Is it hypcrisy to be against a mosque near Ground Zero but for a pro-Catholic thing?

[aperture]

Just to be clear, are those of you who oppose the mosque doing so because you believe that it’s “too soon” or that there should never be a mosque there?

 

[Stylites]

That said, I do disagree with your second paragraph… I think. I’m honestly not entirely sure what you are trying to say. However, I think you are trying to say that the Islamic Center/mosque should be allowed to be built there because not all Muslims are guilty of the terrorist attacks. However, there are other reasons to oppose the building of the Islamic Center/mosque:

1. 
   *]It will deeply offend and cause painful memories to those who did suffer from the terrorist attacks in any way, shape, or form and I believe that the vast majority of Americans suffered in some way, if only from the shock of this horrendous event.
   *]The Islamic Center/mosque is going to be used to educate people about Islam according to an article that I read the other day. This is not good. Again, anyone who goes in there could be proselytized (and most likely will be) and you must understand that many Muslims are trained to try and effectively counter the objections of Christians and Catholics to their faith. Yes, the Muslims do have a portion of the Truth that the Catholic Church has an exclusive hold upon but they do not have the entire Truth. Far from it, actually. They deny the Trinity, the crucifixion of Christ, and even accuse much of the Bible of being corrupted by translation. For those Catholics and Christians who are not well catechized, they could easily win a proselyite from the one true Faith, the Catholic Church.
   *]What if this Islamic Center/mosque soon begins to become a center for training in the more radical variety of Islam but simply do not endorse terrorism for fear of being caught? What if those who were then indoctrinated into radical Islam take the seemingly “logical” (but actually false) conclusion that they should engage in terrorism in order to obtain a place in Muslim “Paradise” where they will then have their 72 virgins?
   
   Anyway, those are two main reasons to oppose the building of this mosque, or any mosque in general (number 1 relates specifically to this case).
   
   God Bless,
   Holly

1. 
   Sorry, but I don’t buy into hopelessness nor into the idea that Christians should be involved in thwarting the free exercise of religion.
   
   .

 

[tjm190]

It would be hypocritical to be pro allowing rosary wearing and anti-crescent necklace wearing. The two issues in the OP are not sufficiently related.

 

[Ponyguy]

It would be hypocritical to be pro allowing rosary wearing and anti-crescent necklace wearing. The two issues in the OP are not sufficiently related.

Fine.

Let people wear rosary beads around their necks, a crucifix on a chain, a crescent on a string, a Mogen David, or a 32° Mason pinned to their lapel. Let them wear a coonskin cap, a baseball cap, a derby, a cowboy hat or a fez. They can wear pants, skirts, shorts, a burqua, or a kilt. They can wear combat boots, Keds, flip-flops, wingtips, sandals or even go bare-foot.

BUT, DON’T allow that symbol of Moslem hatred to be built arrogantly adjacent to a national shrine. The false claim that Moslems are “peaceful people” and Islam is a “religion of peace” has never been punctuated so well as by the lack of any sort of contrition for the heinous acts perpetrated on 9-11 by those zealots.

 

[Stylites]

BUT, DON’T allow that symbol of Moslem hatred to be built arrogantly adjacent to a national shrine. The false claim that Moslems are “peaceful people” and Islam is a “religion of peace” has never been punctuated so well as by the lack of any sort of contrition for the heinous acts perpetrated on 9-11 by those zealots.

Not exactly words which the Church would use. I haven’t heard your contrition for what Jim Jones and David Koresh did, by the way.

People of good will and charity should allow others to worship God in whatever capacity they wish to, without their efforts at worship being called “hatred.”

.

 

[diggerdomer]

Okay, but that doesn’t tell me much.

Maybe not, but based on the info you’ve given that is what Catholic teaching would say.

Yeah, uh huh… It can’t mean that because if it meant that, it’d be contradicting other paragraphs and sections of the Catechism which clearly say that humans have free will and can sin.

Where did what I posted contradict free will and sin?

 

[Ponyguy]

Not exactly words which the Church would use. I haven’t heard your contrition for what Jim Jones and David Koresh did, by the way.

People of good will and charity should allow others to worship God in whatever capacity they wish to, without their efforts at worship being called “hatred.”

.

To whom ought I confess for what those guys did? And what did they do, in the first place? Was Koresh part of the “Davidians” in Wacko, Texas? And Jones was the guy who killed a senator, then forced his followers to commit mass suicide someplace in South or Central America? So, I should apologize for their collective mental deficiency?

Okay, I apologize to whomever for whatever Koresh and Jones perpetrated. I do not and never did condone what they did, and frankly, they are God’s problem now.

Moslems collectively have roundly condemned the “American devils” for just about every possible problem in the world. Certainly there are a few exceptions, but pretty doggone few.

Have any Moslems come forward to say "Hey! This is an outrage! I’m plenty P.O.'d! I don’t approve of that assault on America! We Islamic people want to respect other people and their beliefs!"

If any have, I haven’t heard about it.

 

[Major_Tom]

Have any Moslems come forward to say "Hey! This is an outrage! I’m plenty P.O.'d! I don’t approve of that assault on America! We Islamic people want to respect other people and their beliefs!"

If any have, I haven’t heard about it.

Perhaps you have to look!

I used the search engine www.altavista.com, “Muslims against 9/11”… got scads of responses, including:

muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

 

[Bluegoat]

To whom ought I confess for what those guys did? And what did they do, in the first place? Was Koresh part of the “Davidians” in Wacko, Texas? And Jones was the guy who killed a senator, then forced his followers to commit mass suicide someplace in South or Central America? So, I should apologize for their collective mental deficiency?

Okay, I apologize to whomever for whatever Koresh and Jones perpetrated. I do not and never did condone what they did, and frankly, they are God’s problem now.

Moslems collectively have roundly condemned the “American devils” for just about every possible problem in the world. Certainly there are a few exceptions, but pretty doggone few.

Have any Moslems come forward to say "Hey! This is an outrage! I’m plenty P.O.'d! I don’t approve of that assault on America! We Islamic people want to respect other people and their beliefs!"

If any have, I haven’t heard about it.

Are you serious? There were huge outcries from Muslims worldwide. There are Muslim groups dedicated to working against such atrocities.

The relationship between the average NY Muslim and a terrorist cell is about the same as a Catholic and a bunch of wacko Christians in a bunker.

 

[pnewton]

Sorry, I thought I made his objection clear in my original post. But since I apparently didn’t, I’ll try to make it clearer. Here is his objection:

He basically thought that it was hypocrisy to support the religious freedom of Catholics while not supporting the religious freedom of Muslims.

However, as others have said, it is still religious freedom to forbid the building of a mosque at a site like Ground Zero but to also allow a Catholic student to respectfully wear a rosary to school.

Did I help in making it any more clear?

I like this analogy. If Jewish extremist razed the Dome of the Rock, do you think that a Temple should be allowed to be built on that spot? I bet most Muslims would be aghast, and in that you would see hypocricy. Catholic expression of religious belief also has common sense limits. Inside a jail, rosaries may not be allowed, and if they are allowed not to be worn. If the IRA blew up a London landmark killing thousands, a Catholic Cathedral on the spot would be totally inappropriate.

It is not hypocricy that you have. Your friend is not comparing like with like.

 

[Bluegoat]

I like this analogy. If Jewish extremist razed the Dome of the Rock, do you think that a Temple should be allowed to be built on that spot? I bet most Muslims would be aghast, and in that you would see hypocricy. Catholic expression of religious belief also has common sense limits. Inside a jail, rosaries may not be allowed, and if they are allowed not to be worn. If the IRA blew up a London landmark killing thousands, a Catholic Cathedral on the spot would be totally inappropriate.

It is not hypocricy that you have. Your friend is not comparing like with like.

I think you are right. However, I also think it is important to remember that the people who want to build the mosque are not likely trying to be offensive. More likely they are trying to honour the place, or in some way show solidarity against terrorism.

In the case of the IRA bombing you describe, it would be appropriate to allow the Catholic Church to show how she felt about the situation in some public, and perhaps permanent, way. It might even be important to do so.

 

[Holly3278]

I like this analogy. If Jewish extremist razed the Dome of the Rock, do you think that a Temple should be allowed to be built on that spot? I bet most Muslims would be aghast, and in that you would see hypocricy. Catholic expression of religious belief also has common sense limits. Inside a jail, rosaries may not be allowed, and if they are allowed not to be worn. If the IRA blew up a London landmark killing thousands, a Catholic Cathedral on the spot would be totally inappropriate.

It is not hypocricy that you have. Your friend is not comparing like with like.

Thanks. I agree with your analogy.

I think you are right. However, I also think it is important to remember that the people who want to build the mosque are not likely trying to be offensive. More likely they are trying to honour the place, or in some way show solidarity against terrorism.

In the case of the IRA bombing you describe, it would be appropriate to allow the Catholic Church to show how she felt about the situation in some public, and perhaps permanent, way. It might even be important to do so.

I agree with your last paragraph and mostly with your second paragraph but I would still like to comment. This is a hypothetical but what if by some chance a radical Muslim Imam (Muslim cleric) took over the mosque in the future and began teaching terrorism or radical Islamic ideologies?

Anyway, do you support the building of this mosque or oppose it?

 

[Bluegoat]

Thanks. I agree with your analogy.

I agree with your last paragraph and mostly with your second paragraph but I would still like to comment. This is a hypothetical but what if by some chance a radical Muslim Imam (Muslim cleric) took over the mosque in the future and began teaching terrorism or radical Islamic ideologies?

Anyway, do you support the building of this mosque or oppose it?

I don’t think it is a likely scenario that such a thing would happen. Of all the Imams in America, the the vast majority are not interested in promoting terrorism. Also, how is this person going to take over a mosque without the consent of the members anyway?

As I understand it the site is actually two blocks away from ground zero, in a pretty dense part of the city, in a building that is already there and fits in with the street-scape, and includes many elements besides the actual mosque. So to me, it is really not in people’s faces. OTOH, I don’t live in New York. But I guess I would ask - how many blocks away should a mosque be to be “ok”?

