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.
I haven’t shared this Newt clip from last week’s fantastic speech at AEI on this thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmtk30-sTaY
Full video at AEI
@rumcrook® #86:
The pain caused would only be induced by those who confuse Islam itself with having attacked us on 9/11 instead of recognizing that it is the al Qaeda network and affiliates engaged in international terrorism that is responsible. They are Islamic, but so are those who did not attack us and do not embrace al Qaeda theology (which draws inspiration and rationale from the writings of Sayyid Qutb and Ibn Taymiyya when so many other Islamists- even radical ones- have rejected al Qaeda violence and jihad theorists).
Crap….I commented before going all the way through to see that MataHarley already made this point.
@jeff #121:
Isn’t Rauf one of those who have distanced himself from the ones who took down the Towers? And you might check out this other post regarding those who distanced themselves from the beginning, as well as later on, thanks to Zarqawi’s indiscriminate killing spree, mostly of Muslims.
@jeff #125:
and
@jeff #134:
As Aye wrote:
@Aye Chihuahua #144:
I refer to those like Williams calling this a “monkey god religion”. I refer to those like minuteman who says:
And those who see “creeping sharia” behind every mosque and think every muslim practices taqiyya and must “convert or kill” because the koran tells them to do so.
The intellectual superiority that I see is coming from those who love lecturing and citing the horror passages from the koran, call us dhimmis for not seeing Islamic boogeymen around every corner.
Or….
It is a thumb to the eye of al Qaeda and a rejection of the global jihad movement. Most Muslims on the planet are “apostates” to their ideology.
That’s quite a bit of demagoguery there. Who is the one “shouting” you down?
Who is shouting down who in this video:
I make no apologies for Islam’s sins. But I do have a problem with bigotry from those who reveal it; and I do have a problem with those who condemn those who had nothing to do with the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks; and I do have a problem with those who give aid and comfort to al Qaeda by doing exactly what al Qaeda hopes for.
I apologize to Bly and those who I may have insulted during the weekend slugfest. Lots of comments coming in, and it grew pretty heated. Passions are heavy on both sides.
You might have missed it, Jeff; but this debate has been smouldering over the course of previous threads. If you’re interested in knowing how it all came to this, and how some of us have lost our patience, just do the tedious legwork and start back at the beginning.
It really amazes me that anyone would unashamedly pronounce their disdain for an entire religion, and proudly oppose their public existence anywhere, on ANY grounds, and then become outraged and offended when called out on prejudice and bigotry.
Walk like a duck, quack like a duck, then expect to be labeled a swan?
If you like the shoes, wear them proudly.
Furthermore, I have read much of the Koran. I’ve also read the Bible. In case anyone forgot, that’s not all rainbows and butterflies, either. Here’s the link I provided earlier in the discussion with quotes:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html
And another one:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/intol_bibl.htm
That’s not all Old Testament, either (which would bring up the Torah and Jews…)
Again I ask, does this encapsulate the Christians and Jews YOU know?
There is a Christian church directly across the street from Ground Zero, where many of our Founding Fathers worshiped. I really believe they’d be mortified at the disregard for the First Amendment present in this thread, in favor of prejudice and bigotry.
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 see nothing there that says these freedoms are contingent on what you name them.
I wonder how many people here, besides myself, are actual New Yorkers who would regularly find themselves in the location being discussed.
As for the pain this may cause those who’ve lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks – the 9/11 families are a large, diverse group of people who hold no single opinion on any matter. Both the Left and the Right have exploited them to their own political ends, which I think is very very wrong. There are some who get the difference between 1.4 billion people in the world who practice the same religion and 19 people who murdered their family members, and some who don’t. I believe that clear minded, sensitive people are better off to help those who don’t see the difference better understand what it is, rather than feed off of their grief to support their own views.
CARY: dont you think that there’s enough GRIEVENCES, from thoses familys and friends,and lovers,thoses have died also, to a life because of thoses terribles terrorists actions,
disregard of human life: AND what they are trying to do is disregarding the human side also,
It shows the intent so clear, that people shout their outrage: IS’ NT IT LOUD ENOUGH?.
FOR THEM TO HEAR, or they are unsensetize to feeling,there for labeling them UNHUMAN.
