Why The Mosque Doesn’t Bother Me

I have arrive back home and can now commence a fairly regular writing schedule again. The last two weeks have been a whirlwind of activity. I can only say that I am happy to be spending time with Canine Weapon again (I had only gotten to see him for one day during the last two weeks) and I am even happier to be back in my own bed (Tempurpedic, which I also only saw for one night in the last two weeks). Traveling is fine and vacation was absolutely wonderful. I always cherish the time I get to spend with family, and last week with Mrs. Weapon’s family was awesome. But I am happy to be home and returning to some sort of normalcy. Finally having a good internet connection has led me to see a lot of coverage around the mosque that is planned for a site two blocks from where the WTC buildings were located. It seems that the Republicans are attempting to hammer this subject home as a campaign issue while the Democrats tend to, for the most part, simply blow it off. Personally, I am a little annoyed at the coverage and a little baffled by the outrage.

First we have what is being claimed as a President that is sending mixed signals around the idea.

Speaking Friday night at a White House dinner, the president said, “Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country,” which would apparently be a statement of support for the mosque. Then on Saturday, the President added a bit of clarification to the issue when he stated, “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.” Later that day, a White House spokesman issued a statement saying “the president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night.” While Fox News would like to point to this as a President sending mixed signals, I disagree. It appears to me that he feels that it isn’t necessarily the best move that could be made, however he believes that our freedom of religion principles specifically allow for that to happen. I don’t see any conflicting messages there. What I see is a Republican Party attempting to create a Presidential contradiction where it doesn’t exist.

Then we have all the talk about the polling that has gone on around the issue.

The article that I read cited a Fox News poll that showed that 61% of people agree that the group that is building the mosque has the right to do so. I agree that the group has the right to do so. It is a private group building on land that they purchased (for a considerable sum I am sure) in Manhattan. Regardless of what religion they represent, the Constitution at its core is meant to protect their right to do so. The poll also said that 64% of responders believe that it is wrong to build the mosque on that site. For the record I disagree with that. It isn’t being built ON the site of the disaster. It is two blocks away. Are we now supposed to set up some sort of buffer zone around the WTC site? How far away is it acceptable to build a mosque? 10 blocks? 50? Nowhere on the entire island? Should we also work to ban anything having to do with the Muslim religion from a certain radius? Can no muslims walk within a certain radius? Should muslims be banned from working in whatever gets built on the site? Obviously I think that the answer to all of the above is no. It is ridiculous to punish all muslims for the actions of the fundamentalist nut balls that perpetrated 9/11.

Then of course, there are the claims that this is going to be a sticky issue for the upcoming elections.

Fox News had a specific article that did nothing but make the case for how this issue is going to be a major pain for Democrats in the November elections. I say that is nonsense. First, American voters can be angry and vindictive, but they are not generally stupid when it comes to issues like the one at hand. In all but a very small handful of races, the candidates have nothing to do with and no influence over what happens with the mosque. Outside of the state of New York, it isn’t a campaign issue at all. And thus it will not play into voters decisions. Staunch GOP supporters will bitch about the issue, but in the end the people who have it as a major issue in their head were already 100% in the GOP camp. Independents who are struggling to make up their mind on who to vote for won’t care about this outside of New York. Because the candidates that they are scrutinizing don’t have any say or impact on the issue.

And that, for me is a key thing to all of this. The building of this mosque is a LOCAL issue. Period. The people who live in Manhattan are the ones who have a say in what happens in Manhattan. What the rest of us think is, realistically, irrelevant. If the majority of Manhattan natives oppose the mosque, they have the right to protest it, petition their local government representatives to stop the building. Ultimately they have the right to vote those who support the mosque out of office should the officials not adhere to the will of the people they represent. None of us want the people of New York telling us what to do locally, so why is it that we feel we have to tell them what they can do in their own town? Ultimately, the reason that I don’t care about the mosque is because it is a local issue. I don’t live in Manhattan, and I don’t even visit there if I can help it. So I really don’t care what they build there unless it is being forced upon them by outside forces, which I would deem wrong.

What bothers me in this discussion is that it is such a typical appeal to emotion of the sort that has become all to common in today’s political spectrum. The cries that the families of the victims are somehow being punished a second time if we allow the mosque to be built. I hate to break it to the politicos out there, but I would guesstimate that at least half of the families of 9/11 victims are not so shallow that they are heartbroken if the mosque gets built. I would guess that many of them will think it through just like I have, and not allow emotion to rule the day. And let’s be honest, the building of a mosque two blocks away from the site isn’t actually doing any harm to anyone. If people are really letting it bother them in a significant way, I would suggest that the therapy sessions haven’t been completed yet. I don’t say that to be insensitive. I say it because the world as I would like it to be says that hurting someone’s feelings is not a reason to restrict the rights of a group of people. In a world with the Westboro Baptist Church and other hateful groups who hurt the families of victims regularly, we can’t pretend that this time is different.

Many of us have had lengthy discussions here at SUFA about the concept of freedom and liberty. One of the hardest concepts for people to accept is the idea that people should be free to do just about anything that doesn’t infringe on the rights of someone else. And to be clear, there is no right to not have your feelings hurt. The building of this mosque is not infringing on the rights of anyone in any way. It isn’t stopping anyone from life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness. We have also discussed the fact that protection of freedom is especially relevant when we are talking about the unpopular things. We don’t need to protect the rights of people doing popular things. No one wants to usurp their rights. We instead must always work to protect the rights of those who are doing the unpopular things, but who are not infringing on anyone else’s rights. That is what it means to be free. That is what it means to stand for liberty.

While I stated above that I don’t care about this issue because it is a local issue, I also must take the stance that I don’t care about the mosque because it is not infringing on me in any way. It isn’t my land it is being built on. It isn’t my money that is being used to build it. It isn’t in any way infringing on my ability to practice the religion of my choice. Because of all these I simply don’t see where it is any of my business what they are building and where they are building it. Do I like the idea of the mosque being built on that site? Honestly, no. But that doesn’t mean that I oppose it. I think it is foolish and I do think it is a bit of a slap in the face of Americans. But on the other hand, it does say something great about the differences between America and many of the intolerant people of the world. While the building of the mosque might rile a few feathers here right now, it ultimately proves to the world that we are a country of law, not a country ruled by emotion.

.

.

.

The article I mentioned above and got some quotes from is here:  FOXNews.com – Administration’s Muddled Response on Mosque Creates New Election Year Debate

About these ads

Comments

  1. Ray Hawkins says:

    @USW – well done sir. Little surprised you didn’t throw it down on the ADF for their stance on this. Welcome back!

  2. I can’t say this doesn’t bother me-it does -I find standing on principal on this one makes my stomach hurt-but I do so believe in freedom of religion and I do not want to give anyone an excuse to arbitrarily decide that my religion cannot build a church somewhere because………

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Exactly VH…I feel the same way…

    • Evelyn Verschaeve says:

      DRAGONFLY says:

      I would suggest that in order to put to rest this
      issue of the mosque at Ground Zero, that people of
      good faith come together and help to fund an All Faiths Chapel near Ground Zero so that those who would like to visit and contemplate peacefully and offer prayers in rememberance of those who died there would be able to do so. Let all faiths be
      represented. Let’s live in peace and love of each
      other. Have a God day everyone.

  3. USW,

    Welcome back, glad you enjoyed the vacation, hope the misses did as well. A return
    to “normalcy”? Not sure how you describe you daily life qualifies for that description, work all day and blog at 2-4am? Most people, even Flags, require sleep.

    I have not read much on this issue yet, what I have seen is all FOX trying to make this into a major story. Have any Repug’s come out against them building the mosque? What reason do they give?

    I see it as a NY local issue. Most NY’er oppose them building there, even though it’s completely legal. They have the ways and means to stop it by changing the law, bribery, etc… Normal NY politics, like what would Charlie R. do to stop something?

    • Good morning, LOI…..hope that you and yours are doing well….

      Have to agree with you on the aspect that New York politics can stop this, if they wish.

      Finally getting close to warm here….only had 41 people drop from heat at the Ranger game last night….when it reaches 50, it will be a heat wave…but not yet…hell, only over 100 for the last 15 or so days….heat indexes only around 111-114….but it is getting a mite warmish.

      • Morning D13,

        Has been a little warm here also, boating Sat. afternoon I drank a couple beers, then switched to gatorade. Even when in the water just did not seem to have enough hydration going. Today is supposed to be a very pleasant 93, so hope to get back on workout schedule.

    • I can see the validity of Republicans taking shots at Obama for getting into this, and loosing focus on what should be his priorities, such as jobs and the economy. And he took his teleprompters on vacation.:lol:

      http://iplextra.indiatimes.com/article/0f9O87e4q74tU

      Prominent Republicans have opposed the proposed site of the center, saying it was insensitive and reopened the wounds of the attacks. On Sunday, several criticized Obama for what they said was his support of the center’s construction and subsequent waffling on the issue.

      “This is not about freedom of religion because we all respect the right of anyone to worship according to the dictates of their conscience … but I do think it’s unwise to build a mosque at the site where 3,000 Americans lost their lives as the result of a terrorist attack,” Texas Republican John Cornyn said on the “Fox News Sunday” program.

      “To me it demonstrates that Washington, the White House, the administration, the President himself seems to be disconnected from the mainstream of America,” Cornyn said.

      Peter King, a Republican congressman from New York who opposes the location of the center, told CNN’s “State of the Union” program that Obama clearly gave the impression he supported its construction but then backed off the next day.

      “If the President was going to get into this, he should have been much more clear, much more precise and he can’t be changing his decision from day to day on an issue which does go to our Constitution …”

      Obama’s remarks put him in the middle of a heated political debate months before November elections, which are expected to result in big losses for Obama’s Democrats and a potential power shift in Congress in favor of Republicans.

      Earlier this month a New York City agency cleared the way for the construction of Cordoba House, a 13-story building that would include meeting rooms, a prayer space, an auditorium and a pool.

      Some of the families of those killed in the attacks have mounted an emotional campaign to block it, calling the center provocative and a betrayal of the memory of the victims.

      “It does put salt on the wound,” King said. He urged Muslim leaders behind the project to reconsider the location.

      Republicans said the November elections will be about jobs, and that the president should be addressing high unemployment in the United States instead of speaking about religious freedom.

      “Intellectually the President may be right. But this is an emotional issue and people who lost kids, brothers, sisters, fathers, do not want that mosque in New York and it’s going to be a big, big issue for Democrats across this country,” Ed Rollins, a Republican strategist, told CBS’ “Face The Nation” program.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      And how exactly would you propose NY politics stop the building of this Center? There is really no legal basis to do so, in my opinion.

      This whole thing is a nonissue being used (primarily) by the GOP to appeal to voters. It is ridiculous and disgusting all at the same time. And as Ray posted, don’t even get me started on the ADL – as a longtime supporter of their efforts, they really pissed me off on this one.

      • It isn’t ridiculous and it’s not disgusting-we aren’t just talking about freedom of religion or property ownership in this instance -we are talking about our battle with Islamic terrorist who could use the building of this mosque as an encouragement to those who want to destroy us. So let’s not heap on more emotional responses by using such inflammatory words. But bottom line-losing our Freedom of Religion and Property Rights are more important than any other dangers.

        “And how exactly would you propose NY politics stop the building of this Center?” :) Your not serious,

        • Buck the Wala says:

          No it is ridiculous and disgusting. I understand the emotional response, trust me I do. But that is not nearly enough to advocate against this project (and this is precisely where the ADL got it wrong). I agree that we should look closely into the funding – that is a legitimate issue. But to advocate (as many are doing) that there should not be ANY mosque anywhere near Ground Zero? Come on now.

          I’m sure you’ve noticed my hesitation to use the word ‘mosque’ in describing this project. The two biggest myths about the “Ground Zero Mosque” is: (1) that it is being built on ground zero and (2) that it is a mosque, plain and simple.

          (1) It is being built 2 blocks north of the site. As USW argues – should there be a buffer forever around ground zero? what about other sites? where do you draw the line?

          (2) It is a 15-story (I believe) modern building that is to serve as an Islamic Outreach Center more than anything else. Does it contain a mosque to enable Muslims to vote? Sure. But it also contains a swimming pool, community center, etc.

          And yes I am serious – how would you propose this Center be stopped, legally, without violating the 1st Amendment?

      • Hey Buck…..from my perspective….I see no legal standing either…New York politics at its finest..never cares for legal standing.

        Just emotional appeal….and some behind the scenes…arm twisting, bribery, etc.

        How are you, sir?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I’m good, though could use a vacation! Work has been non-stop lately.

          How have you been?

          I agree – just an emotional appeal geared to the lowest common denominator – hatred and bigotry.

          • Hatred and Bigotry? Come on Buck! Surely you are not that naive.

            They are playing on emotion allright. I agree with that. Republicans are playing the same game that the Democrats have been playing for the past 3 years or so.

            All of the poiticians, regardless of party, play the same game. They use it to get elected.

            But it’s hatred and bigotry though. They are playing on the emotions of the New Yorkers that lived through the worst terror incident in History. It is fear and distrust.

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Other than ensuring that the funding does not have terroist ties, there really is NOTHING that the political machine can do about this.

        It is going to be left up to good ole’ America to stop this. And by that I mean that Construction Workers, Building Supply Companies, Manufacturing Companies, plumbers, electricians, transportation will all ensure that this isn’t built! City inspectors WILL NOT turn the other cheek and let minor things slide.

      • Buck

        Back track this issue a little.

        It was an issue driven by the families of victims and others in the area.

        They made it bigger. The Republican party was the LAST to pick this up and run with it. Quite frankly I don’t think they have the balls to start an issue like this, nor the smarts.

        The Dems would be doing the exact same thing if the roles were reversed. And while the Repubs are stupidly chastising Obama for saying EXACTLY the same thing they are saying.

        I read the ADF’s position and their response to the criticism. I think their position was well reasoned and explained. They have a right to build it but we think it is in bad judgment. Same thing that Obama is saying. Same thing the Repubs are saying.

        I thought the Gov of NY showed the greatest leadership. You have a right but it is a bad idea. So if you will reconsider I will do what I can to find another site. He got blistered from the left for making the offer. But I thought he showed some guts and a reasoned effort to find compromise to calm his citizens. Well done in my view.

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Hi JAC…

          Totally agree…Gov Patterson did seem to be the most calm and rational thru all of this…

          Best regards and I hope that life has been treating you well!

          RS

        • Buck the Wala says:

          A few points:

          The GOP might have been the last to run with it, but boy look at them run! I agree the Dems would be doing the exact same thing if the roles were reversed, that’s politics for you. But let’s not kid ourselves that the GOP hasn’t made it entire platform about fanning the flames on every issue they can. That the Dems might do the same is besides the point.

          I agree that Paterson did a good job of leadership on this issue, especially given the political/emotional climate surrounding it. Perhaps it is a really bad idea for the group to have proposed building this so close to ground zero, but again, that’s besides the point – they have the right to do so.

          My problem with the ADL is that their argument goes directly against their position. The ADL stands for an end to bigotry and discrimination. They actually argued that the victims’ families’ emotional views may be irrational and bigoted, but they are justified in their irrationality and bigotry! And here’s the point — sure they are justified and entitled to their views, but that does not give them the right to impose their irrational and bigoted emotional views on this group to force this project to be stopped.

          • Buck

            Why do you and others on the left keep using the term “bigotry”?

            Is it really bigotry to be offended that members of the same religion used by our attackers to rationalize their attack want to build a religious center near the attack site.

            This is not bigotry.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Are you denying that there is any bigotry of Muslims/Islam at force here?

              That the bigotry may have arose in large part from the 9/11 attacks themselves is besides the point.

              • Wow, Buck..this is a stretch for me also….bigotry in this instance….don’t think so but open to argument.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Not so sure why this is a strech. I feely admit that many of these people’s views are fueled by the 9/11 attacks. But to take that to the next step and go against an entire religion because of the actions of a fundamentalist sect within that religion is bigoted.

              • From dictionary.com:

                big·ot·ry  [big-uh-tree]
                –noun, plural -ries.
                1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
                2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

                This is not bigotry, it is prejudice, a pre-judging of people based on association with a label that others who did evil acts associated with.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Ok fine…fear, hatred, discrimination and prejudice.

                Apparently people don’t like the term ‘bigoted’.

              • I dont mind the term if it is used accurately. :)

              • Buck, we white folks have been beat to death with that “Bigot” label ever since O Great One was elected.

                The very word creats a sore spot with us. And the Muslims have done little to allay America’s fear and distrust of them.

                In fact they daily give us reason NOT to like them very much.

            • Because it’s an emotional word and one most of us run away from, not unlike racist.

              It’s a way to end the debate – you don’t agree with their right to build? You are a bigot!

              Sorry, Buck, doesn’t work.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Would you say that there is absolutely no prejudice or religious hatred at work here?

              • Absolutely there is. And prejudice, bigotry, religious hatred, etc. is part of personal beliefs, and it is those people’s rights to have those beliefs and feel the way they do. They have the right to protest and to refuse to work on the project or to refuse to do business with anyone who supports the building.

                They do not, however, have any right to pursue legal opposition to the building. I do not care if the opposition is based on financial concerns or prejudice, there is no legal resource without violating constitutional protections.

              • This is no different than many arguments that become a part of the political game. It isn’t a matter of whether there is any racism or bigotry or whatever involved, it is the continued determination of both political parties to reduce it down to nothing but one or the other, so we should just dismiss the other sides arguments and continue to fight instead of having a reasonable conversation. Communication-we must figure out a way to actually have one in the public arena and throwing around insults doesn’t do anything but hurt. It seems necessary at this time to state that I have been guilty of this on many occasions.

      • Just caught this article this morning and haven’t heard anything about it before this. Apparently if there is will to stop something, it can be done.

        http://quite-rightly.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-wont-bloomberg-let-church-destroyed.html

        Sunday, August 15, 2010
        Why Won’t Bloomberg Let a Church Destroyed on 9/11 be Rebuilt?

        St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church on May 20, 2000.
        The members of Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which was destroyed on 9/11 by the collapse of the Twin Towers, have spent NINE YEARS trying to get building permits. Nine. Long. Years.

