A number of newspaper columnists and even Republicans such as former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson praised President Obama for his studied affirmation of American religious rights Friday in supporting the building of a mosque just blocks from ground zero. There, more than 2,700 Americans died on Sept. 11, 2001, at the hands of Islamist terrorists.
But the Obama mosque decision ”“ wading into an issue that White House press secretary Robert Gibbs only days earlier had called “a matter for … the local community to decide” ”“ is also likely to affirm a broadening political view in the United States that the president is out of step with mainstream America. Nearly 70 percent of people feel an Islamic center near ground zero is disrespectful, even deliberately provocative, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll.
“Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground,” Obama told attendees at the second annual White House Ramadan dinner Friday night. “But let me be clear: As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.”
Well ok. But why is it always a one way street with these people. We have to be sensitive to them, but they never of us? They are presumed to take their religion more seriously than us, but we don’t take our own seriously? In the name of their religion their coreligionists destroy a building and kill 3000 people and they are entitled to erect, in essence, victory memorial? What if the Japanese wanted to erect a monument next to the Arizona?
Yes, why don’t we just herd all the Japanese into camps and… wait, we already tried that. Until this blew up, I thought that most Americans regretted that episode and thought that punishing every member of an ethnic or religious group for the sins of other members of the group was not only a bad idea, but a self-evident and disgusting rejection of American values. It is no less than the sort of “collective responsibility” that allows dictatorships to punish entire villages for the resistance of one resident.
I’m sorry, but when you limit one religion’s freedom to worship, every religion is at risk. Again, until this I thought most Christians in America–to say nothing of virtually all Jews–understood that. Apparently not. The drafters of the First Amendment must be twirling in their graves.
Someone asked me to lead prayers on 9/11/2001. I prayed for the victims of irrational violence and prejudice, and then I prayed that Americans would not let the terrorists win by falling into the same trap. They [b]want[/b] us to show ourselves as anti-Muslim “Crusaders,” so they can recruit more Muslims to their cause. They do not want us to behave as if Muslim American citizens have the same rights as Christian-American citizens. In short, they want us to reject core American values and become as hateful as themselves.
With this controversy, it is obvious that my prayer has not been answered. Osama bin Laden has won.
I’ve rarely seen you write hysterical comments, Dale Rye. What happened to all of that moderation?
Guess there’s a first time for everything — and when something really really really important comes along, then the moderation flies out the window.
Ah well.
I’m sick and tired of being told that we have to be ‘sensitive’ to them. I’ll be sensitive to them when they’re sensitive to ME, and I think I speak for a whole lot of others!
They can build a mosque next to Ground Zero when Islam writes the death penalty for conversion away from Islam out of the Quran and Christians can evangelize ifreely in Muslim countries.
You realize, the folks building this Muslim Center are not the ones who blew up the WTC right? That’s like saying building a church in Oklahoma is a victory memorial because we defeated the Indians.
It’s not a question of sensitivity, it’s a question of rights and upholding religious freedoms. If two blocks is “too close” what about three blocks? Five blocks? How far away to you want to push them? And are there any other exceptions you want made to the First Amendment?
Dale, #2, I agree with Sarah on this. You are looking at this from only one side. As an attorney you know well that often laws and rights compete with each other and moderation and compromise is sought by judges all the time. There are competing matters going on here – one is being called, freedom of religion. But no one is saying this mosque and center can’t be built somewhere else – the Governor of NY is trying to find another place for it right now or that it can’t be built anywhere else. But on the other side is the welfare of the people of this country. There is no doubt in the mind of any person, who is not naive, that this 27 story Muslim center will be viewed as as victory monument by Islamic extremists around the world. They took down the WTC towers and built their own tower in its place. That is not good for the welfare or safety of our country. It is also not good for the mental health of our country, and especially those who lost loved ones on 9/11. On balance, my opinion would be that finding other land for this Muslim Center would do less harm to our ideal of freedom of (or “from” in some persons’ opinions) religion, than building it near WTC attack ground and endangering the defense of the country (and the rest of the non-Muslim world for that matter) by creating greater support for Islamic terrorism around the world and in this country. Whether we want to admit it or not, and whether we have declared it, ourselves, or not, Islamic terrorism has declared war on us. Suspension of the ideal of freedom of religion in this one geographic area, in the name of our own defense in that war, is a small price to pay for the safety of our citizens and the other “citizens” of the world.
