so what? Aren't we prepared to defend a mosque with the same vigor as a "prayer room"? The "It's not really a mosque" argument sounds a lot like conceding, "Hey man, if this were really a mosque you might have a point, but actually..."! Fuck that.

Reply

roninspoon August 27 2010, 20:23:17 UTC
You have a point. My intent was to specifically address the issue as it's being represented, where the word "mosque" is being used as a scare tactic specifically designed to encourage xenophobic imagery of foreign cultural elements.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up