        From Fr. Constantine J. Simones Waterford, courageous pastor of St. Nicholas Church:

        Shame on Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the members of his Landmarks Preservation Commission for voting 9-0 to allow the building of a Muslim mosque at ground zero in New York City.
        Too many Americans are sleepwalking when it comes to understanding Islamic policies during the last 1,400 years of what I see as its brutal history. No one talks about St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which was crushed by the collapsing Twin Towers.
        Why is the mosque put on the fast track to construction when St. Nicholas’ reconstruction is being hindered by New York City bureaucracy?
        Wake up, America, before it is too late. The Greek Orthodox faithful of the Balkans were enslaved by Islam for 500 years. Ask me what it means to live under the laws of Islam, under Sharia Law and the Hadith. Call me and I will provide a history lesson on what can be like to live under Islam extremists.
        Fr. Constantine J. Simones Waterford

        About the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church:
        Since 1922, St. Nicholas Church had stood as a quiet sanctuary of prayer and reflection amidst the tumultuous and bustling crossroads of commerce. For the past nine years the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey has used bureaucratic obstacles and false promises to hinder the rebuilding of the St. Nicholas Church.

        Like Nice Deb (who has published an excellent commentary about the Ground Zero mosque, don’t miss it) pointed out:

        City officials, eager to deflect the criticism of a righteously outraged public, claim that nothing can be done [to stop the mosque from being built on hallowed ground]…something that anyone who has contended with zoning boards across the country knows to be untrue.

        Ask the congregation of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church of New York City.

        • What she said!

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I’m familiar with that church – located directly across the street from Tower 6 (if memory serves me correctly). The different, in simplest terms, is that this church is pretty much ON THE SITE OF GROUND ZERO. Not two blocks away. Moreover, as I’ve read up on this church as well, the city is working with the church to coordinate its reconstruction with the building plans for ground zero. This explains the 9-yr long delay.

          • The Mosque site is close enough that landing gear from one of the planes ended up in the building. I’d say that makes it pretty close to Ground Zero.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I never said it wasn’t close to Ground Zero. But there are just going to be additional complications when the site of the Church is directly adjacent (if not a part of) Ground Zero.

              The mosque is far enough away that, although the general area was hit with debris and destruction on 9/11, the mosque builders don’t need to contend with the reconstruction plans for the site itself. The Church does need to contend with these issues which is going to cause additional delay and headaches.

        • Don’t know what to think about this-Have a lot of questions -the mosque isn’t actually on the site-but if the church owned the land before shouldn’t they have a right to rebuild-but they are making the site into a memorial-so have they taken land from other people by force, which is another big question all by itself should they have the right to do so. So many questions.Only one I can answer is the basic one-if they owned the property-they owned the property and they shouldn’t be able to just change the zoning on a building that was there before.

  4. As distasteful as it is….you are correct, USW. They do have a right to build it and do anything they wish with it. It is a local issue. ( I think it correct to see the money trail, however, to ensure that no tax dollars or tax abatements are part of this deal ).

    There is no greater testimony to the United States and our principles than to allow a Mosque, that represents a violence based religion***, to be erected…..even in or around a spot that is emotionally charged. What greater testimony to religious freedom can there be?

    Do I think it ethical….no.
    Do I think that the local council erred in its decision…..yes.
    Do i think it a slap in the face of America….yes.
    Do I think that 9-11 will be a celebration at this Mosque after it is built….yes.

    **** ‘Violence based’ is MY opinion. Using the well worn phrase around SUFA “Violence upon non violent people” as a standard….
    ie: Stoning for wearing Western clothes, lashing for listening to Western Cd’s, stoning to death for infidelity, beheadings in restaurants for talking to non family male members, lashings for showing midriff at the beach, lashings for uncovering the face in public, honor killings for denying the Islam belief, the following and implementation of Sharia Law, the selling of different size stones for public stoning for infractions of Islam, the kidnappings and subsequent murders of family members of individuals that openly deny Islamic beliefs…when their denials are made in free ocuntries where they reside, and the failure of Imams around the world to denounce this type of violence and denounce Sharia Law) is my basis for the use of the term violence based.

    • The Vladiator says:

      Mr. D13 – greetings. It has been a long time since I have posted here but I have always read.

      The singular issue is that everyone is too willing to grant Islam status as a religion. It is not a religion – as you said – it is rooted in violence which is no moral code. Since it is not a religion it has no place to be considered as such in this Country and does not deserve the same protections.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        “The singular issue is that everyone is too willing to grant Islam status as a religion. It is not a religion…”

        Could you please tell that to my many Muslim friends? Islam is most certainly a religion, and a peaceful one at that (the bastardization of their religion by a group of radical fundamentalists notwithstanding).

        • Ya know Buck….I have several good friends that are Islamic…and it is religious based big time in their mind…and they are very peaceful. I lived for long periods of time in Islamic based countries as well…But here is my rub on the issue…my peaceful friends will not come out publicly against the bastardization and hijacking of their religion. Maybe yours will. I will look them in the eye and question them, as I have, are you for or against…say stoning as a punishement. They will not go against it although they will say..I won’t do it but it is our way. They also see the rationality in Honor killings and justify it by saying that it is a family issue. NOw, to me, in my archaic thinking…..doesn’t the condoning of the fundmantalists and the condoning of Sharia Law…..make them the same? They claim that they left, in this case Iran, because of the extremism that is taking over but will not speak against it while here for fear of the violence and the FATWAH that will be put on them. Why will not the Imams in the United States..speak out against it?

          Isn’t that a little like the innocent rider in the backseat of a car not drinking allowing the driver of the car to drink but does not say or do anything about it…and the driver ends up in an accident that is fatal…the rider is just as guilty, is he not? Or is my analogy totally off base here.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            I see you point. Most (admittedly not all) of my Muslim friends do completely disavow this bastardization. I see your point with the few who do not and it pains me to see them try to rationalize much of this away. For the most part they will argue that it is cultural (this does satisfactorily explain part of it away – we should not be seeking to impose our cultural mores on other people) but does not do anything to ‘explain’ the honor killings, stonings, etc.

      • The Vladiator

        I beg to differ. Belief or preaching of violence does not disqualify a religion.

        Islam has all the characteristics of a religion.

        You may think it illegitimate when compared to yours. Or you may consider it some distortion of yours. But IT IS a Religion.

        The real question should be whether any religion that preaches, supports and tolerates violence against the innocent should be allowed to exist in a land where the citizens are “free to practice their religion”.

        I think we know that this “right” to practice religion really DOES NOT exist in the USA. We are just not willing to acknowledge that.

        • “The real question should be whether any religion that preaches, supports and tolerates violence against the innocent should be allowed to exist in a land where the citizens are “free to practice their religion”.”

          Exactly right. Islam uses America’s “Freedom of Religion” against us. Not saying it is right or wrong. Just that it is happening.

          • Esom

            Don’t be so quick to condemn ALL of Islam.

            We need to start recognizing the “modernized” sects and separate them from the “violent” sects.

            I know the old teachings are full of violence, but so are the “old” Bible.

            • I am not being quick to condemn Islam. I am simply going by the examples that are in front of me.

              I think it notable that the Islamic “Extremists” always wind up in charge of the Islamic Countries.

              I think that if we could cut out our dependence on oil, then we could pull out of the Middle East alltogether. And when we did thos idiots would promptly kill each other off over their religious differences. Problem Solved. :-)

        • JAC says: “I think we know that this “right” to practice religion really DOES NOT exist in the USA. We are just not willing to acknowledge that.”

          D13 says: I know that this is not the subject of today…but this is an interesting statement…we need to discuss this sometime. I am not a religious man…maybe spiritual…(still trying to define that)…but I think that your statement is interesting…would like to discuss with you sometime (perhaps open mike) your rationale for this.

          By the way, sir….how in the hell are ya?

          • I second that request.

          • D13

            No need to put off for another day. I do think it is related.

            My simple answer to the proposition that we have “Freedom of Religion” in the USA is.

            Ask the MORMON’s how that worked out for them.

            Poof, Freedom of Religion GONE. Replaced with Freedom of Religion that is acceptable to us.

            There have been other groups proposing all kinds of silly and sick things under the protection of “religion”. The govt and courts have said, “there are limits”.

            So, if a religion does in fact support violence, by either its teachings or its argument that it is a “cultural” thing, is it truly protected under the First Amendment.

            I say it is NOT protected. The issue is that Islam can not be shown to be a violent teaching anymore than the Jewish or Christian faiths. The books are not proof as they all contain violence and teaching of violence in the olden days.

            They all have “sects” or wingnuts who “hijack” the modern religion for their own use. So I do not see how we could prove Islam as a religion should be banned.

            But we as Americans can certainly attack directly any appeasement or support of violence when the cover of Islam is used to justify it. In fact we can use our laws and government to combat it directly.

            We can and must also take a hard stand against efforts to force Islamic belief into our governmental institutions. The same as goes for Christian beliefs.

            A good example was the issue of installing foot baths at a State University. This should not be allowed in an institution funded by tax dollars.

            If we allow Religion to become a focal point of our “public” places then we are going to eventually become victims to a religious war. If we are to preserve our freedom then I think we need to keep religion a “private” matter but also one that must comply with laws that protect the rights of the individual.

            That includes protecting them from the violence at the hands of those who would use religion as their defense.

      • This is a very slippery slope argument-you really want to tell millions of people that they aren’t really a religion because you disagree with their beliefs. I have no problem telling people they can’t do something based on our laws(which are based on freedom) but to go further than that, will backfire and cause everyone to lose these rights.

        • The Vladiator says:

          They can consider whatever they do to be religious – be it peaceful prayer or stoning people to death. That should not require our government to sanction it (and they do not). You cannot say “some” of Islam is ok – the entire system is or is not ok.

          Their moral code is not our moral code.

          • Irrelevant. You can despise their religion and moral code if you wish. You have that right. You can demand that they live by our laws (no stoning people or raping women, etc.). You can even oppose the building of a mosque near ground zero, you just cannot use legal means to enact your opposition. The KKK’s moral code is not our moral code, but they have a right to exist so long as they do not carry out violence.

          • No, I think I can say that when reading a religious text-the meaning can be interpreted in many different ways-I see this in the many different interpretations of my own Bible and I do not feel it is my choice to legally determine the interpretation of theirs.

          • Vlad

            Their moral code is not our moral code

            ..and they thank God three times a day for that gift…

  5. Morning all. No problem here with the mosque but a big problem with taxpayers footing the bill for the welcome Islam (or any religion) to America tour. That pisses me off no end.

    Then again, I do NOT believe in church sanctuaries … and if terrorists/criminals, etc., use a mosque or a church for such, they should know Generalissmo Stella would flatten it two seconds later (or raid it, etc.).

    As a great fan of Mr. Hugo and his Hunchback of Notre Dame, I have to say had Quasi pulled that “sanctuary” speech on me (and I was totally in favor of his abduction of Esmeralda), he would’ve been picked off the parapets.

  6. I would like to comment on the argument that this is not a Mosque but a community center. I have seen that from many, mostly on the left, for a week or so now. Yet the Mayor, Mr. Obama and many others always respond to the Freedom of Religion defense first. If it is NOT a Mosque then why is that the first defense?

    And now we have this comment from the other side of the pond:

    “NEW YORK — A Hamas leader says Muslims “have to build” a mosque near ground zero.

    Mahmoud al-Zahar said Muslims “have to build everywhere” so that followers can pray, just like Christians and Jews build their places of worship.

    Al-Zahar spoke Sunday on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on WABC-AM. He is a co-founder of Hamas and its chief on the Gaza Strip.”

    Perhaps OTHERS have a better understanding of what this is really about than many of us are willing to accept.

    Don’t get me wrong. I agree with USW’s view. But I also reject the notion that this is all about “outreach” to improve “understanding” and “promote peace”.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      The freedom of religion defense comes first because it is still a religious-based community center.

      Also, the building does house a mosque for prayer. The point is that to simply call this center a ‘mosque’ brings to mind a certain image — of a traditional mosque, complete with minarets, right on top of ground zero (or right next to ground zero, whatever). This is not the case in the least.

      • Buck…..several months ago, (reported on here) I went to three different Mosques in Fort Worth, Arlington, and Dallas. What I found interesting, now that you mention it, there was no sign or advertisement using the term Mosque….they all say Islamic Community Center…all fenced in…but the relief was definitely Islamic (spires and all) or minarets..

        I wonder…the use of the term “Community Center”….misdirection maybe? Interesting. Think I will do a little more recon here of other “community centers” and see if the term Mosque is used anywhere.

        Anyone out there find it different where you are?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Let me know what you find – very interesting indeed…

        • Dar El-Eman Islamic Center in south Arlington.

          Assalam o’alaikum – Islamic Association of Tarrant County.

          Islamic Center of Irving – ICI Vision – To become the minaret of Islam in the West
          ICI Mission Statement – To provide a Central Islamic Center for all people in the Irving and DFW Area, utilizing all avenues for Dawaa, while providing an Islamic Environment and Comprehensive Islamic Education to the next generation.

          A sample….

    • JAC,

      I am with you on this, Muslim extremists will use this as a symbol of victory.
      Our President, even speaking out on this was a poor decision that they will also use against us. It does grate, when our laws and views on freedom are used by our enemies, but that is the cost in maintaining a free society.

      • LOI

        I think the President SHOULD have spoken out. But he should have said a lot more than he did.

        He should have tackled the issue of violence within Islam is NOT acceptable in the USA. If this center’s purpose is “truly” an outreach to understand “peace” within Islam then he should not be afraid to say so. He could have said that Islam is a religion of Peace and that any attempts to spread the violence using Islam as cover will NOT be tolerated and anyone crossing the line will be prosecuted.

        Just another missed opportunity to help unite the country by showing some leadership.

        He is the gutless wonder I thought him to be. Anyone who runs for office promising everything to everyone is not a leader.

        • I would have like to hear his ask for tolerance and understanding of the feelings for those families affected on 9/11.

          Why should these families be the tolerant ones? Can’t the Muslim community ever be tolerant?

          • Kathy,

            Why should the Muslims have to tolerate irrational behavior of other people???

          • Sure they can, and they should. But they cannot be FORCED into that anymore than the 9/11 families can. I fully support the 9/11 families’ rights to despise all Muslims and be gernally vitriolic towards them, so long as they do not violate their rights. I support the rights if Islamic followers to hate the immorality of America, so long as they do not violate the rights of anyone in the process. I recommend that everyone be tolerant and rational. I also recommend a good work ethic, honesty, constant pursuit of knowledge, fair dealings with all people, caring for ones fellow man as well as for ones self. I think all people should do these things.

            No law could or should make all that happen.

  7. It is just another building. (shrug)

    • Of course it is (shrug, shrug).

      It’s what goes on inside that may affect us.

      Germany closes mosque used by 9/11 plotters
      Authorities in Hamburg shut down a mosque they say was again being used as a meeting point for radicals.

      Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/08/09/germany-mosque-closed.html#ixzz0wmd9Gdu2

      http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/08/09/germany-mosque-closed.html

      • Kathy,

        So you agree that we should close down the Tampa Bay Football stadium because some criminals made plans to commit a crime there while watching a game.

        • Didn’t say we should close it down. But to shrug it off as just some bricks and mortar and nothing more is dangerous.

          • Kathy,

            You declare it dangerous based on what?

            Someone else’s specious opinions???

            What is danger to you?

            • Kathy,

              So to continue my argument, the Tampa Bay Football stadium is dangerous because criminals make plans there????

              Are you afraid of football stadiums?

              • I’ve learned a lot from this site BF.

                One of the biggies is not to “argue” with you.

                You tend to go way off and try for gotchas in totally unrelated areas, ie, afraid of football stadiums?

              • Kathy,

                I am merely pointing to your basic arguments and applying them.

                I still have no idea what makes something dangerous to you.

                First, it was criminals in dialogue makes the place they talk dangerous.

                I applied that to football stadiums and you seem to not agree.

                I don’t get it.

          • Add the word “potentially” before dangerous.

            • Kathy,

              Explain how it is more “potentially” dangerous than, say, your local pub or grocery store.

              • There are more people with a higher likelihood of uniting for a single purpose at the Mosque than at the grocery store. Also, there is more space and likelihood for storage of weapons, etc. Thus, potential danger is higher.

              • Jon,

                So you must be utterly terrified of football stadiums where:

                1) Tens of thousands of people show up for the same nefarious purposes

                2) There is massive amount of space enough to hide an aircraft carrier

                3)The potential danger is undeniable and absolute. They all should be leveled and the earth salted under them.

              • I don’t want to get contrary, but you are being ridiculous with the football stadium analogy. There is a big difference between a public place where people go to watch a football game and root for their favorite team and a muslim center where outsiders are unwelcome and where everything happens behind closed doors. I don’t necessarily see the muslim center as a bad thing, or even a dangerous thing per se. But to compare it to a football stadium borders on ludicrous. I won’t tell you how to wage your battles, BF, but I think you are hurting your own cause with such a ridiculous comparison.

                USW

              • USWep

                I don’t want to get contrary, but you are being ridiculous with the football stadium analogy.

                I do not think so because it is not an analogy.

                I am using the very complaints, and applying them directly in order to figure out where the fear is coming from.

                There is a big difference between a public place where people go to watch a football game and root for their favorite team and a muslim center where outsiders are unwelcome and where everything happens behind closed doors.

                If I do not get a ticket, I am locked out and “everything happens behind closed doors”. God knows what those evil foootballers are playing next.

                And even if I do buy a ticket, I am locked out of the team rooms – that’s where the “real stuff” and conspiracy happens – the people in the standards are mere dupes…. the “top of the top” planner are hushed with secret “game” plans as they call them (really, methods of mass slaughter and global take over).

                but I think you are hurting your own cause with such a ridiculous comparison.

                I do not think it is ridiculous.

                Think about:

                Tens of thousands of screaming people, chatting and cheering in unison

                - lifted out of Sunday sleep to travel miles and miles in worship,

                -huddled together on hard and uncomfortable chairs,

                -urging millionaires to move and run in the rhythmic contortions to engross the mindless masses,

                -the zealots and masses organizing entire lives revolving around the success or failure of their particular sect of the religion of football

                - taught to hate others who share the same religion but dare to wear the wrong colored shirt! Death to those that are blasphemous!

                …and then to dwell upon past events for days, weeks, and months with pride or fury, and always in the future, maybe next year… victory!

                Sounds like a dangerous religion to me.

              • I never siad I feared the mosque, you asked for an explaination of why it had more potential danger than the grocery store. Certainly it does, so does a football stadium. That does not justify action agaisnt it. Risk is the price of freedom.

  8. I’ve read quite a bit about this issue and agree with the right to practice religion theory. From there, everything turns very muddy.

    Islam is a religion, but it is also a political ideology. In this country, we’ve consistently turned our back on the political ideology aspect of Islam to protect the religion aspect. It has cost us greatly.

