Just wanted to share this. It came up on Roger Eberts blog. Aside from what *shouldn't* be built on *not* ground zero, this is a lovely idea.


A Green Field

If there is to be a memorial, let it not be of stone and steel. Fly no flag above it, for it is not the possession of a nation but a sorrow shared with the world.


Let it be a green field, with trees and flowers. Let there be paths that wind through the shade. Put out park benches where old people can sun in the springtime, and a pond where children can skate in the winter.

Beneath this field will lie entombed forever some of the victims of September 11. It is not where they thought to end their lives. Like the sailors of the battleship Arizona, they rest where they fell.

Let this field stretch from one end of the destruction to the other. Let this open space among the towers mark the emptiness in our hearts. But do not make it a sad place. Give it no name. Let people think of it as the green field. Every living thing that is planted here will show faith in the future.

Let students from all lands take a sunny corner of the field and plant a crop there. Perhaps corn, our native grain. Let the harvest be shared all over the world, with friends and enemies, because that is the teaching of our religions. Let the harvest show that life prevails over death, and let the sharing show that we love our neighbors.

Do not build again on this place. No building can stand here. No building, no statue, no column, no arch, no symbol, no name, no date, no statement. Just the comfort of the earth, to remind us that we share it.

Ebert turns a good phrase, it's true.

*nod*

I am surprised they are building anything on the site. Here, a couple of times I think, when there's a house where horrible murders have been committed they bulldoze the place and make a garden.

Sadly, I think that much real estate in the middle of Manhattan was never going to get that opportunity.

The question is, is there anyplace in NYC where there hasn't been a murder?

quote:

Originally posted by Mischief the Polarbear:
Hey, if you like Fox's commentary about this, you're gonna love this.

And when you read this, remember that the author isn't "part of the 'Islam equals bad' crowd". This is 'speculative journalism at it's finest.

Uh...did you look at the REST of the commentary on that site?

Oh, I'm well aware the Worldnutdaily is full of crazytalk. But this seemed egregious even for them. Suggesting that Bloomberg might've been threatened with nuclear weapons by muslim moderates is an astonishing piece of 'speculative journalism'. I love this phrase, I need to use it more, because it's code for making shit up out of thin air.

quote:

Originally posted by Mischief the Polarbear:
Hey, if you like Fox's commentary about this, you're gonna love this.

And when you read this, remember that the author isn't "part of the 'Islam equals bad' crowd". This is 'speculative journalism at it's finest.

*blink blink*

again, something else i just can't possibly understand it seems. other than they are batshit crazy

No matter the source of the article never read the comments section unless you're a masochist.

quote:

Originally posted by Dweller in Darkness:
No matter the source of the article never read the comments section unless you're a masochist.

I know, I know...and sometimes I still do it. Even my local paper leaves me with a "I'm walking around on the same streets/supermarkets/ WHATEVER with these people?"

Just used all you wonderful, smart people to do a short facebook post about this. A couple family members of mine (one who I knew was hyper-conservative, one who I've now lost a little respect for) have been posting on this and I needed a way to gather my thoughts into something concise. Thank you! *hugs you all*

Charlie Brooker on the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by Hive:
Charlie Brooker on the subject.

My favourite part:

"Perhaps spatial reality functions differently on the other side of the Atlantic, but here in London, something that is "two minutes' walk and round a corner" from something else isn't actually "in" the same place at all. I once had a poo in a pub about two minutes' walk from Buckingham Palace. I was not subsequently arrested and charged with crapping directly onto the Queen's pillow. That's how "distance" works in Britain"

Man Already Knows Everything He Needs to know About Muslims.

Discovered this Onion-y gem...thought of this thread.

I'm just going to jump in with my two cents, this may've been said already, i don't know

"AT" and "NEAR" are not the same thing. Two blocks away is not "Ground Zero". Build your mosque/community center wherever you want.


i think Conan O'Brien said it best when he said, "I may be jumping into this whole Muslim controversy a little late, but really? He's going to call himself Kareem Abdul Jabbar?"

Just out of interest (and I apologise if this has been asked, I read most of the thread but not every post) would anyone have a problem if a community centre/mosque was actually on Ground Zero? I imagine the building they are putting up will be a mix of different commercial lets - would anyone have a problem with one of them being used for a similar purpose?

i'm not american, but i'd like to think if i were that id have no problem with that

I might, but only because I wouldn't want anything at Ground Zero to be tied to any religion. To me, organized religion is exclusive and divisive and I wouldn't want any one religion (or two or whatever) represented someplace that I feel should be open to and representative of ALL people.

There was a church at Ground Zero. It was completely destroyed, and it still hasn't gotten permission to rebuild. Its struggle doesn't get nearly the attention that the Islamic center project is getting, of course. Here's some info from the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-zero-_b_705275.html

Yeah, I know. The last I heard the church was trying to get monetary support from the Port, but according to that article they only need the spot and can cover all their construction costs themselves.

And I understand their desire to rebuild. If they got approved by whatever agencies were necessary I certainly wouldn't argue their right to build. I just wouldn't be 100% comfortable with it. When the church was last there, it WASN'T Ground Zero. Now it is. That makes a difference to me. But it's just a personal preference, not a crusade.