Saturday, 21 August 2010

The Ground Zero Mosque (for @sunny_hundal )

Well, I must admit, I fell for this shit. Calling it the Ground Zero Mosque just made it sound like a vulgar and insensitive* thing to do, even if it was being done on private land. But it turns out that actually, it's not actually at Ground Zero.

Which is, let's face it, kind of important. The fact that it's not a mosque, but some sort of community centre is less important, in my opinion, but still a factor.

So when the people objecting to this are saying is "it's tacky to build a mosque at Ground Zero", they're actually saying "it's tacky to build a thing of a Muslim-ish persuasion within a certain distance of Ground Zero, and by the way, we get to decide the distance that's acceptable."

So if you're a fucking Muslim within some arbitrary distance of Ground Zero, you better be prepared to travel to hang out with your mates.

Jesus. So here's me applauding Obama again and agreeing with Sunny Hundal.

I need to wash.

Update: It does appear that there is a very strong, different point of view. I am now confused again.

*Yes, I really did just say this.

42 comments:

danieloprey said...

My thoughts exactly, typical hypocrisy on the right wanting freedom of religion, private property and less government interference except for Muslims.

Spanner Monkey said...

Quite right too.. just as long as everyone can equally ignore 'sensitivities'

http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4696

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Oh sure, it's not like I'm advocating Islam. :o)

Just tolerance and property rights.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Daily Gut link above made easier.

Bayard said...

Racism? in the US? Surely not? It's not as if there are any people of German extraction out there, is it?...oh, wait..

Pete said...

"Jesus. So here's me applauding Obama again and agreeing with Sunny Hundal."

Now you *know* there's got to be something wrong when that happens!

From:

http://bigpeace.com/fgaffney/2010/08/19/a-p-gets-its-facts-wrong/

Interestingly, among those who formerly used the now-proscribed descriptor “Ground Zero mosque” is none other than Feisal Abdul Rauf, its imam and chief promoter. He called it that even though the proposed venue has always been two blocks away from the World Trade Center site.

Perhaps Rauf used this moniker because his planned location for the mosque was part of the real estate attacked and damaged on 9/11 – the home of the Burlington Coat Factory until it was struck by a landing gear from a plane that struck one of the Twin Towers. Perhaps he used that term to brand his “Cordoba House” because body parts from the victims of those attacks have been found all over Lower Manhattan, including the old Burlington factory area, making it part of the hallowed ground.

Or perhaps, Imam Rauf called his project the Ground Zero mosque because he wanted to associate his 15-story, $100 million complex as closely as possible to the location where nearly 3,000 Americans and other innocent people – precisely because they were murdered there by people who wanted, as he does, to “bring shariah to America.”

Time to think again, Obo?

Angry Exile said...

Just said much the same over at Mummylonglegs' place, and thinking about it now I said something similar a few months back about some local Islamic group wanting to redevelop their mosque which is slap bang alongside the Royal Military Academy in Sandhurst. It's some old building they got cheap and they want to turn it into the sort of thing with domes and turrets and minarets sticking up everywhere. Cue local objections and Mainly Fail outrage and everybody forgetting that the muslims bought the fucking place fair and square. The plans got binned in the end but the real loser was the idea of property rights. I'd have said they should be left to build what they want on their land. And in the same way the Academy should be left to move their shooting ranges to just the other side of the fence from the mosque if that's what they want.

All Seeing Eye said...

"within a certain distance"?

The landing gear of one of the planes which hit the WTC crashed through the fucking roof of the building they are constructing it on, so don't think it's down the freeway and turn left at Florida.

The fact that it's right next door is the whole point of building it there. And its opening date of Sept. 11th 2011 is just an odd coincidence, right?

All Seeing Eye said...

Except, Angle Exile, it doesn't work like that.

"Sensitivity" is a one way street, and no clues for guessing who is always on the back foot.

sixtypoundsaweekcleaner said...

Love the Daily Gut's ideas! Snigger, snigger.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Don't be confused.

It is time to draw a line right now and for normal people to start resisting these terrorists. Whichever fight we pick, whether hijabs or Ground Zero Mosques will always look silly and unlibertarian, but hey.

This has fuck all to do with 'tolerance and property right'.

Spanner Monkey said...

If the pro-mosque organisers really wanted to promote inclusiveness and tolerance as they suggest, they could make it a non-denominational 'place of reflection' open for all.

I suspect they only expect tolerance of their culture, rather than for everyone.

That aside, it's also not very clever to promote a mosque in area with such an emotive backdrop, even if there is a constitutional right to do so. It helps no-one and does the opposite of what the sponsors are allegedly trying to achieve by polarising communities further.