CARY ; all i comment was the right to REDRESS GRIEVENCES,
FROM your comment
Yes, bees… just as one has the right to protest Planned Parenthood, and to pray on the streets, but not to block an entrance.
@Cary 167
So, you think the Aztecs should be able to come back, and through Freedom of Relgions be able to conduct Human Sacrifice?
YES there are religions that I will condemn.
Cary: You might want to watch this discussion with Newt Gingrich which aired earlier today on Fox News:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhkM0kxbP74
@Mike’s America:
Every reply I’ve thought of to this comment would either be boringly repetitive or, as you say, “snide.”
I’m now going to spend my time watering the plants, changing the filter in the fishtank, and banging my head against the wall…
All far more productive than I’ve clearly been here.
@Cary: Newt addressed many of the issues you claim to be concerned about. What a shame you appear uninterested.
I guess you have made up your mind and have no further need to be informed.
Odd that you continue to propagate the myth of Islamophobia despite all the evidence to the contrary.
@Mike’s America:
Believe it or not, I’m much more interested in what you have to say than I am in Newt Gingrich’s opinions. You are quite capable of speaking for yourself.
I have to work early tomorrow, so I’m going to bed. I’ll check this thread again in the morning, but I’m afraid I’m done commenting in it. All that needs to be said, from my point of view, has been said, and said again… and again….
@Cary: Although Newt says much of what I have already said, he summarizes the issue in a way that I can only envy.
What a shame you are not interested in learning more.
@Mike’s America:
Did you click on and read the links I provided? Do you have any thoughts on the points I made? Just wondering….
Have a good night.
MIKE: hi, I just want to mention, that NEWT GINGRICH IS showing great LEADERSHIP by standing up to an abusive attack from the building project .
OK, I have one more thing to say and I’m pretty much done with this subject. I was talking with a friend of mine that always seems to have a different take of things than I do. Not that he’s wrong, it’s just the simplicity of his logic and the humor behind it is always refreshing. He told me, “you can’t build a mosque at ground zero, that’s like building a Taco Bell at the Alamo.”
And there you have it, good ole Southern reasoning at its finest. 8)
I am ABSOLUTELY opposed! No Taco Bells ANYWHERE in the States, plz. I suspect Aye Chihuahua must be a stealth supporter, though. I’m pretty sure I saw him in one of their commercial ads….creeping fastfood….
When I read the Koran for the first time, I was shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, to find out that lying to further the cause of Islam is OK.
Anyone who believes anything said by the people trying to build this mosque are fools, or as the ROP calls them, “dhimmis”.
@ilovebeeswarzone: Newt has never been afraid to get out front on controversial issues. And as he says, when the left has lost the argument, all they have left are smears.
But Newt isn’t the only conservative leader who has spoken out strongly on this issue. There are so many others as I have pointed out.
Wordsmith & Aye,
Sorry, but I don’t have the time or patience for the tedious legwork, and had just about turned my back on this thread. Like a train-wreck, we just gotta keep looking back, I guess.
I am a fan of Flopping Aces and have been since I first started my own blog a few years ago. FA was one of the first three sites I linked to in my blogroll. I try to be a very regular reader (and have referenced and quoted FA many times), but have rarely interjected much in the comments, and always (I believe) ONLY words of encouragement/agreement.
But you fellows have hit a nerve.
It is not whether you can argue the merits of a Ground Zero Mosque using the rule of law. It is that you simultaneously attempt to shame the Mosque’s opponents with your contrived terms of derision (Islamophobe, conspiracist), and preach the innocence of the ones attempting to build it.
Either function is independently dispicable in my mind. If your usage of those terms does not stand, on their own value, in the context I read them, then no further research is warranted.
You guys are better writers than I am. That’s why I come here. But I frankly expect more. It’s awfully presumptious of me, I admit, but I think FA readers do, and should, expect more.
Your efforts in this thread communicate the notion that there is no threat. Eerily similar to the ostrich media’s non-efforts, no? Did I miss the post where you called Tea Party activists “racist?”
Were you distracting us with discussions on the rule of law when Yemeni Islamic terrorists blew up the USS Cole? Were you testifying to the value of tolerance while Major Hassan chased his bullets at Ft. Hood with shouts of “allah akbar”?
