As an American would you take this job?

[Erik Sine]

This is a hot controversial topic that has been in the news lately I'm sure everyone knows about it and there has been a firestorm brewing on what construction company would take on such a task of building this Mega-Mosque right nicknamed "Park51" near Ground Zero, what financial repercussions or boycott of such a company would follow do you think?

I don't think I need to get into details about what sacred hallowed ground, Ground Zero represents to America.

If this project ends up going through even after the majority of America in opposition, If called, as a sign company, sign supplier, component manufacturer, knowing you are quoting, selling, or bidding on this job, or whose materials are going to be sold/used for this job, would you do it?

Is MONEY, money, and business, business?

[designstate]

I would work on the project without any hesitation. To me it isn't about the money. It is about the principles of what the United States stands for. We as a people stand for equality. These aren't the same people who crashed the plane into towers. Most muslims are very peaceful educated people. Most religions seem to have a far right that takes scripture way to far. I could get much deeper into it but this is a topic like gun control or abortion. This will remain my opinion and I by no means would try and convince others they are wrong.

[chrislewis]

I would work on the project without any hesitation. To me it isn't about the money. It is about the principles of what the United States stands for. We as a people stand for equality. These aren't the same people who crashed the plane into towers. Most muslims are very peaceful educated people. Most religions seem to have a far right that takes scripture way to far. I could get much deeper into it but this is a topic like gun control or abortion. This will remain my opinion and I by no means would try and convince others they are wrong.

[chrislewis]

Freedom of religion and seperation of church and state are some of our most important core beliefs.

It is the fact that we believe in these prinicples that the extremeist hate us. The terrorist who destroyed the trade center would love to see us deny this project. Building it and showing how much we value freedom having the courage to say that is what matters most to Americans is how we beat down the terrorist. There are deeply patriotic American Muslims many bravely serve in our Military. And I would say they

[geraldi]

They may not be the same people, but you would think, if they were the religious people they claim to be, they would want to help build their image and show the people of the US and the world that they were not the kind of people that carried out and supported the 9/11 attacks.

By insisting on building this Mosque, they are showing something else, in my opinion. What is the real motive for insisting on this location? Is it the only one in NYC?

I really believe that if this were a Christian Faith in a Muslim community, they would stop the effort once the local community voiced it's opinion so strongly.

I don't think the government should stop this Mosque from being built. That does go against our constitution. But, I do think the Muslim community should stop it. They don't even want to reveal the source of the funding to build it. If they really want to loose the image of terrorist they need to do the kinds of things that make the rest of the world view them in a positive light. A relativly few people are are making the world view an entire population of people in a negative light. Only they can change it. I really wish they would.

[LiteGirl]

I can't believe what I'm seeing with the people who would vote yes.  There is a difference between having the right and doing something with it, with rights comes responsibility and this whole situation is insensitive to what happened back on 9-11-2001.  Now I'm waiting to hear where the money comes from.  This mosque is nothing more than a big trophy and recruiting tool for more terrorists.  They can't build this damn thing somewhere else, they don't have any decency?  

I hope whoever takes these jobs on, their pictures are plastered all over the news so we know who to boycott and put out of business

 

[HansonSigns]

My personal opinion - not the opinion of my boss (I didn't ask him) - no way would I work on this project. The timing and PLACEMENT seem more like a spit in the face of the American people.

[fishing nut]

I dont think they should build any type of shrine there no matter what religon. The only thing should be a plaque or something to the ones who were lost and build buildings for buisness. It is in the financial district of Manhattan. I'm surprised they didn't quarentine the whole damn city and start ripping it up when they found the boat and dock under there.

Think about it, If they build a mosque there for prayers you will have every towel head in the world visiting, most likely not for prayer. How will you protect the worlds financial district then. Will non muslem people be allowed in to inspect or for security reasons be present??? I dont think so.

Just my .02

[saneon]

I can't believe what I'm seeing with the people who would vote yes.  There is a difference between having the right and doing something with it, with rights comes responsibility and this whole situation is insensitive to what happened back on 9-11-2001.  Now I'm waiting to hear where the money comes from.  This mosque is nothing more than a big trophy and recruiting tool for more terrorists.  They can't build this damn thing somewhere else, they don't have any decency?  

I hope whoever takes these jobs on, their pictures are plastered all over the news so we know who to boycott and put out of business

 

I totally agree. In my opinion there is a definate "in your face" agenda hidden in a cloak of religious freedom and tolerance. Obama should take a moment to put himself in the shoes of the people who were directly affected by 9/11 and understand that this would be almost unbearable for these people to see the Mosque built there. It would be like building a monument to the Nazi party in Aushwitz and telling the Jews that Hitler and a couple dozen of his buddies were the bad ones and ruined it for the rest of them. Some things should not be done just because they are extremely insensitive.

