NTR Is President Obama being insensitive?

I watched a clip of this on the news and the reporter stood at the site of the Community center and then showed where the WTC is and yes you could see it.

Brandy, you said it perfectly!

 

Is this a personal poll or one that has been published? While I find it interesting what people from other countries think, it would never change my position of granting our citizens the rights they deserve regardless of their religious beliefs. Especially since there are many countries other than the U.S. that do not allow religious freedom as we do.

Luckily, the majority of Americans would rather focus on the rights of their citizens in this matter rather than worry about the idiot extremists who may laugh at us. And I think the more intelligent, productive way to approach this debate is to show extremists that Americans embrace Islam rather than fear Islam. Fear of Islam is exactly what the extremists want from those in the Western world. Fighting the building of a mosque near Ground Zero or anywhere is EXACTLY what the extremists want. Let's not play into their hands by acting as they want us to.

 

My friend sent me this. It is an article by two Muslims explaining why they think it is WRONG to push for the mosque. Interesting reading! http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html#ixzz0wykHeNXJ

 

UGH. AGAIN that word provocation. And of course, those of us practicing tolerance are called "bleeding heart liberals". Just because it's coming from Muslims doesn't mean it's any less insulting.

 

I am truly sickened. I just heard on the news about planned Qur'an burnings in some places on 9/11. What is that going to accomplish?

 

That's a fascinating article. Thanks so much for posting it.

I am glad they mentioned looking into the funding sources because that has been a question lots of folks, including many human rights activists and progressives have been asking. But that discussion was kind of overshadowed by the sensitivity question.

I must agree that while I support the building of a community center and mosque there, the issue of funding is something that should be looked into. To me that's not about religion. That's about politics. And it's a human rights issue. It's interesting to me that she framed it as a religious issue and not a political one.

But what is even more interesting to me is the way the center's founder is discussed in this article. There is a lot of differing opinion going on to this whole question, and clearly a lot of complexity. What really interests me is that from what I've read and researched, Iman Rauf Feisal (the founder) has a connection with the Bush administration, and has made appearances on Fox News as a voice against radical Islam. But yet here he is presented as someone with a very different agenda.

I think this is REALLY interesting in terms of the funding question.

Looked into one of the authors, and here is a link to part of her webpage:
http://www.raheelraza.com/about.htm

Looks like she is an interfaith advocate. I know what I will be researching when it's time to pump tonight. I am very curious to know more about her work. Interfaith work is so amazing because it often ends up putting people at odds with everyone because of the call to unity. So curious to know more about her!!

 

They question the funding sources true. But then decide that the funds would be better spent elsewhere. Either you oppose the funding or not. Or am I reading this incorrectly?


There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis.

If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html#ixzz0wzmso7AL

Again, I may be reading this incorrectly, but what this seems to say to me is that the funding is coming from a country that had citizens who were part of the 9/11 attack. We should therefore deny their funding and right to build a religious building 2 blocks away from Ground Zero. HOWEVER- if this same country would like to fund another type of religious center- that's fine. Did I get that right?

 

I am not sure what exactly she is saying about funding. I think her tone is hard to figure out. I wish she would have given more information and detail. I came away from the article confused, and I think she could have been MUCH clearer about her point. So, I don't know what to make of the article as a whole because there are so many seeming inconsistencies that need addressing. It's such a complex story, and most news stories I have read only skim the surface, as is normal for the news. I think the fear of Islam itself has overshadowed the larger questions, and I think that is problematic.

So, yeah, I don't totally understand the article. It only makes me want to research more. I think it's an important artcile though because it brings more complexity to the discussion and I think that's a really good thing.

But I do think funding is a huge issue. And sadly, this commentary leaves more questions that answers. And her tone is less than clear.

But I think funding is so important. Not just here, but in any political arena. I think talking about funding takes it out of the religion realm and puts it in the political realm, where it needs to be. Because we are indeed not at war with Islam. I think funding question takes it out of an us vs them mentality and puts into a larger, human-rights world wide kind of discussion.

So, I *think* her point was (and I am just speculating because the article leaves so many unanswered questions) that she is saying the money could have been built to build an interfaith building, which is something that would build more bridges.

I think she has a great point about an interfaith building....BUT interfaith---the kind she is speaking of where you share space, etc---is not popular with many people, whatever their faith. Interfaith goes several steps further than religious tolerance, and does not leave room for people to believe that their religion is the correct religion. There is an universalism aspect to it, and that is not something many believers are comfortable with. Or at least that has been my experience. Very few people want to worship alongside people of other faiths. The interfaith community is not that big.

So, I don't know in the end it would build more bridges. But I do see her point.

Yet at the same time, for an interfaith perspective there was something clearly off about her tone. It's all very confusing. That's a big reason I want to know more about her.

As well as know more about the Iman behind the mosque. So much complexity.