    Some questions I have is why there? The Gov. offered to help find another location but they said no. Why the name Cordoba? Where is the financing coming from? How can someone that a mere 3-4 years ago was a waiter, now afford to buy a multi-million dollar property? Why is the Imam involved, along with his wife, paid by our government to go on feel good tours to Muslim countries?

    This may seem like just a local issue, and it truly is more about New York than the rest of the country. But 9/11 affected us all and radical Islam affects us all, so it is too easy to just ignore it and call it a local issue.

    Some moderate Muslims are finally speaking out (ironically only from Canada that I’ve seen). They are not in support of this venture.

    I believe much research and caution need to be taken and unfortunately, Bloomberg and his cronies are doing just the opposite. Something isn’t right.

    • Kathy.

      Is it their right to build there? Yes

      Should they do it? No

      Should we be worried that they are “Insisting” on building it there? Hell Yes!

      Is it a slap in the face to ALL Americans? Again. Hell Yes!

      Will they let them build it there anyway? Despite the citizens of NY’s opposition to it? Yep, sho’ will!

      • Esom,

        Should they do it? No.

        But why not?

        • Because it is a slap in the face of the people of New York.

          Let me make it clear though. I don’t really give a crap whether they do or not. It doesn’t affect me in GA, so I could care less.

          But when they have families of the victims of 9/11 screaming dirty names and throwing bottles through their windows at them, they can ask themselves, was it worth it?

          And what is disgusting is that the city officials will be quick to defend the rights of the muslims after it is built.

          You see BF, it all depends on who’s ox is a gittin’ gored at the time.

          Our Politicians are quick to defend a minority or political group for exercising their “rights”. They are not so swift to defend the majority. Why, is a paradox to me.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            I’m a New Yorker. Let me put all claims to rest — this is not a slap in my face at all.

            I would find it a slap in my face though if the city officials were to succumb to religious hatred and NOT defend the rights of the muslims in the unlikely event bottles were being thrown through the center’s windows.

            • You are only 1 New Yorker. I have seen thousands screaming in protest on TV.

              But let me repeat. If you want the thing there, it AIN”T my problem.

          • Esom,

            Because it is a slap in the face of the people of New York.

            So, at this point, you believe that some Muslims destroyed the World Trade Center, therefore all Muslims are evil and their church is a slap in the face.

            So you equally believe that if US troops have caused, directly or indirectly, the deaths of a million Iraqis, they are getting a slap in the face for every Christian church, US embassy, and military base built there.

            And what would you think if you found out it that 9/11 had nothing to do with Muslims after you have pilloried them for it?

            But when they have families of the victims of 9/11 screaming dirty names and throwing bottles through their windows at them, they can ask themselves, was it worth it?

            So you advocate surrender when faced with irrational hostility?

            And what is disgusting is that the city officials will be quick to defend the rights of the muslims after it is built.

            If you do not defend the rights of your fellow man, you will have no rights either.

            Our Politicians are quick to defend a minority or political group for exercising their “rights”. They are not so swift to defend the majority. Why, is a paradox to me.

            …because rights are not allocated based on hands waving in the air.

            The Truth is the truth even if minority of one holds it.

            A Lie is a lie even if everyone supports it.

            • Esom,

              Further….

              The majority do not need their rights protected – they are, after all, the majority and outnumber those that wish to reduce their rights.

              The minority need their rights defended from the majority because they are weak and powerless against such numbers rallying against them.

              Majority rights is an oxymoron.

              • BF.

                One word.

                Bullshit.

                In this Country, the rights of the Minority, or the one, are ALWAYS taken over what the Majority wants.

                Just like we cannot pray before a football game because ONE person was offended by it and took it to court. It didn’t matter what the rest wanted.

              • Esom,

                Then you do not understand rights.

                As long as you attribute Rights to be the purview of Government – you will get perverse use of Rights.

                What Right are you invoking in Praying at a game? What Right are they invoking to stop you?

              • No. I understand rights perfectly well.

                What I don’t understand is why 1 person can be offended by a prayer before a football game and sue in court to have it stopped. And get what she wanted!

                I do not see what Separation of Church and State had to do with it.

                The Bill of Rights says that there can be no Establishment of a State Religion. It has been perverted over the years to mean what the Politicians want it to mean.

                Let me repeat BF, that you are beating a dead horse. I have said repeatedly that I personally could give a shit whether they build it or not.

                As long as it ain’t next to my house and I can’t see it from Esom Hill, It doesn’t affect me.

              • VEsom,

                So now you have to explain why if I build my church next to you, it doesn’t affect you -

                …yet…

                if “they” built their “church” next to you, it does.

                Are their bricks evil and mine quasi-ok and blessed?

              • Give it a rest BF. I DON’T CARE WHETHER THEY BUILD IT OR NOT! :-D

              • Esom,

                …as long as it isn’t next door – they you’d care….right?

                So, if it was two doors down, would you care?

                Three?

                Six?

                A block?

                5 blocks?

                When would you stop caring?

  9. A Mosque named Cordoba House.

    “Cordoba,” in Islamic symbolic terms, means Islamic rule in the West. It does not mean “coexistence,” unless coexistence is interpreted as referring to Islamic rule.

    http://lonestartimes.squawkboxnoise.com/?p=3081

    • Anita,

      Cordoba does NOT mean that at all.

      Cordoba is a city in Spain.

      It was founded by the Carthaginian expansion an General Amilcar Barca baptized it Kartuba, from Kart-Juba, meaning “the City of Juba”, the latter being a Numidian commander who had died in a battle nearby.

      It was captured in 711 by a Muslim army: in 716 it became a provincial capital, depending from the Caliphate of Damascus; in Arabic it was known as قرطبة (Qurṭuba). In May 766, it was elected as capital of the independent Muslim emirate of al-Andalus, later a Caliphate itself.

      In the 10th-11th centuries Córdoba was one of the most advanced cities in the world, as well as a great cultural, political, financial and economic centre. The Great Mosque of Córdoba dates back to this time; under caliph Al-Hakam II Córdoba received what was then the largest library in the world, housing from 400,000 to 1,000,000 volumes.

      It became the foundation of the one of the world’s first modern universities – the University of Cordoba – which became the root of the Renaissance and the revival of Western Culture

      • Anita,

        Be very wary of people who espouse fear based on specious claims.

        Before you condemn a billion and a half people, it is worth your time to investigate the claims of evil upon them for yourself. Do a little historical research from historical papers written by historians and less from those who have an ax to grind.

        • BF: For the record.. I have no problem with the 999 million regular Muslims. It’s the other million that freak me out.

      • BF

        So my dear friend. Since Cordoba was the “Western” Capital of the Caliphate, please tell us why YOU think the group selected Cordoba House as the name for the new center in NEW YORK.

        • JAC

          Because they like the name.

          • BF

            HORSESHIT

            And feel free to quote me on that all you want.

            • JAC,

              It is often a serious error to judge the motives of others, especially on specious notions.

            • JAC,

              For example, does calling an aircraft carrier “USS Harry Truman” mean they will go out and drop nuclear bombs on the Japanese?

              Does calling a city “New York” mean that it supports rule of monarchy?

              Does calling with a name Jesus Gracia mean he is God?

          • Excuses, excuses…

          • BSBSBSBSBSBSBS!

            • Kathy,

              So you would rather attribute a hostile reason based on irrational understanding, instead of an obvious reason based on how you would name your own church or place of worship?

              • I am not sure that it is obvious at all. It is not especially obvious that they are choosing it arbitrarily as you seem to think. Judging them with the benefit of the doubt is little different than judging them without it in terms of legitimacy.

              • Jon,

                I do not believe any name is chosen arbitrarily.

                It is important to them.

                For others to place radical and nefarious purposes upon the name is blatantly irrational, as I demonstrated below.

                When faced with non-violent situation of which you do not understand, it is dangerous folly to assume evil is its purpose, for that assumption will make it likely that you will create the evil where none existed.

          • Well, that is a truism, is it not? It is highly unlikely that they would pick it because they did NOT like the name. So why do they like it?

          • TexasChem says:

            At the time of Julius Caesar, Córdoba was the capital of the Roman province of Hispania Ulterior Baetica. Great Roman philosophers like Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Younger, orators like Seneca the Elder and poets like Lucan came from Roman Cordoba. Later, it occupied an important place in the Provincia Hispaniae of the Byzantine Empire (552-572) and under the Visigoths, who conquered it in the late 6th century.

            It was captured in 711[3] by a Muslim army: in 716 it became a provincial capital, depending from the Caliphate of Damascus; in Arabic it was known as قرطبة (Qurṭuba). In May 766, it was elected as CAPITAL of the independent Muslim emirate of al-Andalus, later a Caliphate itself.

            Cordoba is viewed by Islam as their city today as it was once in their “empire”.Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf own comments he refuses to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist group and believes that U.S. foreign policy was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, seems an unlikely emissary to promote American interests. But let us put him to the test.

            Khaled Abu Toameh, a Muslim journalist, has written many articles about the inequities that Arabs and Muslims face within the Muslim world. Based on Toameh’s investigations, let’s pose the following to Rauf as he goes on his Muslim goodwill tour:

            How come groups and individuals on university campuses in the United States and Canada who claim to be pro-Palestinian remain silent when Jordan revokes the citizenship of thousands of Palestinians?
            Why do Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and other Arab countries impose severe travel restrictions on Palestinians?
            How come there is a debate in Lebanon about whether to grant Palestinians employment, social security, and medical care?
            How come Palestinians living in Lebanon are banned by law from working in a large number of jobs? In fact, until 2003, Lebanese law prohibited Palestinians from working in 72 professions. Now the list of prohibited jobs has been reduced to 50 professions.
            Notwithstanding, how come Palestinians are still not allowed to work as physicians, journalists, pharmacists, or lawyers in Lebanon?
            How come a wealthy Arab prefers to spend millions of dollars on a private zoo than build a hospital or a university?
            How come it is easier for Palestinians to find a job in Israel and Canada than in any Arab or Islamic country?

            Moreover, perhaps the imam might inquire why Arabs have not hesitated to murder Kurds, have obstructed Berbers from preserving their language and culture, and why, in Darfur, Arabs mass-murdered black Africans. All of those victims of Arab aggression and murder have been Muslims — but in Islamic parlance, Muslims of an inferior level. Francis Bok, author of Escape From Slavery, was introduced to his subordinate status when at a tender age, he saw his African village destroyed, whereupon he became an abeed — the term Arabs use to refer to black people, meaning “slave.” In fact, “the three texts of Islamic belief say that slavery is permitted, ethical, desirable and a virtue. In fact, “there is not a single negative word about slavery.” And what is written is put into practice in the 21st century.

            It has been said that destroying a sacred and symbolic religious center of a land Muslims have conquered and building a mosque in its place – usually using materials from the destroyed former structure – is a standard practice in Islam. Maybe it’s not and there’s no truth to that, but regardless, it is a demonstrable historical pattern. This happened with the Dome on the Rock at the Temple Mount, and at Mecca, which, before Islam took it over, was a pilgrimage site for pagan polytheists. The Great Mosque of Córdoba was seen as a symbolic beginning of the Islamic take-over of Spain. It was supposedly the first such event, so some believe it to be not only as a symbolic take-over of Spain, but of Europe as a whole.

            Hrmmmm Blackflag…do you honestly doubt the purpose and meaning of the original “Cordoba House” name for the Mosque before they changed it?The name of Feisal Abdul Raufs’ organization is called the “Cordoba Initiative”.

            If anyone researches the history of the city of Cordoba in Spain they will understand the meaning and the implication behind an Islamic organization naming anything from it.POINT OF FACT.PERIOD.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        In the 10th-11th centuries Córdoba was one of the most advanced cities in the world, as well as a great cultural, political, financial and economic centre.

        Thanks for pointing that out BF — seems like a great reason to name a community center being built near Ground Zero after Cordoba.

  10. Some of you may have seen this before. I found it well laid out and educational.

    http://www.therightscoop.com/must-watch-saturday-cinema-islam-what-the-west-needs-to-know-98-minutes

  11. This is a local issue unless they try to legally stop it, then it is a constitutional issue. If the various construction workers refuse to build it, that is a market/social mores based issue, and I support it. If opposition uses the courts or regulations or some form of government action to stop or slow the building, then this becomes a violation of the first amendment and I will speak against any such action.

    To those emotionally involved, I get that this feels like a slap in the face. I do not care. I will protect the freedom of people to do as they will. If a construction worker gets sued for not working based on religion, then I will support that worker. If the government tries to block the mosque for popularity reasons, I will oppose them. Freedom above feelings. Freedom above fear. Freedom above emotion. Freedom above security.

    Religion and beliefs are rights of the individual. If your beliefs are violent, you still have a right to them, you just do not have a right to engage in said violence.

    This whole issue is being made from nothing, and should not have political comment at all other than a statement that they have a right to do as they wish with their property.

  12. My first thought are that I could care less what the muslims in NY build. That is NY’s business and it don’t affect me.

    However, I can see where NYers have a deep mistrust and fear of anything muslims do. Tell the people left behind by 9/11 that Islam is a peaceful religion. Try telling families who have lost loved ones to roadside bombs and not real smart bombs(suicide bombers) that Islam is peaceful.

    I also have an issue that if it is a community center, then why is it covered by freedom of religion in the first place? Which is it? A mosque, a community center, or both? Seems like that would have some bearing on whether it is covered under the Freedom of Religion.

    And USW said “In a world with the Westboro Baptist Church and other hateful groups who hurt the families of victims regularly, we can’t pretend that this time is different.”

    I sure can’t argue with that. Westboro is a Baptist church in name only. We do not claim them. They are the ones who were going to protest at the funeral of a soldier from my community. They were “persuaded” that it would be a really bad idea to do that down here. They went back home without doing it. Smart move.

    If you are going to shout “Freedom of Religion” while doing hateful things to folks, you need to remember that they also have the right to disagree with you and when it’s hateful enough, to possibly hurt you.

    I also, like JAC, do not believe it is “Outreach”. It is Politics. Pure and simple.

  13. Look no further, Media Matters has all the answers, FOX is behind it all. Side note, most stories were on Hannity.

    REPORT: Fox provides megaphone to NYC mosque opponents
    Nearly 75 percent of guests hosted to discuss cultural center opposed it
    August 13, 2010 11:05 am ET — 16 Comments

    A Media Matters for America review of Fox News’ evening coverage of the planned building of an Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero found that, since May, the shows have hosted at least 47 guests to discuss the project, nearly 75 percent of whom opposed the center. Just nine of the guests who appeared on the evening programs supported the building, and one guest remained neutral.
    Nearly ¾ of Fox guests opposed the Islamic center

    Islamic center opponents outnumbered supporters 35 to 11. A Media Matters review of Nexis transcripts of Fox News’ evening programming from May 13 to August 12 showed that nearly three times the number of guests who opposed the construction of the center than those who were supportive of such efforts.

    Guests who opposed the center were counted as opponents. Guests who expressed support of the plans to build the center in New York City near Ground Zero were counted as supporters. Guests who did not take a position on the issue were counted as neutral. Guests who did not express an opinion about the construction of the center but rather commented on Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s philosophical beliefs and past statements were not included in the results:

  14. The Vladiator says:

    The terrorists would love to have a “mosque” there: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/hamas-leader-mosque-near-_n_682945.html

  15. I have to make this quick since I am at work.

    1) I agree with the freedoms issue, i.e., they have the right.
    2) It is a local issue.
    3) They chose the site as spoils of conquest, hence as an insult.
    4) I understand that many local construction workers have refused to work there.
    5) I would encourage the groups that built Shorem (sp?) nuke plant on L.I. to get involved, e.g., the MOB and associated workers.
    6) I would build churches, cathedrals, temples, etc. from all religions on all sides .
    7) Once built, since we seem to have unlimited eminent domain, capability, I would find some reason to condem the property.

  16. JAC, Kathy, Anita, Esom…. and whoever else.

    Please provide me the reason these people chose these names for these radical Christian churches</I)

    ANTIOCH CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST, ANCHORAGE, AK

    Antioch, Turkey was the center of Christian fundamentalism in during 3rd Century and used as the launching point of the Crusades in its invasion of Arab lands.

    Therefore, these people in Alaska, by the use of the name, must be advocating for a new Crusades and Christian invasion of the Holy Lands.

    Calvary Community Church of God in Christ Inc., Anchorage, AK

    Calvary are associated with air mechanized troops typically used as the “sharp end of the spear” invasion forces and reconnaissance in strength patrols.

    Therefore, these people advocate for the heavy use of invasions and attacks on other nations.

    New Antioch Church Of God In Christ, Anchorage, AK

    Not satisfied with the reintroduction of Crusade attacks into the Holy Land, this church advocates the creation of new military installations globally to wreck the same assualts wherever Muslims live.

    Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church, Anchorage, AK

    Shiloh, where in Biblical times, it was said that a bunch of Jews kidnapped womean from “Shiloh” and raped them with the tacit agreement of the girls and their parents as a way to get around their vow not to let the daughters marry Benjamites.

    Therefore these church goers advocate rape as a alternative means to getting married.

    THE CHURCH OF BEERSHEBA, ANCHORAGE, AK

    Beersheba was the southern most city of the ancient Kingdom of Israel, therefore these churchgoers wish to create Alaska as the part of the modern day Israeli nation.

    Do you need more examples of the evil Christians demand for world domination and enslavement of all people?

    • Cavalry = horse mounted warriors now mechanized
      Calvary = hill Christ was crucified on.

      • T-Ray,

        So Christians, to hide their evil intent, cleverly misspelled the name of their Church to hide their desire of massive military attacks.

        OR

        They worship and advocate death upon everyone since that is what they highlight in their name.

        Pick one or the other… and enjoy!

        • I’ll pick neither, you got caught in a small mistake and are too stubborn to admit it. Calvary represents the sins of man being forgiven which leads to the victory of eternal life over mortal death. How does that have anything to do with military attacks or violence against others.

          • T-Ray,

            The whole point was to show how ludicrous is was to assign evil motives to a name like Cordoba.

            I can distort and warp any church name to show how evil the adherents to such beliefs must be…..

            PS: Not to turn it into a religious dialogue but what sins of man need another man to die for? Would God create an evil for which he has to forgive? Or perhaps, eternal life always existed for all things, including rocks and its form changes…?

