Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Muslims pray daily at Pentagon's 9/11 crash site

Wed Aug 18, 2010 1:01 PM EDT
politics, us, new-york, muslims, pentagon, as-americans, while-americans
Anne Flaherty, Associated Press
Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — While Americans are bitterly debating the proposed building of a mosque near New York's ground zero, Muslims have been praying for years less than 80 feet from where another hijacked jetliner struck.

The Pentagon chapel is part of a memorial to the 184 people killed in 2001 when hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 flew into the west side of the Pentagon and plowed through three of the building's five office rings.

As part of its massive renovation, the Pentagon opened the nondenominational chapel in November 2002. The chapel hosts a daily prayer group and weekly worship service for Muslims and provides similar services for Jews, Hindus, Mormons, Protestants, Catholics and Episcopalians.

Pentagon officials say that no one in the military or the families of the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has ever protested.

They describe the 80-seat chapel as a peaceful place where some 300 to 400 Pentagon employees come to pray each week.

The goal of the Pentagon chaplain office, which runs the chapel, is to "provide assistance and support for the religious, spiritual and morale needs of all service members and employees," said Army spokesman George Wright.

A proposal to build an Islamic cultural center near ground zero in New York has prompted angry protests by victims of the 2001 attacks, which were done in the name of Islam. A majority of New Yorkers say they are opposed to the plan.

Last week, President Barack Obama inserted himself into the debate when he said Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in the U.S. Republicans assailed him as out of touch with mainstream America, and Obama later told reporters that he wasn't endorsing the specifics of the mosque plan.

Perhaps one reason the Pentagon chapel has failed to attract much attention is that it looks more like a conference room than a place of worship with its gray walls and maroon carpet and drapes.

Its stained glass windows, which overlook the Pentagon's outdoor memorial to 9-11 victims, depict a soaring eagle and American flag.

There are no obvious religious statues or symbols, except Catholic holy water at the door, a Bible beneath each seat and an unadorned altar up front.

Otherwise, religious accouterments are brought in for various worship services.

Wright said that Muslim employees can gather for a daily prayer service Monday through Thursday, and attend a Friday worship service run by an imam from a local mosque.

Two in-house Army chaplains run the chapel, neither of which are Muslim. Col. Daniel Minjares is associated with the Church of the Nazarene; his deputy, Lt. Col. Ken Williams, is Southern Baptist.

Wright said the chaplains provide religious services for their denomination but can provide services such as grief and marital counseling to employees of any faith.

Other faiths rely on local temples and churches to lead worship services.

Abraham Scott, whose wife, Janice, was a civilian Army employee killed at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, said that while he opposes the lower Manhattan mosque, he "can live with" the fact that Muslims pray at a Pentagon chapel.

"It's not a mosque that's built specifically for Muslims," Scott said. "It's a facility where Muslims can go and pray."

___

Associated Press writer Karen Matthews in New York contributed to this report.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Anne Flaherty's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (45)
IslamicScholars

This chapel is doing some good work, to bring people together and establish better communication in the community

  • 2 votes
Reply#1 - Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:22 PM EDT
Nadia T. Pugglesworth, III

A non-denominational chapel is not a 15 story Mosque complex. Hardly anyone is saying that Muslims don't have a constitutional right to pray wherever they want. Being against building a mosque complex in a specific location is not the same as being against your first amendment right to exercise your religion.

  • 6 votes
#2 - Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:10 PM EDT
Solidarity Nite

rite exactly. you said it very well. praying some where is more than a little different than building a mosque

  • 4 votes
#2.1 - Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:38 PM EDT
Nadia T. Pugglesworth, III

The founding fathers having been mostly Free Masons and Deists were wary of and mostly opposed to organized religion which is why the first amendment specifically has both an establishment clause prohibiting government from establishing religion (e.g. Church of England) and an expression clause protecting the individual's right to exercise religion without prohibition.

It says nothing and intentionally says nothing about religious organizations rights to build houses of worship wherever they wish because they clearly did not intend for religious organizations to have the constitutional right to do so.

  • 3 votes
#2.2 - Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:10 PM EDT
trm2008

Being against building a mosque complex in a specific location is not the same as being against your first amendment right to exercise your religion.

It has the same effect if you are the offended party--in this case, Muslims.