I just brought up the Bush connection because I keep hearing about the Iman's public speaking post 9/11 a and how he was invited on a speaking tour by the Bush admin, but now folks are blaming Obama for him being on the speaking tour (where he discusses Islam in America). But really it was Bush that invited him. I don't doubt he is a moderate or anything. But there is clearly a lot more complexity here then meets the eye, and I don't think the discussion that has dominated the media---should we have a mosque there----really gets to the heart of the political nuance of the questions that funding might. Funding makes it about funding....not religion. That's a HUGE distinction I think.

Islam is a peaceful religion and a community center mosque is a great thing. It could be very healing. No doubt
.
Political funding is another whole can of worms. But one that needs to be opened. I wish the writer of this commentary would have been more clear because I think she feeds the notion that Islam= terror which is sad, especially for an interfaith advocate. So that's weird.

So, yeah, the tone was so weird to me. That's why I want to know more. I wish the commentary would have been more detailed. I found it quite lacking.


I hope this makes sense. Like I say, it left more questions than answers for me. But I think we need to keep asking questions. And make it about funding NOT religion.

 

I just turned this up, which has some great information. Beleifnet has a lot of interfaith activists there.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2010/07/qa-with-sharif-el-gamal-about.html

Question Number 5 discusses funding. The interview also talks about multi-cultural use of the space, which kind of goes against what Raheel Raza claimed in the afore mentioned article. Also provides some history about how they came to that location and the September 11th memorial that will be housed there.

 

I still don't understand why it needs to be about funding. What is it about the person funding this project that makes him so provocative? Does the fact that he is from Saudi Arabia make him suspicious or his involvement with the Bush Administration make him suspicious? Do we condemn funding and the rights of American Citizens based on the actions of 9 citizens from this country? Like you say, I find the commentary quite lacking and not worth praise.

 

From a human rights perspective, I think there is a possible funding issue and this issue needs to be addressed. This is a point many human rights advocates have brought up because Saudi has so many human rights abuses. Of course, they are also our allies. So, more complexity.

I don't know if there is any connection to the Saudi government or not. I don't know much at all about it.

I just know that prior to the discussion that dominates the media right now there were human rights advocates---Islamic and otherwise---asking questions about funding, and I think that is a very legitimate issue. I think human rights advocates should be paid attention to. That's all I'm saying. The second article I posted addresses some of those questions.

Yes, the article was lacking.

 

This article is the first I have read that shows some understanding

Some Muslims question mosque near ground zero

 

What about this article has shown you understanding?

 

Just posting a few more links.

Very interesting article about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and the different ways he has been portrayed in the political world and the media. He's a fascinating person and has not been afraid to speak out about interfaith or some of our questionable U.S. foreign policy. And he was used to help the FBI with counter terrorism efforts. I can't find anything yet that link him to the Saudi governement in the way the commentator Raheel Raza suggested might be the case though. Still very curious about that and where she got it or why she suggested it. But she is not the only one to ask for transparency in funding.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/ground-zero-imam-helped-f_n_685071.html

I also think this commentary is interesting about how certain elements of the Republican party are fearful of anything Islam yet also very pro-Christianity, a stance which is not about universal religious freedom as granted in the Constitution. The author mentions how he feels there may need to be some questions asked about the center and mosque's funding ties (he talks about the links to Malaysia though and human rights abuses there, not Saudi Arabia). But he feels instead the questions being put forth in the larger debate play into perpetuating fears about Islam.

http://www.progressive.org/ap080410.html

I think the article from yahoo news that was posted a few posts back is really interesting because it shows just how many different levels of things are going on with the whole issue.

Like I said before, I think the desire to build a community center that would serve the public and promote healing is a really great idea. And there is already a prayer space there and has been for a long while. There is a great article here about all the other stuff that is already near the same area.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/ground-zero-mosque-oppone_b_685164.html

Just so much complexity. But I really think that's part of really getting to the issue is wading into the complexity, if that makes sense.

 

This is a poll that was taken on a radio show that had about a dozen callers when it was discussed for an entire half hour. It was debated, but just by personal opinions that it was insensitive but not illegal. In my country we do have freedom of religion ( Philippines), although most of us are Catholics by choice. Again this is just opinions and I wanted to input that this is the way foreigners are feeling because the topic of the poll asked what we thought. And I don't think denying a Mosque would show fear of Islam. Some people may see it as intolerance towards what the extremists did. But again people perceive things differently.

 

First, I don't think 12 people is large enough to be statistically valid. Second, a very local poll should not be construed as a poll of non-Americans. That said, I don't think that an international survey on the issue would find significant differences from country to country (with a few exceptions which does not include the United States). People from every country are prejudiced and I do see that coming through on similar topics outside the United States. I posted a link to a video on the 2nd page of this topic which demonstrated exactly this point.

