8.30.2010
8.16.2010
A Mosque near Ground Zero
Recently my facebook profile was abuzz with a debate surrounding the proposed building of a Mosque near Ground Zero in NYC. The argument is obviously a passionately emotion-filled one for a majority of those that have lost loved ones in 9/11. In stating that, the majority of arguments are not fundamentally rational because of the emotions attached to this particular issue. And, it is always difficult to debate an issue when someone is emotionally attached. I'm not saying that people shouldn't feel for their lost loved ones, but they shouldn't argue with those emotions, because it distances their logic and reason from the point. I had made a point to inquire how many Muslims died in the destruction of the World Trade Centers as part of my argument, because many people are placing blame on the religion of Islam as the culprit behind the attacks on America and the World Trade Centers on 9/11, which couldn't be further from the truth.
A friend of mine debated with me and others on facebook against building a Mosque near Ground Zero, which is fine, open and free debate is one of America's greatest freedoms, as is the freedom of religion. This particular freedom and the issue of tolerance was center to my argument. It seems that America is still quite the xenophobic country, and one that is extremely Islamaphobic as well. Like all religions, extremism is part and parcel to their existence, and politics too--fanaticism is a reality that we have to endure while not vilifying entire religions. Eventually, my friend deleted his comments stating it was my post (although he did decide to take part in the debate) and he didn't want others thinking he was a White supremacist, which he isn't. He just isn't well versed in the facts of history as he attempted to make associations to past historical events for his argument, which were completely irrelevant to the argument. His points were way off topic, which I assume is because he is emotional tied to the events of 9/11. He tried to argue fear and security as points for not building a Mosque, hardly relevant to the construction of a Mosque near Ground Zero. He also claimed that blind tolerance of other religions is what allowed 9/11 to happen, which is completely off point, and untrue. It was simply the act of men that were financed by fanatics, who planned for and carried out their plan in the name of a religion. It wasn't the religion that flew two planes into the World Trade Centers, it was a group of men. Waters become muddied with emotionally charged arguments because reason is not present in emotion. No one vilifies Christianity when individuals bomb abortion clinics or murder doctors that preform abortions in the name of Christ, granted the scale pales in comparison to 9/11, but the relevance exists.
President Barack Obama recently stated the right of religious freedom in America in the right to build a center of worship wherever chosen, then he distanced himself from the ongoing debate probably because it is a contentious and emotionally charged one. The con-argument over the construction of a Mosque has been centered around the remembrance of those that lost their lives on 9/11 and that a Mosque would be an insult to that memory. Yet my question still remains, how many Muslims lost their lives on 9/11 in those two Towers? And, how is targeting a religion going to limit the memory of the people that died at Ground Zero? Arguing against the Mosque as bad taste is not an argument it's a misdirected emotion limiting reason, which does about as much justice to the memory of those that died as not remembering them at all.
Whether or not a Mosque and Islamic center is built near Ground Zero is going to become an even more heated issue in America and especially around New York City. Tolerance for others and other religions, and the realization that Islam was and is not the cause of terrorist acts, but man is is a realization that people must comprehend and accept. If not, our Constitution may be open to attack and our 1st Amendment right may be altered making the US a fanatic nation in the name of Christianity.
In all honesty, my opinion for, or against the building of a Mosque near Ground Zero isn't part of the debate because, I am not part of that community. (Although, I don't believe building a Mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero diminishes the memory of the people that perished in the World Trade Centers.) I am a part of the larger community and I know what is right, because I am far enough away from the pain the individual families feel for their lost loved ones, that I have not muddied the issue with my emotions. I honestly feel for these families because they seem to not have dealt with their loss. I also feel for Muslims that had nothing to do with the attacks on American soil on 9/11, that just want a better life in a nation of immigrants, in a nation that believes its self to be the greatest nation on Earth. Although, the recent arguments over this proposed Mosque near Ground Zero hampers this assumed greatness, and I feel more for the fact that these souls are misguided in their efforts to "remember" their loved ones by diminishing Others as responsible for something they, nor their religion caused.
For history and another opinion: Keith Olbermann
I have to state that a friend of mine called me up to speak to me directly, not to necessarily debate the issue, but to offer his opinion and perspective, which I greatly respect and appreciate. I was completely flattered that he would take the time to do so, thank you Woody! He and I may not agree on the larger issues surrounding this debate, but as friends, we can engage in open dialogue with mutual respect and admiration.