Sorry Dale. There are over 100 mosques in NYC. No one has been denied freedom of religion. The issue is what the Cordoba Initiative is about, and why they want to put a mosque at the site of a Jihahist military victory. You wouldn’t like a fundamentalist Christian group building a memorial to Hitler next to the Holocaust museum in DC, but somehow this is OK? The leader of this mosque is a radical. He runs on a cash basis. The group he heads was started by his father with cash from Malasya and Indonesia. He is a proponent of dawa (forecable conversion to Islam, followed by death to those who refuse). He is a member of the Islamic Jihad Brotherhood. He does not reveal where he is getting $100M (cash) to build this thing. He hiding behind the 1st amendment to destroy the 1st amendment. If Ben Laden is alive, which I question, he would laugh at the notion this is a religious freedon issue. It is the building of a victory memorial at the foot of the massacre.
I don’t buy the religious freedom argument. There is no religious mandate to build the mosque on this particular sight. Having said that, of course the mosque CAN be built there, the question is whether it SHOULD be built there. To frame the issue as only a legal one seems to miss the point.
The victory for the extremists is not in building the Center; it’s in us resgtricting the freedom of this group by not allowing it to be built.
David Keller, this group is a moderate Muslim community group that has been in lower Manhattan for 40 years. They’re not building a “victory tower”; they’re building a community center with basketball courts and library. It’s exactly the type of group we should be encouraging in our communities.
#10, sorry, I can’t encourage Muslim communities anywhere, nor would I think Christians would encourage such communities. But you don’t really know what this group is because they won’t tell anyone. The history of even moderate Muslim groups is separation from greater society and push for sharia law – not something any female should look forward to.
This IS a victory tower, no matter how liberal you want to be about it. Requesting them to build their center somewhere else is not a victory for extremists. It is not a victory for anyone. It is good, old fashioned common sense in the situation, something in short supply in the liberal camp. How far away is far enough, how about at least a mile.
Do you have any cite for the fact that this group advocates Sharia law in the US?
Should all Christian churches be built at least a mile from Native American burial grounds? They’re sensitive about the fact that we nearly wiped them out. It’s just common sense.
#12, what do you know about this group? Why won’t they tell us where their money comes from? How do you know they are moderates and what does “moderate” mean in the world of Islam?
Christians didn’t wipe out Indians – U.S. government did. It’s not common sense to worry about churches near Indian burial grounds. Many Indians are Christian now anyway – TEC even has a Bishop of Navaho Land, don’t you know.
Does 9/11 mean nothing to you? That was done in the name of Islam. Where were these moderates you speak of who had been here for 40 years (where’s your cite for that) on 9/12 and the days that followed? Where are they when heads are cut off and women stoned in Middle East? Strange thing – never hear from these “moderates” talking against their extreme brethren. But many of the charities they set up are used to fund the extreme behavior.
My cite for Muslim communites separating themselves and trying to enforce sharia law is lived through the UK and parts of France. You even had the AbofC stating last year in a speech that sharia law might be best in these communities.
Time to wake up and smell the roses – or rather the 9/11 ashes.
I think it’s the duty of Christians to speak out against Islam whenever they can. Christians who talk about being tolerant of Islam haven’t a clue what the true nature of Islam is.
Most of the rest of what I would write would not be printable here.
Scott–What in the world are you talking about? Which Christian Church organized cavalry to kill Indians? In fact the Episcopal, RC and Methodist Churches were doing exactly the opposite. That argument is a red herring. If you Google the Cordoba Initiative and Iman Rauf you will find tons of information and quotes from them/him. The better question is can you refute what I said in my post #8?
The folks at Cordoba House had about as much to do with 9/11 as the churches had to do with killing Indians – i.e. none; and in fact are a positive influence against such attacks. On the other hand, forcing them out of the neighborhood only increases the motivation for young Muslims to be radicalized.
#16, whoa, are you saying that a large population of young Muslims live in the financial district of NYC, down by where the WTC towers used to be? I find that hard to believe, but I’m willing to be convinced with a citation or two (reliable). Hard to believe that is possible, given the value of that property.
Now are you purposefully missing the point or what? No one said this group had anything to do with 9/11. What we are all saying is that putting a symbol up like this so close to 9/11 spot, in the name of Islam, is not good sense, regardless of the ideal of freedom of religion. It is bad for our country, bad for those who lost loved ones, and, we are saying, furthermore, that encouragement of concentrated Muslim communities is not a good thing, period, and especially this Cordova Initiative, which does not pass the smell test even a little bit. You keep saying these are “moderate” Muslims and their center will be good for the area and the community, but you have yet to answer any questions about them … and I understand why you haven’t. You don’t know anymore about them than anyone else, because they won’t answer anyone else’s questions either. Yet you and the liberal politicians go merrily along as if all is right with the world. I believe this may be called the ostrich approach to issues of import.