  • 4 votes
#2.3 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:56 AM EDT
Nadia T. Pugglesworth, III

What do you think the global reaction would be had a group of ultra-orthodox Jewish nutbags such as Neturei Karta committed the terrorist acts of 9/11 in the name of the Jewish faith and a group of Jews attempted to build a 15 story Temple complex a couple blocks from the site of the World Trade Center?

It's not relevant that the group who blew up the WTC were Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or belonged to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The relevance is that it's insensitive to put up a house of worship dedicated to the faith in whose name the act of terror was committed a couple blocks from the site of the devastation and destruction.

So you can scream it's Islamophobia or hatred of Muslims behind the opposition to the building of this Mosque complex all you want. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of Americans, about 70% in recent polls, are not opposed to Muslims exercising their first amendment right to freedom of religion. You can equate opposition to building the Mosque complex to bigotry all you want; it doesn't make it so.

  • 3 votes
#2.4 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:23 AM EDT
Steve Watts

What do you think the global reaction would be had a group of ultra-orthodox Jewish nutbags such asNeturei Karta committed the terrorist acts of 9/11 in the name of the Jewish faith and a group of Jews attempted to build a 15 story Temple complex a couple blocks from the site of the World Trade Center?

Probably similar hysteria and racism. That doesn't make it right.

You can equate opposition to building the Mosque complex to bigotry all you want; it doesn't make it so.

Not for everyone. But you have to concede there is an undercurrent of bigotry to some of the opposition. If you oppose it on the grounds of simple insensitivity, fine; I disagree, but fine. However, you can't bury your head in the sand and pretend the bigotry doesn't exist. Many of the opponents vaguely point at "us versus them" differences, call the Imam a radical, and even claim the Mosque is being erected as a victory celebration. Would you agree that those people are opposing it for bigoted, intolerant reasons?

  • 2 votes
#2.5 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:27 AM EDT
Steve Watts

It's also not a great sign for your side, Nadia, to swap out Muslims for Jews. It's not as if the latter has had a great history of being trusted and accepted in society. You're essentially saying that the opposition isn't bigoted because if another religion did it, we'd be bigoted towards them instead. How does that make any sense whatsoever?

  • 2 votes
#2.6 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:32 AM EDT
Nadia T. Pugglesworth, III

I speak only for myself. It's sad that you're incapable of having a rational discussion without imaginary divisive partisan boundaries. Good day to you!

My point was that it's silly to think along divisive lines such as to which religious group someone belongs. It's acts and deeds that matter, not religious affiliation.

Regardles of your religious affiliation, you should be sensitive to the legitimate concerns of the community to which you belong. It's not unreasonable for them to relocate their Mosque complex to another location.

  • 3 votes
#2.7 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:33 AM EDT
Steve Watts

I speak only for myself. It's sad that you're incapable of having a rational discussion without imaginary divisive partisan boundaries.

You speak for yourself, but you speak out against those with whom you disagree. If others are opposing it for bigoted reasons, I assume you disagree with them just as strongly as you disagree with those who favor the Mosque. I was just looking for a bit of intellectual honesty from you. If you accept the assistance of bigots because they happen to be on your side, would that be guilt by association? After all, people are accusing this Muslim group of guilt merely by being Muslim. If you accept hate for political convenience, are you any better?

It's acts and deeds that matter, not religious affiliation.

Agreed. This Muslim group hasn't done anything wrong. It's their acts and deeds that matter, not their religious affiliation.

  • 3 votes
#2.8 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:39 AM EDT
Nadia T. Pugglesworth, III

Let's try seeing if you'll answer this question honestly. If the Ku Klux Klan were to open a complex including a recruiting center across the street from this Mosque complex complete with banners hanging from the windows saying "Stop the filthy Muslims from overtaking your nation!" citing their first amendment rights to freedom of expression, would you defend their first amendment rights?

Yes or no.

  • 3 votes
#2.9 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:46 AM EDT
trm2008

So you are comparing Muslims to the KKK? Sad.

  • 1 vote
#2.10 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:51 AM EDT
Nadia T. Pugglesworth, III

No you are. I was posing a question. Your inference is that I am comparing Muslims to the KKK. You obviously missed out on the first amendment analogy because of your prejudice towards me. The issue of relevance is where do you draw the line between first amendment rights and common sense not some emotional, irrational reflex luddite reaction one way or the other.

My position is that any religious group has the right to exercise their religion and build places of worship within reasonable constraints as defined by the community. Your first amendment rights protect your freedom to exercise religion and speech, not to do whatever you wish wherever you wish whenever you wish in regards to these rights.