[YYZ]

Something that is often overlooked in this discussion is that the mosque is already there and has been there since before 9/11.

This is not a new mosque to be built *on the site* of 9/11 as people make it sound - but within a block or two. It was an old bank or bookstore or something that they've been in for some time and are now trying to reconstruct on the same site. This fact should vastly change the tone of the discussion, but doesn't because people prefer to be mad or worried about something.

Don't get me wrong - I would never say that building a new mosque right by Ground Zero would be a good idea, but that's not what is being proposed. This particular mosque already exists - it just doesn't look like one - and they are paying for everything themselves. This is not some taxpayer funded pet project. So the question is really "does the city grant a permit to upgrade and existing mosque, paid for entirely by the applicant?".

I personally regard all religious buildings equally and if I was offered a contract to work on one, would charge the same as I would anyone else. if they can pay, I'll do it. In fact, we just supplied hundreds of feet of outdoor accent lighting for a pretty spectacular looking temple in India and were part of a large retrofit of some big Protestant church in Germany.

.

Edited August 16, 2010 by YYZ

[Erik Sine]

Something that is often overlooked in this discussion is that the mosque is already there and has been there since before 9/11.

This is not a new mosque to be built *on the site* of 9/11 as people make it sound - but within a block or two. It was an old bank or bookstore or something that they've been in for some time and are now trying to reconstruct on the same site. This fact should vastly change the tone of the discussion, but doesn't because people prefer to be mad or worried about something.

Don't get me wrong - I would never say that building a new mosque right by Ground Zero would be a good idea, but that's not what is being proposed. This particular mosque already exists - it just doesn't look like one - and they are paying for everything themselves. This is not some taxpayer funded pet project. So the question is really "does the city grant a permit to upgrade and existing mosque, paid for entirely by the applicant?".

I personally regard all religious buildings equally and if I was offered a contract to work on one, would charge the same as I would anyone else. if they can pay, I'll do it. In fact, we just supplied hundreds of feet of outdoor accent lighting for a pretty spectacular looking temple in India and were part of a large retrofit of some big Protestant church in Germany.

.

This is not my understanding at all. My understanding is: (and I could be wrong)

What you are saying about an existing mosque is true from a certain perspective. It's been owned by an association but never as a mosque.

At the time of 9/11 the 1850s Italianate building which was damaged from the fall of the twin towers was owned by The Burlington Coat Factory then sold to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf -Cordoba House/Association (His Mosque was 12 blocks from the twin towers at the time of the attack). Who for the most part has made questionable comments about the 9/11 event. One of his opinions is, "Osama Bin Laden is a product of the U.S." He also is of the opinion that Hamas is not a terrorist organization

He is currently traveling on US paid tax dollars overseas raising money for this Mega Mosque.

Cordoba House = Spanish city of Córdoba, which was conquered by the Moors and became the capital of the Muslim caliphate. More conquest here on a damaged 9/1 building?

There will be some heavy investigating from where the money is coming from for this project and further dig into this Imam's past. I seriously doubt this project will ever be completed, then again worse things have surprised me.

If it does, we'll probably also see a article/announcement of a sign company getting a humanitarian/peace award from ISA too no doubt, all reported on Signweb/SOT in a photo Op. Lori may already be preparing something.

[saneon]

Something that is often overlooked in this discussion is that the mosque is already there and has been there since before 9/11.

This is not a new mosque to be built *on the site* of 9/11 as people make it sound - but within a block or two. It was an old bank or bookstore or something that they've been in for some time and are now trying to reconstruct on the same site. This fact should vastly change the tone of the discussion, but doesn't because people prefer to be mad or worried about something.

Don't get me wrong - I would never say that building a new mosque right by Ground Zero would be a good idea, but that's not what is being proposed. This particular mosque already exists - it just doesn't look like one - and they are paying for everything themselves. This is not some taxpayer funded pet project. So the question is really "does the city grant a permit to upgrade and existing mosque, paid for entirely by the applicant?".

I personally regard all religious buildings equally and if I was offered a contract to work on one, would charge the same as I would anyone else. if they can pay, I'll do it. In fact, we just supplied hundreds of feet of outdoor accent lighting for a pretty spectacular looking temple in India and were part of a large retrofit of some big Protestant church in Germany.

.

Are you an American Marko ? Just curious , I know you live in Canada.

This Mosque would not be just some benign religious building . Many Islamists (especially those responsible for 9/11) would view this building as a trophy commemorating a victory over the "infedels". And I believe would be the ultimate insult to the people who lost loved ones at that site.