            • BF,

              You are very intelligent with a wealth of knowledge. Unfortunately you have an ego to match. It shows and significantly degrades your arguments. My original response merely pointed out the difference in spelling and meaning of 2 words. I made no comment on our original point which I grasped quite well. It was a test to see what your response would be. It was predictable. Instead of admitting the mistake and moving on, you charged ahead and went into arguments I avoided. My second response was to point out that Calvary refers to Christian beliefs that are polar opposites of your point. You made an unecessary attempt to explain yourself and then attacked again.

              My advice to you is eat some humble pie occasionally. We will all think better of you in the long run.

              • T-ray,

                You are very intelligent with a wealth of knowledge. Unfortunately you have an ego to match.

                There is no point to life if you have to subdue a gift from God.

                T-Ray, I am perfectly serious when I claim modern Christianity is a death-cult.

                The core tenant – injected into Christianity by Paul – was to insist that one must die to achieve salvation.

                Anyway, that is a very long discussion on its own.

                As far a Calvary vs Cavalry is utterly irrelevant whether you believe it was purposeful or by accident notwithstanding.

                The overwhelming irrational arguments surrounding “naming” things is perverse, and that was the point I made.

    • BF: Obviously this is an emootional issue and something we are obviously all going to disagree on.

      A couple things I cannot get past:

      Imam Rauf calls for the community center to be Sharia compliant.

      Why do we have to be the tolerant ones? Can we build a church in Iran? Saudi Arabia?
      without fear of getting our head put on a collection platter?

      I see it as a victory mosque..can’t handle the thought.

      Why does the mosque have to go at Ground Zero. That ground should be made a war memorial.

      We were pretty united in our thoughts on 9/12/01. Why all the political correctness now?

      • Anita, just look at the Politcally Correct Asshole in the Oval Office. There’s your answer.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Once again, this center is NOT being built on Ground Zero. It is being built 2 blocks to the north.

        I haven’t heard of Rauf’s call for the center to be “Sharia compliant”. But to play devil’s advocate, aren’t Churches compliant with Christian dogma?

        • Buck

          So are you admitting that Sharia Law is standard for all of Islam?

          • JAC,

            I would say no more than Mormomism is the standard for all Christians.

            • What is Mormomism?

            • SK Trynosky Sr says:

              Actually Momism is a term coined I believe by Philip Wylie back in the ’40′s or ’50′s and more or less describes the mess we have gotten ourselves into where we must protect Junior and his sister from all things in all ways and at all times. I assume Mormomism simply means that we don’t have enough yet.

              Not?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Not at all. But a Roman Catholic Church would adhere to Roman Catholic dogma, correct? And a Greek Orthodox Church would adhere to Greek Orthodox dogma, correct? Rauf calls for this center to adhere to Sharia. Ok….so?

        • Sharia law is incompatible with constitutional and natural law. Most christian dogma is not, however, in certain sects there are dogmatic beliefs that violate our law. We do not allow such practices here. Cults that force or manipulate persons into compliance, Nazi or KKK “churches” and organizations follow a dogma, often it is called christian. We do not permit it or make allowances for it. We shut it down.

          If Sharia compliance is totally voluntary, so be it. As soon as actions are taken that are against natural law, there is a problem. Sharia law is known to be in opposition to individual rights and equality of humanity. So its a problem. Christian dogma does not currently have any such standards in its modern form, so it gets a pass.

          • Jon

            Christian dogma gets a pass

            http://www.cftf.com/comments/kidsdied.html

            ..”kids who died in obedience to the Watchtower Society’s ban on blood transfusions.”

            So quick to offer forgiveness for the evils of one’s own beliefs.

            • Um, well, there are a couple issues I see there.

              1) As I said, there are sects of christian dogma that DO NOT get a pass.

              2) It is the right of individuals to follow their beliefs, even if it leads to their death. If it kills the children, then it needs to be determined at what point is the State or Society allowed to interfere with parenting and deem personal beliefs too bad for the children. Cries for the safety of kids have been used many times to take freedom, are you advocating this?

      • Anita

        Imam Rauf calls for the community center to be Sharia compliant.

        So if it was a Mormon church, would you still complain about it being center for polygamy?

        Or would you just shrug it off and not even notice it……

        Why do we have to be the tolerant ones?

        Because you have chosen to be the intolerant ones.

        Can we build a church in Iran?

        There are thousands of Christian and Jewish Churches and Synagogues in Iran.

        Iran is home to the largest Jewish population outside of Israel.

        Saudi Arabia?

        So you wish to identify yourself with the policies and actions of tyrants as an excuse to do the same evil upon your neighbor?

        Because JAC beats his wife means that LOI can beat his wife?

        I see it as a victory mosque..can’t handle the thought.

        Then don’t think that.

        See it for what it is – a place where particular people who think there are “special places” that are the only places on earth where God’s ears “work” to congregate and find other people who have the same thinking.

        Christians believe the same thing too, it seems.

        Why does the mosque have to go at Ground Zero. That ground should be made a war memorial.

        Why should it memorialize a human evil, such as war?

        We were pretty united in our thoughts on 9/12/01. Why all the political correctness now?

        If the people are united in a wrong thinking, does this make the thinking right?

        • Sharia compliant is not the same as saying following the word of God which depends on a persons interpretation of his word -whatever book you follow-but saying Sharia compliant is following the laws that man has set down-laws that we have argued that all Muslims don’t necessarily agree with. So I see this qualifier as a whole lot different. Just what does it mean in the practical.

          • One more point laws that are contrary to our laws.

            • V.H.

              Who says “our laws” are Right?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                BF,

                ANY law other than Natural Law is invalid.

                Our laws are invalid, and where Sharia violates Natural Law (and most of Sharia does indeed violate Natural Law) it is also invalid.

                In short, neither set of laws is “right”.

                However, in spite of their mutual wrongness, it is still possible to subjectively evaluate one set of laws as being better than the other, even though both are invalid.

                Whether this has any OBJECTIVE basis or not is another question :)

          • V.H.

            Sharia compliant is not the same as saying following the word of God which depends on a persons interpretation of his word

            Really? So what do you say about the 30-years war, which killed 1/3 of the German population – which was fought over -essentially- that a man had his own right to talk to God vs. a man had to use the Pope to talk to God?

            Further, if a person CHOOSES his religion, does not indicate his personal interpretation of God?

            You choose a particular sect of Christianity because it appears to suit your own individual believes about God. Can you not see that is the same thing if someone chooses, say, Hindu or Mormon or Catholic or 7-day Adventist or …..

            • Maybe I’m slow today but what does all that have to do with the question I asked. Why insist that this mosque follow the legal system of another country?

              • V.H.

                Why do you insist they can’t follow the system they choose for themselves?

              • V.H.

                …continuing…

                I mean, they aren’t forcing you to follow theirs… so why do you insist they follow yours?

              • Because they can’t follow theirs without violating ours. So I have to ask myself are they building a mosque to honor their God or are they building an organization to further another countries laws.

              • V.H.

                Then why are you worried?

                If they break the law and harm you, you will have recourse.

                If they do not, you do not have a worry.

                ….just like any other religion, group or community would be vs. you.

                Why do you need to understand their purpose when you have no dealings with them?

                Do you need to understand why your neighbor paints his house brown before you allow him to paint?

              • I wouldn’t say I was worried simply keeping my eyes open to different possibilities and being cautious-I may well agree that my neighbor has a right to own a gun. But if he sets it up in his window sill pointing at my house-I’m gonna have some questions.

              • V.H.

                Thus, until the Muslims start setting up gun turrets and machine gun nests in the Mosque, I think you have not much to worry about them either.

              • I would find that very easy to agree with, if we weren’t at war with the extremist. That fact makes it necessary to question who is the enemy and who is a friend-but I in no way endorse anything other than acknowledging the danger and keeping an eye on the situation. I do not want a repeat of our past mistakes-but sticking my head in the sand and just dismissing the possibility based on the idea that it isn’t any of my business or nothing bad has happened seems irrational.

        • “Imam Rauf calls for the community center to be Sharia compliant.

          So if it was a Mormon church, would you still complain about it being center for polygamy?

          Or would you just shrug it off and not even notice it……”

          (Flag, Mormons “believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.” Has Rauf stated they will follow Sharia law except where in conflicts with US or NY law? Will he denounce stoning women, whippings, child marriages, etc???)
          http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/16/taliban-stone-couple-adultery-afghanistan/?test=latestnews

          Why the state of Utah does not prosecute polygamy

          by Blaize Shepherd

          Polygamy, though illegal in Utah, is often not prosecuted for many various reasons. These reasons, athough many believe to be simply because of the general public in Utah practicing Mormonism, have nothing whatsoever to do with being a Mormon.

          Polygamy doesn’t affect Utah alone, polygamy is practiced nationwide by individuals and families, different sects religious or otherwise and some fundamentalists. Mormons have just been the brunt of everyones outcry, because at one time, they publicly announced and tried to fight the Federal Government for rights to practice polygamy. It is also common knowledge the religion practiced and accepted it, more particularly among their top leadership authorities and with rest. They lost, essentially or gave up the fight and entered into an agreement or Manifesto with the Federal Government to no longer practice polygamy. Mormons officially banned polygamy in 1890 to become a state.

          The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints official and formal position on polygamy as stated by thier then President Gordon B. Hinkely in an interview with Larry King Live is that they take the position that they will abide by the law. They believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

          Since the time the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints entered into the manifesto they have made it known to their members they will be excommunicated as a member of their church if they practice polygamy. Most of the polygamist groups active today are non Mormon groups. Off springs of the religion or knock offs of the original Mormon teachings that used to be practiced. Many people practice polygamy with no religious affiliation at all and in many other religions across the world, some are firm believers and practice polygamy currently.

          • LOI,

            … in being subject to kings…

            Please find the passage in the Book of Mormon which supports this claim.

            Or is it by rote order by the “higher ups” of the Church that simply declared it by writ.

    • First let me say BF. I could give a rat’s ass what they call their Community Center/Mosque.

      And this: “Do you need more examples of the evil Christians demand for world domination and enslavement of all people?”

      It has nothing to do with enslavement, and everything to do with their Oil under the ground. We want it and have to have it. They have it and dictate prices to us. All the world revolves around their Oil. Without it they would have absolutely NO bargaining chips in the world Political Scene.

      Without Oil, we would not be sitting here arguing the merits of building a mosque at the 9/11 site. There probably would be NO 9/11 site.

      Without Oil, our Politicians would not be kissing Mulim ass. Muslim’s would be over there living their bedouin lives in the sand, poor and third wordly.

      Everything involving the Islamic world boils down to Oil, and the world’s dependence ON IT.

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        Esom,

        The shame of it all is that we don’t need them. Go nuke on electricity like the French and use our own natural gas and oil for everything else. If the Gulf spill proved one thing (hell, it proved a thousand things) it was that there is still a lot of that stuff around.

        Makes me wonder though, why? What really is at the base of the hostility of developing these resources? Are people like lemmings and just nuts or is there really an evil plan. Yeah, I know, that’s paranoid but looking at what’s happened in DC in the past year plus would seem to indicate that there was a plan in place for the last fifty years or so, just waiting for the right circumstance to be sprung.

        The powerhouse of the United States was built on cheap energy. Coincidentally, we have been losing ground across the board since the 1970′s and the first oil embargo. We have lost almost all the manufacturing base and wages have been flat. The only thing that makes people think that they are (or were) better off is living too high on the hog courtesy of credit. I seem to remember that prior to 1973 I had to jump through hoops to get a credit card and then to up its limit.

        • “If the Gulf spill proved one thing (hell, it proved a thousand things) it was that there is still a lot of that stuff around.”

          Just a little note, when 60,000 barrels of oil were leaking out of the pipe people were thinking that was a lot of oil (which I guess it was). US daily consumption is 20,680,000 barrels a day, in other words a 344th part of the US’s daily consumption was leaking into the Gulf daily. The entire 40+ day leak managed only 2% of daily oil consumption. Scarey eh?

    • BF

      Thanks for going to so much trouble to support my point.

      You saved me a lot of work.
      :)

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      Oh come on, they are about as big as that group that pickets the funerals of dead soldiers. Quite different than the billion plus Muslim faith.

  17. Truthseeker says:

    Like other, I agree that it is a local issue and I do not care where and what people build as long as it is private property. However, I do have an issue with the POTUS saying something about it at all and sticking his nose in it. This is a New York issue. If rights are being violated then they need to go to court and resolve it there.

  18. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Maybe this is an ignorant question, butttt….

    Is it possible that a majority of the US populace are frightened/wary of those practicing the Muslim Religion will somehow gain a political majority with which Shariah Law could be enacted?

    I admit that this does cross my mind everytime I hear anything related to Muslim trying to get this or that done in the US.

    • I plead guilty to the wary charge. Same goes for ILLEGAL immigrants. Any/all people who come here and refuse to assimilate, to me are a problem that will
      grow with each generation.

    • Absolutely a concern Spitfire. And here we have an Adm. that seems to despise anything that is American and/or the American way and thinks nothing of screwing us over with Executive Orders, deeming bills passed and running our country into a huge black hole. And, oh by the way, was fathered by a Muslim man, was raised in a Muslim school with a Muslim stepfather.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Oh my god, Obama was raised (partly) Muslim!? The horrors…how anti-American can you get…

        • It’s his denial of it all, Buck, that is the worry. If he is a Muslim, fine, but why all the hidden secrets?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            You seem to think that there is hard evidence of him being a Muslim. I have yet to see it.

  19. IMHO this community center is a TROPHY, nothing more or less. I agree it’s a local problem, and I feel it will be difficult to find workers to build it. And security will be a big issue, remember the havoc created by McVeigh and friends.

    So, when can we expect a Christian center in Riyadh? Or a B-29 museum in Hiroshima? Or a James Earl Ray Boulevard? I know, extreme but similar in my twisted mind.

    BF, I’ve learned a lot from you and don’t mean to pick, but “Cavalry” is a military unit and “Calvary” is the supposed place of the Crucifixion of Jesus.

    • Wasabi,

      BF, I’ve learned a lot from you and don’t mean to pick, but “Cavalry” is a military unit and “Calvary” is the supposed place of the Crucifixion of Jesus.

      See above response to T-Ray.

      Now, you have to think:
      Did I make a mistake ….by accident or on purpose?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Why does a Christian center in Riyadh have anything to do with an Islamic center in NYC?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Not much, other than it points out that we would allow such a thing, whereas in Riyadh, such a thing would not be allowed, especially if the Christians in Riyadh demanded that the center follow “Christian Law” and be exempt from Sharia.

  20. Flag,

    Because JAC beats his wife means that LOI can beat his wife?

    Maybe once, the lady knows where the guns are, and how to use them. A very poor choice in homes to break into, whether I am home or not.

  21. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    A lot of people put a lot of stock into things which are symbolic.

    Many people look at this Mosque as an attempt by Muslims to say, in effect, “We toppled your monuments to Godless Western Culture, and now we replace them with our (far superior) holy place!”

    For those that truly believe that Islam is a “religion of peace” this is probably no big deal.

    For those that truly believe that Islam is a violent religion which is striving to “take over the world” then this could be interpreted as a symbol of them taking a step in that direction without much backlash from the “victims”.

    It all depends on how you look at it :)

  22. posting for comments

  23. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Sharia don’t like it
    Rock the Casbah
    Rock the Casbah

    –The Clash

  24. SK Trynosky Sr. says:

    Sorry to come in late on this one. US, you have me shaking my head here.

    First of all, it is “insensitive”. There, one of the favorite words of the left along with “unsustainable”. Normally insensitive to my left of center friends means that it either is or should be illegal. Off the top of my head, let me see if I can find an equivalent example for the other side. Hmmm……why yes, by jingo, the Confederate Battle Flag. So, it’s been 150 years since the Civil War and the issue still rankles, let us wait another 150 years before we start talking about building a mosque anywhere near the WTC.

    Then there is the name of the project. The Cordoba initiative. Huh? Last time I looked Cordoba was in Spain and the Caliphate was kicked out of there about a thousand years ago. Why not the Mecca initiative, or Medina or Damascus or Baghdad? Or perhaps that rumor that in the Middle East the textbooks still show places like Spain, Sicily and Greece as part of the fun filled world of greater Islam is true. Once ours, always ours.

    Gov. Paterson is a genius and I hate to lose the guy. Buck, while you are right about the legalities of stopping the thing, that there are none, there is the issue of the Construction Trade Unions.Unless these guys have lost it, not a brick will be laid at that site for that purpose. As a former Union member myself I would be happy to walk a picket line for a day, week, month or however long it will take. I’m betting though that if the unions do their thing, Bloomberg, Schumer, Cuomo, Obama and the rest will go extra legal and find a judge to shut down such picketing. The Constitution, yet again, be damned. It only protects “their” rights, not yours. Ultimately they may import a construction crew from the UAE to build it.

    I’ve just about had it giving the benefit of doubt to the religion of peace. Honor killings, Sharia law, muzzling of free speech, and an outright refusal to modernize. Study your history folks but even more importantly, study theirs. Ataturk, (Mustafa Kemel) knew what he was doing.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Quick and easy difference between the Confederate Flag and the Cordoba House = government action. I gladly support your right to hang the Confederate Flag on your property. I take a very different issue when it is the state government flying that flag over the State Capital Building.

      As for a judge shutting down the picketing. This is not damning the Constitution, assuming the picketers are acting solely out of religious hatred/prejudice. As for bringing in a construction crew from the UAE to build the thing – isn’t that the free market at work?

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        Not so fast my friend, while you may support my right to display the flag, others don’t and I am not talking about it being a state flag either. Just the private use is considered insensitive, ask my kids, they will tell you.

        Why do you insist on bringing religion and hate???? into this discussion. I am not. I would picket the site because I think it is a terrible idea and because it will be seen overseas, in Muslim lands, as a tactical victory. It will also reinforce the view that the West and the US in particular is weak. Buck, people are not the same all over. They are in fact quite different.

        Westerners and Americans just don’t get it. We are always accused of xenophobia but in reality we are guilty of the opposite. We see everyone as wanting the same.

        Like I said up top, study their history. Read Turkish, post Ottoman history.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Sure I find it (flying the Confederate flag) offensive and insensitive too. So what? I’ll still support your right to fly it on your property. I just won’t do the same on my own, nor would I support you trying to have it flown over a state gov’t building.

          You may see it as something that may be seen (or argued) by some as a tactical victory of Islam over the West. That doesn’t make it so. What about the millions (billions?) who do not see it that way? By the same token, those that will argue this is a tactical victory of Islam, would just as easily argue against the US for its refusal to allow this center to be built as being indicative of our hatred of Islam. Can’t win either way, so why sacrifice our own laws for them?