Jim said...

It will never get built. It might get the planning permits & paperwork it needs, but who is going to do the work, supply the materials etc? No local, indeed US national, firm would touch the contract with a bargepole. It would be commercial suicide. The unions will be against it too. The cops and fire departments would be crawling all over the site looking for infractions of any little rule they could find.

The good thing about all this is that you can't just magic a building renovation out of nothing. The work physically has to be done, and NO-ONE will want to do it. If they try to ship in workers and materials from abroad, someone still has to truck it to the site. Not going to happen.

Steve Antony Williams said...

When I first saw the headlines on this story I assumed that they literally meant building an ACTUAL mosque on ground zero itself. Well I would wouldn't I ? But I read more and thought, like Obo, "what is this crap". I thought maybe it was just me, maybe I was being insensitive and all that, so I'm glad that Obo at least agrees with me.

Undecided said...

C Hitchens wrote on it well, check Olberman's rant on it, not bad. Mark Steyn wrote the other way and is as good as usual.

Morlock said...

Mark Wadsworth said:
"It is time to draw a line right now and for normal people to start resisting these terrorists. Whichever fight we pick, whether hijabs or Ground Zero Mosques will always look silly and unlibertarian, but hey."

Principles simply aren't, when you can choose to disregard them.

And what the fuck are 'normal' people, as opposed to 'these terrorists'?

I've no problem with anyone being a conservative (small 'c'); I've a lot of problem with people claiming the mantle of libertarianism when they clearly aren't.

"This has fuck all to do with 'tolerance and property right'."

Half right. Indeed it has nothing to do with 'tolerance', but it does have everything to do with property rights. But maybe property rights shouldn't extend to mud people or camel jockeys, eh Mark?

All Seeing Eye said...

Morlock, the owners of the WTC had "property rights" in 2001.

There may not be a specific one about having someone twat a plane into the side of your property but it's probably implied.

Jiks said...

As others have said the building was hit by part of one of the planes and badly damaged so, yes, it is at Ground Zero.

Also, the name is bit of a give-away, surely? I can only claim to know one muslim well enough to discuss this sort of thing with but she's appalled by the whole business. Her view is that this is a deliberate provocation to polarise matters even more than they are already.

Pandering to this sort of stuff is a slap in the face to families of the victims and will cause lot of trouble for those moderate muslims who just want to practice their religion in peace. No good will come of this, except for the jihadists.

Morlock said...

Morlock, the owners of the WTC had "property rights" in 2001.

There may not be a specific one about having someone twat a plane into the side of your property but it's probably implied.


And your point is...? Oh, I see: communal responsibility. Sorry, but rule one of libertarianism is that individuals are responsible for their own actions. Not the herd.

KrAzY3 said...

It's pretty simple really. They should have the right to build on private property, even if they want to name it something like "Death to Israel mosque".

However, nothing at all says we have to be happy with it. The government has no place in the discussion, but individuals have a right to resist. Complain loudly, refuse to work on construction, look into source of funding, etc, etc, etc.... freedom of speech and freedom of religion does not exclude the rights of individuals to resist.

The historical context of this mosque, along with the own words of those involved does bring cause for alarm. When someone that blames the US for 911 decides to build a self-proclaimed Ground Zero mosque, we have every right to be pissed off.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Thanks KrAzY3, that's the ticket!

Jill said...

It just looks like a load of cunts shouting at one another and trying to piss one another off to me. Very constructive and a great step on the way to world peace.

The Muslim Brotherhood guy is clearly doing his best to be provocative and his targets are duly hysterical and provoked. But being provocative shouldn't impact on planning. Perhaps they could have a nice cup of tea together and agree to call it something else.

The second article you link to is cuntly too. Hardly a positive contribution. Of course journalists should spell Quran in a polite way. Not because it's the forking Quran, because it's forking polite. And there was a load of one-size-fits-all about sharia in there. Sharia - like all legal codes, theocratic or otherwise - has its good and bad points. At its heart, though, is a system of non-state arbitration/mediation which I should think would appeal to libertarians greatly. Was it you or another blog I read talking about the ancient basis of English common law?

Harbinger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

@ Jill
Sharia - like all legal codes, theocratic or otherwise - has its good and bad points. At its heart, though, is a system of non-state arbitration/mediation which I should think would appeal to libertarians greatly.
21 Aug 2010 13:53:00

Sharia is the legal system of the Islamic state. Islam is a religio-political ideology which recognises no separation between mosque and state. You yourself said Sharia is a theocratic code. How can that possibly be compatible with libertarianism?

Anonymous said...