[YYZ]

Are you an American Marko ? Just curious , I know you live in Canada.

This Mosque would not be just some benign religious building . Many Islamists (especially those responsible for 9/11) would view this building as a trophy commemorating a victory over the "infedels". And I believe would be the ultimate insult to the people who lost loved ones at that site.

I'm not American, no. If that disqualifies me from answering, then please skip the rest of this post (Canadians were killed on 9/11 too), and as far as nutjobs go, were are the same infidels to them that you are. We have our own issues with fundamentalists, though of course did not have the same type of attack occur - though one was prevented a couple of years ago and 18 people have either been convicted or currently awaiting trial for the planned attack on government buildings, the stock exchange and killing our head of state.

That said - I understand and agree that some faction of Islamists will view this building or an other new mosque as a middle finger to America and all infidels. They already do, though I don't think need this particular mosque to do that even more, considering it is not a new mosque coming from nowhere and will look nothing like the type of mosque they would consider a victory. In fact, true Islamists would likely find it entirely inadequate as a symbol of Islam. It's not like it will overlook the 9/11 grounds or anything - it's 2 blocks away - among the apparently 70 or 80 Muslim organizations already operating in lower Manhattan.

If it wasn't Obama and the Democrats in the White House, you wouldn't hear anywhere near the opposition to this that you do. It's a wedge issue being used to attack the administration (I don't care one way or the other if it's Democrats or Republicans in office, for the record), more than it is a genuine issue.

What it comes down to is that if mosques are allowed in the US at all - which they are - then what legal justification is there for anyone to step on the toes of the local government and block it? It will be a 13 story building and not some odd looking temple with domes and minarets like many are picturing. Other than signs or special stonework, it will likely blend into the area entirely.

Edited August 17, 2010 by YYZ

[Kgirl]

It doesn't matter if you can see the mosque from the grounds or not......the building was damaged from the attack.....so that's the equivalent of the japanese taking a piece of the Arizona and using that same piece to build a monument not seen from Pearl Harbor commemorating the japanese bombers....it's also not about Obama......this has been going on way before he spoke about this.....democrats are already speaking in opposition about the presidents comments anyway....this is not a left or right thing....very far from......

....people seem to have short memories....

[geraldi]

Are you kidding me Marco? You think this is just political? This is one of the few items that both Democrats and Republicans agree on right now, for the most part. And, none are saying this is illeagal, they are just saying it's a bad idea if the Muslim community wants to be everything they claim. I'm a Democrat and have been for all my adult life. And, you have your facts slightly wrong, as to the way I have heard and read. You are correct, the building was used as a Mosque for a while now. It was leased. Now they want to use un-named sources of funds to buy it, tear it down and build a huge shrine to the same faith that the terrorists claimed to repesent.

This is like having a disagreement with your neighbor. And after he appoligizes to you, telling you it wasn't him, it was his rowdy cousins, he puts up a billboard right on the property line, with the cousins pictures on it, giving you the finger. Then, everytime time you see him in the yard he waves and says "hey neighbor". Kinda leaves you saying, "what the fu*#".

Yes, it is zoned, Residentual / Commercial. He did get a permit for the billboard.

My hats off to the Canadian Muslims for speaking out against it. Some have been very vocal in saying this is a bad idea.

[YYZ]

** edit ** deleting double post **

(Erik - you should allow users to delete a post within a certain timeframe. Your server often lags which makes these double posts more likely )

Edited August 17, 2010 by YYZ

[YYZ]

Look - I agree it's a BAD idea - but do you guys honestly think this thing is being built as a shrine to the bombers?

[geraldi]

For the majority of muslims, I'm sure it's not a shrine. But, they have to know that the guy's who flew the planes claimed to have did it on the behalf of muslims. Should they not stand up and practice what they preach. Everybody wants to stand up and claim their rights as an American, when it's convenient. America is (should be) an all or nothing kinda thing, IMO.

[YYZ]

America is (should be) an all or nothing kinda thing, IMO.

So should Canada, IMO, but unfortunately neither is 'all or nothing'. Neither country forces people to abandon their religions.

Islam is the most regressive, ignorant and backwards of all religions - on that I will not argue - but if freedom of religion is allowed (whether promoted or just simply tolerated), then places of worship have to be allowed as well. There's no way around that because it's in your Constitution. If you want to start amending it with Islam specific points, what do you think would happen then?

Wouldn't blocking it also feed into their propaganda that America hates Islam and needs to be fought? This is more valuable fuel to the fundamentalist fire and more damaging to America in the long run, than any short term gloating among some unrelated cave dwellers that they were able to build a quasi-mosque close to Ground Zero. I doubt they give a shit if it's built or not, but would absolutely capitalize on the fact that it was prevented from being built, of that is what ends up happening.