          • SK Trynosky Sr says:

            Nobody is sacrificing any laws. As pointed out by both of us, there is no legal way to stop this thing. Using our 1st amendment rights to peaceably gather and protest however, we may make it all but impossible to build. Using our power of persuasion to boycott suppliers we may prevent this from happening.

            So, based on your first paragraph, I assume that you feel the construction of the mosque is insensitive also. Does it not then follow that short of violence, we should be able to use our freedoms to prevent this from happening?

            Since most Muslim countries are not paragons of virtue regarding freedom or democracy and frankly do not really have a clue as to what these mean, how would that then lead to them or their inhabitants (I deliberately do not call them citizens since they have few if any rights) seeing this as anything other than a perfectly normal occurrence? In their countries, it would certainly be so. The only people being offended here are Americans of the stripe who believe that there is a con going on here and there are way too many marks out there in positions of power.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Don’t assume that I’m against the mosque – I am not offended by it in the least, nor do I find it insensitive.

              You argue it best to use our freedoms to prevent this from happening. But what does it say about us if we wish to prevent this from happening? Why do so many wish to prevent this from happening?

              • I think you know the variety of reasons Buck just by reading on this site-my question to you is other than following our laws-what other REASON is there to think it’s a good idea.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                There hasn’t been a single reason to think this is a bad idea, except that it is insensitive for them to build this center anywhere near ground zero. But why is it insensitive? Those behind this project had nothing to do with 9/11 and are seeking to promote understanding, peace and tolerance in the wake of this terrible incident.

              • I’m aware of their stated purpose-is it working, we’re still in the talk about it stage and look at the conflict-do you really think that this community center/mosque will achieve it’s stated purpose or make things worse. How about a nice plaque at ground zero denouncing the extremists hijacking of their religion-that might well help promote peace and understanding. Walking past a 15 story monument to Islam right after you have had an emotional experience at the memorial to 9/11 isn’t going to do it. Of course, my arguments rest on the idea that what they are truly trying to do is promote understanding and peace.

  25. Buck the Wala says:
  26. Late to the party, I know.. I was out sick yesterday. But I would like to offer up my heartfelt “frak them” to to the people who are against this mosque because Muslims are evil and such. I know there are other justifications for being against this mosque but I’m having trouble finding any that I can’t rip to shreds. I just keep coming back to something someone here told me once: “without a doubt, the US is a Christian theocracy.”

    A saw a few great points above that namely the center is two blocks away (outside the non-existent “buffer zone” and that it is an “outreach center” which houses a church. But I thought I’d weigh in on the topic at hand. Alright, I don’t think anyone is surprised by this stance, so bring it on!

    • When I said above “that it is an outreach center that houses a church,” obviously I meant to say mosque, not church. If it housed a church, nobody would be complaining.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I wonder: Would all of these people so deadset against a mosque being 2 blocks from Ground Zero (because it is ‘hallowed ground’ as some argue), be against the building of a 15-story tall Christian Outreach Center which housed a church, and whose stated mission was to promote cross-cultural peace and tolerance?

        • Yes, because they would realize immediately that the “church” is really being set up to establish a base for religious extremists and fundamentalists such as the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church. They would clearly understand that the purpose of the church is to indoctrinate impressionable Americans and to implement Biblical Law as outlined in Deuteronomy.

    • Mathius and Buck

      You two are completely overlooking reality and in fact are guilty of the very thing you accuse the opponents of being.

      I am sure there are some where this was an instant and unthinking reaction.

      To many, however, it is based on their own experience and knowledge.

      Had this center been a Buddhist Temple I doubt you would see a problem. So it is not All things NOT Christian as your sarcasm alludes.

      Islam is not like other religions and that is simply the fact of the matter. Perhaps it is because it is younger or perhaps because of the nature of those who founded it and use it as their tool. But the fact is that thousands of Islamic leaders preach and teach violence against innocent people. The followers of these “leaders” killed thousands, in NY and Penn. and WA DC.

      The guy who is the face of this project has some questionable connections and prior comments that could lead one to believe he is no different than the other “leaders”. Then there is the massive funding with no transparency. I think it is legitimate that people start to wonder. It is not completely irrational to think some might pass judgment based on these questions.

      By the way, I am finding commentary by Muslims on the internet that also question the funding sources. They want to support this project, based on its humanitarian mission, but are concerned that it may not be on the up and up. They are calling for transparency.

      I heard on the radio yesterday, from a Democratic Party member, that the name Mosque at Ground Zero was actually the name proposed by the Imam leading this project. When this went south he came up with the Cordoba Project or Cordoba House Initiative, which ever.

      A rational and sympathetic person, or persons, would recognize the hazards in this project and address them. That includes recognizing that the “radicals” on the other side of the world will consider this a “trophy”. So either we have somebody supporting this that is culturally disconnected from American values, or we have somebody playing under the table.

      By the way, I think all the comparisons to Christian churches and wingnuts like McVeigh, the KKK, Westboro etc are STUPID. The issue with Islam is not a few members. It is thousands of its supposed “religious leaders” and millions of followers. Get some freakin perspective gentlemen.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        JAC,

        I’ve consistently said that funding is a valid issue that should be addressed and questioned. Obviously we need to ensure that this Initiative is not a backdoor to funnel money to Al-Qaeda. But let’s be honest – for the most part that is not what is going on here. The vast majority of those in opposition to this project are in opposition due to the ‘insensistiveness’ and fear of all things Muslim. That is just plain wrong and foolish.

        I am sure you are correct in that if this was a Buddhist Center there wouldn’t be any issue. But that is precisely my point – after 9/11 it because ok to criticize and villify all things Muslim. From my understanding of Imam Rauf, he represents Sufism, a sect of Islam that is more akin to a ‘hippy’ worldview than it is to the jihad promoted by Al-Qaeda. Should his past connections be looked at – yes and no — a resounding no if we are doing so only because he is Muslim, but a yes if we are doing so because of outside evidence indicating a connection to Al Qaeda.

        You quickly charactertize the comparisons to Christian churches as stupid. I don’t think so. Personally, I hate all religions equally. They are all full of their fair share of crazies and their followers. They also all have millions of followers who are good people, looking for a peaceful life. To mischaracterize these millions of Muslims because of the actions of some supposed religious leaders and their followers is unfair and absolutely wrong. But to say that doing so with Islam is ok, but its not ok to do the same for Christian churches?

        • I’m sure it’s completely coincidental that the Klan chose to burn crosses instead of another geometrical configuration. This was probably not couched in religion in any way. I find that you are being insensitive to suggest otherwise.

        • Buck

          There is a significant difference between the two religions. Especially in the way they are taught by the “religious leaders” around the world. As I said, PERSPECTIVE. These are facts.

          It does nothing to enhance or enlighten the debate to start comparing Westboro to the entire Wahabi movement that influences millions. Or the fact that Islam, as a religion, calls for a melding of religion and politics, and the “spread” of Islam as the only true religion.

          Yes the Christians did the same thing to the world. That is the point. Christians did it by using Govt. Now we have a new group wanting to do the same thing. It is rational to expect that to be rejected, especially in the USA.

          Questions about Rauf arose because he refused to denounce Hamas. Now this is where I split with those who use this as “evidence”. I think a discussion of whether Hamas is really a terrorist organization of is a Palestinian Army fighting as best they can, is in fact a legitimate discussion. But the fact is the Global Powers consider them a terrorist group and Rauf would not say so publicly. So now we are back to either PR failure or as D13 discovered, the “religious leaders” of Islam, in the USA, really don’t have a problem with the violent nature of their religion.

          I am not concerned about money being funneled through this group to Al Qaeda. Most opponents I have heard don’t use this as the issue either. Only a few who are trying to inflame.

          The real money issue is WHERE is the money coming from to build the facility. If these funds are coming from those we consider “radical” then one would have to question the motives, would we not? If the money is clean and truly well intentioned then it would quickly discredit the like of Sean Hannity. As if that would be hard to do anyway.

          My big point in all of this, actually there were a couple, is that Islam is different and we need to recognize that. I am not saying we outlaw it, but I find it ignorant to pretend it is innocuous in its current state globally. The attack of 9/11 as with other attacks and violence around the world is NOT the result of a “few radical wingnuts” as is being portrayed by the media and those who wish the world to love us. Americans saw the thousands “celebrating” in the streets of Muslim nations after 9/11. That is not the result of a “small minority” of “radicals”. We all know there are political issues tied to that response, but it was Islam that THEY used to justify their actions and to celebrate their success. It is Islam that they use to unify their political activism.

          So to chastise people as bigots, ignorant, reactionary, etc because they recognize this reality is not helpful at best and childish at its worst. In fact it is destructive to bridging the gap of knowledge between the two sides.

          On Islam itself, I am no longer to personally give it a pass as a “religion of peace”. That simply doesn’t match up with the reality of history. While some may view second class citizenship within a Muslim city as peaceful and respectful, I find it obnoxious to freedom and liberty. In short, not peaceful.

          But here is the real issue. In a nation founded on freedom and liberty, what can or should we do about a religion that is not consistent with those fundamental values? Of course, the answer is nothing. A free society can not initiate force against those who have not used force. Is teaching dogma to willing listeners a form of using force?

          So that leaves us with waiting for actions to which we can either defend or retaliate against using our laws. Meanwhile, thousands are exposed to the thoughts and teachings. And we all know how that can affect the mindset of generations.

          That is the Catch 22 of a free society. That is why it is much harder to maintain such a society than one where a select group gets to make the decisions as to what is best for us all.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Once again you seem quick to cast aside the millions upon millions of peaceful Muslims due to the beliefs and actions of a small percentage, yet say it is somehow different when I cast aside all of Christianity due to beliefs and actions of a small percentage.

            You argue that it is Islam that THEY use to justify their actions on 9/11. So because that small percentage of Muslims use Islam to justify their actions we must question all Muslims? Why then does that not hold true when the Christian zealot kills an abortion provider and uses Christianity to support his actions? Or when the KKK use Christianity to support their belief of the inferiority of other races?

            • Buck

              I am casting no one aside. That is the point.

              To call people bigots and irrational because they notice that there are millions who use Islam and its violent tenants as their “identity” is in fact irrational itself.

              Here is the thing Buck. Neither you or I know how many think it was a good thing and that their faith justified it. The point was that comparing millions against perhaps thousands is silly.

              The abortion doctor killer who uses Christianity is guilty. Never said otherwise.

              KKK is a better example of bad comparison. A racist group who uses religion as opposed to a religion that calls for domination and is thus used by many to rationalize its violent actions.

              There is a difference Buck and it needs to be recognized. This lumping of all these as the SAME is illogical and irrational.

              I am not condemning or chastising anyone here. Though they all are deserving of both. I am saying that it is time to start having serious discussions about reality.

              Islam and Christianity and Judaism have some very distinct differences that have critical implications to the USA and its founding principles.

              I noticed you skirted the real issue I presented and relied on the KKK analogy. How do we as a free people deal with a religion that is designed to undermine those principles?

              • JAC,

                Islam and Christianity and Judaism have some very distinct differences that have critical implications to the USA and its founding principles.

                Such as???

                ….and I mean, not just the style of clothing and the architecture – but the core basic belief that makes you utter that statement.

                I cannot imagine what you believe this is, since all three are rooted in the same basic tenants and heritage.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Islam at its core is just as peaceful as is Judaism and Christianity at their core – which is to say, not very.

                You keep pointing to some huge difference between the three, where there really is none to be found. How would I deal with the problems any of these religions present where they undermine American laws? Simple – you are free to practice what you believe in your own home, until your religious practices interfere with or violate US law. Not sure why Islam proves any more or less of a problem than Judaism or Christianity.

      • JAC

        By the way, I think all the comparisons to Christian churches and wingnuts like McVeigh, the KKK, Westboro etc are STUPID. The issue with Islam is not a few members. It is thousands of its supposed “religious leaders” and millions of followers. Get some freakin perspective gentlemen

        I think we do, given that the USA, under its moralistic self-appointed role, killed millions to protect them from Communism (Korea), millions more to protect them from Communism(Vietnam), millions more to protect them from Communism (Cambodia and Laos), a million to protect them from their leader (Iraq)….

        Religion comes in many forms – but they all have the same core – an institution that believes its own existence and values are more important than human lives.

      • Perspective.. .yes, I can do that. Let’s try this: there are 1.57 BILLION Muslims. If, as you suggest, millions of them are militant, extremist or otherwise violent, then let’s pick a number out of a hat. Shall we say 10 million? That would equate to 0.6%. Let us go out on a limb as say that of those 10 million, 9 million have turned to fundamentalist / radical Islam because of the actions of evil men who wish to channel their anger for political purposes (that is, “it’s not my fault you’re have no education / are sick / are poor / are hungry / etc, it’s the fault of the enemies of Islam!”). So, being extremely generous, I’ll give you 1,000,000 Muslims who choose radical Islam because that is the way they interpret the will of God in accordance with the writings of the Koran. So, doing some grade school math, that’s 0.06% of Muslims are violent / radical / militant by virtue of their religion (as opposed to cultural influence etc). How’s that perspective coming along?

        Let’s just have some fun with this, shall we? There are 13,155,000 Jews according to the infallible Wikipedia. If 0.06% of them interpret the word of God in a militant fashion, that would mean there are nearly 8,000 radical Jews. Jews tend not to strap bombs to their chests, but I’d still say it’s a perfectly safe bet that there are 8,000 insane Jews living in the West Bank (there are 2,345,000 people living there, of which 17% are Jews, for a total of 398,650). The difference is that the crazy Jews are defending illegal settlements while the crazy Muslims are attacking illegal settlements, so the Jews tend to get better PR.

        So should we consider Judaism a violent / militant / radical religion? Or should we accept that maybe, just maybe, radicalism is an economic social-cultural phenomenon rather than a religious one?

        I’ve said before that I’ve read the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran cover to cover. I can say with authority that there is good and bad in all three and that you can find whatever you want to find if you’re willing to cherry pick to support your position. It’s why the Catholic church back in the day burned heretics. It is why, picking on the Jews again, the Maccabees terrorized moderate Jews into orthodoxy, it is why Osama Bin Laden was able to convince young men into perpetrating mass murder. The holy books and the religion in-and-of themselves are neither evil nor malign – they simply are. It is up to people to take what they want.

        And well over a billion Muslims have taken the philosophy of peace and tolerance from their holy book. Back in the day, Jews were treated as honored friends in Muslim societies. Nothing has changed in the Koran, so what’s the explanatory variable if not the society within which Islam is practiced?

        Peace be unto you.

        • Mathius

          Like I said.

          Keep it up all you want. You aren’t doing yourself any favors.

          Deal with the real underlying issues.

          • I’m trying to tell you what the underlying issue is.

            In ye olden times, Christianity was violent. Now it is not particularly violent.

            In ye olden times, Judaism was violent. Now it is not particularly violent.

            In ye olden times, Islam was violent. Now only parts of it are violent.

            What changed? Was it the religion itself? Or was it the powers that be within the societies in which those religions were/are practiced that distorted the religions to suit their political ends?

            • Mathius,

              Now [Christianity) is not particularly violent

              I must serious disagree.

              You are fooled by the change of tactics.

              The vast majority of people in the USA declare themselves “Christian”. They have no problem justifying invading non-threatening countries, killing communists, and generally by force and violence promote “American” goals.

              Modern Christianity, IMO, is a death-cult.

              They all want to see Jesus in heaven and have no problem killing other people to get there.

              • Congratulations.

                You have just declared yourself King of Stupidville.

              • JAC,

                Oh, so you think you see it differently?

                Are you claiming that most Americans are not Christian?

                Are you claiming that America has not actively “exported” its values at the point of a gun?

                What, sir, are you saying? That you do not understand anything at all?

              • BF

                Yes

                No

                No

                No. I am saying you are creating false choices to the argument. I recognize a fallacious argument when I see one.

                Since we are on the topic another one I just love watching you use goes something like this.

                JAC…We should explore whether Islam is inherently a violent religion.

                BF….See what the Christians did.

              • That’s no so irrational.

                A. Muslims behave a certain way.

                B. Christians used to behave the way way.

                C. (A) is evidence that Islam is fundamentally violent.

                D. B is not evidence that Christianity is fundamentally violent.

                Something doesn’t add up here.

              • JAC, Mathius:

                Mathius (for once) has it right.

                The core beliefs of religion have not changed for 1500 to 2000 years.

                Yet,suddenly, one of the is proclaimed extremist in its nature, and the other is declared wholly passive in its nature.

                But the nature of both have not changed.

              • Disagree if you must.

                But it’s not Christianity that’s violent. Christianity is a set of principles and beliefs premised on a book written 1700 years ago by Romans and interpreted by tens of thousands of scholars over the intervening years.

                Some have reached the conclusion that God is love. Others have reached the conclusion that “God hates fags.” The fact that it’s so subjective means that there is no true single “nature” to the thing. People interpret it the way the people want to. It is no coincidence that God is always on everyone’s side.

                There was a time when there was really only one interpretation of Christianity and that was a violent wrathful god who brooked no dissension, hated infidels, etc. No there are many versions and the collective title “Christianity” cannot be held to apply to any one in particular. As such, it is not violent, only its practitioners are.

              • Mathius,

                The problem with Christianity is the same problem with society – Revolution in the Form.

                The Nazarene would be horrified by the People who call themselves “Christian”. The People act in nearly direct contradiction to his teachings.

                People are taught to believe they are adhering to his lessons and then use the same religion to support their actions which contradict those same lessons.

              • Exactly. So it’s not the religion itself, but rather how people tend to use it.

                Therefore: Christianity is not violent. People are violent.

                (See also, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”)

              • Mathius,

                Stop agreeing with me. It’s making JAC mad. ;)

              • To be honest, I think everyone here gets uncomfortable when you and I agree..

              • Mathius,

                Yes, they get visions of hell and snowballs co-existing.

            • Mathius

              Go back to my original comments on this thread. You will see I posed the question about Islam’s current nature.

              Is it because it is younger or because of the cultures that adopted it?

              Will it change with time as the others did? Or will it remain unchanged because it is inherently different?

              It is the latter that has many concerned. I think it is irrational to just ASSUME that time will cause it to change as well.

              I also think it is irrational to NOT judge the world based on the evidence we see. My dog in this fight is the portrayal of all who have serious concerns as racist, bigots, ignorant, tool, imbecile, etc.

              There are legitimate issues and concerns based on current reality. There needs to be some serious public discussion. Obviously Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity are not the ones to lead that discussion. But neither is Mr. Obama. He lost his chance.