I really am sorry for being so critical. And I think, based on what Aye has said above, that he and I are not too dissimilar in thought. But I have to believe that you gentlemen could hold yourselves to a higher editorial standard than to resort to the aforementioned contrived slurs. I distrust Muslims simply because I’ve read their playbook, and I’ve seen enough bad behavior to say that it’s a representative sample. To lump my sentiments, and those of most FA readers into the class of racist or bigot is to diminish them, and that is every bit as wrong as the 19 with box-cutters or the one with his underwear on fire.
Again, it’s irrelevant to me whether you can cite legal precedent. What matters to me is that someone at one of my favorite publications chooses to put the weight of his/her byline in defense of slurs against people who think like me…most FA readers. We are at war. Our so-called leaders are afraid to say it’s a war against a religion or a part thereof. Our enemy is poorly defined, but to suggest that the solution is to assume their innocence (or that of their brother or cousin) is suicidal.
Waiting for better laws is not the solution. If you aren’t on the side of outrage, then your having the good sense to remain silent will suffice. Speaking against our outrage, as if we’re bigots no less, places you squarely on the wrong side. You can disagree, but attempts to shame us will be received as insults.
@jeff: I wish you hadn’t waited until this thread was nearly dead (or at least I hope it is) to make those points.
I disagree that you find yourself less of a writer than others. That was a near perfect summation of the problem and one with which I wholeheartedly concur and I suspect the overwhelming majority of readers here do so as well.
As Newt said, there are two kinds of jihadis. One advocates a violent confrontation with the infidels and the other prefers to work long term using cultural and social levers. But both work towards the same end which is the imposition of Shariah Law.
Not all Muslims believe in the imposition of Shariah in all the lands in which Muslims live (which pretty much means everywhere) and I have supported those who might reasonably called “moderate” Muslims. But I don’t believe that is what we have in this case. There is too much evidence linking Rauf to radicals, including family ties to Al Queda leader Zawahiri.
The action on the mosque now moves to the courtroom with the American Center for Law and Justice lawsuit filed on behalf of 9/11 survivor and fireman Tim Brown:
http://aclj.org/
I’ve been a fan of ACLJ for years starting when Jay Sekelow took on Rev. Jesse Jackson’s attempt to shake down corporate America.
I would encourage anyone who feels as passionately about this issue as I do to consider a donation to ACLJ:
http://www.aclj.org/Content/?f=75
P.S. I note from your web page that you highlight a video by LTC. Allen West who is running for Congress. Many of us are fans of Col. West too. He’s served in Iraq and understands what we are facing. His thoughts on the Ground Zero mosque are also worth hearing:
@jeff:
Well, Jeff, in comment #144 I posed as series of questions to you in order to try and get a reading on your position as well as a measure on the distance between us.
The answers to those questions becomes even more important considering that you admit that you haven’t done the legwork necessary to read the transcripts of the entire conversation.
I don’t blame you for that. There’s a lot of stuff there to read. So, in order to avoid rushing to judgment or “acting stupidly” I asked questions and offered to answer whatever questions you may have wanted to ask.
From reading your response it appears that, rather than ask questions or review the record, you’ve opted instead to make leaps in logic and have thus arrived at conclusions regarding our positions that are not supported by any sort of evidence whatsoever.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your complaint revolves specifically around the use of the words “Islamophobe” and “”conspiracist”? Is that right?
As Wordsmith’s response to you indicates those labels are rightly being applied where the feet fit the shoes.
No one is calling you that Jeff. No one is applying those labels, or any others, to you.
Nor is anyone stating here that the opposition is entirely composed of ‘phobes or bigots. That argument hasn’t been made here.
Therefore the source of your perceived insult only exists in your mind.
On the contrary, we’ve been very careful since you entered the conversation to ask you questions and attempt to gather facts rather than just jump to conclusions and fire off a response.
But that has not been your approach. You opened up to the 25th chapter and immediately gave a review on the part of the Book Club discussion you missed.
You have dreamed up words, thoughts, and motives that do not exist.
Then, once the machinations of your imagination have run their cycle…and your self-created outrageous outrage is sufficiently outrageous and with your nerves set on edge…you turn your finger toward us to condemn us for the very non-existent words, thoughts, and motives that you ginned up.