[blockquote] How far away is far enough, how about at least a mile.[/blockquote] What about the several mosques that are already within a mile of the site? Are we going to tear those down?
I wept on 9/11. I had a family member who barely escaped the upper floors of Tower 1 before it was hit. But there is no link between the people who attacked those towers, and the American Muslims who are building this Center two blocks (almost a quarter mile) from ground zero. Maybe it would be nice and sensitive of them to voluntarily move it, but there is obligation for them to so so, morally or legally.
NOR am I defending Islam in general. In many forms it’s a violent and agressive religion. But this is America and I will strenuously defend their right to practice their chosen religion in accordance with the law, which is what they are trying to do here. If anyone has any evidence linking them to illegal or terrorist activities or money, show the evidence and let’s prosecute them. But I haven’t seen any such evidence, just accusation and innuendo.
Scott–Its not innuendo. Iman Rauf is a bad actor. He can’t be prosecuted, as I suspect you already know, because there is no paper trail. Everything is done in cash and no one in the current federal or NY AG’s office will touch him. I also know his father, the founder of the Cordoba Initiative, was also a member (and I believe founder of) the Islamic Jihadist Brotherhood which supports Hamas (with cash only), advocates the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews and supports worldwide dawa. I have seen differing accounts but the current Rauf either was or still is a member of the Brotherhood. How is that moderate?
And Scott, Hamas co-founder, Mahmoud al-Zahar, the Gaza Strip leader, just release a statement today that the mosque has to be built. Now are you sure this won’t be a victory tower?
Reciprocity should be a key element between groups of people who truly desire to achieve inter-group peace and mutual respect.
Please tell me. Where in the Muslim world, since 9-11, has there been any large, very public and sustained effort on the part of Muslim groups to bring about peace through reciprocity?
Are Christian Bibles or churches legal in Saudi Arabia? Are Christians living alongside Muslims outside of the United States free from persecution and physical attack by Muslims? Please show me where there is any genuine Muslim reciprocity.
Scott, here is a thought – let’s look at what Coventry Cathedral did after WWII. It took part of the bombed out old cathedral and made an international center, where two German students come and stay for a year to this day, as a sign of and effort for reconciliation. Now, this situation is a little different, but I would have no problem with TEC or NCC or other Xn churches getting together and building an inter-faith building that would allow for Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, what-have-you worship in it – a reconciliation of all the main religions of the world, to replicate the religions of those who died in 9/11. But – where is the attempt at reconciliation here from the Muslim community? They build a 13 story mosque within 200 yards of ground zero with no regard for what went before and push our own ideal of freedom of religion in our face to support their insensitive and non-reconciling act. My friend, that is in-your-face, not an attempt at reconciliation.
Star-bellied sneetches should have to live and worship where we tell them to, dammit.
There has been no effort on the part of anyone in the Muslim world to bring about ‘peace through reciprocity.’ None! ‘Moderate’ Muslim leaders know that they risk losing their lives and those of their families to suicide bombers if they open their mouths or act counter to the Islamist crazies who perpetrate such heinous acts ‘in the name of Allah.’
David and Billy, if there is any evidence of wrongdoing, then appropriate legal steps should be taken.
As far as statements from Hamas, and Christian persecution in Saudi Arabia — aren’t we better than that? You really want to model our laws after theirs?
Scott, again, we aren’t modeling our laws after theirs. The Hamas quote was to show you that you are being naive if you think this is not going to be seen as as victory tower by Islam. This terrorist organization that is sworn to wipe Israel off the map and US, too, after Israel wants this mosque built and is saying so publicly. It will be a victory tower!
Second, no one knows if there is any evidence of wrongdoing because this “moderate” group you strangely support so strongly won’t release any information about itself, nor where its money comes from. But worse than that, no one in any government entity has done any investigation of them, nor are they willing to do an investigation before letting this thing be built. You liberal idealogues seem to be stuck on this freedom of religion one-note and can’t see the forest around that one tree (to mix as many metaphors as I could think of at the moment).
1) This blog is the only place in the world I get called a liberal. Just saying.
2) Who cares what Hamas thinks about it? The consider it a victory, then. Why should we care? The real victory is sticking to our principals and constitutional ideals.