              See my post on the imam below. You will find it interesting.

              • It’s 99.9999999% the cultures that adopted it. There are millions of Muslims in the United States. How many of them are suicide bombers?

              • Mathius

                I am not talking about suicide bombers.

                I am talking about stoning, honor killings, etc, etc.

                Although I am talking about the teachings that rationalize suicide bombings. But it is not the bombings that I think needs discussion.

                I think there is a legitimate question to be asked of these millions in the USA. Not as an attack but in gaining some clarity.

                Are you a Muslim living in the USA, or

                Are you an American who practices Islam?

                In fact, I would like to see how the millions of American Christians answer the same question.

              • I’m not particularly religious (in fact, I’m really much more of an agnostic than anything else), but I still consider myself a Jewish American and an American Jew. I don’t have to choose. And neither do Muslims, nor do Christians.

                We can be both. They are not mutually exclusive.

                With regards to your comment, not just suicide bombings but all the rest you mention are 99.999999% cultural as evidenced by these same Muslim Americans / American Muslims who do not engage in or condone such actions.

                For every American Muslim advocating for stonings or such, I will show you a proportional number of Christians advocating for “God’s Law.”

              • Mathius

                Wake the hell up man and get off your high horse.

                I did not say choose. I said simply answer the question as to how you view yourself.

                I think it would be revealing.

                And you can not be both. That is the point of the question.

                It was not be a Muslim or be an American. The question is to identify what a person sees as their fundamental identity.

              • My fundamental identity is Matthew J***** M*******.

                All else is icing. Jewish, white, male, job-title, income, 6’1, 170lbs, devastatingly handsome, IQ score, et cetera. These things do not define my identity.

                I am me. Nothing more, nothing less.

              • JAC,

                The problem I see is that you are framing the actions of men to be caused by the religion they believe.

                But it is not.

                It is the action of men.

                Otherwise, as I am constantly pointing out, that if a child-killer is “Christian”, then all Christians are child-killers.

                But you continue to suggest that if a stone-thrower is Muslims means that all Muslims stone people.

    • Mathius,

      America is a Christian theocracy came from me and I still stand by that statement.

  27. Off topic, but every bit as important, today is my one-year anniversary with the good folks here at SUFA!

    And, yet, I’m still a liberal.. I guess you people haven’t been trying hard enough. :)

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Happy anniversary Mathius – what say dread pirate of this event?

    • Mathius

      Perhaps.

      But thanks to your efforts the rest of us have moved even farther away from your political philosophy.

      Besides, you have moved much farther than you think or are admitting to at this point.

      Happy Anniversary

      JAC

  28. Ray Hawkins says:

    While I believe they every legal right to build the Center/Mosque – whatever-the-hell-else they want to call it – I do think they are being incredibly callous and insensitive. The wounds from 9/11 will live on for a very long time – seared in the memory of many Americans, especially those living at/near Ground Zero and the direct family/friends of the victims. In my humble opinion – this move, seemingly done in a very closed manner will also serve to build the wall between Muslims and non-Muslims a little higher. Let’s say the core purpose really truly is “outreach” to the community – ok fine. Then why have they done so little to educate/inform/outreach to those doubters (or is the media just not covering that?)? This action has shown them to be incredibly callous, stupid, and dimwitted. I wholly support their rights – it is and will be their decision how best to exercise them. There is a reason opinionated folks like me don’t show up at Newt Gingrich rallies – exercising my rights will likely earn me some black eyes, broken bones and my points/opinions will not have resonated with anyone. Which raises my final point – I wonder what concerns there are from a safety standpoint? You push people far enough there is no telling what reaction may be received.

    So go build your center/mosque – it is your right. Just don’t expect a warmer embrace from the rest of us.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I agree wholeheartedly that those behind this project have not done a great job in educating about the purpose of the Cordoba Initiative. A different approach could have gone a long way.

      However, I disagree that their choice of location is callous and insensitive. Why is it insensitive? It seems to me that many find it insensitive due only to phony outrage enflamed by the likes of Gingrich. I’m not saying you fall into this group, but just curious as to why an outreach community center (take the project at its word, for a second here) being built 2 blocks from ground zero is insensitive.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Buck – just my two cents unsupported by fact – but I don’t know that most people feel too terribly “reached out to” by Muslims – for many – the last or only or most lasting outreach experience folks have is watching thousands of people incinerated by Muslims – most of us “get it” that those were extremists and hopefully (hope hope hope) not even remotely representative of that faith/religion. BUT – it simply takes time for a lot of people to “get over it” and see past preconceived prejudices that color our thoughts – some people will never get over it – much the same as entire generation of Americans where never able to forget what the Japanese at Pearl Harbor did – they lived the rest of their lives in complete and utter suspicion because of that one event. I’m not 100% certain, but I don’t think there are Shinto or Buddhist outreach centers a stone’s throw from the Pearl Harbour memorial – if there are any I’d suspect they were not built 10 years post. Like most all other cultures symbols carry very deep and powerful meaning. As a symbol, Ground Zero represents some very fresh wounds for a lot of people. Personally, my exposure to this came not through Gingrich or any other right wing nutjob (and their cackling left-wing detractors) – I simply ran across it high-level in a headline and immediately thought WTF.

        There are so many other places they could have done this. Is two blocks far enough way? I don’t think so. Is ten blocks away far enough? We can go on and on and there may never be a correct answer. But I think you’d acknowledge that to reach Ground Zero, thousands of people will by necessity have to pass by the Center/Mosque.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          How far away is far enough? Great question and one that of course has no answer. No matter where this project was being constructed in lower Manhattan it would be met with the same resistance and villification it currently is.

          I understand how deeply this wound runs, and I can understand and even appreciate peoples’ initial reaction of WTF. But we need to also be able to move beyond that initial reaction. Villifying an entire religion is the same as villifying an entire people (the Japanese) due to the actions of a few – granted this is not a great analogy as the Japanese government itself attacked us as an overt declaration of war, whereas 9/11 was effectuated by a group of radical Islamic fundamentalists (which, incidentally, probably makes it even worse to villify all of Islam for their actions).

          Yes thousands of people will necessarily have to walk directly past this Center. That fact alone could do a lot of good in breaching divides.

    • I have seen some (not much) coverage of the intent behind the opening date for the mosque being the 10th anniversary. Many people infer that it’s a deliberate spiting, a rubbing of our collective noses in our tragedy. The information coming from the outreach center is that they hold themselves (understandably) to be wholly separate from the perpetrators of 9/11 and wish to use the anniversary as a significant date for a re-founding of relations between Islam (true Islam, as they see it) and the West. The media, as you say, really isn’t covering this angle because it’s not nearly as juicy as the “Muslims are taking a victory lap” or the “the right are all racist xenophobes” angles.

      Still, it could have been handled better by the folks at the outreach center.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        For all the money tied up in procuring and building the thing you’d think the PR side of the house could have done a better job.

        • I agree entirely. I base this on absolutely nothing, but I get the sense that they’re trying to handle PR from within the Cordoba entity. That is, individuals without a proper understanding of the American media or our social conventions are calling the shots. What they should be doing is hiring a top flight domestic PR company. If you or I tried to do this in the Middle East, our attempts at making our intentions clear would probably fall flat as well. Customs and cultures are different and if you don’t understand them clearly, you will be misunderstood, vilified, and unable to make your case.

          Then again, I just pulled this out of my ass, but it feels like a likely explanation – some research would probably tell us if it’s correct.

          • Mathius, Ray and Buck,

            Re: “Done a better job with the PR”

            Nonsense, gentlemen!

            When you are faced with intolerant, irrational people, there exists no manner which to “please them”. Americans cut their own arms and pour salt into them all by themselves and are happy to blame everyone else for their pain.

            IMO, if I was in charge of the mosque, I’d politely tell all of them to F-off and then ignore them completely.

            • That wouldn’t be particularly good outreach…

              I think they may be going for the “turn the other cheek” approach..

              • Mathius,

                “Turn the other cheek” is a “F-off” and “ignore” statement.

              • I actually always thought of it as somewhat passive aggressive..

                And Jesus spake unto his followers that when a man shall strike you upon the cheek, you shall offer him your other cheek that he may strike you again. That way he shall feel himself likened unto a total jerk.

            • BF

              Ah yes, so the NO GOVT guy who preaches about people working out their differences among themselves, thinks that one group should just tell the other to F-off.

              So in this NO GOVT society based on common/natural law, nobody need be concerned about how offensive their actions may seem to another. Yet it is offensive behavior that leads to violent reaction.

              So the “civilized” practice of considering the feeling of others has no place in your society. Or does this exception only exist for the Muslims?

              Your consistency seems to be a little inconsistent here.

              • JAC,

                The core basis of a sustainable society is mind your own business.

                The moment you believe I have to pander to your bizarreness is the moment that society begins to unravel itself.

                If you do not like what I do, then don’t do what I do, and don’t bother with me.

                IF I am concerned with your “not bothering with me”, then I may consider your complaint – but otherwise, bug off. You have no business with me so stay away!

                Civilization is NOT based on me having to please you.

              • BF

                See there, we disagree on the core premise.

                The basis of a sustainable “civilized” society is “consideration for those you deal with”.

                Consideration and attempt to meet the needs of others while still meeting yours is an act of a civilized and advanced human being.

              • JAC,

                Politeness greases the wheels, but does not make civilization roll.

                Mind your own business is the energy that makes civilization roll.

              • Bottom Line says:

                One way of being considerate of those you deal with is staying out of their business.
                :)

    • Ray,

      I do think they are being incredibly callous and insensitive

      So you are saying that they shouldn’t build any mosques in New York either? Or the USA? or North America? nor Europe? … because to do so would make them “insensitive”??

      How far is far enough for you, Ray, before they become just people again?

      • I don’t know about “incredibly” insensitive, but I do think it’s a fair charge that they are being insensitive.

        That said, it’s well within their rights to practice the religion of their choice wherever they can legally obtain property to do so. I am unaware of a “right” to not be offended. If such a right existed, I’m sure Rachael Maddow would be off the air by now.

        • Mathius,

          “Taking offense” is as subject a thing as love and is equally irrational.

          • Yup. Your point? If he thinks they’re being insensitive, then who are you to say otherwise?

            • Mathius,

              Irrational statements always justify themselves.

              • Irrational statements always justify themselves. That seems like a pretty irrational statement.. but then, it justifies itself… which makes it true.. so it’s not irrational.. but that doesn’t make sense.. so it’s irrational.. and self justifying… ::Mathius’s head explodes::

              • Mathius,

                A paradox.

                An insane man cannot appear to be sane.

                A sane man can act insane.

                However, an irrational argument can continue as many or much rational statements without any change to the irrational argument. Thus, you may be able to glean many rational statements in the argument and the conclusion still is irrational

                (example: “The sky is blue, and water is blue because it reflects the color of the sky, therefore all Muslims are evil”)

                However, rational argument can never use irrational components, for it would turn the argument instantly into the irrational and fall back to example #1.

                So the sane man can appear insane, but rational arguments can never use irrational components.

              • Mathius,

                From above “continue” was supposed to be “contain”.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          What’s so insensitive about building an outreach center near ground zero to promote cross-cultural understanding?

          This whole thing should be a non-issue from the start. Instead, certain people chose to breed and enflame insenstivity into the whole thing, and now the Center itself is being cast as insensitive for building the center. Very strange in my opinion.

          And I happen to like Rachel Maddow!

          • Both sides are being insenitive. That’s a big part of the problem. We ruffle each others feathers and then are amazed and confused as to why we don’t get along.

            Adding, I like Maddow, too. I was going to go with Beck for the punchline, but considering the audience, I went the other way. Should I have said Olberman?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I used to like Olberman – he’s been annoying lately though.

            • Mathius

              You said: “Both sides are being insenitive. That’s a big part of the problem. We ruffle each others feathers and then are amazed and confused as to why we don’t get along.”

              Well said and to the point I was trying to make. Only much shorter.

              Also notice that the “sides” doing all the screaming don’t seem to include the guy/group who actually proposed the building.

              It is the “self” appointed righteous supporters. Why? Perhaps just because the “other side” came out against it?

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @Flag – I don’t think I ever suggested they were not people. Maybe they could have asked around a bit to see how folks would feel about having a mosque so close to such a place eh? They need not win all hearts and minds, but why pour salt in the wound?

        • Ray,

          Do to as you think they should have would have said:

          “We are embarrassed by others who have used our religion for evil reasons.”

          They are not embarrassed by others.

          They are not embarrassed by their religion.

          They have done nothing wrong to be ashamed, nor nothing that requires permission.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @Flag – you are correct sir – “they have done nothing wrong to be ashamed, nor nothing that requires permission”.

            but it is not nor shall it be that simple is it?

            Forcing acceptance does not acceptance grant

            Perception changed by force is only temporary and likely hardens the sourcing thoughts/feelings/emotions/facts that built the perception to begin with.

            There was an easier way to do this. “They” have chosen not to.

            • Ray,

              How are they forcing acceptance? How many guns are they using?

              Perception is everything – and begging would display culpability to evil

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Since when does force require weapons?

                No one is suggesting begging – certainly I am not

                Being diplomatic does not require admitting guilt to something one is not guilty of

              • Ray,

                It needs to be physical to be force – Jedi training notwithstanding.

                And, it would be an admission that their religion is guilty.

                You would not demand a Christian church make the same effort – why? – if it wasn’t the religion that was the “problem”.

                So acting as if it was a problem would make it the problem

  29. DOC chimes in on the Mosque and other stuff you crazies on the right will enjoy. The more I try and censor the guy, the more crazy he gets. Today he picks on me, my car, my beloved new york state buffalo bills, puerto rico, puerto ricans and (oh, boy) he goes a bit far with Mrs. Fredo …

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2010/08/stella-wolfpack-piece-of-garbage-and.html

  30. Buck the Wala

    I thought it time to change the subject. Thought you would find this interesting Buck.

    Notice when the Govt says it stopped tracking these costs and/or questioning the bills. This was the direct result of the Algorians. Thanks to those folks they put in the legal system. You know, like the ones Bush put in the system, who we now discount because he was a Republican Activist.

    Activist ‘Green’ Lawyers Billing U.S. Millions in Fraudulent Attorney Fees

    by Richard Pollock

    Without any oversight, accounting, or transparency, environmental activist groups have surreptitiously received at least $37 million from the federal government for questionable “attorney fees.” The lawsuits they received compensation for had nothing to do with environmental protection or improvement.

    The activist groups have generated huge revenue streams via the obscure Equal Access to Justice Act. Congressional sources claim the groups are billing for “cookie cutter” lawsuits — they file the same petitions to multiple agencies on procedural grounds, and under the Act, they file for attorney fees even if they do not win the case. Since 1995, the federal government has neither tracked nor accounted for any of these attorney fee payments.

    Nine national environmental activist groups alone have filed more than 3,300 suits, every single one seeking attorney fees. The groups have also charged as much as $650 per hour (a federal statutory cap usually limits attorney fees to $125 per hour).

    In well over half of the cases, there was no court judgment in the environmental groups’ favor. In all cases, whether there was any possible environmental benefit from the litigation is highly questionable. Most cases were simply based upon an alleged failure to comply with a deadline or to follow a procedure.

    A whistleblower who was employed for 30 years by the U.S. Forest Service told Pajamas Media:

    Some organizations have built a business doing this and attacking the agencies on process, and then getting “reimbursed.”

    This week a bipartisan group of congressional members introduced legislation to end the secrecy of the payments and force the government to open up the records to show exactly how much has been paid to the groups and the questionable attorney fees. The legislation was sponsored by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming), Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD), and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah).

    Congressional sources have said the disclosure was necessary to determine the extent of fraud and abuse. The $37 million is considered only a fraction of what has been paid out to the activist groups.

    “For too long, taxpayers have unwittingly served as the financiers of the environmental litigation industry,” Rep. Bishop, who also is the chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, said.

    Rep. Herseth Sandlin remarked: “Simply put, this legislation is about ensuring good and open government.”

    “It’s time to shine some light [on the program],” explained Rep. Lummis, who said the groups have created an industry that “supports their ‘stop everything’ agenda.”

    The $37 million figure is considered low. It includes less than a dozen groups and only accounts for cases in 19 states and the District of Columbia. There are hundreds of eco-activist groups in the United States.

    According to the whistleblower who served in the U.S. Forest Service, environmental activist groups typically file identical lawsuits to multiple agencies on procedural grounds, such as a missed deadline.

    The identity of the huge revenue stream was established by the Western Legacy Alliance (“WLA”), along with Wyoming-based attorney Karen Budd-Falen. Western Legacy Alliance was founded in 2008 by ranchers and resource providers who raise beef and lamb on public lands of the West. What they found was astounding.

    Examining court records in 19 states and in the District of Columbia, the total amount paid to less than a dozen environmental groups exceeded $37 million. “This is just the tip of the iceberg,” says Budd-Falen. “We believe when the curtain is raised we’ll be talking about radical environmental groups bilking the taxpayer for hundreds of millions of dollars, all allegedly for ‘reimbursement for attorney fees.’ And what is even more maddening is that these groups are claiming that they are protecting the environment with all this litigation when not one dime of this money goes to projects that impact anything on-the-ground related to the environment. It just goes to more litigation to get more attorney fees to file more litigation.”

    The whistleblower, speaking anonymously, told Pajamas Media the payments to the activists groups were “quite astronomical.” The former government agent was a line officer in a high-ranking position. That whistleblower added that the filings by the radical groups often were “canned” petitions that contained little research. In this way, environmental groups could pepper government agencies with a flood of lawsuits without much work.

    “They will send a myriad of lawsuits across the bow to try to stop a number of projects or programs and then they hopefully will score with one or two,” he said. He saw a lot of the activist lawsuit filings because he had been attached both to the Forest Service’s Washington headquarters and to its field offices. “Then they will send in bills that are quite frankly, quite astronomical compared to the actual work they had to do to file an actual lawsuit. Many of the lawsuits are filed under a lot of canned material, yet the hours and rates that they charge were quite high.”

    Here is a sampling of the number of assembly line “lawsuits” filed between 2000 and 2009 that have been painstakingly identified by the Western Legacy Alliance and Budd-Falen. Activist group Western Watersheds Project filed 91 lawsuits in the federal district courts; Forest Guardians (now known as WildEarth Guardians) filed 180 lawsuits; the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed at 409 suits; the Wilderness Society filed 149 lawsuits; the National Wildlife Federation filed 427 lawsuits; and the Sierra Club filed 983 lawsuits. These numbers do not include administrative appeals or notices of intent to sue.