Blocking it just to prevent a smaller percentage of the more extremist Muslims from being able to thumb their noses is short term, smaller scale thinking. If you want to beat the terrorist, you have to take away the ammunition that creates support for their hate. You have to be better than them and try to sway the larger number of good Muslims (a contradiction in terms, to an atheist) to side with the US, rather than keep silent and allow the extremists to hijack their faith.

From my non-religious POV - now that this has become such a widely discussed issue - there is greater value in allowing the quasi-mosque to be built to undermine the hate that exists, than there is to block it and feed the hate even more. This is no 'shrine' or 'billboard' as it's being made to sound. It's a 13 story building with no minarets, domes or anything resembling what hardcore Islamists would consider a middle finger salute of any kind.

Force certain conditions to be obeyed, monitor the place, whatever, but to block it would set a really bad precedent that allows for the trampling of all sorts of personal and religious rights, not just those of Muslims.

[Brian]

The good Muslims should protest it. The right thing to do is not build it there! Canada never takes a stand on anything else and always play both ends of any issue so to me their opinion doesn't matter this topic means nothing to me.

[saneon]

America is (should be) an all or nothing kinda thing, IMO.

So should Canada, IMO, but unfortunately neither is 'all or nothing'. Neither country forces people to abandon their religions.

Islam is the most regressive, ignorant and backwards of all religions - on that I will not argue - but if freedom of religion is allowed (whether promoted or just simply tolerated), then places of worship have to be allowed as well. There's no way around that because it's in your Constitution. If you want to start amending it with Islam specific points, what do you think would happen then?

Wouldn't blocking it also feed into their propaganda that America hates Islam and needs to be fought? This is more valuable fuel to the fundamentalist fire and more damaging to America in the long run, than any short term gloating among some unrelated cave dwellers that they were able to build a quasi-mosque close to Ground Zero. I doubt they give a shit if it's built or not, but would absolutely capitalize on the fact that it was prevented from being built, of that is what ends up happening.

Blocking it just to prevent a smaller percentage of the more extremist Muslims from being able to thumb their noses is short term, smaller scale thinking. If you want to beat the terrorist, you have to take away the ammunition that creates support for their hate. You have to be better than them and try to sway the larger number of good Muslims (a contradiction in terms, to an atheist) to side with the US, rather than keep silent and allow the extremists to hijack their faith.

From my non-religious POV - now that this has become such a widely discussed issue - there is greater value in allowing the quasi-mosque to be built to undermine the hate that exists, than there is to block it and feed the hate even more. This is no 'shrine' or 'billboard' as it's being made to sound. It's a 13 story building with no minarets, domes or anything resembling what hardcore Islamists would consider a middle finger salute of any kind.

Force certain conditions to be obeyed, monitor the place, whatever, but to block it would set a really bad precedent that allows for the trampling of all sorts of personal and religious rights, not just those of Muslims.

No one is questioning their right to put it there ! What is being questioned is their motive. I'm sure the muslim leadership has to understand how devisive this decision would be. If they want to be accepted as a peace loving people than they should act like it. Show a little respect. A decision to move the Mosque to a different location would go a long way in the eyes of the American people and may help to mend our view of their ideas and beliefs.

[geraldi]

I think you are missing the point Marco. Nobody has said they should not be allowed to build it. If it comes down to it and they (Muslim comminity) don't decide to take it someplace else, then let it go forward. I don't want to start messing with church and state. I don't want laws made for one event. It will come back to bite you down the road.

When I said all or nothing, I meant if you want the freedoms America gives you then help defend those freedoms and stand for what it stands for. If not, why are they here, just to take advantage of the opportunity you have here. Don't hide behind the freedoms you have here and then stick your finger in it's eye. And, if you do that, that's ok, you can do that here. But we don't have to like it.

[TecnoluxMan]

It simply boggles the mind.

[HansonSigns]

These are a few of the web pages I found while googling Imam Rauf. There is more to this guy than I've heard in recent news. No way will I trust this guy, if he's not a terrorist himself, he's fronting for them. Follow the money!

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.6766/pub_detail.asp

http://redcounty.com/content/exposing-real-imam-feisal-abdul-rauf

http://weaselzippers.us/2010/08/19/video-moderate-imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-in-his-own-words/

[YYZ]

No one is questioning their right to put it there! What is being questioned is their motive.

I thought the question was "Would you take the job?".

My point was that if they had the legal right (which you concede they do) - regardless of how suitable, appropriate, right, wrong or completely misguided - I'd take their project just like I have from any other church, synagogue or temple.

I have walked away or refused jobs on principle - but never on religion. Making one here would only prove the zealots right.