  • 3 votes
#2.11 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:54 AM EDT
Steve Watts

If the Ku Klux Klan were to open a complex including a recruiting center across the street from this Mosque complex complete with banners hanging from the windows saying "Stop the filthy Muslims from overtaking your nation!" citing their first amendment rights to freedom of expression, would you defend their first amendment rights?

Yep. I would say it's in poor taste and not particularly smart, but they're perfectly within their rights to do so. I would be within my rights to say I think it's stupid, like you're within your rights to disagree with this Mosque. Since neither of us seem to be disputing that both the Muslim group and opponents are well within their rights, let's get back to the topic at hand.

The opposition to this Mosque is based on conflating all Muslims with terrorists. Whether consciously or unconsciously, it is literally impossible to be offended by the proposed existence of this Mosque if you see peaceful Muslims and terrorists as two distinct groups. If geese offend you, you have no logical reason to be put off by ducks. The two are separate, fowl or not.

Besides, geese are pretty offensive. Violent little things.

As for the Pentagon chapel, many have pointed out that it's an interfaith center. So I suppose that means that as long as some statistical majority of a center is unrelated to the Muslim faith, that makes it okay, right? Good thing this proposed Mosque devotes 11 of its 13 stories to non-religious community activities. By that reasoning, it should be perfectly fine too.

Your first amendment rights protect your freedom to exercise religion and speech, not to do whatever you wish wherever you wish whenever you wish in regards to these rights.

Actually, in regards to the first amendment and private property, that's exactly what they protect.

  • 4 votes
#2.12 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:13 PM EDT
Pete520

I'll bite and weigh in on the KKK pseudo-analogy.

If the private property owner wants to sell his or her property to the Ku Klux Klan, then (as stated by Steve) the KKK has a constitutional right to purchase that property and do with it what it pleases (as long as its activities are within the confines of the law).

If the private property owner decides not to sell his or her property to the KKK, it is that private property owner's right to decline the sale.

Let me get this straight. Would you like the government making private property transaction decisions and thus trump the property owner's rights?

  • 1 vote
#2.13 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:27 PM EDT
Solidarity Nite

Yep. I would say it's in poor taste and not particularly smart, but they're perfectly within their rights to do so.

ok so you agree then.. they might have the legal right but they shouldn't actually do it.

you make the mistake by saying that those opposed view every body as terrorists. we don't. we say that its insensitive to the survivors and family of victims to put up a mosque pract on the site as a reminder that members of that faith horribly murdered thousands because of their radical and twisted religious beliefs.

theres other mosque nearby that nobody objects to. its because the objectors don't actually view all muslims as terrorists.

that's just a cheap and cowardly smear tactic that sadly some of the mosque supporters have chosen to engage in instead of acknowledging the insensitivity of the choice of site

  • 3 votes
#2.14 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:35 PM EDT
Steve Watts

you make the mistake by saying that those opposed view every body as terrorists.

Actually, I didn't say that at all. My position is more nuanced than that. I said that the opposition either consciously or unconsciously associate these peaceful Muslims with terrorists. That's a tad different than claiming you think they literally are terrorists.

Since these peaceful Muslims are not linked to the terrorists in any way, it makes about as much sense as being offended by a synagogue being put up near Ground Zero. What does a synagogue have to do with Ground Zero? Nothing. But that's what this peaceful Muslim group has to do with it too. Understand what I'm getting at?

I'm sure some people will see the building as a reminder of 9/11. To be blunt, that's their own fault for associating a peaceful religion with its violent perversion. To go back to my fowl analogy, I've had geese act violently towards me before, but I don't feel hurt and offended every time I see a duck. They're two separate animals with a very minor connection.

  • 2 votes
#2.15 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:44 PM EDT
Solidarity Nite

I said that the opposition either consciously or unconsciously associate these peaceful Muslims with terrorists.

wait. seriously? the opposition even if it says differently UNCONSCIOUSLY thinks that muslims are terrorists? did you really write that?

if you think that then may be you can look into that crystal ball in which you have divined the unconscious thoughts and motivations of others and give me the lottery numbers while youre at it

bull@!$%#!

Since these peaceful Muslims are not linked to the terrorists in any way, it makes about as much sense as being offended by a synagogue being put up near Ground Zero.

if some crazy jews flew planes into the wtc in the name of their religion horribly murdering all most three thousand people I'd be against a synagogue too

but yeah.. the synagogue doesn't really have any thing to do with ground zero.

it's interesting though that you brought that up. what are YOU thinking about????