Now, you’ll notice in my original response to you that I was very careful to try and suss out your thoughts and positions through the use of a series of probing questions. I did that because the only information available for analysis was a half-handful of posts that didn’t paint a sufficient picture for me.
Perhaps, outside of reading the background which would have given you the entire panorama, you should have extended the same courtesy to us rather than rushing to judgment, condemning us and trying to shame us into silence based on what you think we believe.
Creating words, thoughts, and motives out of thin air and then applying them like a blanket is “eerily similar to the ostrich media’s non-efforts” eh?
That approach is unfortunate and especially ironic considering that the entire record is there for your perusal as well as the fact that I specifically offered to answer whatever questions you may have had.
@Mike’s America:
Yep, you want the thread to die so badly that you keep crawling through leaving more comments for people to respond to.
Makes perfect sense. Not.
The question that needs to be asked is: Are all Muslims jihadis of one variety or the other?
Actually, the position that you have taken is that your opposition would still be there…though perhaps at a “less vocal” level….regardless of who was behind the project.
Your position is no mosque in this location at this time because it’s “WRONG, WRONG, WRONG” based, of course, solely on your opinion of what defines WRONG.
Mike, is your real desire and intention to stop the construction of this mosque? If so, how do you plan to approach that goal?
Would you propose to do it through the legal process? If so, on what basis?
Do you propose to accomplish the goal by appealing to the hearts and minds of the property owners and others behind the project? Have your words here been sufficiently appealing so as to influence people and win them over to your view?
Would all of the things you have typed here be an effective approach in getting those people to come around to your way of thinking or would your words and approaches more likely be a turnoff?
How easily could the positions you have taken here be turned around and used to stir up anti-Islamic or anti-Conservative sentiment?
@Aye Chihuahua: You are officially on IGNORE. Apparently you don’t know when it’s in your best interests to stay silent.
MIKE’SAMERICA I must say IT’s not MOOSE REASON yet where 2 bulls will knock each
each other’s brain by clashing on each other. bye
ilovebeeswarzone, I Second the motion.
An Old Army gem of wisdom: “A pissing contest gets everyones boots wet and there can be no clear winner declared as all boots get soiled in the process”
Mike’s America, don’t take your ball and go home! The Republic is at risk and we need every player in the game! We at FA are ALL on the Home Team here.
@Mike’s America:
And precisely how are things are different now than they were since last week?
You’ve been ignoring me since I first posted the questions you couldn’t answer.
Debate 101, Rule 1: When you don’t debate or answer the points of your opposition, you lose the debate.
Is that another threat I smell….or is it defeat?
Another voice of a TRUE moderate muslim:
[Excerpted…see link above for whole article]
This echoes the views of Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a founder of the American Islamic Forum, one of the few certifiable group representing so-called moderate Muslims:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/mosque_unbecoming_QmXgG4QyGgz4ATF9v7cBDM
OLD TROOPER: THANK you for the shoulder, I must say that I was IN DANGER, because I was trying to write exactly the same comment to AYE CHIHUAHUA, and twice ,WORDPRESS stop me, and I was coming back to write it again, and i happen to see your comment.
So I’ll stop now, because I know you can better do that job. bye.
@Old Trooper 2: You are correct in suggesting we have bigger fish to fry and that we need unity, not division.
I agree wholeheartedly.
@ilovebeeswarzone: There’s a lot of Bull around here all right!
Certain blood cult religions have been banned before in the USA. Should the 1st amendment have protected them from being banned?
@ilovebeeswarzone: You have a common sense that transcends the language barrier!
By the way, what is your first language?
As I’ve asked before, who sets the parameters on what is radical versus moderate, etc?
How do you define that? Is it done with a blood test? A set of scales? Fingerprinting?
Is that definition concrete and unwavering?
@Aye
Were there Moderate Nazis? or Moderate Communists?
Islam is NOT just a Religion, its a political/philisophical movement as well, and becaue the Political/Philisophical system is commanded by God, they get cover?
And the real problem is this… if they follow their Holy book, verbatim, they see US as a threat.
The only way you can be (to Western thought) a “Moderate Moslem” is to ignore large parts of your own Holy Book.
@Mike’s America:
Since you’re bringing up others’ statements that support your own, how about one that really matters, as they have a direct vested interest in the matter as the leader of the city in question?
The Mayor of NYC, a Republican I proudly voted for every time (I even wrote his name in the Dem primaries), and would do so again with absolutely no hesitation, Michael Bloomberg made this statement today:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-bloomberg/mayor-bloomberg-on-the-ne_b_669338.html?ref=fb&src=sp
He couldn’t have nailed anything more right on the money, than he did in this speech. Makes me proud to be a New Yorker.
@Cary: You might be aware that most of us would consider Bloomberg a RINO (Republican in Name Only). I’m glad to learn that you have at least voted for ONE Republican in your life. Why not make it two, or three just to balance things out?
But I’ll stake my flag around my reliable conservative friends like Newt, Palin, Peter King, Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol and so many more.
I’m proud to be an American.
P.S. Majorities of New York voters disapprove of this mosque. (1, 2) You’re outnumbered in New York just as defenders of the mosque are outnumbered here (although in much bigger numbers):
@Cary
So, it appears Bloomburg would also then approve of an Aztec Pyramid, with Human Sacrifice alter on top?
There is religious tolerance, and then there is stupidity. The debate now is where to draw the line.
Oh… and its interesting that your Republican Mayor would post on … Huffington Post? That Bastion of Conservative thought?
@Mike’s America:
I’d think you’d know me well enough by now to know that I vote according to issues, not party lines.
The only poll I’m aware of in NY (and why do polls only seem to matter when we like the results? Seriously.) has it about close to half.
Even so, luckily the US Constitution prohibits the majority from infringing upon the Constitutional rights of the minority.
So, if all your support, numbers, emotions, and subjective values can trump the US Constitution, then I’d guess you might have somewhat of a point. I’m just unclear as to what the actual point is.
@Romeo13:
No, he did not post the speech on the Huffington Post, they just reported it. You want other sources more palatable to you? Here ya go…
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/21/bloomberg-says-palin-racist-opposition-mosque-near-ground-zero/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-03/ground-zero-mosque-plans-move-forward-after-new-york-landmarks-panel-vote.html
And with that, I truly have nothing else to say on the matter.
BLOOMBERG cannot say NEW YORK is the best city of all AMERICA, IF it’s so free THERE,
HOW come the MUSLIM terrorist choose to destroy thoses towers that represent so HIGHLY
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, and why does he allowe the MUSLIM money to BUILT so close to a GRAVEYARD of 3000 peoples from all over the AMERICA and from many others countrys?
and 60000 more injured by thoses terrorists actions of war.
HE is not well equipted to call on LIBERTY. for being a WILLING witness to that project which the big majority reject.
@Cary said: And with that, I truly have nothing else to say on the matter.
Somehow I doubt that.
>>Certain blood cult religions have been banned before in the USA.>>
free` (194)…do you have further info on who what when or why? I’m not aware of any that fit this discription…
thier is only two scenerios.
ruaf is an extremely insensitive person who is honestly representing what he wants to do in building the mosque,
and thierfore deserves the hard time he has been given by the oposition. it is insensitive and it is hurting people
or he is not honest and the result is the same people are being hurt and it is a thumb in the american wound.
and it even more so deserves opposition.
I dare any of the watercariers to say this isnt insensitive.
I dare any of the watercarriers to say they beleive the ummah around the globe is funding this out of interfaith understanding.
why cant ruaf, (if he is honest) back off and say, this is causing more pain and wasnt the intension we will look for a building several blocks away.
all, and I mean all the controversy would go away.
no one would continue oposition except maybe a few extremists.
rumcrook; good idea if he does it, he will be able to sleep in peace, but i doubt it:
I liked that image you had on one comment, was; 2 silhouettes hanging from what/ a parachute?
and one is holding the other one who seems to have been falling . bye
Dennis Miller on the Ground Zero Mosque:
@Mike’s America:
Watched it. You should be glad I’m done commenting on this.
More on the lawsuit by 9/11 survivor, firefighter Tim Brown:
@Mike’s America:
Please see my last paragraph on comment #167.
For someone who supposedly wants to this thread to die out, you keep repeating the same points over and over in desperation. Seems like you’re not entirely confident in your position.
@Cary: For someone who keeps insisting he’s done commenting, you keep at it….
I guess you aren’t too confident in your position.
@Mike’s America:
I’m rubber, you’re glue…
This is getting childish and annoying. I’m now unsubscribing this thread.