A friend of mine debated with me and others on facebook against building a Mosque near Ground Zero, which is fine, open and free debate is one of America's greatest freedoms, as is the freedom of religion. This particular freedom and the issue of tolerance was center to my argument. It seems that America is still quite the xenophobic country, and one that is extremely Islamaphobic as well. Like all religions, extremism is part and parcel to their existence, and politics too--fanaticism is a reality that we have to endure while not vilifying entire religions. Eventually, my friend deleted his comments stating it was my post (although he did decide to take part in the debate) and he didn't want others thinking he was a White supremacist, which he isn't. He just isn't well versed in the facts of history as he attempted to make associations to past historical events for his argument, which were completely irrelevant to the argument. His points were way off topic, which I assume is because he is emotional tied to the events of 9/11. He tried to argue fear and security as points for not building a Mosque, hardly relevant to the construction of a Mosque near Ground Zero. He also claimed that blind tolerance of other religions is what allowed 9/11 to happen, which is completely off point, and untrue. It was simply the act of men that were financed by fanatics, who planned for and carried out their plan in the name of a religion. It wasn't the religion that flew two planes into the World Trade Centers, it was a group of men. Waters become muddied with emotionally charged arguments because reason is not present in emotion. No one vilifies Christianity when individuals bomb abortion clinics or murder doctors that preform abortions in the name of Christ, granted the scale pales in comparison to 9/11, but the relevance exists.
President Barack Obama recently stated the right of religious freedom in America in the right to build a center of worship wherever chosen, then he distanced himself from the ongoing debate probably because it is a contentious and emotionally charged one. The con-argument over the construction of a Mosque has been centered around the remembrance of those that lost their lives on 9/11 and that a Mosque would be an insult to that memory. Yet my question still remains, how many Muslims lost their lives on 9/11 in those two Towers? And, how is targeting a religion going to limit the memory of the people that died at Ground Zero? Arguing against the Mosque as bad taste is not an argument it's a misdirected emotion limiting reason, which does about as much justice to the memory of those that died as not remembering them at all.
Whether or not a Mosque and Islamic center is built near Ground Zero is going to become an even more heated issue in America and especially around New York City. Tolerance for others and other religions, and the realization that Islam was and is not the cause of terrorist acts, but man is is a realization that people must comprehend and accept. If not, our Constitution may be open to attack and our 1st Amendment right may be altered making the US a fanatic nation in the name of Christianity.
In all honesty, my opinion for, or against the building of a Mosque near Ground Zero isn't part of the debate because, I am not part of that community. (Although, I don't believe building a Mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero diminishes the memory of the people that perished in the World Trade Centers.) I am a part of the larger community and I know what is right, because I am far enough away from the pain the individual families feel for their lost loved ones, that I have not muddied the issue with my emotions. I honestly feel for these families because they seem to not have dealt with their loss. I also feel for Muslims that had nothing to do with the attacks on American soil on 9/11, that just want a better life in a nation of immigrants, in a nation that believes its self to be the greatest nation on Earth. Although, the recent arguments over this proposed Mosque near Ground Zero hampers this assumed greatness, and I feel more for the fact that these souls are misguided in their efforts to "remember" their loved ones by diminishing Others as responsible for something they, nor their religion caused.
For history and another opinion: Keith Olbermann
I have to state that a friend of mine called me up to speak to me directly, not to necessarily debate the issue, but to offer his opinion and perspective, which I greatly respect and appreciate. I was completely flattered that he would take the time to do so, thank you Woody! He and I may not agree on the larger issues surrounding this debate, but as friends, we can engage in open dialogue with mutual respect and admiration.
8.01.2010
Where Syracuse, NY could make more revenue
As you may know I live in a college town, or city if you want to get technical. Now for the most part a college city isn't as bad as living in a college town because of the scale of the area, but that really isn't applicable here. Unfortunately in my case, I've decided to live within what is known as the "university" area, the outlying neighborhoods that surround the University, and in this particular instance it's Syracuse University. It has been my experience that one must endure the occasional college student encounter from time to time whilst living within the realm of a "university" area. I wouldn't be blogging about this if the infiltration of undergraduates within my neighborhood wasn't a blight on my neighborhood or the city itself. Since undergraduate students have been making their way further and further toward the borders of the "university" area they have increasingly been pushing more and more families out. This is a reality that I've witnessed firsthand on my block. Six years ago when I moved into my apartment, undergrads were living closer to the university and for the most part only graduate students, doctoral students, professionals and families existed within a roughly two block radius where I live.
