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.
@Mata
That is what I was getting at as well. If, as some people(including myself) believe, that Islam will attempt at some point to integrate Sharia law into our own rule of laws in this country, and attempt a silent, peaceful takeover from within, we cannot hope to ever repel such an attack without a solid, conservative grounding in the principles and ideals behind the Constitution. And we cannot have that if we continue to be distracted by issues that take away the focus from defeating the liberals and progressives in this country.
PS. Some will call me an Islamaphobe, and that is fine. I do not care about that.
@Mike’s America:
Am I the one causing friction and factional behavior?
Am I really?
Or am I really the guy who offered the idea for a “One More Time & We’re Done” head to head style debate between the two sides represented by the contributors on this site?
An offer which you have not yet accepted.
In my offer, if you recall, I was perfectly willing to allow you to choose the teammate of your choice since the balance of opinion is tipped away from you on this.
I invite you to accept.
In the meantime, it’s perfectly fine for you to sling mud at me Mike. I’m a big boy and I can take it. With three teenagers at home and having been married for 20 plus years, someone being angry at me about something isn’t a new experience.
Just be aware that whatever you slurs or aspersions you sling at me will be reflected right back.
So, if you decide to take up the offer on the one on one idea, debating directly with one another right out in the open….which will wrap this issue up completely for FA….just let Curt know.
Then he can close out all the threads on the topic and we can move on if that is what he sees fit to do.
Again, I invite you to accept.
If you prefer instead to keep your head down, dashing ’round the comment section instead, then I’ll be right here armed with a stack of facts and a series of uncomfortable questions and points which you’ll likely continue to ignore.
>>Okay, it read differently in my inbox. However, you’re still lumping the entire religion into the “terrorist box” which is essentially the same thing.>>
Perhaps because that’s been the history of islam.
Are you familiar with the beginning of the Marine Corps song “From the shores of Montezuma..to the Shores of Tripoli…”…
Do you know the origination of those lines??
@Mike’s America:
So that explains why the mosque topic was included as part of the post topic…so that no one would discuss it?
That’s funny.
@suek
Not many do know the origin of those lines, even amongst the Marines themselves I’m sad to say.
@Cary:“Scroll through all your comments on the matter and try to figure out for yourself why I would perceive that. I don’t think it should be very difficult. “
You are suggesting I must prove my innocence and that you assume my guilt until I do so.
With all the blathering about the Constitution and the rule of law surrounding this discussion don’t you find that a bit odd?
If it was so easy to prove your point, you would do it, not expect me to waste further time to prove my innocence.
suek FYI It’s ” From The Halls Of Montezuma—-
Sort of like the folks who want to build the mosque….they’re all guilty because of the actions of 19 people on four planes a few years ago, eh?
I don’t have a herd mentality, but I agree with Mike. His statements are simply reflective of my own.
Paint it as you like, but anyone looks me in the eye and says they really believe that there are only good intentions attached to building anything remotely Mosque-not-Mosque at or near the site of that destruction, I’m calling a liar or just plain ignorant.
Same is true for the Mosque-not-Mosque in Shanksville, PA, which I was asked to help build, but refused.
I don’t hate them or fear them. I believe they meant it when they said they intended to conquer us, those that said it. And those so-called moderate Muslims who didn’t say it, but also didn’t distance themselves from the ones who did, and/or those who erect monuments to unity, have missed their chance as far as the benefit of the doubt goes.
@suek:
Yep…and I know the origin of the term “leatherneck” too.
Do I get extra points for that?
@suek: I think I addressed this point two or three times. I know it’s a chore to dig through, but please try. I’m seriously short on time.
@Mike’s America: I’m not asking you to prove anything. just to figure out for yourself why I would feel that way, since I already stated serious time constraints.
Just for the record, the “balance of opinion” is NOT tipped away from Mike, but toward. Same goes for the balance of intellect, I think.
And concerning the “slurs and aspersions” stuff, please see the title of this post where those who don’t agree with the contributor are labeled “Islamophobes” and “conspiRACISTS”.
@jeff: Thank you Jeff. You just got a big target painted on your back but you are in the best of company.
@Cary: Sorry, but I am neither a mind reader, nor a psychiatrist and I did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. I can’t explain why you have such an irrational view.
@jeff:
Just in case you missed it when reading my comment, the “balance of opinion” to which I was referring to the balance within the contributor ranks here at FA. Among that group, yes, opinion is tipped away from Mike.
As for the balance of intellect you’re certainly entitled to whatever opinion you like.
You are, however, including yourself on the side of those who cannot establish a clear rule of law, Constitution based reason to prohibit the project from continuing.
That fact should be considered when examining the balance of “intellect.”
You’ll notice, if you care to look, that I didn’t write or title either of those posts.
Nor have I used the term “Islamophobe” or “conspiRACISTS” in any of my posts or comments.
I have used the term bigot or bigotry where it applies in relation to specific comments because those descriptors were appropriate.
PROGRAM ALERT: Sean Hannity will be highlighting this topic, including the lastest news that the ACLU has come out in favor of the mosque, on his radio program this afternoon. Check your local station.
Gosh…. I’d hate to find myself on the same side of an issue as the ACLU!
Jeff: Note that the vast majority of the readers here express their oppositon to this mosque and it’s called a “herd mentality.” When the Cordoba Cabal defending this mosque points to the awkward coalition they have cobbled together it’s NOT a herd.
Well, I suppose that is correct. It would take more than a handful to come up with a herd.
Just a warning to everyone…discuss this topic all you want but keep it civil. If the thread degenerates, or any other, I will not hesitate to close the thread. Discuss, argue, and debate but keep it all civil.
@Mike’s America:
Wanna talk about your position on the DISCLOSE Act?
No?
How about McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform?
Don’t wanna talk about that one either?
That darned ACLU….no, they’re not always wrong. Even if you do want to try and paint them with that great big broad brush of yours.
@Curt: It would be a better idea to close this thread now. It’s gone way past the point of a civil and useful discussion. If I hear one more comment about how mosque defenders are supporting the Constitution and the Rule of Law I am going to throw up.
Mike Did you know the ACLU has defended Ollie North and Rush Limbaugh?
Thanks for the reply, Aye. When the author set the tone of the discussion using those terms, he not only insulted Mike, but also the readers of Flopping Aces. I did, and do, take hearty exception. Those of you who choose to support that argument do not seem to be distancing yourselves from the presumed intellectual superiority, looking down your noses at all of us.
I stand on the side of right, regardless of the rule of law. And I think that is where the legal rhetoric, and those spewing it, misses the point.
Building a mosque (not mosque) at GZ is an extension of their war against us. It’s a flag on the moon. It is their victory. Our domestic laws do not apply empirically to the equation, and those who would shout us down only prove to us where their true allegiances lie.
If you are an Islamic apologist, then you don’t deserve to be my countryman.
I should hope that you, the author, and the other contributors will consider an apology to the FA readers for the insult.
Shame on you, sir.
Mike, I’m happy to bear the target. Been shot at by far meaner than these.
MATA: I MUST REPHRASE BY saying this: instead of THE WORD”SUPPORTERS”
I should have said ” his MUSLIMS FINANCIAL SUPPORTERS” that’s what I meant,
I appologise for the error of my comment, to anyone I offended and most of all to yourself, whom I truly respect for standing tall with your convictions and knowledge of the laws made
SPECIALY for AMERICANS which I admire for many reasons specialy the ever so tolerant CONSERVATIVES,who use theire freedom of speech, on abusives situations.
AS we have seen the DEMOCRATS choose instead ;LIES, RACIST ACCUSATIONS WITHOUT PROOF,
AND BULLEY tacticts on others rallys that are from their opposites POLITICAL VIEWS.
@Curt:
No problem Curt. Glad to comply here.
As to the idea of just arbitrarily closing the thread just because it might possibly boil over, I disagree.
Those who find themselves sweating uncomfortably in the kitchen are certainly welcome to find another room of the house to hang out in.
Wont close it because it might boil over…only if it does with a bunch of uncivil comments. I understand one persons definition of uncivil might be different but I’m talking about a bunch of name calling that does no one any good
@Everyone
The argument has devolved into nothing resembling an intelligent discussion on this topic, which is why I have requested that you all stop. Not to silence one side or the other, but to allow one to step back and allow conscious thought to come forth instead of reactionary denouncements. That is what the idiot liberals do when arguing a point.
I don’t know that anyone here has become an ‘apologist’ for Islam, just as I don’t think that anyone here is a true bigot purely because they oppose the Islamic faith.
Most of the people here, including many who argue for allowance of the building, see this as a slap in the face of America by a religion, and they have a point. I, myself, feel that the building is a symbol of Islamic arrogance by placing it so near to GZ, much like the Islamic arrogance of claiming Jerusalem as one of most import to their religion and having a mosque built upon the ruins of centers of Jewish and Christian faith.
What is not agreed on, I believe, is the allowance of the building to go forward, seemingly for intolerant reasons that have no standing within the structure of our Constitution. If we allow intolerance to reign, and prevent the building based on this, we become no better than those whom we are sworn to defend against. I am, by no means, a peacenik who wishes people simply get along for the sake of getting along and not standing up for your convictions, but as Mata has stated, “We have bigger fish to fry” and by continuing down this path, instead of concentrating on the truly important issues at hand, we blind ourselves to the actions of the left.
I have made my stance on this clear, just as has everyone else it seems. Can we now get back to the “regularly scheduled programming” (h/t Mike) and discuss the lunacy of the left and the direction they are taking this country?
Mr. Wheeler…
From the “Halls”…yes. Thank you for the correction. Fingers fingers…properly smacked!
It seems to me that the entire discussion is based on three points: the fact that islam is a religion gives it priority in choosing a site on which to build which is incontrovertible and unopposable ; people are irrationally afraid of islam; to harbor hostile feelings toward members of a group who have attacked us although they themselves may be innocent is unamerican/immoral/I’m not exactly sure what, but definitely wrong.
Point one: Is it a mosque or is it not? Yes it is…no it’s a community center…but it will have a mosque … no of course they won’t blow the call to prayer 5 times a day – would it violate freedom of religion to prohibit it? I’m still not sure.
Point two: islam has a 1500+ year history of aggression and suppression of other religions. Yet somehow some people think that by coming to the US, that philosophy is given a once in 1500 year chance to change. Some people probably think that one of these days, Lucy will actually hold the football for Charley Brown, too. All of the 911 bombers came from the wealthy class. All of them had a period of education in the US. They were not enlightened by their education. I simply don’t understand how some people think that people can be “educated” out of underlying religious beliefs. However. Let’s assume you’re correct, and that the imam leading this effort is a man who truly believes that shariah law is somehow compatible with the Constitution. He’s prepared to negate those parts of the koran and shariah law that says that women can be beaten by their husbands, that girls as young as 9 can be married to husbands of their parent’s choice, that a woman’s testimony is only worth 1/4 of that of a man and to preach that women are equal to males. Ok…that sounds good. Now…how old is this imam? how do future imams get chosen? who pays them? do they have some appellation that differentiates them from all the other muslims – you know…like “reformed islamic mosque”?
Point three: Political correctness is not worth discussing. It’s just name calling and an effort to shame someone who disagrees with you because you have no other defense. You can call me an islamophobe if you want, but as an American, I have the right to be an islamophobe, if that’s what I think. If you don’t like it…tough.
I’ve also seen the opinion that we should permit – nay, encourage – the mosque to be built – even right on the site of the twin towers itself – in order to prove to the world how free and tolerant we are. That opinion reminds me of the story of the frog carrying the scorpion across the river.
We’re all entitled to our opinions. I also think I’m entitled to oppose any decision made by any political body in the US as long as I do so within the bounds of the law. The landmark board has apparently given the permission required to destroy the 18th century building. Can that decision be appealed? If I could, and it could, I’d appeal. Yes – I’d operate within the law to do what I could to oppose the building. Those of you who appeal to “the Constitution”…what objection to you have to that? I haven’t suggested bombing the building. I haven’t even suggested housing a small herd of hogs there – though that’s appealing. All anybody on this list has said is that “we object”. And like it or not, we’re allowed.
@jeff: I’ve got my battle scars too. This latest won’t leave more than a scab.
I enjoyed reading your blog:
http://sweetteaandlivermush.blogspot.com/
Meanwhile, Tim Brown, a firefighter who survived the attack at Ground Zero was on Fox News this morning. A debate with a supporter of the mosque and the radical-linked CAIR organization ensued:
Notice how the CAIR hack uses the same Constitution and Rule of Law argument.
The latest from Frank Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy:
Gaffney’s Center also put out this video:
@johngalt:
I understand where you’re coming from and agree that this issue has been pounded and pounded and pounded some more.
I also know that I’ve offered up the idea for a “One More Time & We’re Done” style debate between the blog authors here.
That particular post would establish the facts of the issue, then the two conflicting positions would be stated in the post body in opening statement fashion.
The debate would then occur in the comments section with standard debate rules in force.
The proposed discussion would be limited to one or two participants on each side and each party would be expected to make their own arguments, in their own words with brief citations of source material.
The opening arguments and the comments section would be available as a read-only to the general audience.
If all parties were to agree on this approach then the issue would be finished and Curt could, at his discretion, go ahead and close all of the previous posts on the topic.
It is my belief that if this proposal were to be accepted, this issue could be wrapped up in 30 comments or less.
So far, Mike has not accepted the proposal.
IS IT THE END?, WELL IF I HAVE THE LAST COMMENT; I WILL SAY, to ALL;
WHAT A GOOD GROUP AT FLOOPING ACES, no one have been hurt, and no one had a weapon,
YOU ALL ARE THE BEST FOR AMERICA.
@jeff:
A couple of questions for you:
1) Are there, or are there not “Islamophobic” or “conspiRACIST” (the term should actually be bigot since there is not a race involved) but disregarding that…are there, or are there not ‘phobic or bigoted elements present in the opposition to this project? Not on these pages necessarily but in the opposition overall?
2) The title of the post is “Refudiating the Islamophobes.” If you and/or Mike are not an Islamophobe then why should you be offended by the title of the post? Why should anyone?
I’m not sure what supposed intellectual superiority we’re distancing ourselves from. Perhaps you can clarify.
The idea of “right or wrong” is a mushy, malleable thing which varies according to the eye of the beholder.
The US Constitution and the rule of law by extension are unwavering anchor points for our Republic. If we detach ourselves from those anchors we are headed for disaster.
I may not like the idea of the proposed project but, unfortunately, there are times when the US Constitution allows things that we may not like. Free speech for example is extended to everyone…even those we disagree with. The same is true with the principles of Due Process and Equal Protection.
I will always stand for the rule of law. If I don’t like what the law says, then I’ll work to change it. Until then, I comply. Even when we disagree we must comply.
Otherwise our Constitution is worthless.
A couple of questions:
1) Define “their” for me. Who exactly are we at war with?
2) Was George W. Bush a liar?
How does domestic law not apply to a local zoning decision? Who is shouting your side down? Who is denying you the opportunity to be heard?
Shame on me?
I’ve done nothing more than argue for the US Constitution and the rule of law and I should be ashamed of that? Not a chance.
Your number of comments here at FA is limited so, based on that, I don’t know how long you’ve been around these parts.
Given that, before you respond further, I’d like for you to know this much:
I am unapologetically, unwaveringly Conservative. I believe in the US Constitution and the rule of law. I believe that all men are created equal and that all Americans are guaranteed equal protection under the law.
I believe that the First Amendment applies to all, regardless of whether it’s my religion or not or whether I agree or disagree with the speech that is being expressed.
I also believe that we are at war with the extremist elements of the religion of Islam. I believe that we have been at war with those elements all the way back to Reagan.
When it comes to the War on Terror, I say fight it to win it wherever our troops encounter the enemy and I support our men and women in uniform unconditionally.
I believe in a simple approach to those captured on the battlefield. Simply follow the provisions of the Geneva Conventions for those captured on the battlefield without a uniform. (Hint: The provisions don’t involve a prison in Basra or at Club G’tmo…they involve sudden onset battlefield lead poisoning.)
When it comes to those captured on US soil carrying out the plots of the enemy FDR had the right idea (ala Ex Parte Quirin and Operation Pastorius). Of course, FDR also had the wrong idea (ala internment camps.)
So, there’s a brief synopsis of where I am.
If there are areas where you still have questions, let me know.
@Aye Chihuahua: When did you stop beating your wife?
Surely you can’t be offended by the question if you aren’t a wife beater.
@ilovebeeswarzone: Good luck with getting the last word in. I would have shut this idiotic exchange down a week ago but egos on the part of some keep getting in the way.
@Mike’s America:
Nope, not offended at all, but thanks for asking nonetheless.
@ILOVEBEESWARZONE
/looks at the Gun safe in his office, and the swords hanging on the walls…
Untrue statement…. LOL…
Wow. Quite a discussion. I am not an Islamaphobe nor is my head in the sand but I do find
it grotesuely distasteful and insensitive for the Cordoba Mosque to be built where currently slated.
Regarding some of the point / counter point from varying folks I simply offer this: I DO support
the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law. I do NOT support this particular Mosque being built at Ground Zero and there is NO conflict between my opposition to the location of the Mosque and
the U.S. Constitution.
@Mike’s America:
Which is why you keep dragging yourself back to the comment section, eh?
@biggerin texas
I thing part of the problem is that the term Islamophobe is used… as a Phobia is an irrataional fear…
Some of us, through experience in the Mideast and elswhere… and through study of the issue, have a very rataional fear of a Political movement which is given the protections of a religion. One which like Bill Ayers, actualy STATES their plans and intentions, yet some won’t take them at their word….
@biggerintexas:
I don’t believe that anyone has made the argument that simple opposition to the project, or expressing such opposition, runs contrary to the Constitution.
What has been stated, repeatedly, is that actually stopping the project can only be done through either: a) a change of heart by those who wish to build it, or b) intervention through either NY City statute/ordinance, the NY State Constitution, the US Constitution, or some other rule of law.
None of those appear to be forthcoming.
New to this sight. Spent the last hour reading this most interesting thread.
Would like to add my two cent’s worth:
I am 56 and “been ’round”. There is one thing I have learned:
There are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.
Hard lesson to learn, individually or as a society. Those who fail do so at their peril.
Kobe Chan…
Welcome to the islamophobe group!
Meetings are held sporadically when such issues arise on FA…!
ROMEO 13: hi, I dont tell of what I dont see, bye
Oops…Kobe Clan…not Chan.
There are some here who think leopards change their spots, and Lucy will someday actually hold onto the football so that Charley Brown can kick it. I guess 1500+ years of history just isn’t really enough to use as a reliable predictor.
@KobeClan:
Welcome to FA Kobe.
Sit down, make yourself comfortable, and stay awhile.
suek; IT’S usualy on the full moon, the beast show up in man only.
>>Nope, not offended at all, but thanks for asking nonetheless.>>
But you didn’t answer the question…
AYE CHIHUAHUA: hi, I heard that you’r a WIFE BEATER, SHOCKING.
suek, I’m looking for the question and , cant find it.
Old saying: “you’re not paranoid if there’s someone following you.”
Have a friend, a Lebanese Christian, who still sleeps with an Uzi under his bed even after being in the states for 20+ years. First met him in SA 30 years ago.
Convinced me to study the Koran. Interesting reading. He called it “Mo’s Mein Kampf”. Truly an eye-opener for me. Should be required reading for all the “non-islamophobes” here.
If you get through it with your mind unchanged, I’ll buy you a beer and a pulled-pork sandwich.
KobeClan: hi, I like your first line specialy, welcome
Beating your wife is really bad, but not as bad as beating your dog. I’ve never met a dog beater I liked. Islams don’t like dogs and Vietnamese eat them. In terms of Socialist Realism, their ideynost or ideological expression needs work.
As King Lear threatened Regan and Goneril, I say to dog beaters
No you unnatural hags
I will have revenges on you both
Nay all the world shall- I will do such things,
what they are, yet I know not; but they shall be
The terrors of the earth