    Even local or regional environmental groups have figured out ways to turn on the taxpayer spigot. WLA found the Idaho Conservation League filed 72 lawsuits and the Oregon Natural Desert Association filed 50. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance filed 88 lawsuits. At last count, just eight local groups in nine Western states have filed nearly 1,600 lawsuits against the federal government.

    On the national level, over the last decade nine national environmental groups have filed 3,300 cases against the federal government. As is usual, the vast majority of the cases deal with the alleged procedural failings of federal agencies, not with substance or science.

    Said the Forest Service officer: “A lot of times they will sue on process, and not on substance. And substance means what difference does it mean for the resource, or what’s going in on the ground? A lot of times, it will be a process lawsuit and a lot of times the agency either missed something. … The bottom line is many, many times, when you look at the results on the ground, it [the environmental group winning the litigation] would have made very little difference.”

    Karen Budd-Falen said that the cases amounted to a ripoff of taxpayers and rewarded radical groups with millions of dollars. “Although those of us involved in protecting property rights and land use in the West were aware that radical groups were getting exorbitant fees simply be filing litigation against the government, we had no idea of the magnitude of the problem.”

    Budd-Falen highlighted one case that typifies the gravy train that has flowed to environmental groups. In 2009, the Earthjustice Legal Foundation represented the Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and the Vermont Natural Resources Council in a case dealing with the process used by the Forest Service to adopt some regulations. The Earthjustice Legal Foundation filed for attorney fees for that single case that took only one year and three months to complete.

    The same suit was filed by the Western Environmental Law Center on behalf of other environmental groups. The seven total attorneys who worked on the case billed the federal government $479,242. They charged between $300 to $650 per hour, far above the statuary federal cap of $125. The case was resolved at the district court level and the federal government did not appeal.

    The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) also files a significant amount of litigation and receives lucrative attorney fees. In Washington State Federal District Court alone, CBD received attorney fees totaling $941,000 for only six cases. In the District of Columbia, it received more than $1 million in fees.

    Fourteen groups identified as recipients of the Act’s funding are: the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Colorado Environmental Coalition, Forest Guardians, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Western Watersheds Project, Defenders of Wildlife, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, WildEarth, Oregon Natural Desert Association, Oregon Wild, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and Wyoming Outdoor Council.

    One of the fourteen groups, the Center for Biological Diversity, called the two Republicans and one Democrat “rabid right-wingers” and said that the charges of abuse was “patently false and patently ridiculous,” according to Bill Snape, senior council for CBD.

    Another study from Virginia Tech University discovered similar findings as a result of a comprehensive Freedom of Information Act request to five federal agencies. The Virginia Tech study also revealed that two of the agencies could provide absolutely no data on the Act’s payments.

    Environmental organizations are among the most financially prosperous non-profits in the country. The Sierra Club alone in 2007 reported its total worth as $56.6 million. According to 2007 Internal Revenue Service records, the top ten environmental presidents receive as much as a half million dollars a year in annual compensation. Fred Krupp, the president of the Environmental Defense Fund, Inc reported $492,000 in executive compensation in 2007. The top ten highest grossing environmental executives all received at least $308,000 in compensation.

    Environmental activist groups also have been among the most influential in throwing around political money. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, between 2000 and this year activist environmental political action committees have given $3.4 million in campaign contributions to candidates for federal office. About 87% of the money went to Democrats.

    Richard Pollock is the Washington, D.C., editor for Pajamas Media and the Washington bureau chief of PJTV.

  31. Wow, I am really feeling sad today. We go from people who condemn the whole Muslam religion without realizing that by doing so they endanger the freedoms of all religions, not to mention hurting actual people-then we have the other extreme that no matter the argument, no matter if they agree that the arguments are reasonable they still reduce the whole thing down to bigotry and hatred. We are not the United States anymore people-not sure what we are other than Gone-I think this reality deserves some grieving-think I’ll go do so-V out

    • V.H.

      The day the People no longer believed in the American philosophy of “Mind your own business” was the day that the USA began dissolving.

      So, now you have Progressives minding YOUR business, you have anon-Muslims minding Muslims business, you have the Christian right minding EVERYONE’s business, etc. and no one is minding their own.

      But it is reversible. Be the change you want to see in the world

      • Some are grateful the US doesn’t always “Mind it’s own business”.

        http://www.nebraskaczechs.org/City%20of%20Pilsen/City%20of%20Pilsen,CR.htm

          • Black Flag!!!!!!!!!!!

            Was that necessary to post that on this particular thread. GEEZ.

            • Anita,

              YES

              That is what happens when a nation is out of control with hubris and power …exampled by BOTH the victim of the nuke and the one who used it.

              Japan’s hubris utterly destroyed their nation and risked their own genocide.

              America’s hubris rose out of that weapon and the consequence of that hubirs will utterly destroy this nation and risk Western civilization.

        • LOI,

          Man, you opened a can of whoop-butt worms!

          The reason Pilsen “needed rescue” from Americans was because Americans butted their noses into a European war for its own geopolitical gain.

          Had the US stayed out of WW1, the European powers would have achieved their own peace treaty and left -more or less- Europe intact – with no “Lenin” running around a defeated Russia.

          But with the US entry -for the purpose of geopolitical influence- created the conditions for the Communists and the Fascists to rise out of Europe.

          Yep, Pilsen needed rescue by the very scourge that inflicted them…

          • OR THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            ANITA OUT

          • An interesting perspective on history. My thoughts are that if Wilson had followed the 14 points developed by a study group he had started, their might have been no WW2. Wilson’s ego and his abuse of power are significant factors.

            And now to counter your earlier horror show, how about I post a full Holocaust slideshow? I think not, will stick to words and logic with a hint of humor(you seem cranky today, having trouble getting the old flagpole up?)

            • LOI,

              Holocaust was a direct consequence of the hubris of America creating the conditions for it.

              Again, had America not gone to WW1, the Holocaust would be remember as the expulsion of the Jews out of Russia and how (primarily) it was the Polish and German people who accepted them into their cultures.

              • the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored extermination by Nazi Germany.[4] The genocide of these six million people was a genocide of two-thirds of the population of nine million Jews who had resided in Europe before the Holocaust.[5]

                Some scholars maintain that the definition of the Holocaust should also include the Nazis’ systematic murder of millions of people in other groups, including ethnic Poles, Romani, Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war, people with disabilities, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other political and religious opponents.[6] By this definition, the total number of Holocaust victims would be between 11 million and 17 million people.[7]

                The persecution and genocide were carried out in stages. Legislation to remove the Jews from civil society was enacted years before the outbreak of World War II. Concentration camps were established in which inmates were used as slave labor until they died of exhaustion or disease. Where the Third Reich conquered new territory in eastern Europe, specialized units called Einsatzgruppen murdered Jews and political opponents in mass shootings. Jews and Romani were confined in overcrowded ghettos before being transported by freight train to extermination camps where, if they survived the journey, the majority of them were systematically killed in gas chambers. Every arm of Nazi Germany’s bureaucracy was involved in the logistics of the mass murder, turning the country into what one Holocaust scholar has called “a genocidal state”.[8] Opinions differ on how much the civilian German population knew of the government conspiracy against the Jewish population. Most historians claim that the civilian population was not aware of the atrocities that happened in the camps. Robert Gellately however claims that the German government openly announced the conspiracy through the media, and that the German people were aware of every aspect of the conspiracy, except for the use of gas chambers.

                (And you blame America, does that include Bush? How does that square with your philosophy of not initiating violence? Is the party that first commits an act of violence not usually in thew wrong?)

              • LOI

                A very large number of German Jews became inhabitants (and later citizens) of Prussia as a result of the partitions of Poland in 1772-1795. In 1812 Prussia granted something close to full citizenship to its Jewish population and acquired an international reputation for toleration.

      • You are right BF. But you need to go further. You left out the Atheists. They need to mind their own business. You need to include the media. These two groups mixed in with the radicals of all sects thrown all together in a big pot create a terrible witch’s brew. It is that brew which is poisoning everything. It is that brew that drives the debate. It is that brew that gets the airtime. I’m totally with VH in her grieving. Not only grief but it’s downright scary. We all have children. If you don’t now is not the time to consider bringing them into the world. And let’s not think of it as an American issue. It’s happening all around the world. It’s greed plain and simple.

        It’s time for everyone to let their spiritual side rise up. No matter your belief. Unless you are the devil himself spirituality never hurt anyone. Give it a chance once again to be the light of your life and lead by example. That’s what it all comes down to for me.

  32. I was doing a little “looking back in time” on this mosque issue and came across the following commentary on a blog post. I thought you all might be interested in this fellows perspective.

    “Ahmad Razali Al Bakish, on December 16, 2009 at 11:59 PM Said:

    Before you even questioned where the money came from, pls study his characters as well as his networks and connections. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is no ordinary imam. He is the descendants of the Great Prophet Mohammed (peace of God be upon him).

    Spend 5 minutes next to him without saying a word and you will feel that your spirituality has been enlightened…even for a while. He is the one of the leading Islamic scholars in the world tday that has the ability to communicate the real message of Islam in the simplest form. It wld be a great loss not only to the Muslims but in particular to the Americans if his knowledge and talent were not used to bridge the gap between Muslim and the West.

    Having said that, it is of no surprise that leaders and CEO’s around the world wld like to be associated with his work whether openly or discreetly. In his book, What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America, he made a very controversial statement by saying that America is one of the countries in the world today that adhere to the principles of Islamic governance based on the ideals and aspirations of of its founding fathers. if one were to go further into his work, one would realized the importance and significance of his work not only to the Muslim community in America, but throughout the world and also not only for muslims world at large but also to the non muslims throughout the world.

    If there are no other Muslims in the world for America to trust upon, he is the one that none should distrust. So, do not be paranoid for he is here to help mend broken ties and heal the deep divide between us and importantly within us.

    As for the funds that he has gathered, a man of his stature cld raise any amount for his noble cause in a very short time.”

    • From page 111 of Feisal Abdul Rauf’s book, “What’s Right with Islam”

      “It also would not be a violation of church-state separation to have a subsidiary entity within the judiciary that employs religious jurists from diverse religious backgrounds to comment on the compliance of certain decisions with their religious views and to provide guidance to their religious communities on how kosher or Shariah compliant these decisions are. ‘ – Feisal Abdul Rauf

      • Kathy

        Hee, hee, hee!

        Good one my dear.

        And thus my point, that this entire subject deserves open and serious discussion.

        I will have to credit Mr. Rauf for his willingness to facilitate or participate in such a discussion.

        I wonder what he says the “people” are supposed to do when this “religious judiciary” determines the law does not comply with their standards.

  33. How old do we all feel after this?

    http://www.beloit.edu/mindset/2014.php

    Beloit, Wis. – Born when Ross Perot was warning about a giant sucking sound and Bill Clinton was apologizing for pain in his marriage, members of this fall’s entering college class of 2014 have emerged as a post-email generation for whom the digital world is routine and technology is just too slow.

    Each August since 1998, Beloit College has released the Beloit College Mindset List. It provides a look at the cultural touchstones that shape the lives of students entering college this fall. The creation of Beloit’s Keefer Professor of the Humanities Tom McBride and former Public Affairs Director Ron Nief, it was originally created as a reminder to faculty to be aware of dated references, and quickly became a catalog of the rapidly changing worldview of each new generation. The Mindset List website at http://www.beloit.edu/mindset, the Mediasite webcast and its Facebook page receive more than 400,000 hits annually.

    The class of 2014 has never found Korean-made cars unusual on the Interstate and five hundred cable channels, of which they will watch a handful, have always been the norm. Since “digital” has always been in the cultural DNA, they’ve never written in cursive and with cell phones to tell them the time, there is no need for a wrist watch. Dirty Harry (who’s that?) is to them a great Hollywood director. The America they have inherited is one of soaring American trade and budget deficits; Russia has presumably never aimed nukes at the United States and China has always posed an economic threat.

    Nonetheless, they plan to enjoy college. The males among them are likely to be a minority. They will be armed with iPhones and BlackBerries, on which making a phone call will be only one of many, many functions they will perform. They will now be awash with a computerized technology that will not distinguish information and knowledge. So it will be up to their professors to help them. A generation accustomed to instant access will need to acquire the patience of scholarship. They will discover how to research information in books and journals and not just on-line. Their professors, who might be tempted to think that they are hip enough and therefore ready and relevant to teach the new generation, might remember that Kurt Cobain is now on the classic oldies station. The college class of 2014 reminds us, once again, that a generation comes and goes in the blink of our eyes, which are, like the rest of us, getting older and older.

    ——————————————————————————–
    The Beloit College Mindset List for the Class of 2014

    Most students entering college for the first time this fall—the Class of 2014—were born in 1992.
    For these students, Benny Hill, Sam Kinison, Sam Walton, Bert Parks and Tony Perkins have always been dead.

    1. Few in the class know how to write in cursive.

    2. Email is just too slow, and they seldom if ever use snail mail.

    3. “Go West, Young College Grad” has always implied “and don’t stop until you get to Asia…and learn Chinese along the way.”

    4. Al Gore has always been animated.

    5. Los Angelinos have always been trying to get along.

    6. Buffy has always been meeting her obligations to hunt down Lothos and the other blood-suckers at Hemery High.

    7. “Caramel macchiato” and “venti half-caf vanilla latte” have always been street corner lingo.

    8. With increasing numbers of ramps, Braille signs, and handicapped parking spaces, the world has always been trying harder to accommodate people with disabilities.

    9. Had it remained operational, the villainous computer HAL could be their college classmate this fall, but they have a better chance of running into Miley Cyrus’s folks on Parents’ Weekend.

    10. A quarter of the class has at least one immigrant parent, and the immigration debate is not a big priority…unless it involves “real” aliens from another planet.

    11. John McEnroe has never played professional tennis.

    12. Clint Eastwood is better known as a sensitive director than as Dirty Harry.

    13. Parents and teachers feared that Beavis and Butt-head might be the voice of a lost generation.

    14. Doctor Kevorkian has never been licensed to practice medicine.

    15. Colorful lapel ribbons have always been worn to indicate support for a cause.

    16. Korean cars have always been a staple on American highways.

    17. Trading Chocolate the Moose for Patti the Platypus helped build their Beanie Baby collection.

    18. Fergie is a pop singer, not a princess.

    19. They never twisted the coiled handset wire aimlessly around their wrists while chatting on the phone.

    20. DNA fingerprinting and maps of the human genome have always existed.

    21. Woody Allen, whose heart has wanted what it wanted, has always been with Soon-Yi Previn.

    22. Cross-burning has always been deemed protected speech.

    23. Leasing has always allowed the folks to upgrade their tastes in cars.

    24. “Cop Killer” by rapper Ice-T has never been available on a recording.

    25. Leno and Letterman have always been trading insults on opposing networks.

    26. Unless they found one in their grandparents’ closet, they have never seen a carousel of Kodachrome slides.

    27. Computers have never lacked a CD-ROM disk drive.

    28. They’ve never recognized that pointing to their wrists was a request for the time of day.

    29. Reggie Jackson has always been enshrined in Cooperstown.

    30. “Viewer Discretion” has always been an available warning on TV shows.

    31. The first computer they probably touched was an Apple II; it is now in a museum.

    32. Czechoslovakia has never existed.

    33. Second-hand smoke has always been an official carcinogen.

    34. “Assisted Living” has always been replacing nursing homes, while Hospice has always been an alternative to hospitals.

    35. Once they got through security, going to the airport has always resembled going to the mall.

    36. Adhesive strips have always been available in varying skin tones.

    37. Whatever their parents may have thought about the year they were born, Queen Elizabeth declared it an “Annus Horribilis.”

    38. Bud Selig has always been the Commissioner of Major League Baseball.

    39. Pizza jockeys from Domino’s have never killed themselves to get your pizza there in under 30 minutes.

    40. There have always been HIV positive athletes in the Olympics.

    41. American companies have always done business in Vietnam.

    42. Potato has always ended in an “e” in New Jersey per vice presidential edict.

    43. Russians and Americans have always been living together in space.

    44. The dominance of television news by the three networks passed while they were still in their cribs.

    45. They have always had a chance to do community service with local and federal programs to earn money for college.

    46. Nirvana is on the classic oldies station.

    47. Children have always been trying to divorce their parents.

    48. Someone has always gotten married in space.

    49. While they were babbling in strollers, there was already a female Poet Laureate of the United States.

    50. Toothpaste tubes have always stood up on their caps.

    51. Food has always been irradiated.

    52. There have always been women priests in the Anglican Church.

    53. J.R. Ewing has always been dead and gone. Hasn’t he?

    54. The historic bridge at Mostar in Bosnia has always been a copy.

    55. Rock bands have always played at presidential inaugural parties.

    56. They may have assumed that parents’ complaints about Black Monday had to do with punk rockers from L.A., not Wall Street.

    57. A purple dinosaur has always supplanted Barney Google and Barney Fife.

    58. Beethoven has always been a dog.

    59. By the time their folks might have noticed Coca Cola’s new Tab Clear, it was gone.

    60. Walmart has never sold handguns over the counter in the lower 48.

    61. Presidential appointees have always been required to be more precise about paying their nannies’ withholding tax, or else.

    62. Having hundreds of cable channels but nothing to watch has always been routine.

    63. Their parents’ favorite TV sitcoms have always been showing up as movies.

    64. The U.S, Canada, and Mexico have always agreed to trade freely.

    65. They first met Michelangelo when he was just a computer virus.

    66. Galileo is forgiven and welcome back into the Roman Catholic Church.

    67. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has always sat on the Supreme Court.

    68. They have never worried about a Russian missile strike on the U.S.

    69. The Post Office has always been going broke.

    70. The artist formerly known as Snoop Doggy Dogg has always been rapping.

    71. The nation has never approved of the job Congress is doing.

    72. One way or another, “It’s the economy, stupid” and always has been.

    73. Silicone-gel breast implants have always been regulated.

    74. They’ve always been able to blast off with the Sci-Fi Channel.

    75. Honda has always been a major competitor on Memorial Day at Indianapolis

  34. I was wondering if anyone knew the proposed floorplan for this new community center? Will they have special rooms for whipping and stoning? A fully trained medical staff, equipped with mirrors or camera’s to perform genital surgery on devout, minor girls(helps their marriage prospects, you wouldn’t want a 16 yr old maid daughter).

    Could they get by with one execution room? If I were an apostate, I might object to being executed in the same room as homosexuals.:lol:

    Examples of Shariah Law include the following: (taken from the authoritative source Reliance of the Traveller, The Sacred Manual of Islamic Law.)