3)If we give in to Al Qaeda’s stated desire to characterize our conflict with them as a clash between religions and civilizations — and trample our constitutional values in the process, who wins? Not us.
4) The 9/11 terrorists represent Islam in roughly the same way the Westboro Baptist Church represents Christianity. By your own admission, there is no evidence linking this group to terrorism. What is the probable cause to investigate their finances? They presumably have no legal obligation to do so. How would you feel about the government demanding to see all the donation records for your church?
Sticking to our Constitutional ideals. Yes, well. Obama is doing precisely that, with the result that he shows himself disconnected from reality. Believe it or not, the Constitution is not a hammer for beating dissenting minds into conformity – whatever that dissenting mind happens to be. Which part of the Constitution is applicable here? The part that allows freedom of association here? Or the part – wherever that is – that says that the majority is of no consequence when a minority is concerned. We have had a good of that in recent years. What part of the Constitution says that it is inherent in its powers to supplant and suppress cultural practices and norms?
To build the mosque here AT THIS TIME violates common sense – by which we means that it violates cultural norms. Larry
According to most polls, the majority of New Yorkers support the mosque. So it’s not an affront against the majority.
The applicable part of the constitution is the First Amendment, which prevents Congress from “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].” There is nothing about violating cultural norms. Both of which, as Christians, we should be glad for.
Pesky thing that old Constitution & Bill of Rights –
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
I don’t see anyway around it folks.
Peace,
-ms, Esq.
Scott’s right. Most people who live in New York believe in property rights. It’s the commercial capital of the world.
Muslims are quite sensitive about what Christians think. They are very, very sensitive. But if someone were “sensitive” about a synagogue near their house because they didn’t like Jews very much, should we care?
There has to be a better reason than hurt feelings. Someone who’s feeling hurt because they now have a black neighbor, for example, wouldn’t get my sympathy.
Some Americans take the freedom of religion seriously. Always. Otherwise, we’re not much different; at least, to inhibit the construction would be a great propaganda coup for those Muslims who are constantly warning other Muslims that American Christians don’t actually believe in the freedom of religion, but desire that Muslims become second class citizens.
Now I know that lots of Americans are afraid of this guy. Not all, however, live in fear. In fact, many local [url=http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Jewish-Leaders-Gather-to-Support-Ground-Zero-Mosque-100049479.html]Jewish leaders[/url] don’t feel offended by the building of the community center.
Larry, Jim Crow was a cultural norm. Would you defend that? Plainly, the cultural norm in NYC is for religious tolerance. But for those who want political points, this is a convenient issue.
ms (#30.) cited,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” and he is correct.
The Constitution grew from the culture of the Thirteen North American Colonies of Great Britain that became the United States of America.
Contained within that culture was a sense of moderation and tolerance that sought to avoid the religious intolerance of the English Civil War and other acts of reliogious intolerance in Great Britain and Ireland and the Reformation-associated religious wars of intolerance within Continental Europe.
But that “sense of moderation and tolerance” within our American democracy also required that its citizens exercise common sense and good judgement in their inter-religious relationships.
And there were many historically based reasons for distrust among the various religious groups in America at that time. Not a few of them had had ancestors who had suffered badly at the hands of the ancestors of others who were living alongside them in the same communities in the colonies. The old prejudices did not die out in a single generation.
And yet, in that miracle of American Democracy, we became “One Nation Under God” as we learned to live peacefully with each other.
Part of that learning process included both a tolerance for differences in religious belief and a respect for those of ‘other belief’ that included the avoidance of insulting acts or acts that forced those of an another ‘religious persuasion’ to rise to the defense of their faith and its followers.
The construction of the mosque in question on the site in question tests both Constitutional law and the our ability to maintain our treasured tradition of religious tolerance.
The fault lies on both sides.
The inmam and his followers who wish to build this mosque are considered by many to be highly suspect in their motives. Motives, which if true, represent a hurtful challenge to all harmed on 9-11 and to all who feel that their religious beliefs and freedoms are under attack by Muslim extremists. On the other side there are those persons who would defy the Constitution and our traditions of religious tolerance in an effort to force those wanting to build the mosque to not be able to do so.
So who is right. I think that those who oppose the mosque on the basis of its being seen as a ‘victory mosque’ celebrating a Muslim extremist victory on 9-11 have the most grounds for concern. The information available at this time indicates that this may well be the case.
If those who want to build this mosque ‘in no way’ intended it to be a ‘9-11 victory mosque,’ then they will reconsider their choice a building site and build it somewhere else that will not cause dissension, anger and conflict.