  • 3 votes
#2.16 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:50 PM EDT
Steve Rosenberger

Nadia, since you like to swap victims to make your point, your "insensitive" argument also suggests that no Catholic churches should be allowed near schools. Catholic priests have been molesting and raping innocent kids for decades.

The problem for your side is that you cannot apply different rules, standards or Constitutionally protected rights to different groups. It's one-size-fits-all. And your discomfort, unfortunately for you, matters not at all.

If you don't like living under the terrible restrictions of the U.S. Constitution, there are many, many places which can offer you the sort of protections you seek. Bon voyage!

  • 3 votes
#2.17 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:25 PM EDT
Steve Watts

wait. seriously? the opposition even if it says differently UNCONSCIOUSLY thinks that muslims are terrorists? did you really write that?

No, actually I didn't. I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you legitimately don't understand what the word "associate" means. I'll attempt to clarify using my earlier analogy.

If a goose bites you, as they are wont to do, it is logical from then on to be careful around geese. It is illogical, then, to be afraid of ducks. Ducks may be water fowl, they may share certain characteristics with geese, but they are not geese. If you see a duck and avoid it because you think back to the time you were bitten by a goose, you're being unreasonable. Ducks are peaceful, they've done nothing to you, and you shouldn't withhold your bread because of something a goose did. If you do, quite frankly you're being a chicken.

In the analogy, geese are terrorists and ducks are peaceful Muslims. I'm saying that the opposition is based on associating geese and ducks. That is to say, when you see a duck, you think about the time a goose bit you. This is quite different from, as you claim, stating that the opposition thinks ducks literally are geese. Please tell me you understand now, because that's as simple as I can make it.

the synagogue doesn't really have any thing to do with ground zero.

Exactly my point. Peaceful, American Muslims have the precise same degree of involvement in 9/11 as Jewish people: none whatsoever.

  • 2 votes
#2.18 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:43 PM EDT
merleliz

Besides, geese are pretty offensive. Violent little things.

You Goose Bigot!

I'm going to sic PETA on you for your unwarranted accusation against geese. Just because ONE goose bit you, doesn't give you the right to make blanket accusations against all geese everywhere.

  • 1 vote
#2.19 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:11 PM EDT
Nadia T. Pugglesworth, III

What I wouldn't give for the U.S. to lift the endangered species designation on Canadian Geese so they could be hunted to cull their population down to size. They're not endangered! They're everywhere fouling water reservoirs, crapping everywhere, getting in the way of traffic, etc.

I think it was in Zelda: Ocarina of Time where if you attacked a chicken with a weapon all the other chickens would start ganging up on you and peck you to death. Poor Link!

  • 3 votes
#2.20 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:32 PM EDT
merleliz

And in "The Once and Future King" by T. H. White, King Arthur learned lessons of love and tolerance from living with the wild geese.

But chickens...now chickens are really scary! Especially roosters.

  • 1 vote
#2.21 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 4:07 PM EDT
Reply
BKER1492

Wow. A Non-denominational chapel helping the faithful inside a federal building. Can't wait for the ACLU to correct this situation.

  • 2 votes
Reply#3 - Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:27 PM EDT
Pete520

The ACLU would correct the situation if the chapel were denominational, as it would exclude other religions of their rights granted through the first amendment. If the Pentagon had a Mosque, then the ACLU would lobby on behalf of Christians who would be excluded from practicing their religion in that mosque.

You do know that the ACLU will step up and defend Christians and Republicans, too, right?

  • 1 vote
#3.1 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:30 PM EDT
mrsrachelm

Of course they would.......if it served their purpose.

  • 2 votes
#3.2 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:49 PM EDT
Reply
supergerbil007

I always "enjoy" seeing the words "Mainstream America". When used by any political party it usually means whatever percentage of the population supports whatever BS that party is attempting to sell on any given day.

Wonder what would happen if the American people got to vote on various issues? This is called a referendum and I don't believe it exists at the federal level, but if it did, more than a few politicians would find out who is "mainstream".

Too bad that Americans in all States can't vote on federal referendums which would decide (until the next referendum) on what Americans want regarding anything from Gay &Lesbian Marriage, to Illegal Immigration, to Abortion and a host of other issues.

  • 1 vote
Reply#4 - Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:28 PM EDT
Nadia T. Pugglesworth, III

Too bad that Americans in all States can't vote on federal referendums which would decide (until the next referendum) on what Americans want regarding anything from Gay &Lesbian Marriage, to Illegal Immigration, to Abortion and a host of other issues.

America is too large for this to be feasible, but they do it this way in Switzerland. Ironically enough, the Swiss voted in a law that prevents mosques from being built with minarets just this past year by way of a national binding referendum vote.

  • 3 votes
#4.1 - Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:38 PM EDT
Reply
milcon

Islam believers hate everything, and are willing to protest, maim, and kill over anything in the name of Islam, Mohammad, Sharia, or whatever their 3d century beliefs condemn. Perhaps some shoe sole advertisements on buildings in NY City facing Islamic Mosques (what a good idea – not mine though). This I say from a compassionate point of view. Compassionate for those who are not slaughters of innocent Muslims (their favorite target), or non-Muslims. Perhaps those Islamic scumbags that wish us death will commit suicide because of their contact with "unclean" earthly mammals. Not likely. They usually engage in acts of immorality based on their own Islamic standards before they decide to slaughter innocent Muslim women and children, or non-Muslim women and children when they can anyway. Their murderous religion "as we can see by Islamic extremists behavior" allows them to slaughter anybody, regardless of their level of adherence to "true" Islam, as Islam moderates meekly approve this behavior by by their silence. Also, regardless of the so called "moderate Muslims" that the liberal and progressive Americans excuse, and condone their cause regardless of Islamic radical murders. Islamic extremists, and even their Muslim appeasers are are just future threats to any western country in their view, and they see no problem. As progressive Americans you can excuse or ignore Islamic influence all you want. You can let Pres Obama refuse to identify Islamic fundamentalism as an identified threat all you want. You can allow a Mosque at the 911 site because you are so liberal and progressive, and can't condemn anything that is anit-American. The truth is we have too many of our citizens, and so many of our leaders that do not believe in our Constitution, our founding values, or our established economic system of capitalism. Sure fools, let's screw capitalism and turn us into a third world Islamic country that dictates our thoughts, our potential, and our relationships with men or women. If we cannot add pig feet scrapings to products that we send to Islamic terrorist countries, then perhaps we can simply add shoe sole scrapings. Somehow, to show Islamic terrorist child and innocent murders that we “disapprove” of their beliefs, and behavior. What a dream I have. Can't wait to hear the progressive excuses of Islamic terrorist lovers that will condemn me. I will defend to my death the expression of the threat Islamic “Muslims” that threaten America. They have no time-line, they use their radicals as well as their mainstream Muslim indifference, and our own liberal progressives to work against us. Look at insurgencies and wars in the world today. They are almost all Islamic, All Islamic and Muslim fundamentalism centered. Wake up America. So many liberals want to abandon our war in Afghanistan. Well, then how do we defend our boarders? Right, we allow our country's boarders to be a sieve.

    Reply#5 - Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:58 PM EDT
    mrsrachelm

    The chapel hosts separate weekly worship services for Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Mormons, Protestants, Catholics and Episcopalians.

    I think the inter-faith chapel is a terrific idea and am glad it's there and bringing people together. That's what -should- be being built instead at the site in NYC. This is a great example of what works. It would sure be a positive step forward in NYC.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#6 - Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:03 PM EDT
    say what??

    The proposed Islamic community center will include an Islamic prayer room and also a memorial to the victims of 9/11 where anyone of any faith can pray, meditate, contemplate. It will be much more than a "mosque," with restaurants, a pool, a gym, galleries, an auditorium and more, and IMO the controversy is unwarranted.

    • 4 votes
    #6.1 - Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:06 PM EDT
    mrsrachelm

    Totally different, It will have a mosque which will by nature only be for Muslims. Then, in addition in an effort to make that more palatable, they will also build those other areas as well.

    The only thing people are protesting is the mosque part. What does this tell you? It tells you that the people are perfectly fine with those other things but are against the mosque portion of the project. The people protesting are also not generally questioning the legality of building there, they are questioning the lack of consideration being shown by deciding to build it (the mosque part) there.

    To try to compare the NYC mosque/community center to the strictly multi-faith chapel at the pentagon crash site is impossible. One has no trappings that are meant for the worshipers of any single faith while the other obviously does.

