Tuesday, August 17, 2010
With all the sturm und drang over the "Ground Zero mosque," you'd think people would be up in arms over this outrage. Is nothing sacred?
CWCID: Regular TH comment troll Christopher Chambers.
Shame on you, TH. You've made another appeal to right wing fascist clowns, racists, fools. Good luck with that...LOL.
Regarding the troll, Chambers- he reminds me of a guy I knew in college. He was an African American from Harlem, no less, who lived in my dorm. I met him because we had the same first period class one semester. He was smart and funny, and I thought he was a pretty cool guy. We shared many of the same political and social ideas, so we developed a friendship over time, I thought. So... one night we were drinking wine and smoking pot, as we did from time to time. We were both drunk and stoned. We were talking about the "revolution," which we felt was imminent. He gave me a stone-cold look and said when the revolution started, he was going to kill me. Why does Chambers make me think of that guy?
Article says the development is on private property a half mile away from the park while portions of the battlefield have been developed over the last 20 years and no one has said squat.
From my point of view, this is a local issue where both sides are trying to use the historic battlefield to their advantage.
Difficult for me to see the outrage unless one is vehemently opposed to casinos in general.
Why do you and others insist on calling it the "Ground Zero Mosque?"
All Islam will refer to it as the "Grand Mosque to the Glory of the Magnificent Martyrs!"
No Muslim terrorist will doubt that the heroes who struck the great Satan on 9/11 are forever honored, nay, glorified, by building a sacred marker to their memory at the site of their victory!!!
Easy there, anonymous.
Do you speak for "All Islam?" I think not. This is the problem with your illogical argument. You attribute the polluted thinking of terrorists to "All Islam."
I'm Christian. Don't you dare attribute the thinking of men who murder abortionists to me.
Why no outrage? Because most people are not stupid enough to use black and white thinking. They recognize a difference between a war that was fought 150 years ago and a war that is being currently fought.
The muslims who bought the building for the proposed mosque got it cheap because it was damaged by the 9/11 attacks done in the name of islam.
Here is a suggestion. Instead of questioning the tolerance of Americans for thinking a mosque should not be built on a site that muslims destroyed in the name of islam, let's propose having muslim countries pay for the reconstruction of the world trade center buildings. If muslims want to 'build dialogue,' as they claim, it is the least they can do.
TH, to make the comparison fit, you would have to assume that the Union Army was senselessly ambushed by an evil horde of Roulette Players and Blackjack enthusiasts who incinerated the unarmed soldiers and now seek to build a casino on their unmarked graves.
HEH...I don't think the Gettysburg story went that way.
On the one hand, the idea that some historic preservationists have stepped beyond the notion that historic sites should be preserved and maintained without consideration of economic cost and opportunities has to be seen as progress.
But to the central point, it is true that the the GZM has struck an emotionally sensitive harmonic. People are emotional still about 911. It haunts us. We are still outraged. And, we are still at war with those who brought that terror to our shores.
Gettysburg was a brutal family fight. It doesn't hurt us as much as 9/11. It was not a gross injustice inflicted upon us. It did not turn non-combatant citizens, men, women and children into body parts.
It was part of our coming together permanently as a nation. So I agree we must preserve its memory also. There is a question as to whether a casino in the vicinity harms the memory, but there is no question that those who propose the casino do not do so with a malicious intent. So I agree with JPMcT that there is no moral equivalence.
Reasonable effort by CC, but not compelling.