The ball is clearly in the court of the mosque builders.
Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which was destroyed on 9/11 by the collapse of the Twin Towers, has spent NINE YEARS trying to get building permits. To rebuild an already existing church – not to build a new one. Yet a new mosque gets green lighted ASAP. This is part of what people are reacting against – favored treatment by a group with little vetting as to their financing, etc.
#33 – it raises a lot of questions. But there’s a lot of devil in the details. It may be that Cordoba house was organized and persistent. St. Nicholas may have not been persistent; they may not have submitted the right plans. We don’t know.
It may also be the irony that because people are so scared at the idea of a Mosque, it actually forced the founders of the community center to dot their “i” s. General Seminary itself had to deal with a negative community and had no political help. It didn’t try to get it. Rauf has a lot of personal friends committed to his vision of Islam – including Christians and Jews. If St Nicholas wasn’t involved in the local community it is, perhaps, feeling the pinch of not being politically astute.
My point: it may not have anything to do with religion, but everything to do with politics.
I’m not sure why the group must release it’s finances any differently than other groups. All should be treated the same. As it is, the government has no right, outside of fairly delineated property laws, to interfere with persons. To do so, even if we don’t like what they stand for, is another form of tyranny.
Funny how some who call themselves conservatives don’t mind the government restricting the property rights of people they don’t like.
John writes, “Funny how some who call themselves conservatives don’t mind the government restricting the property rights of people they don’t like.”
Itching for dhimmitude, John? What people are asking for is not government restricting property rights. The point about the Greek Orthodox church is not to ask the government to turn down the mosque but to point out hypocrisy. What government leaders should be doing is speaking out against the insensitive and provocative act that strengthens the hands of the radical islamists and weakens the moderate Muslims. What government officials like Obama and Bloomberg should have done is exactly what Gov Patterson done. You can be sure that the radical islamists will be using this provocative act – whether the mosque is built or not – as a recruiting tool.
The liberals again play their role as useful idiots. Do they not know about [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya ]Taqiyya[/url]?
Just saw [url=http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/4312616/a-big-mistake-by-the-white-house/?playlist_id=87485 ]Bill O’Reilly’s[/url] take on this. It included a female Muslim who stated, “I can’t imagine how they would conceive an idea, that building a mosque there, which is an exclusive place of prayer for Muslims, would in any way build tolerance and respect.”
Of course, the mosque proponents know full well that it does the opposite – it inflames tensions, which serves radical islamism.
Bill O’Reilly concluded that Obama should help them build a mosque there and then use it to try Khaleed Sheik Mohammed – that way it would combine two insane ideas into one.
Sorry, just one more in that I found an essay from the Muslim woman who was interviewed on Bill O’Reilly. She is the author of “YourJihad, not my Jihad.” See the article [url=http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html#ixzz0wcZNOGAS ]here[/url]. In particular, she writes:
[blockquote] As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.
Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.
[/blockquote]
“Dhimmitude” is simply fear-mongering. Muslims who come to this country are too enamoured themselves of the loveliness of Hollywood and marry Jews.
Taqquiya? So what? That seems to be about how Muslims deal with other Muslims, kind of like Roman Catholics having secret masses when they’re persecuted.
Robroy, you’re going to have to help me. How is saying we can live peacefully with Jews and Christians a way to radicalize Islam. Have you considered why there are fewer radical Muslims in India than Saudi Arabia? Because they are in multicultural environments.
You can trust the words of a foreign Muslim and [url=http://warincontext.org/2010/08/16/hamas-supports-the-right-of-muslims-to-pray-in-mosques-even-in-new-york/]those interested in warmongering[/url] and be associated with white Supremacists (I won’t link, but Occidental Dissent is Infuriated at the possibility of a mosque threatening white America). Both are guilt by association, Robroy. Best to go to what, actually, this Imam is saying and the actions of those Jews and Christians who know the Imam better than you do, which is through websites and those who benefit from this sort of conflict.
I do wish that they would accept St. Nick’s building permits, if they have followed all the regulations. that would be just. But I’m agnostic as to why – NYC generally gives not-for-profits a hard time.
[blockquote] “Dhimmitude†is simply fear-mongering. [/blockquote]
Tell that to the Pakistani Christians. Read [url=http://www.amazon.com/While-Europe-Slept-Radical-Destroying/dp/0385514727 ]While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within[/url] by the American ex-pat who, as an gay man living in Northern Europe, saw “dhimmitude” first hand. Dhimmitude is reality in Muslim countries. It is becoming reality more and more in Europe. It has taken place even here in the U.S., where, for example, Christians were just arrested in Dearborn MI for handing out copies of the Gospel of John in Arabic at a festival held in public place.