    * Requirement of women to obtain permission from husbands for daily freedoms
    * Beating of disobedient woman and girls;
    * Execution of homosexuals;
    * Engagement of polygamy and forced child marriages;
    * Requirement of the testimony of four male witnesses to prove rape;
    * Stoning of adulteresses;
    * Lashing of adulterers;
    * Amputation of body for criminal offenses;
    * Female genital mutilation;
    * Capital punishment for those who slander or insult Islam;
    * Execution of apostates, or those that leave the religion of Islam
    * Inferior status for all non-Muslims, known as Dhimmitude.
    * Concept of Taquiyya: A Muslim may lie or deceive others to advance the cause of Islam.

    Under Shariah, a Muslim is “devout” if he follows every aspect of Shariah. There is no ability to pick and choose; it is an all-or-none package according to Shariah Scholars.

    • And just who, associated with this initiative, is advocating for Sharia law within the US?

      And, even if they were, what are the odds they’d succeed in replacing the current Cristian theocratic system of laws with Muslim theocratic system of laws when Muslims are outnumbered 144:1?

      • Matt, I was asking about the floorplan! Allright, lets talk about what you want.

        Faisal Abdul Rauf stated to the popular Islamic media Hadiyul-Islam (www.hadielislam.com) on May 26th, 2010 in an article by Sa’da Abdul Maksoud. In it he states that an Islamic state can be established regardless of the government being a kingdom or democracy. In another article titled “I do not believe in religious dialogue” should alarm the ardent skeptic on the mindset of the Islamic visionary who advocates establishing Islamic lobbies throughout the West.

        He also admitted that “[In the West] they have separation of church and state, this of course does not exist in any Muslim country. About 99% refuse to separate religion from state and many call for establishing an Islamic Caliphate.”

        And regarding religious dialogue Abdul-Rauf stated “this phrase is inaccurate. Religious dialogue as customary understood is a set of events with discussions in large hotels that result in nothing. Religions do not dialogue and dialogue is not present in the attitudes of the followers regardless of being Muslim or Christian. The image of Muslims in the West is complex which needs to be remedied.” And when his view regarding an Islamic state he responded that “throughout my discussions with contemporary Muslim theologians that an Islamic state can be established in more then just in a single form or mold. It can be established through a kingdom or a democracy.

        The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of Shariah that are required to govern.

  35. A rebuilt WTC might have softened the controversy
    James V. Capua, American Thinker

    Opponents of what is being called the “Ground Zero Mosque” are now concentrating their fire on President Obama, criticizing his failure to make a firm moral judgment about the appropriateness of building the Cordoba Cultural Center and Natatorium or whatever it is called. Instead, the skittish President takes refuge in tepid legalisms, the irony of his and his allies’ newfound reverence for the Constitution being matched only by their sudden appreciation for the value of religious communities to civil society. But in this case the diagnosis of moral dystrophy should extend to many more than the President.

    If a soaring monument to the human spirit, or a stark and sobering inducement to remember in stone and glass were already in place on the site of the World Trade Center, this dispute might not even be taking place. But, as it is the Cordoba Cultural Center derives much of its sting for Americans from the fact that it competes with nothing, with an ugly hole in the ground, or in some people’s eyes even worse than nothing, with a monument by default to the killers, and a monument by a decade of fruitless process and hypersensitivity to our collective inability to act.

    The New York politicians and Port Authority officials failed because they could not make choices among the impossible demands of all of the groups, including victims’ families, who have placed their own material and psychic needs ahead of the compelling national interest to rebuild in the only way consistent with the American character-bigger, better, more confidently, with an appropriate nod to the past, but an optimistic eye to the future. If we had accomplished that in these ten years, we’d need fear no competing structure in the vicinity.

    The politicians, the cultural relativists and the 9/11 victimization perpetrators continue the cacophony of stalemate and hypocrisy, effectively conniving in the very deception and transparent shiftiness of the Cordoba Initiative organizers. Our latest wrangling with each other over the World Trade Center site merely confirms the contempt our ten-year failure has earned from them.

    As a better President than Obama said, “It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us.” Rebuild, rededicate, and let the rich life of a great city be our answer to those whose greatest aspiration is spreading fear, death and destruction.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Interesting – so this writer believes that respect for religious freedom is a ‘tepid legalism’…

    • Wish I could take credit but I wouldn’t know how to make the technology work.

      Should have been LEARN AYN RAND.

      But the extra letter may have taken two more months.

  36. You’ve Lost America, Mr. Obama
    By Arnold Ahlert

    I was “one incident too early.” On November 5, 2009 I wrote “Barack Obama’s presidency is effectively over. Strong words? Ask yourself this: what other president of the United States would have spent almost three minutes speaking at the Dept. of Interior before getting around to mentioning the fact that twelve soldiers had been killed, and thirty one wounded in a massacre at Fort Hood in Texas?”

    Unfortunately, with a complicit media, most Americans have let this travesty slide down the memory hole. Thankfully, like he has with so many other unpopular positions, Barack Hussein Obama has “doubled down:” His support of the Ground Zero mosque is game, set, match.

    As I wrote in my previous column, the true intentions of the mosque builders were revealed when they turned down NY Governor David Patterson’s offer of state land in return for re-locating the mosque away from Ground Zero. They refused. That this “fact” is seemingly irrelevant to Obama speaks volumes
    .
    It is worth remembering this is the same Obama who belittled ordinary Americans for “clinging” to religion. I guess Muslims “clinging” to a location that infuriates the overwhelming majority of Americans is perfectly fine, even after it has been revealed for the rank provocative plan it truly is.

    Ordinary Americans? They recognize a self-aggrandizing, holier-than-thou phony when they see one. They aren’t fooled by Obama who says that, “Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground”–only seconds before he reveals the total hollowness of that statement by saying he’s fine with a mosque on top of it.

    Some one must have told Mr. Obama it wasn’t well received. On Saturday, he issued a “clarifying” statement: he wasn’t commenting on the “wisdom” of putting a mosque in a particular location, but on the “right people have that dates back to our founding.”

    Baloney. Reasonable Americans aren’t demanding anything remotely resembling a ban on Islam or the ability of its adherents to worship as they please. They’re saying show some respect for American sensibilities, and don’t build a mosque adjacent to the place where a national tragedy took place–one perpetrated in the name of Islam.
    I have tremendous respect for the office of the presidency. That respect has gotten me and doubtless a lot of other Americans through some pretty tough times. And as much as I’ve disliked some of the people who’ve occupied that office, I’ve always taken comfort in the fact that, when push comes to shove, every one of those men, irrespective of political ideology, had America’s best interests at heart. No longer! For the first time in our nation’s history, we have an alien in the White House.

    And that doesn’t mean what some of you might think. For the purposes of this particular column, the “birther debate” is irrelevant. What I’m talking about is a man completely divorced from the American ethos. A man who is utterly clueless about what most Americans want, think or feel. Obama is the first president of the United States on public record with the idea that American exceptionalism is nothing more than one item on a laundry list of national exceptionalisms–none better or worse than any other.

    This man will only take America’s side–after he’s concluded that it doesn’t conflict with his larger worldview.
    Sadly, we’ve reached a point where most Americans don’t expect anything different. And why should they? Here is Obama up to his neck in meaningful associations with card-carrying members of the Hate America crowd–from boyhood mentor, communist Frank Marshall, and racist preacher, Jeremiah Wright, to Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn, and other rabid leftists [Cloward & Piven]. Obama is a man who has stacked his administration with a roster of radicals dedicated to the idea that America is a nation of unrepentant bigots, racists and other low-lifes who must be whipped into “progressive” shape. Obama is a man who learned–and taught–the “Alinsky Method,” a blueprint for the radical re-organization of America.

    Why has Obama doggedly kept entire parts of his life, from his early college years straight through law school, secret from public view? You bet the farm it’s because any paper trail from those years would reveal Obama to be the Marxist/socialist radical that occasionally breaches the “teleprompted” facade he has so carefully erected.
    Last Friday, his mask slipped once again. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to point a comment directly towards the Cordoba House builders explaining that, while freedom of religion is a sacred American value, their refusal to accept an alternative site on state land offered by the governor is very troubling. He could have called their bluff and said he stands with the overwhelming majority of Americans who find such a refusal appalling. He could have said that “cultural sensitivity” is a two-way street, and that it is about time self-professed “moderate Muslims” demonstrated their moderation.

    But he didn’t. And he didn’t because Obama is a “citizen of the world,” the idea of “putting America first” requires considerable effort from him. Quite frankly, this is astounding. There is no other position in government where the idea of being “reflexively American” is more important. There is no other man in the country with the unfettered power to put American men and women in harm’s way. That fact alone requires unstinting loyalty to our nation, and an unbridled sense of patriotism.

    Is that what Americans see when they look at Barack Obama? Or do they see a narcissistic, serial apologizer, a split-the-difference-with-our-enemies appeaser who golfs and parties–while America burns?
    Obama, along with his lap-dog media [5th Column] supporters, will continue to tell Americans that their anger and disgust has little or nothing to do with the shortcomings of Barack Obama. Everything wrong with the country is “someone else’s fault,” be it “racist” tea partiers, “fat cat” bankers, “greedy” doctors, “irresponsible” corporations, Republicans, or their favorite whipping boy, George W. Bush.

    Sorry Obama, no sale. You’ve done a grand job of alienating the majority of Americans all by yourself. And you know it too, or you wouldn’t have “clarified” your position on the Ground Zero mosque twenty four hours after the “real you” revealed itself.

    Perhaps someday we’ll have someone in the Oval Office with a more jaundiced view of America than you. I hope I never live to see it. And I fervently hope Americans remember exactly who you are when 2012 rolls around. We can probably muddle through two more years with a charlatan in the White House.
    Heaven help America if it’s six.

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0810/ahlert081610.php3

  37. Black Flag

    you said; “JAC,

    The problem I see is that you are framing the actions of men to be caused by the religion they believe”

    That is not what I am doing. I was asking a simple set of questions designed to identify what a person sees as their core values. How do they rank those values.

    I think it would be interesting to see if differences occur and if so among which groups the answers are similar or different.

    Nothing more and nothing less.

  38. Man Who Hit ‘Shot Heard ‘Round The World’ Dead

    OK SUFA fans.

    How many of you know who this is without doing the old Google search? Name please.
    :)

    • Some baseball player who died and was like 86 years old and hit an “important” HR in the mid 50′s! Thomsen maybe? I had not heard of him, but RIP sir.

  39. Okay, I am just a little late on things here as I have been quite busy elsewhere.

    Freedom of religion is not the issue on this thing. As most of you already know I do not consider Islam a religion, but rather a cult – however I will not disturb your beliefs in this response so will point out the obvious rather than beat this horse into the ground.

    If you want to build this mosque within two blocks from ground zero, then you must allow the Shinto Buddhists to build a temple at Pearl Harbor, and also for the United States to build a shrine to the glory of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Those innocent folks who died at the hands of followers of Islam for what they could term as Islams sake would be dishonored by this mosque. It is simply an insult heaped upon injury to their families and loved ones. Just as insane as Nancy Pelosi’s call for an investigation into those who oppose the building of this mosque.

    Special note to USW – I do not believe that it is a local issue, no matter what you think. I believe that this is a national issue, as this nation was attacked that day and not just the city of new york or just the world trade center.

    There, now you have my two cents worth – but due to hyperinflation caused by the fed buying their own debt these two cents are continuously growing beyond the trillion dollar mark . . . . .

    • G.A. Rowe

      you want to build this mosque within two blocks from ground zero, then you must allow the Shinto Buddhists to build a temple at Pearl Harbor, and also for the United States to build a shrine to the glory of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      One, Buddhists did not bomb Pearl Harbor. Buddhists are, by tradition, non-violent.
      ( The Noble Path
      1. dṛṣṭi (ditthi): viewing reality as it is, not just as it appears to be.
      2. saṃkalpa (sankappa): intention of renunciation, freedom and harmlessness.
      3. vāc (vāca): speaking in a truthful and non-hurtful way
      4. karman (kammanta): acting in a non-harmful way
      5. ājīvana (ājīva): a non-harmful livelihood
      6. vyāyāma (vāyāma): making an effort to improve
      7. smṛti (sati): awareness to see things for what they are with clear consciousness, being aware of the present reality within oneself, without any craving or aversion
      8. samādhi (samādhi): correct meditation or concentration, explained as the first four jhānas
      )

      Islam did not attack the World Trade towers.

      However, the USA did bomb Hiroshima.

      You highlight precisely the mindset I challenge – government slaughters and you champion it, but you fear people who pray and demonize them.

    • GA –
      The ones who attacked the WTC were not only attacking this whole nation, but the concept of freedom itself. Not that we are the shining light of freedom anymore, but we still have a lot more than the average middle eastern theocracy. They attacked the center of capitalism, going after the economics and a core representation of trade and the free market.

      How did we respond? We allowed our freedom to be taken away. We let the government pass and enact the “homeland security” laws and so forth. Score 1 for the enemies of freedom.

      Now, a group that may or may not be associated with those same fanatics wants to do something that is much more peaceful, but that could be considered a psychological attack on the US once again. And what are you proposing we do? Take away more freedom by blocking the attack. Homeland security was designed to keep us safer, and it may have. But safety at that price disgusts me.

      Patrick Henry did not say give me liberty as long as its safe. He did not say give me liberty as long as no one does anything to insult or offend anyone else. He did not say give me liberty but not that guy or that group becuase I think they suck. He said:
      “Give me liberty or give me death”
      If you cant handle that price, you dont deserve freedom, nor do you give a crap about having it or understand what it means.

      This is indeed a national issue. We cannot stand by and allow petty bickering over what group does what or whose feelings are getting hurt when freedom itself hangs in the balance. If the Islamic crowd is really doing this on purpose to hurt us, the best thing we can do is throw freedom in their faces and show that we will not be moved. We will not falter under pressure, or break under fear. We believe in freedom, and their petty attacks, or even their deadly attacks, are not enough to change our principles. They have suicide bombers because they are committed. We support their right to do as they see fit becase WE are committed. Anything else is shallow hypocrisy and fearful reactionism. It is meaningless and worthless.

      I will not shame my forefathers by running in fear from a community center because I dont want anyone feelings to be hurt. Let them build it. Let them see our resolve. And let them learn that freedom is a better way.

  40. TexasChem says:

    August 18, 2010 at 9:33 pm
    At the time of Julius Caesar, Córdoba was the capital of the Roman province of Hispania Ulterior Baetica. Great Roman philosophers like Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Younger, orators like Seneca the Elder and poets like Lucan came from Roman Cordoba. Later, it occupied an important place in the Provincia Hispaniae of the Byzantine Empire (552-572) and under the Visigoths, who conquered it in the late 6th century.

    It was captured in 711[3] by a Muslim army: in 716 it became a provincial capital, depending from the Caliphate of Damascus; in Arabic it was known as قرطبة (Qurṭuba). In May 766, it was elected as CAPITAL of the independent Muslim emirate of al-Andalus, later a Caliphate itself.

    Cordoba is viewed by Islam as their city today as it was once in their “empire”.Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf own comments he refuses to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist group and believes that U.S. foreign policy was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, seems an unlikely emissary to promote American interests. But let us put him to the test.

    Khaled Abu Toameh, a Muslim journalist, has written many articles about the inequities that Arabs and Muslims face within the Muslim world. Based on Toameh’s investigations, let’s pose the following to Rauf as he goes on his Muslim goodwill tour:

    How come groups and individuals on university campuses in the United States and Canada who claim to be pro-Palestinian remain silent when Jordan revokes the citizenship of thousands of Palestinians?
    Why do Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and other Arab countries impose severe travel restrictions on Palestinians?
    How come there is a debate in Lebanon about whether to grant Palestinians employment, social security, and medical care?
    How come Palestinians living in Lebanon are banned by law from working in a large number of jobs? In fact, until 2003, Lebanese law prohibited Palestinians from working in 72 professions. Now the list of prohibited jobs has been reduced to 50 professions.
    Notwithstanding, how come Palestinians are still not allowed to work as physicians, journalists, pharmacists, or lawyers in Lebanon?
    How come a wealthy Arab prefers to spend millions of dollars on a private zoo than build a hospital or a university?
    How come it is easier for Palestinians to find a job in Israel and Canada than in any Arab or Islamic country?

    Moreover, perhaps the imam might inquire why Arabs have not hesitated to murder Kurds, have obstructed Berbers from preserving their language and culture, and why, in Darfur, Arabs mass-murdered black Africans. All of those victims of Arab aggression and murder have been Muslims — but in Islamic parlance, Muslims of an inferior level. Francis Bok, author of Escape From Slavery, was introduced to his subordinate status when at a tender age, he saw his African village destroyed, whereupon he became an abeed — the term Arabs use to refer to black people, meaning “slave.” In fact, “the three texts of Islamic belief say that slavery is permitted, ethical, desirable and a virtue. In fact, “there is not a single negative word about slavery.” And what is written is put into practice in the 21st century.

    It has been said that destroying a sacred and symbolic religious center of a land Muslims have conquered and building a mosque in its place – usually using materials from the destroyed former structure – is a standard practice in Islam. Maybe it’s not and there’s no truth to that, but regardless, it is a demonstrable historical pattern. This happened with the Dome on the Rock at the Temple Mount, and at Mecca, which, before Islam took it over, was a pilgrimage site for pagan polytheists. The Great Mosque of Córdoba was seen as a symbolic beginning of the Islamic take-over of Spain. It was supposedly the first such event, so some believe it to be not only as a symbolic take-over of Spain, but of Europe as a whole.

    Hrmmmm Blackflag…do you honestly doubt the purpose and meaning of the original “Cordoba House” name for the Mosque before they changed it?The name of Feisal Abdul Raufs’ organization is called the “Cordoba Initiative”.

    If anyone researches the history of the city of Cordoba in Spain they will understand the meaning and the implication behind an Islamic organization naming anything from it.POINT OF FACT.PERIOD.

    • TexasChem

      Hrmmmm Blackflag…do you honestly doubt the purpose and meaning of the original “Cordoba House” name for the Mosque before they changed it?The name of Feisal Abdul Raufs’ organization is called the “Cordoba Initiative”.

      Tex,

      I take my history lessons from those that study history, and not from those whose political agenda depends on vilifying a People.

  41. CAIR Video: Fla. Church to Burn Quran on 9/11

    ‘Nuff said.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 125 other followers

%d bloggers like this: