Cordoba House is neither at Ground Zero, nor a mosque. Apparently being two blocks away is not enough distance from “hallowed ground”. As though the proposed Islamic Center that will serve not just Muslims but the entire NYC community in lower Manhattan had anything to do with the events of 9/11.
CEO of SoHo Properties and the lead developer, Sharif el-Gamal:
We are not at Ground Zero. In fact we’re as close to City Hall as we are to Ground Zero. Lower Manhattan is pretty small. You can’t see Ground Zero from our current building and on completion of our planned building some years from now, there won’t be any views of the Ground Zero memorial from the building. To honor those who were killed on September 11th, we have planned for a public memorial within our future facility as well as reflection space open to all.
The proposed Park51 Islamic community center will be 2 blocks away from Ground Zero. But for those afraid of the spread of Islamic cooties, how far away is acceptable to them? Mike says, “build it somewhere else” (while ignoring that new mosques in general are being opposed all across the country, with one in nearby Staten Island successfully derailed with alleged connections to the Muslim Brotherhood).
How many blocks away is enough for you? Would you be OK with the center being built five blocks away? Seven blocks away?
How about 10-12 blocks away?
“This is precisely where this kind of center for peace and place of worship should rise up,” City Comptroller John Liu said.
In addition to Liu and Stringer, State Sen. Daniel Squadron, City Councilwoman Margaret Chin and Councilman Robert Jackson, the Council’s sole Muslim, all spoke in favor of the plans.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a leader of the Cordoba Initiative, said he has been surprised by the vitriolic debate, since he has led his congregation ten blocks north of the World Trade Center for the past 27 years. His mosque lost several members on 9/11 and distributed bottled water to firefighters afterward.
Whether 10 or 12 blocks away or 2 blocks away, why do the opponents perceive this as “insensitive” when Rauf doesn’t identify himself or Islam with the actions of Islamic terrorists responsible for bringing down the Towers?
Reza Aslan continues:
Or do you agree with Congressman Peter King who has stated that there are already “too many mosques in America”? Do you agree with the opening statement of the GOP Trust commercial that explicitly connects the Islamic Center, and indeed Muslims in the US, with al-Qaeda? This entire bogus controversy is part of a widespread and dangerous anti-Islamic sentiment that is gripping America. Let’s stop pretending that there is actually debate here. American Muslims can build whatever they want wherever they want in this country. Period.
MataHarley through the course of several threads on the matter argued that there is no legal nor Constitutional basis for blocking the Project. Rauf and company are in their full legal rights to “build away”.
Aye Chihuahua in a single comment concisely and succinctly lays it out:
I am a Conservative, therefore I believe in, and firmly adhere to, the Constitution and the rule of law.
Therefore, for me, the NY mosque issue boils down to a few simple questions:
1) Does the construction of the mosque in question violate the Constitution or laws of the United States?
The answer is no.
2) Does the construction of the mosque in question violate the Constitution or laws of the State of New York?
The answer is no.
3) Does the construction of the mosque in question violate the statutes and ordinances of the City of New York up to, and including, zoning regulations and requirements?
The answer is no.
Therefore, based on those simple rule of law questions, this mosque is completely legal and any arguments against violate the basic tenets of Conservatism and tear at the fabric of our nation.
We are a nation of laws, not of men. Our founding documents guarantee equal protection and blind justice.
Arguments against the mosque are based on feelings and emotion and therefore cannot be Conservative arguments no matter how heartfelt.
Opening the Pandora’s box of decisions based on feelings or emotions is not a Conservative position.
Freedom of religion, much like freedom of speech, allows things that we may find repulsive at times.
For instance, I abhor the idea of flag burning. Should it be illegal? No, because that activity is a legitimate expression of free speech.
Remember when the guy attempted to bomb Times Square? There were many who wanted to simply deny him his rights under the Constitution.
Unfortunately, as much as that slippery slope looked inviting, those arguments were based strictly on feelings and emotion. We are not a nation ruled based on feelings and emotion.
As with the guy apprehended for Times Square, or the US citizens imprisoned by Woodrow Wilson for opposition to the war, or the Japanese placed in camps by FDR, we cannot go down the road of denying someone their due process rights simply because it feels good emotionally.
Once you begin to nibble away at the edges of the Constitution, pretty soon you are snacking on the middle as well.
Who gets to decide when there are “plenty” of mosques? Who gets to decide when there are “plenty” of synagogues? Who gets to decide when there are “plenty” of cathedrals? Who, if not the law, defines “plenty”?
If we allow the law to define “plenty” for “them” then, as a trade off under the principles of equal protection, we are giving up our unfettered freedom of religion as well.
Who decides who is qualified, or good enough, or “moderate” enough to build a mosque, a synagogue, a cathedral, etc?
We must ask ourselves difficult questions and engage in deep self examination.
Upon doing that, we must ask ourselves, if our arguments against the mosque are not based on the law what are they based on?
Because the “Stop the Islamization of America” conspiracists are basically defeated legally in their opposition, their recourse is to portray Feisal Abdul Rauf and anyone else involved in the Project as somehow tied to radicalism and terrorism. It’s the “six-degrees-of-separation-guilt-by-association” contortionist stretch. They conspiratorially believe there is something insidious in the naming of “Cordoba House”.
INRE the some quasi-information that the Cordoba Initiative is either some new entity without a history of interfaith events, or that this community center was a cover up for an original intent as a mosque only.
Cordoba Initiative was founded in 2002 and 2003 in Aspen, and includes Karen Armstrong, ex Catholic nun; Elaine Pagels, the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University; and Jewish Rabbi Bradley Hirschfield on their advisory board. Since their inception, they have organized interfaith conferences, seminars and events several times a year. This means their actions for the past seven years exactly matches their rhetoric over the intent of this multi purpose building, and the participation of Muslims, Jews and Christians in it’s activities.
As far as the mosque, supposedly changing last minute to an interfaith facility, that seems a convenient and unfounded charge by one who evidently doesn’t care to read up on the past events of the Cordoba Initiative, and the diverse players and religions involved. Rauf and his father both had this multiculture center vision for years… a vision that is not unique to Islam, I might add. There is no dearth of “community centers” of faith (Jewish, Christian, etal), or even of nationality (Latino Cultural Centers).
The fact that it’s the Cordoba Initiative behind the construction of this – and considering their past events echo exactly who they say they are – indicates it was to be just what they said it was from the onset. Unless there is something other than inflammatory bloggers’ speculations this was a great cover up, the evidence points to Cordoba Initiative staying within their interfaith agenda, as they have done since 2003.
Secondly, there’s some bizarre demand from the naysayers that the funding *must* be disclosed. Again, this dances in an area of the law that makes me very uncomfortable. The source of funds is a privacy issue, and the only entities that legally require disclosure are any lending institution, paper trailing the borrowers funds (so they aren’t parties to loan fraud)… and the IRS in annual filings.
We the public have no right to know, unless of course, you want to trash privacy rights along with freedom of religion and property rights. Get serious…. if you are building a retail store, and your neighbors object, should they have the right to demand where your funding is coming from strictly because they don’t like you? Hang, for all we know, you could be using mattress money, or have mafia/drug cartel funding.
Which then brings us to the reality of banking, post George W. Bush. Many forget that he clamped down very hard on known terrorist funding, freezing accounts and assets. You simply cannot walk into banks with wads of cash, and deposit that cash under the int’l radar. Also at risk is any lending institution, who’s butt is on the line along with the Cordoba Initiative, if funds are found to be from terrorist origins.
While there are always transactions that can fall under the radar, this is no low profile transaction. If the feds had/have any reason to suspect that Rauf, his mosque, or the Cordoba Initiative was financially involved with terrorists, they would have full reason to investigate. Short of that probable cause, no property owner owes the public personal financial information to satisfy their demands. And you’d better hope that remains the case in the future. Again.. “they came for the communists…”
…and you should speak out. On the side of the Constitution and the rule of law.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
All nice, and so forth.
Maybe, although it would be unconstitutional, we could tie permission to the Cordobas’ good-faith efforts to get the government of Saudi Arabia to allow a Christian church to be built in Riyadh.
Suppose, just because stranger things have happened, the mosque goes up and the usual suspects start gloating and taunting and teaching Wahhabism?
The apologists-in-advance will say…. Curses, fooled again.
Give it a rest Wordsmith. It’s over and you lost.
That was clear from the minute you and yours started tarring and feathering opponents of this Victory Monument to Mohammed at Ground Zero as Islamophobes.
Two polls of New Yorkers show the vast majority oppose this mosque. The readers of Flopping Aces OVERWHELMINGLY oppose this mosque. Even a reader from Qatar, voted NO on this mosque.
If you really want to alienate the readers further to soothe your wounded ego, be my guest. I won’t hold it against you.
@Mike’s America:
Because you say it’s over? 🙁
And how is it that “I” lost, when the rule of law is being upheld?
If you guys are quacking like one, why not wear the feathers? Why not call those in your movement out for what they are behaving as? Some clearly make no apologies about it and wear their feathers with pride.
As usual, you suffer from tunnel vision reading and focus, Mike. The only ones who are ‘phobes are the ones who quite readily volunteered their objection is all about Islam and Muslims (not jihad… ALL Islam and Muslims), and whipping up all kinds of scenarios about forced into burkas, national Shariah law with stonings, dismemberment and decapitations as punishment. That just happens to include you, since you are against Cordoba House even if Rauf rises to your own self imposed “proof” he’s a “moderate”… whatever that is in your mind(s). And of course, your main problem is you, Geller and Spencer simply could not let this go. You had to take a legal ruling via local laws, in a community where you don’t live, and plaster your anti-Islam beliefs all over the Internet. Well thanks a bunch. Personally, that’s not company I wish to be considered part of.
On the other hand, I oppose the location of Cordoba House… as does Wordsmith and Curt. We, however, accept the rule of law, and are willing to move on.
What I’m not willing to do is allow the entire conservative movement to be painted as hyperbolic as you, Geller, Spencer, Williams and all too many commenters here. There’s a few of us with respect for legal decisions… even if we don’t like them. There’s also a few of us who, like George W. Bush, believe we are NOT waging a war on Islam, but against the global Islamic jihad movement. Again, all too many here are proving Bush to be the Great Satan liar he is accused of there too.
So I suggest before accusing me or anyone else here of calling everyone Islamaphobes, you dig a little deeper into the facts.
But then, digging into the facts isn’t your specialty, is it Mike? Just isn’t as rewarding as hyped, misleading headlines, and half truths in order to push a GOP-bot agenda, is it?
@Mike’s America:
Oh looky looky everyone….the Plenty Czar has declared victory…again.
Yes, the Plenty Czar, Mr. Conservative Cock o’ the Walk who loves the sound of his own voice, has spoken.
The only problem is he’s still unable to answer the questions and, this time, there is no delete key to hide behind.
Exit question: If the debate is over, and you won (snicker) then why do you find it necessary to call in assistance to bolster your side?
Nothing gets built in NYC without high dollar union labor. Do you think money or principle will win out?
More from Newt:
It’s About Shariah Stupid!
@Mike’s America:
Again with the Shariah fear mongering?
From my original response on this talking point:
Of course you never attempted to counter my argument then, and I doubt seriously you have the stonz to do it now.
@Mike’s America:
When Jesus-centric Christian Churches can start praying & proselytizing in government schools, preach conservative ideals from the their pulpit & hold conservative voter drives, all without fear of losing their tax-exempt status, then you can have your politically & ideologically driven 911-mosque that over-looks Ground Zero in conquest.
The author should research the history of the name of Cordoba.
It was chosen for a distinct reason.
tD
Yes, tahDeetz, it was. Because it was a period in the history of that city that was considered “the most civilized” in it’s time, with Christian and Muslims living in relative harmony. Of course, the church was conquered again several times, and today stands with all of the different religions architectural adds… an odd monument to a blending of faith ownership over time.
Maybe you should read beyond the “conquered” event, yes?
So now Andrew McCarthy and Newt are fear mongers?
Did F.A. suddenly become the Daily Kos?
More from Newt. Or should I say the Fear Monger:
In this instance, yes.
@tahDeetz:
This always makes me laugh. Sooooo ORIGINAL!!!!
And distorted logic as well. Can’t believe how many conservatives keep thinking this tit-for-tat is some illuminating point worth making. There’s a reason why we’re us and they are them.
But it kinda makes sense: Conservatives are becoming intolerant and hateful like them! “They behave like asses…we should behave like asses.”
What a wonderful world!
Good grief….you’re late to the party, aren’t you?
Wordsmith,
Dhimmi is as dhimmi does.
tD
@tahDeetz: And a dhummy is as a dhummy does…duh.
As I said,
Once political Christianity from the right, not talking Black Liberation Theology here, gets the same breaks political islam gets, you are more than welcome to your 911 Death to America Mosque.
It sure would have been nice for the left to seek the rebuilding of the Twin-Towers, but that was strictly verbotten.
We wouldn’t want to express anything as ugly as American exceptionalism or anything.
Have yall ever looked into the islambergs around the U.S. or into the state-funded prison proselytization of political islam?
The attempt of an alinksy-inspired put down aint gonna here.
tD
As I said,
Once political Christianity from the right, not talking Black Liberation Theology here, gets the same breaks political islam gets, you are more than welcome to your 911 Death to America Mosque.
It sure would have been nice for the left to seek the rebuilding of the Twin-Towers, but that was strictly verbotten.
We wouldn’t want to express anything as ugly as American exceptionalism or anything.
Have yall ever looked into the islambergs around the U.S. or into the state-funded prison proselytization of political islam?
The attempt of an alinksy-inspired put down aint gonna work here.
tD
I wonder if any of the Islamophobes have ever met an actual Muslim person.
I have.
There were times when, working in restaurants here in NYC, it would get so busy that I would not have a chance to get any food before the kitchen closed. It was my Muslim co-workers who would offer me their own food, so that I would not go hungry. When I asked what I could do in return, they replied that they were already blessed by Allah. Many professed Christians I know aren’t nearly as generous.
There were Muslim people in the Twin Towers on 9/11/2001, as well, who perished in the attacks. Those who I worked with and befriended expressed much sadness, anger and distress that their religion would be used to justify such actions.
If you haven’t met any Muslims and only know what the mainstream media gives you about them, then I suppose such ignorance isn’t your fault. But keep in mind all that you already know about the media, and just think…
@Mike’s America:
I’m a New Yorker, and I wasn’t polled. Don’t even know what you’re talking about. Could you fill me in on who did these polls and where they can be found?
I BEG you not to tell me it was the tabloid NY Post…
islamaphobes islamaphobes thier everywhere! thier everywhere! 🙄
oh and one e-mail is that all I got?
well heres another one you can dismiss, a shining example of islamic love and tolerance, he even had his own cable chanel to show the world how tolerant loving and modern islam is, well, he did, right up till his wife did the unthinkable and completely unislamic thing of asking for a divorce, and since hes a good muslim he did the only thing he could think of, …he cut off her head.
got that? wanted to portray islam in a more positive light…. but hey who am I to think poorly of this guy or his religion….
you gloss over the other things I said on the other thread.
for the record again, I dont care about and am not concerned about muslims who are peaceful well intentioned americans who love america and put it first.
but they are under represented in my opinion. and the fast money, and powerfully connected wahabis have infested just about every mosque across this country. I have read story after story of mosques that had imams and elders who were more “liberal” driven out by more radical wahabi connected newcommers bringing suadi money.
and ive seen an ever escalating submerged ice berg of stories about muslim tolerance gone awry.
so spare us the sanctimonious speech about the wonderful muslims you know. they are probably great people just as you say.
but I am of the opinion they are nice poeple inspite of islam not because of it.
@rumcrook®:
Well, we seem to agree that what people do is irrespective of the religion they preach. I’m glad we’ve made some headway here. Thanks!
oh ho another crack in the wall of sanctimonious head nodding among the tolerant people who are better americans then everyone else because they support the mosque at ground zero.
I guess juan just cant make the distinction between the muslims who killed 3000 people and the muslims who want to build a monument on top of the 3000 graves.
man, that juan williams is such an islamaphobe!…. 🙄
@rumcrook®: Thanks for that info. I forgot to watch Sunday’s Panel Plus and wondered what Liz Cheney would have to say. Superb discussion:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4299704/panel-plus-81/
@rumcrook®:
Juan Williams has a right to his opinion as much as you do. Do you think that someone on a television media panel agreeing with you somehow validates your stance? As to the exact point that is made by Mr. Williams, it was already refuted by Wordsmith somewhere here. I’m too tired to find it, but I’m sure you can cover it if want to look.
@Cary: Perhaps you should view the six minute video to get the fuller flavor of the discussion.
Unless of course you have already consulted the absolute authority in all these matters and have no further need of information.
@Mike’s America:
Rumcrook provided a quote from the discussion which was already covered and answered in this discussion. Pundits’ opinions are no more valid that yours or mine. I need not spend 60 minutes of my time watching other people have a discussion that I’m already participating in with highly intelligent and informed people myself (that I have very little time for already), who just don’t happen to be on tv. I appreciate the suggestion, though.
HEY EVERYONE! CAREY GAVE ME PERMISSION TO HAVE MY OWN OPINION!
thanks man, I was worried me and jaun weren’t entitled to our own opinions untill you cleared that up for me.
and the point is the crack in this wall of so called tolerance for the building of the victory mosque at ground zero, not juan and me being buddy buddy in our opinions.
but since this was refuted/////// maybe we should move on. obviously nothing to see here…..
nothing to see here except a BIG GIANT VICTORY MOSQUE BEING BUILT ON 3000 GRAVES
@rumcrook®:
My pleasure. I’ll clear something else up for you, although I don’t know what good it’ll do, since you’ve clearly read my name several times throughout this discussion and still managed to spell it wrong. Makes me wonder what else you’ve misread. But I’ll give it a shot anyway…
With such emotional hyperbole, one would think that several hundred of those graves didn’t belong to Muslims…
http://old.911digitalarchive.org/crr/documents/1146.pdf
And that’s all I have time for right now. Enjoy the rest of your night.
‘Cordoba’ is the name of the mosque Muslims built in Spain to celebrate conquering Spain. They want to name this mosque Cordoba. I wonder why?
Didn’t the anti-defamation league say it’s not a good idea to build it near ground zero? Just the other day? Sounds like good advice. When I heard it was called “Cordoba” I had all the info on it I needed.
To borrow a quote from another blog (Basti Says), allowing that mosque to be built any where near ground zero is akin to the framers of the Constitution allowing a statue of King George to be errected at the site of the Boston Massacre.
Do we let some savages force us to abandon OUR principles, or to we use our principles to force THEM to change theirs? THAT is the real, and only question here.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/31/pub-chicago-man-charged-disorderly-conduct-praying-outside-planned-parenthood/
Funny how there have been many posts calling anyone who does not think this mosque should be there as Islamaphobes…
Yet crickets about a REAL constitutional crises, where a man is arrested for praying…
(and in the interests of disclosure, I’m not a Christain, I’m a Deist… but find THIS truly disturbing).
Romeo13, INRE your link to the story about the arrest outside an abortion clinic. Seems to be a he said, she said type case thus far. They have an idiot nanny ordinance there that Obama’town put in, probably under pressure from the anti-life types. But the law officer insists the arrest is for blocking the entrance/exit, not for prayer. The video provided doesn’t show the entire event, so who knows. It will have to be battled in court.
Planned Parenthood’s press release back in Oct 2009, following the passage of the ordinance, seems to indicate this was one of the favored protest methods:
What we can see is that there is going to be a burden of proof upon the abortion clinic and their volunteer witnesses to prove that this guy was actually blocking the doorway. But what we can definitely say is that the Chicago law enforcement officer did not arrest the man for praying.
Asinine ordinance. Suspect there will be tons of civil disobedience, and lots of charges… some legit and some false. But I doubt the law enforcement officers are going to blatantly arrest someone for prayer.
“Cordoba House is neither at Ground Zero, nor a mosque.”
What exactly qualifies it as”not” a mosque? Since muslims pray anywhere they happen to be at required times, what is necessary for a mosque to be a mosque?
Additionally, as Romeo13 pointed out in an earlier thread, if it is _not_ a mosque, then how does the Constitutional protection of religion come in? If it is not a mosque, it’s simply the equivalent of the YMCA – sorry…the “Y”. Apparently adding “men” and “Christian” is no longer desirable nomenclature.
Giving Muslims/Islam the benefit of the doubt concerning the innocence of their intentions, just seems to keep biting us (America) on our ass. Since we know that, regardless of any “religion of peace” nickname they want to claim, the practice of Islam is frequently anything but peaceful, and those who embrace the violent side of that religion do not wage their war in the open, but by training in Madrassas and convening in Mosques and hiding amongst us as if they’re harmless citizens (and blowing us up while we’re showering them with tolerance), I’m inclined to believe that the nearest any new mosque construction should occur is say, Pakistan.
I am a Republican, and firmly believe in the rule of law. But, the law has limited application to acts of war, whether overt or covert. And until I’ve seen an abundance of proof that none of them subscribe to the warring nature of Mohammed, I’ll err on the side of distrust.
If you kick my front door in, I won’t patiently interview you to guage your intentions. You may be a Tupperware salesman, or deputy sheriff or nice muslim or not-nice muslim. So long as I feel threatened, the prospect of you celebrating any more birthdays in that environment is very, very slim. Similarly, even your presence on my porch, uninvited, is not the healthiest idea you will have had.
It’s fair to say that I have my back-fur up about Muslims. But here’s a news flash: I ain’t ashamed of that. If they, any of them, want to build a mosque anywhere near me, I am going to first be somewhat skeptical of their reasons, maybe even intolerant well past the line of being a “good neighbor.”
Furthermore, anyone who chooses to label me and my friends as “Islamophobes” has, yes, lost the argument. The question is not why am I naturally skeptical, it is why aren’t you?
America is a Nation defined by the Constitution and Rule of Law??
Really? Since when?
Fake elections (see Franken, Al),
Representatives who don’t represent the obvious will of their Constituents (ObamaCare),
Bills “Deemed” to be passed,
Jack-booted masked gunmen bursting through residential front doors to stomp cats and shoot dogs and other innocents (whoopsie, good luck cleaning that up),
Refusal of the Fed to enforce one of the few laws they Constitutionally were given the authority to do (Immigration),
Insistence by the Fed of enforcing laws they have no Constitutional authority enacting (Abortion, Gun licensing/registration).
America abandoned the Constitution and the Rule of Law long, LONG ago.
Bonus Question: How does everyone feel about the RIGHT of a convicted child molester to live right next door to you and your kids? Or next to a school/playground?
@Romeo13:
Well Romeo, first thanks for the link and, on the surface, the story does sound disturbing. I will have to do some further reading and research to make sure I have the full view prior to speaking further.
Anytime you find something that you find of merit you can leave the link in a comment with the hope that one of us might see it….or you could e-mail it in so that we would see it.
The Interwebz is a big place, with lots of stories. Those of us who create posts here cannot humanly read and be aware of everything that goes on. Especially when we’re balancing real life with computer life.
Also, please don’t be so hasty to be critical about the lack of comment on a particular story. I wasn’t even aware of it until the link was provided. In this particular instance the story was still a newborn when you posted the link here.
Finally, if you find something that interests you that you wish to post about, use the “Submit Post” button above, follow the simple guidelines, and submit it yourself.
We encourage our readers to be involved.
Here’s the video of the Fox News Sunday Panel Plus discussion where Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams express their concerns about the mosque. Cue video player to the 3:18 second mark:
Good grief. If even Juan Williams thinks building the mosque at Ground Zero is a bad idea, IT’S A BAD IDEA!
@Aye Chi…
Trust me, I know how the web works… I’ve been around since BBS days.
I posted that in the interest of showing that while some are using overblown rhetoric and ad hom attacks on posters here… there are other much worse stories of Religiouos abuse…
The specific charge was raised that those of us who are against this mosque, are willing to kill the Constitution… yet Christians are being arrested for praying… (also note the folks who got arrested a couple weeks back for going to an Islamic event… and doing nothing…)….
@Mike’s America:
Once again, for the 1000th time, it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks or feels about it….
What matters is what the rule of law and the Constitution say about it.
So far, the opponents to this project from all areas of the spectrum, have been unable to come up with an argument based in the rule of law which would support preventing this project from proceeding.
Lady Justice is depicted as blindfolded while holding her scales for a reason. She is not supposed to be a respecter of men.
Until such time as a legal standard can be cited, the opponents of the project are taking a “nation of men” approach when, as Adams said, “we are a nation of laws.”
@Romeo13:
You know, just because abuse is happening against one particular group or another in various locations around the country doesn’t mean that it’s appropriate to allow it to spread like a cancer to even more locations. What we need to do is excise it.
The problem here is that there are those who look at the mosque issue and don’t even see the metastasizing tumor that the debate swirling around it has become. Heck, many cannot even recognize that there’s a cancer there.
Every American, yes even atheists and deists, and all other groups should be chilled by these stories…even when the person being subjected to an injustice is not of the same religion, skin color, or gender that we are because if we don’t speak up when others are being victimized who is going to speak for us?
All such instances should be confronted on a one by one individual basis and should never be allowed to be used as a “See, what’s happening here is worse…how about this?”
Nor should one point and say well Christians or Rastafarians or Scientologists are being persecuted or restricted over there so it’s acceptable behavior to abuse Muslims over here as a trade off.