    I love how it went from being called a mosque/community center to being calling an "Islamic prayer room". LOL! The fact remains that is is identifiably "Islamic" rather than multi-faith and frankly I have argued that the entire religious premise of the project in NYC should be scrapped so that those of all faiths or none at all are equally represented and made to feel welcome as part of the message of unity they -say- they want to facilitate.

    • 4 votes
    #6.2 - Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:50 PM EDT
    Better Careful

    I'm an atheist. There are several other churches in the neighborhood we can get rid of, as well. I don't like all the hatred and tribalism that comes with the 3 Middle Eastern religions. New York City is in need of parking space. Let's build parking lots, municipal lots, which will benefit all the people.

    • 5 votes
    #6.3 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 4:41 AM EDT
    say what??

    #6.2 ...Then, in addition in an effort to make that more palatable, they will also build those other areas as well.... The fact remains that is is identifiably "Islamic" rather than multi-faith and frankly I have argued that the entire religious premise of the project in NYC should be scrapped so that those of all faiths or none at all are equally represented and made to feel welcome as part of the message of unity they -say- they want to facilitate.

    So you really think they planned to build a mosque but had to disguise it and make it "palatable" by including all the other facilities? That's one expensive mosque. More than likely without all the adverse publicity anyone going to one of the restaurants or to the pool or the gym would not even know there is a mosque/prayer room in the building. From what I have seen, the only ones with a palatability problem are religious bigots.

    Would you argue that the entire religious premise of the project be scrapped if it was a christian church or a jewish synagogue? We wouldn't even have heard about it if it was christian or jewish. Freedom of religion - oh, except for Islam.

    • 2 votes
    #6.4 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:42 AM EDT
    mrsrachelm

    Well at least you're not trying to dodge the fact that it is indeed a mosque in addition to the other things being built as well. Kudos to you for that bit of honesty most others avoid like the plague.

    Would you argue that the entire religious premise of the project be scrapped if it was a christian church or a jewish synagogue?

    Yup! Because as I said, this isn't the rebuilding of a structure that was already in existence and damaged by the 9/11 terrorist attacks...it is a new project designed to be placed in an unused building and has been touted by the project leaders that its purpose is to encourage unity between American Muslims and their fellow citizens, etc. One doesn't encourage unity by building a religious structure for one very specific religious system since by doing so everyone else not participating in that religious system are, by default, marginalized.

    I have said on every seed I've participated on concerning this issue that I believe that there should be no religious connotations whatsoever so that people of all faiths and those with no religious background can all feel -equally- included.

    If, for some reason it is felt that a religious connotation MUST be employed in the NYC project then I think the building of a totally ambiguous multi-faith prayer/service space such as the one at the pentagon would be a great way to go. All faiths are given equal representation and equal activity. It still wouldn't allow for those who do not follow any particular religious or spiritual system to feel included and thus may end up marginalizing those individuals which is not something I am comfortable doing to them. But if a religious aspect MUST be included then following the example of the one at the pentagon would be a more positive way to go.

    We wouldn't even have heard about it if it was christian or jewish.

    I'm not so sure I can agree with that considering the issue of the Greek Orthodox church has been in the media off and on for a while now in their vain attempts to have their church rebuilt after it was destroyed during the 9/11 attacks but can't get permission and are being given a constant run-around. Of course, I agree there is some truth to what you are saying, though but maybe not to the extent to which you think.

    • 4 votes
    #6.5 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:45 AM EDT
    mrsrachelm

    Freedom of religion - oh, except for Islam

    Not at all...freedom of religion for all citizens. There is a difference between being against Islam and being against the mosque portion of this project. Yes, there are some religious bigots out there who equate all Muslims with the most negative imaginings possible.

    There will always be bigots against any or all religions. Just take a look at the Christian bashing seeds that get published here on the vine by certain well known seeders on nearly a weekly basis.

    I can only speak for myself, of course. I am against the mosque portion of the project not out of any kind of hatred for Muslims but because I think building it under the association with 9/11 which was made by the project planners themselves is insensitive and inconsiderate. Obviously there are sensitivity issues involved or there wouldn't be as many people unhappy with the project including a mosque. If no one cared.....there would be no issue. Since a lot of people care....obviously there exists a sensitivity to it in regards to it's being linked with 9/11. A link, which I will remind you, was made by those proposing the project NOT by the media or any political party. Since this project was supposed to create unity according the the Imam etc, then the fact that it's having the opposite effect would....or at least should....make the Imam rethink it.