[blockquote]Taqquiya? So what? That seems to be about how Muslims deal with other Muslims [/blockquote]
You apparently didn’t read the link. Taqqiya is the principle given by Mohammed that Muslims can lie to infidels (not other Muslims) to advance the cause. Thus, when the the Muslim proponents of the mosque say that they are peace loving, tolerant, birkenstock wearing, regular guys, they may be simply applying Taqqiya. Their refusal to release information about their funding certainly raises red flags.
I am not sure how liberals like yourself can ignore the obvious. Did you read [url=http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html#ixzz0wcZNOGAS ]the article by the two moderate Muslims[/url] that see the mosque for what it is – a deliberately provocative act that is designed to increase tensions? Again, I quote:
[blockquote] Unfortunately for us, their [the liberals’] stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within. [/blockquote]
I would disagree with the authors that the liberals will “never have to face the tyrranny”.
I am really at a loss at your lack of understanding. Perhaps others might be able to rephrase in an even more simple way that the likes of John could understand? One wonders if there is a deliberateness in the lack of understanding. It is hard to communicate with people that close their eyes and plug their ears.
In comment #32. I said, in a summation of sorts,
“So who is right. I think that those who oppose the mosque on the basis of its being seen as a ‘victory mosque’ celebrating a Muslim extremist victory on 9-11 have the most grounds for concern. The information available at this time indicates that this may well be the case.
If those who want to build this mosque ‘in no way’ intended it to be a ‘9-11 victory mosque,’ then they will reconsider their choice a building site and build it somewhere else that will not cause dissension, anger and conflict.
The ball is clearly in the court of the mosque builders.”
Possibly I was being somewhat ‘obtuse.’
What I was using as an antecedent was my comment #21. in which I discussed “reciprocity.”
If the inmam and his followers who want to build this mosque cared at all about reciprocity, then there would be ‘dialogue’ and yet all that we get from this inmam, who by his own utterances is an “islamist,” is obdurate silence regarding the proximity of the proposed mosque site to “ground zero.”
What about “The ball is clearly in the court of the mosque builders.”
This statement begs a response. And yet there is no response.
An ‘inaction’ can be as telling an intelligence indicator as an ‘action.’
I don’t know the situation at St. Nick’s, and perhaps it needs to be looked into. But their treatment is completely irrelevent to the issue at hand.
This particular group has been in New York City for a generation without incident. They are members of the community. They have obeyed all local and state laws and building codes. They had nothing to do with 9/11 and their stated pupose is to promote cross-cultural understanding.
I understand the wounds of 9/11 run deep. But these Cordoba people are not our enemies just because they are Muslim, any more than the many Jews, Hindus and Buddhists in New York are our enemies.
Rights matter most when the majority disagree. That is not a liberal view. It was the founding father’s view.
Peace,
-ms
Scott K (#42.) said,
“But these Cordoba people are not our enemies just because they are Muslim,…”
Has anyone on this thread stated that “these Cordoba people” are “our enemies just because they are Muslim?”
There seem to be two points of concern. First, the choice of the mosque site may be a random/accidental choice and second, the imam preaching thatmam of this mosque congregation has been reported as having made explicit comments that run counter to generally accepted/community standards of religious tolerance.
So what about the specifics of the mosque site choice? What is the rationale for this choice?
So what is this imam preaching that could be considered to be religious intolerance? By this I mean intolerance that is not kept within the mosque, but is expressed in various ways by its congregants outside the mosque. I am not talking about behaviorial laws/prescriptions/proscriptions that are only ‘binding’ for the congregants, but behavior that causes fear or offense on the part of non-congregants. Whether the non-congregants are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian, etc.
Nobody has come out and said they are our enemies because they are Muslim (in this thread anyway) but it’s clear that they are viewed with suspicion because of their religion. I’d be very glad to hear any actual quotes from the leaders of this Center that indicate a pattern of religious intolerance.
Having read all the comments above and given them due consideration, I’m inclined to agree with my late grandmother’s sentiment that we need to take all the intolerant foreigners who have adopted an ideology that they are inherently, racially, and religiously superior–these aliens who have taken jobs and wealth from those who were born in America–and ship them back where they came from. We need to make no compromises in the name of free speech, free religion, free assembly, or anything else. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and these leeches need to contemplate that on their trips back to where they came from.
Of course, my grandmother was a Choctaw.