Monday, August 16, 2010


From an NY Post article from May:

"We are Americans, we are Muslim Americans," Rauf said. "Many of us were born in the United States. We have no higher aspirations than to bring up our children in peace and harmony in this country." But the crowd got ugly when he added, "Freedom of assembly is the right of all Americans."

Amid boos, one woman shouted, "Not at the World Trade Center!"

I suppose this woman wanted all US Army-trained white people out of Oklahoma City after the bombing there. Or, they could go there...just stay a mile or so away from the bomb site. And would it have been "insensitive" for the black employees to show up to work the day after the Hartford shooting? Should they have had to eat lunch in a separate cafeteria that day out of respect for the family members of the victims?

That woman in the article is basically admitting she's a racist--but I don't think all people who are against the mosque are like that, I just think they're looking at this in terms of "those guys killed my friends, these guys look like those guys, so screw these guys." But "these guys" just aren't the ones who committed the act. You know what? If this mosque happens, and all the people in there secretly plot to commit terror attacks and use it as some kind of underground headquarters, I'll wear a Yankee hat.

Your example is perfect. Did the "US Army-trained white people" set up shop in OK City precisely because of McVeigh's actions? If so, it may be seen as offensive, or at least insensitive. I'm all for freedom, but you need to consider your actions, especially if you're in the public eye. Let me be clear, I'm against gov't involvement with this mosque, but I also think the people building it should re-evaluate their position. They'd do a hell of a lot more for their cause if they acknowledged that their actions may be seen as offensive to the victims of 9/11(although they had no hand in it and do not condone it), and chose another site.

A December 8th, 2009, New York Times article stated, “The location [next to Ground Zero] was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims,” and quoted Rauf as noting that they got a property “where a piece of the [9/11] wreckage fell.”

This just looks bad.
I read the same article you got that last part from earlier today. I think another WaPo one kind of summing up the timeline. And as I recall, that last line is something the was saying that in a positive way, not a negative way. (Or else why would he have said it at all? A person would know that wouldn't help their cause to say it meaning it in a purposely offensive way.)
I just don't see what's positive about it. Why is it a positive thing to build a place of worship for the same faith that led men to kill thousands of innocent people at this location? It's salt in the wound and it's just bad taste.
Because you're allowed to be a Muslim without being a terrorist.

Post a Comment

If you're "anonymous," please leave a name, even if it's a fake one, for differentiation purposes.

If you're having trouble commenting, try signing in to whatever account you're using first, then come back here once you're signed in.

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

My Photo
Location: Rhode Island, United States