There is another complication here though. That entire zone is still yielding fragmented human remains. It isn't just the place where the victims died, it's their last resting place. And they will continue to be found, whenever buildings are renovated, or demolished.

The fault lies with the local authorities. They should have made certain that special zoning regulations were brought to bear on that area, so that the bereaved would be able to go there without being confronted by distressing developments erected on top of the ashes of their loved ones.

Anonymous said...

So if you're a fucking Muslim within some arbitrary distance of Ground Zero, you better be prepared to travel to hang out with your mates.

No they don't. There're already 2 mosques near Ground Zero. Imam Feisal's mosque
is 12 blocks away and there's another one a mere 5 blocks from GZ.

There are more than 100 mosques in New York, 20 of them in Manhattan.

So no, your poor Muslim friends wouldn't have to travel far.

Harbinger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TDK said...

As an aside, let me say that when you get amongst the big consultants, ie the PWC, Deloittes, Cap Gemini, Accenture et al, they have a disproportionate number of little S socialists. These people believe in Big Government, in planning, in elites running the show. They buy into the Green crap and all the other excuses for centralisation.

There are exceptions but there is no surprise that the same people get loads of government dosh.

And I don;t get the impression this is cynicism like my giving up on Y2K.

TDK said...

wrong thread

Barking Spider said...

The Governer has already offered them an alternative site to build their mosque/centre but the Imam in question has flatly refused - no compromise or sensitivity there, then. Tolerance is a two-way street, but not for these twats!

Anonymous said...

Libertarians don't stand a chance against Islam. The idea of liberty is a western one, Islam will merely use it as a weapon to against the west.
If you want to know what that really means then check out http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/
If you scroll down to The Battalions of Islam story you can read the strategy. This Mosque plan is merely a part of that.
Don't tell me that not all muslims are going along with the Jihadi plan, the moderates don't count.

Harbinger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

@Harbinger
The problem arises when those who worship Sharia enforce it on those who wish not to be governed by Sharia or any other law.

21 Aug 2010 18:02:00


Sharia, by definition, enforces it's dictates on non-Muslims. It doesn't recognise the rights of non-Muslims as being equal to Muslims.

Quran 9;29, "Fight that who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibited what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiorty and they are in a state of subjection."

Like I said, there's no separation of mosque and state within Islam. Libertarianism my be accommodating of Sharia but Sharia is most certainly not accommodating of libertarianism.

Jill said...

@Anonymous. You misunderstand me. I'm saying that techniques employed by Sharia to solve disputes and some crimes are local, non-state, arbitration/mediation techniques - the kind of process that would appeal to libertarians. The article linked to by Obo was ignorant polemic. Hence my comment.

Dangerouslysubversivedad said...

"I'm saying that techniques employed by Sharia to solve disputes and some crimes are local, non-state, arbitration/mediation techniques - the kind of process that would appeal to libertarians. The article linked to by Obo was ignorant polemic."

Let's get this clear, you just said that local aspects of Sharia law, with rulings such as rape victims having to marry into the rapist's family in order to avoid dishonour at the behest of some bearded savage in a position of authority, should appeal to libertarians. And you're calling someone *else* ignorant?

Morlock said...

@Dangerouslysubversivedad

Jill was quite clear in what she said, and what she meant: "local, non-state, arbitration/mediation techniques ... the kind of process that would appeal to libertarians"

And she is, of course, quite correct. The process[es] would be appealing to libertarians, even though the normative values that the process serves to uphold are not ours.

Harbinger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Harbinger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Obnoxio The Clown said...

"I loathe much of socialism but agree in the welfare state, minimum wage and protectionism. It's common sense."

It's nothing of the sort. You're clearly a fucking idiot.

Harbinger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Obnoxio The Clown said...

"Excuseme? What planet are you living on? The welfare state, minimum wage and protectionism are a stable foundation for any society. However, when you start allowing anyone in the world to use the UK as a hospital and take jobs they can't get in their own country then society collapses."

You clearly haven't got a fucking clue about the real world. Protectionism ONLY benefits local producers, local customers suffer. This is a straightforward transfer of money from the many and (relatively) poor to the few and rich.

Minimum wage prevents people who have no valuable skills from ever being employed and ever getting those skills.

And the welfare state is just a grossly inefficient way of creating a client voting bloc and trapping the poor in poverty. How you square welfare support for lazy fucking bastards not to work, while bitching about people coming from afar to actually do our dirty work, is entirely beyond me.

The fact that you endorse big state policies while moaning about New World Order bollocks marks you out as an illogical dingbat.

Anonymous said...

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2833

http://www.youtube.com/patcondell