    I know that if I was building something solely to bring unity and was seeing that it was doing just the opposite....I would want to scrap the old plan and start anew so that my goal of unity could be met. I have yet to see this happen with those planning to build this mosque/community center. If I -do- see them more concerned with creating unity and thereby agreeing to not build the mosque portion of the project or to build it further from ground zero than with pushing for a mosque to be built at that spot along with the community center portion of the project, I'll be the first to praise them for rethinking their position.

    One of the most hauntingly beautiful sounds is hearing the call to prayer. I have also found the Muslim families I know to be extremely hospitable, warm, genuine and of good character. My personal objections are not based on the religion itself only the lack of consideration in choosing the building site they did in NYC. As I understand it, there are also two or three other mosques starting at only 3 blocks from ground zero already. I have absolutely no problem with those structures being there. Why? Because my objections are not about the religion.

    • 4 votes
    #6.6 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:10 AM EDT
    waukone

    So it doesn't matter that Muslims died in 9/11 who weren't in airplanes, who had nothing to do with it. So they can't memorialise those of their faith that died?

    What happened to property rights, the constitution, etc. Now that it is inconvenient we don't want to follow it?

    • 1 vote
    #6.7 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:36 AM EDT
    trm2008

    The only thing people are protesting is the mosque part

    It tells me that some people don't believe all Americans are equal and deserve freedom of religion like everyone else.

    • 4 votes
    #6.8 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:08 AM EDT
    thelopes

    That's what -should- be being built instead at the site in NYC.

    Except that it is being built by a private entity, not the public, and so it is more up tot hem what they do than the rest of us.

    • 1 vote
    #6.9 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:16 AM EDT
    Steve Watts

    If, for some reason it is felt that a religious connotation MUST be employed in the NYC project then I think the building of a totally ambiguous multi-faith prayer/service space such as the one at the pentagon would be a great way to go.

    Apples and oranges. The interfaith center at the Pentagon was a government project. The Mosque is private property, privately owned, privately purchased, and to be privately managed. The government had to make its center non-specific. A private piece of property is under no such obligation, unless you think we can start going from church to church demanding that they remove the Christian parts.

    Of course, there's really no reasoning with people who suspect the Mosque is going up as a sign of victory for the murder of 3,000 civilians. Just putting that out there, for readers who might not know your past comments on the subject.

    • 5 votes
    #6.10 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:18 AM EDT
    Reply
    lifeisgood43

    All this fake rage at the Mosque is just people who are not happy with their own lives. So they want other people to be upset

    The sad part is that Reps candiddates for Pres are bashing American Muslims. What happen to being a Pres for all Americans, no matter race, religion or sexuality.

    • 4 votes
    Reply#7 - Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:48 PM EDT
    Steve Rosenberger

    C'mon, crazy people. Come and get it!

    • 1 vote
    Reply#8 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:29 AM EDT
    trm2008

    Sad, isn't it?

      #8.1 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:28 PM EDT
      Reply
      Better Careful

      The attacks on 9/11 were political attacks. That is a very inconvenient fact for the right-wing. Osama bin Laden was striking the USA in response to blind support for Israel and the oppression of the people of Palestine, and the construction of permanent US military bases in his homeland, Saudi Arabia. There was no blind, religious hatred in Obama. His points were political. He told the world what his problem was, on numerous occasions. I don't recall him ever saying this was a "war on Christianity" or some such thing.

      Let's not get distracted by right-wing hatred. That will only make things worse. I understand their need to hate, and I understand how effective hate and fear is as a political force. What I don't understand at all is the wisdom of trying to turn all the world's Muslims against the USA for no particular reason but a transient, momentary political indulgence and, perhaps, gain. That's pretty damn narrow-minded and stupid.

      • 5 votes
      Reply#9 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 4:38 AM EDT
      merleliz

      There was no blind, religious hatred in Obama.

      Typo or Freudian slip?

        #9.1 - Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:30 AM EDT
        Reply
        Leave a Comment:
        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
        You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
        (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
        Newsvine Privacy Statement
        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
        FUN STUFF:
        • Leaderboard |
        • E-Mail Alerts |
        • Top of the Vine |
        • Newsvine Live |
        • Newsvine Archives |
        • The Greenhouse
        COMPANY STUFF:
        • Code of Honor |
        • Company Info |
        • Contact Us |
        • Jobs |
        • User Agreement |
        • Privacy Policy |
        • About our ads
        LEGAL STUFF:
        • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
        • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
        • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com