As for the funding discussion, I do not believe it is necessary and I maintain that such discussions are merely another avenue for prejudice. It is important to remember that just like every other religion, Islam has many different sects/versions/beliefs and those groups often do not get along. It is not as simple as saying that somebody is not prejudiced because they are Muslim. I do not think that the funding discussion would even be happening if instead of building a community centre, the funding was going towards the (official) September 11th memorial.

I do think human rights is a significant issue but all governments have human rights abuses. Trying to connect funding for a project being organised by somebody that appears to have a closer connection the US Republican party than Saudi Arabia's (or as claimed by another rumour, Iran's) government is silly.

Edit: I should clarify when I say "with a few exceptions which does not include the United States" further up that those exceptions are places with higher levels of prejudice, not less.

 

Ooops, I shouldn't say foreigners, I should say people in the Philippines. Of course I can't speak for all the millions of people, however a large group of people feel this way. My point is just this... Knowing that it is such a controversial issue ( because I do see a lot of Americans protesting), the Muslim religion should just bow down and be the bigger person. They do have every right, but it is insensitive of them because thousands of Americans did die in the name of their said religion... although obviously not all Muslims are to blame it would just be a nice gesture on their part. Again just an opinion like said topic asked for. I thought a foreigners opinion might interest you. I can tell you now I am not a prejudiced person either

 

As somebody that is not American and does not live in the United States I am not suggesting that only the opinions of Americans are of interest. What I was pointing out was that the discussion you were describing is not representative of the opinions of people that are not American (nobody is a "foreigner") which you've since clarified.

I disagree. Thousands of people (their nationality is not relevant) died because of a small group of people whose only connection to Islam was that they associated themselves with it. With the exception of an insignificantly small number of people all Muslims do not associate themselves with these people so there is no reason why they should "bow down" or do anything else in response to something that however regrettable had nothing to do with them.

I believe you that you don't think you are prejudiced and that you have no intentions of being prejudiced. Unfortunately prejudice (and racism which is in many ways similar/connected) is something that everybody has. That includes me. It includes you. It includes everybody that has posted in this thread and it includes every other person that has ever lived and ever will live. Despite this, humans are extremely bad at recognising our own prejudices (I am, again, no exception) and in many cases we need our prejudices to be pointed out to us. The objections to this project are completely based on the most dangerous prejudice - the one we do not recognise we have. The claim of insensitivity (and worse, provocation) are simply ways people have found to maintain these prejudices in such a way that they can maintain an illusion of not having any prejudices. We only need to look at the objections to any building/organisation with a connection (however minor) to Muslims or Islam in non-majority-Muslim countries to see this in practice. Muslims themselves are just as guilty of this type of behaviour so I am not excluding them but since most people that post here live in non-majority-Muslim countries I am using this as an example.

 

Other articles I have read state that the Saudis that may be funding also have direct ties to funding terrorist organizations.

 

Keith Olbermann Special Comment: There Is No 'Ground Zero Mosque' - 08/16/10

 

The only think I find in that link is hateful comments regarding Obama being a closet Muslim. In fact a recent poll shows 1 in 5 think he is Muslim http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38766014/ns/politics-white_house/ which even if he was who really cares.

I wish I would get polled one day.

 

I think those areas of discussion certainly can be an area for prejudice. No doubt about that. I think there have been a lot of fear-based discussions related to funding, and not enough real substantial reporting. So I see where you are coming from.


And I very much agree that every single one of us has our prejudices, sometimes we recognize them but most often they not recognized. I think the sooner we (people of every nation) get to a place where we can admit racism and prejudice rather than deny it, our discussions about any topic will become more in-depth, and, most importantly, we can find ways to get past those prejudices. We have to recognize our prejudices to fight them, and we don't have much avenue for that in the United States, at least.

I very much agree about the human rights abuses being in every country. We in the U.S. have the horrible, horrible abuse that is Guantanamo Bay just to name one of the most obvious examples.

 

Do you have links to any of these?

 

The problem with this suggestion (and maybe this really goes the heart of the whole matter) is that just bowing down and giving in to pressure flies in the face of everything it means to be American - not Muslim or Christian or a terrorist or a moderate but an American.
While I'm not going to go on a "Founding Fathers" rant, America was built by and for people who stand up for their rights. To suggest that this group should roll over or just go away because some people don't like what they want to do (and have the legal right to do) just isn't what this country is about.

 

I don't have any saved, but a quick google of "xenel terrorist" threw up a slew of links explaining connections and a news article in Orlando that explained why the city stopped construction on a convention center because of the ties.

 

Another quick google search yields counter arguments though.

There have been many speak out against the decision in Florida, saying that what ended the building in Orlanda was not actually terorist ties at all but instead guilt by association.