That’s not the way that America works.
It is the right of everyone in the city to decide if they want a memorial to the hijackers next to the burial ground of those killed in the event. Rule of Law has little to do with comon sense. Since building the mosque there is obviously distressing to people who lost loved one and never recovered their bodies to have a Islamic political institute built on the very bones of the dead.
And Islam IS a political party masquerading as a religion. It is NOT a religion as much as it a political movement. Most Muslims will agree with that.
@Ay Chi…
Problem is that Islam is not JUST a religion… its also a set of laws, and worldview that is antiethical to modern Western thought…
Tell me, would we let the Old Spanish Inquisition Church (circa 1650), which believed in prostelyzing by the sword, and supported Slavery, and politics from the Pulpit… and had its OWN police… put down roots in the US? Because that is a pretty good historical analogy.
Heck, there was even some talk about John Kennedys being a Catholic as a problem, and that was in the US in the 1960s…
We are ill equiped to combat a Political system disguised as a Religion… because we will not recognize it for what it is…
Militant Islam is more like National Socialism (Nazis)…. or the 1950s Communists… than they are a religion IMO.
Oh… and please… I’m a 51 years old ret Vet… who can trace direct ancestors to the French and Indian War… let alone the Revolutionary war… I do have a bit of a clue as to “how America works”.
>>What matters is what the rule of law and the Constitution say about it.>>
When laws are applied unequally, and favor some groups more than others, it is no longer called the “rule of law” – it is called corrupt governance.
You and Word have stated that it is _not_ a mosque – it’s a “community center”. As such, how does the “freedom of religion” apply?
It doesn’t apply, as related to their planning decision approval to build per local zoning ordinances, suek. Where it applies is you try to thwart/reverse/usurp that planning decision, using Islam and their stated use, as your reasoning.
Added: BTW, I don’t “state” it’s a mosque, a community center or anything else in particular. As far as I can tell, everyone has some favored pet name, and try to launch their argument off of that name. Personally, I think of it as Cordoba House or Park 51. A rose by any other name is still a building with multifunction amentities for both Muslims and non Muslim, plus masjids.
>>it’s acceptable behavior to abuse Muslims over here as a trade off.>>
So…if laws are applied which prevent muslims from building their “community center”, that’s “muslim abuse”? How about not supplying them with foot baths in public colleges? are we also required to supply them with prayer facilities in public colleges? If they _are_ supplied with prayer facilities in public colleges, are the public colleges also required to provide chapels for various Christian denominations? If they don’t, are they abusing Christians?
Maybe the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the menace of global communism created a serious enemy vacuum. So many things depend on the perception that our nation has a credible enemy, totally dedicated to our destruction.
@Greg: There’s a difference between rational fears and irrational fears.
People who fly planes into buildings and behead innocent victims are representative of the former group.
@Greg…
Lets see…. just how many Americans did the Soviet Union dirctly kill? as compared to the casualties we had on 9/11, and Afganistan, and Iraq…
greg – Our nation does have a credible enemy totally dedicated to our destruction. It’s called “one world government” and its figurehead is Obama.
>>It doesn’t apply, as related to their planning decision approval to build per local zoning ordinances, suek. Where it applies is you try to thwart/reverse/usurp that planning decision, using Islam and their stated use, as your reasoning.>>
Ok…so it’s not a freedom of religion constitutional issue to you, although it seems to be for Aye. Is that correct?
Your issue seems to be that you disapprove of my opinion regarding muslims – actually, I don’t think my opinion or motive is relevant. Either there are legal means to stop the construction or there are not. If there are legal means to stop the construction, then the underlying reasoning for my efforts are of no importance.
What difference does my motive – or anyone else’s – matter when it comes to reversal/usurpation of the planning decision? I might think the planned building is ugly – does that disqualify my action to thwart building it, assuming I use legal means? What you seem to be saying is that my motive has to be “pure” or I’m not “allowed” to attempt to frustrate their efforts.
An attack by Islamic terrorist extremists that cost them an estimated $500 thousand to pull off has resulted in a 10-year military campaign that has so far cost us over $1 trillion. Every one dollar they spent to suck us in has thus far cost us $2 million.
We need to narrow our focus to the actual threats. Seeing the entire Islamic world as the threat doesn’t strike me as doing so. For that reason, I consider generalized paranoia about the entire Islamic world not to be in our best interest.