Over the six years that I've lived where I live I have seen neighbors sell their homes and leave as if an infestation of the worst kind had occurred. And, indeed it did, undergraduate students without common sense or consideration. I admit that our youth more often than not lack common sense and possess little if any consideration outside of their perceived social niche or their own ego. But, what this mass movement has done is allowed the university neighborhoods to be overrun by youth that possess no true conscience toward anyone but their selves and their desire to drink, be loud and boisterous, invade the space that others occupy, destroy property and create a requirement for inexpensive housing, which brings me to landlords or property owners.
Property owners that rent en masse to the undergraduate student have little if any incentive to maintain their property, especially when the undergraduate students are the ones damaging the properties. I know of a phenomenon that occurs when people own property and that is if someone fixes up their property, it usually follows that their immediate neighbor in turn fixes up their property and so goes the chain (this particular phenomenon's name escapes me at the moment), unfortunately the reverse is true here.
Syracuse is a city that has suffered the physical and economical pains of industry failing. Syracuse is also a city that could, if it were wise enough, make enough money by enforcing their own codes in the neighborhoods where these undergraduates live and where the parasitic property owners prey. The winter is one of the best examples of where money could be raised by enforcing the shoveling code. In Syracuse, regardless of a renters knowledge, it is the responsibility of the renter to maintain clear and safe sidewalks through snow removal, unless otherwise specified in a lease. As a central New Yorker from birth, I grew up in neighborhoods where people shoveled first thing in the morning during and after snowfall, regardless of the amount. Now, moving throughout central NY it has been my experience as someone who walked and walks a lot that people who rent or the property management companies and/or landlords don't very often, if ever, keep their sidewalks clear. In an era of politics that is crying out for no more taxes, this particular circumstance should be exploited to its fullest in order for the city to collect revenue.
It has also been a long standing argument of upstaters that our taxes are high and we barely see where the money goes in our communities because the state is too busy spending it downstate in NYC. This may or may not be true, I think it is relatively true since our upstate communities seem to be suffering much more then our neighbors to the southeast. Upstate, central and western NY do receive their fair share of tourist dollars, but that pales in comparison to what NYC reaps annually in tourist revenue. Our communities are scattered, threatened by more industry bailing out and a standard of living that makes trailer parks winch. Poverty is rampant and the number of buildings left abandoned is staggering. I believe cities in upstate, central and western NY should more stringently enforce their codes in and around university/college areas to provide for more city revenue.
Over the six years that I've lived where I live I have seen neighbors sell their homes and leave as if an infestation of the worst kind had occurred. And, indeed it did, undergraduate students without common sense or consideration. I admit that our youth more often than not lack common sense and possess little if any consideration outside of their perceived social niche or their own ego. But, what this mass movement has done is allowed the university neighborhoods to be overrun by youth that possess no true conscience toward anyone but their selves and their desire to drink, be loud and boisterous, invade the space that others occupy, destroy property and create a requirement for inexpensive housing, which brings me to landlords or property owners.
Property owners that rent en masse to the undergraduate student have little if any incentive to maintain their property, especially when the undergraduate students are the ones damaging the properties. I know of a phenomenon that occurs when people own property and that is if someone fixes up their property, it usually follows that their immediate neighbor in turn fixes up their property and so goes the chain (this particular phenomenon's name escapes me at the moment), unfortunately the reverse is true here.
Syracuse is a city that has suffered the physical and economical pains of industry failing. Syracuse is also a city that could, if it were wise enough, make enough money by enforcing their own codes in the neighborhoods where these undergraduates live and where the parasitic property owners prey. The winter is one of the best examples of where money could be raised by enforcing the shoveling code. In Syracuse, regardless of a renters knowledge, it is the responsibility of the renter to maintain clear and safe sidewalks through snow removal, unless otherwise specified in a lease. As a central New Yorker from birth, I grew up in neighborhoods where people shoveled first thing in the morning during and after snowfall, regardless of the amount. Now, moving throughout central NY it has been my experience as someone who walked and walks a lot that people who rent or the property management companies and/or landlords don't very often, if ever, keep their sidewalks clear. In an era of politics that is crying out for no more taxes, this particular circumstance should be exploited to its fullest in order for the city to collect revenue.
It has also been a long standing argument of upstaters that our taxes are high and we barely see where the money goes in our communities because the state is too busy spending it downstate in NYC. This may or may not be true, I think it is relatively true since our upstate communities seem to be suffering much more then our neighbors to the southeast. Upstate, central and western NY do receive their fair share of tourist dollars, but that pales in comparison to what NYC reaps annually in tourist revenue. Our communities are scattered, threatened by more industry bailing out and a standard of living that makes trailer parks winch. Poverty is rampant and the number of buildings left abandoned is staggering. I believe cities in upstate, central and western NY should more stringently enforce their codes in and around university/college areas to provide for more city revenue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