Here is an interesting read/commentary:
http://orlando.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2002/12/16/editorial2.html

Because I partially started the discussion about funding in this thread, I want to make really clear I don't think there *is* a terrorist link or that anyone has proven such a thing. Looking back, I wish I had made that more clear before because I feel like I was not as clear as I could be, and I don't want to in any way suggest Islam = terror. I want to get as far away from that as I can and be as clear as I can.


Where I was coming from is that I know that in reading a bit about the building of the center and mosque before things came to the head they are at now, there were some activists in the human rights world asking questions, including those on the very far left of the political spectrum where I tend to do a lot of my reading. But they were just that. Questions.

But then news stories stopped addressing that when the larger public discourse began to center around the questions of whether or not it should be built, which I felt was a non-issue because: 1. we have freedom of religion in this country. 2. We are not at war with Islam. 3. Islam is part of the cultural fabric of NYC (and other places). 4. There is already a prayer place there. 5. We need Islamic citizens running centers that build bridges, and we greatly need such centers in our nation that show Islam in its true light. We need more voices counter the voices of fear.

I think questions are good. I think complexity of issues is important. I am very, very against what I see to be a "dumbing down" of issues that I see in the news all the time. I think addressing questions about funding networks is part of a larger human rights issue. I think this is also true for the projects our own government funds. IMO, the U.S. funds a LOT of questionable stuff. So I was coming at the funding question from a larger human rights kind of question. Most certainly not an America vs the middle east kind of question.

So I think these claims about funding need to be addressed rationally by journalists with indepth research and without feeding fears and prejudice which can distort getting at the facts. But that's going to be hard to do when the fear of Islam is so rampant and gets in the way of asking questions.

So, for my own conscious, I just feel the need to clarify and make clear that I don't want to feed into any kind of fear of Islam or in any way suggest that because someone is from Saudi that they are going to be a terrorist or have economic links to terrorism. That is the *last* thing I want to do. And I feel really strongly about not being misunderstood on this issue because I know Islamaphobia is such a real thing in the world today and I don't want to feed into it at all.

I wish I had said that much more clearly before. I apologize for not being more clear before.

ETA: fix my grammar, as usual. ha.

 

I have never gotten polled for things like this either.
Who really cares? Well if he ran on the ticket saying one thing and he was actually another many people would really care. Not saying he is one or the other.

 

GAH! I'm going to protest the next Christian church that is built in my community. I'm highly offended by the multiple pastors and priests in the local area over the past decades who have been found to be pedofiles. Therefore Christians must all be pedofiles and I don't want them near me, plus there are people in my community who have been victims of child molestors, so really, it is just insensitive to force them to see churches everyday.

Make any sense? Didn't think so. This is the stupidist arguement ever, and it is only solidifying my already disapproving opinions of the Christians in this country.

 

:faint: you just don't get it and probably never will

 

I would care too if he was a closet Muslim. Not because he was a Muslim - because it would be just plain crazy to hide your religion for your entire life. If that were even possible.
I will say it - President Obama is not a Muslim, closeted or otherwise. Why does this even still need to be said?

Sorry for the post not relating back to the original topic.

 

I don't get it either but I really would like to understand how you see one as different from the other. Would you please try to explain it for those of us that can not figure it out on our own?

 

I think it's interesting (and by interesting I mean annoying and completely irrelevant) that religious affiliation is listed on candidates' bios for even for the smallest local offices. I've noticed few list an affiliation other than Christian and that it's extremely rare to have no religious affiliation in their bio at all. I think it's ridiculous and I bet more than a few have a Christian Church listed because they think it's what they need to do. Personally, my money is on Obama being a "cultural Christian" or an agnostic/atheist. I wish we would drop the interest in a candidates' religious beliefs across the board. It shouldn't even factor in to the discussion.

 

I told myself I was not going to say anything else in this thread. ha.

I too can not understand why it still needs to be said. The story that one of the pp posted about how 1 in 5 Americans thinks Obama is a Muslim blows my mind on so many levels. How can we even possibly have an indepth conversation in this nation about freedom of religion, or 9/11, or religious tolerance, or diversity within all religions, or any other spin off topic the community center has generated in public discourse when 1 in 5 people think this? And it's not an accurate version of Islam they see him as having either.

I just don't get how *that* is where our level of discourse is.

Speaking of polls though---This poll asks the question, "What do you think is the reason for the increase in people incorrectly believing that Obama is Muslim?"

ETA: I should make clear, the poll (as it says at the site) is voluntary, so it's not statistically accurate, etc. Just an interesting exercise.

Here is the link:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/daily-fix-poll/fix-daily-poll-why-do-people-t.html

Now,I am going to try and quit talking.

 

And I want to add that I think they should be allowed to build, unless the issues with the funding are conclusive. It just adds another viewpoint to the discussion.

 

I agree with your stance, but you just did what you are decrying with your opinion of Christians.