 

[Major_Tom]

I don’t think it is a likely scenario that such a thing would happen. Of all the Imams in America, the the vast majority are not interested in promoting terrorism. Also, how is this person going to take over a mosque without the consent of the members anyway?

Agreed. Promoting terrorism is a crime; if an imam were to promote it, that is a punishable crime. This is also a very high-profile area/mosque. I have a feeling that they would have a hard time keeping this secret, if it were to occur, in the middle of Mahattan.

As I understand it the site is actually two blocks away from ground zero, in a pretty dense part of the city, in a building that is already there and fits in with the street-scape, and includes many elements besides the actual mosque. So to me, it is really not in people’s faces. OTOH, I don’t live in New York. But I guess I would ask - how many blocks away should a mosque be to be “ok”?

For the most part, I also am fine with the location. I read that the overall project will be 13 stories tall, with a pool, gym, and community center. This memorial does not seem like a memorial in the same sense as the Vietnam Memorial. If we say that there can’t be a mosque out of respect for those that were killed… we’re saying it’s ok to have a gym, a pool, and a Starbucks…?

 

[Major_Tom]

Anyway, those are two main reasons to oppose the building of this mosque, or any mosque in general (number 1 relates specifically to this case).

God Bless,
Holly

You stated a clear conclusion: you oppose any new construction of mosques. Do you think that position can be enforced, or should be enforced, legally? THat is, beyond individuals standing up at their local zoning commission and saying “Not in my backyard”, do you think that this position can/should be enforced legally? If so, what would be the grounds?

1. 
   *]It will deeply offend and cause painful memories to those who did suffer from the terrorist attacks in any way, shape, or form and I believe that the vast majority of Americans suffered in some way, if only from the shock of this horrendous event.

1. 
   Agreed on both points. I’m trying to find an historical parallel, not sure if I’ve found a good one. Post-Reformation, there were several atrocities committed by both Protestants and Catholics. Would it be comparable to say “no Catholic churches” in a village where an atrocity took place, caused by Catholics? After all, that would certainly “deeply offend and cause painful memories to those who did suffer?” I appreciate that building right on the same site is a little different matter, but as Bluegoat has pointed out, this is a dense urban site with many other building elements also occurring.
   

   They deny the Trinity, the crucifixion of Christ, and even accuse much of the Bible of being corrupted by translation. For those Catholics and Christians who are not well catechized, they could easily win a proselyite from the one true Faith, the Catholic Church.

   Lots of non-Muslim people would also agree with that list. Should they be kept from constructing churches?

 

[Major_Tom]

(IE, building any sort of religious building *in a particular spot *is not a “right,” but wearing a religious symbol is a right.)

I would agree.

However, I read in an article that, in the neighborhood in question, there were gangs who wore crucifixes. I would not relish being a school administrator in this neighborhood, trying to quash gang activity in an elementary school, yet struggling to maintain freedom of speech and religion rights. Yikes!

 

[Stylites]

I agree with your last paragraph and mostly with your second paragraph but I would still like to comment. This is a hypothetical but what if by some chance a radical Muslim Imam (Muslim cleric) took over the mosque in the future and began teaching terrorism or radical Islamic ideologies?

More hopelessness. What if a Jim Jones or a David Koresh were to take over a church? Supposedly we’d have to oppose a church’s construction when we let hopelessness and irrational fear rule our minds.

.

 

[Holly3278]

I don’t think it is a likely scenario that such a thing would happen. Of all the Imams in America, the the vast majority are not interested in promoting terrorism. Also, how is this person going to take over a mosque without the consent of the members anyway?

As I understand it the site is actually two blocks away from ground zero, in a pretty dense part of the city, in a building that is already there and fits in with the street-scape, and includes many elements besides the actual mosque. So to me, it is really not in people’s faces. OTOH, I don’t live in New York. But I guess I would ask - how many blocks away should a mosque be to be “ok”?

As per your first paragraph, please note that I did say it was a hypothetical. I didn’t say it was a likely one but that it was a hypothetical.

As for the second paragraph and in particular, the question in the second paragraph, I would say that this should be left up to the state government of New York so long as they keep in mind the fact that this could cause deep emotional pain to the non-Muslim survivors of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

You stated a clear conclusion: you oppose any new construction of mosques. Do you think that position can be enforced, or should be enforced, legally? THat is, beyond individuals standing up at their local zoning commission and saying “Not in my backyard”, do you think that this position can/should be enforced legally? If so, what would be the grounds?

Agreed on both points. I’m trying to find an historical parallel, not sure if I’ve found a good one. Post-Reformation, there were several atrocities committed by both Protestants and Catholics. Would it be comparable to say “no Catholic churches” in a village where an atrocity took place, caused by Catholics? After all, that would certainly “deeply offend and cause painful memories to those who did suffer?” I appreciate that building right on the same site is a little different matter, but as Bluegoat has pointed out, this is a dense urban site with many other building elements also occurring.

Lots of non-Muslim people would also agree with that list. Should they be kept from constructing churches?

Well, I’ll admit, I am not a moral theologian. I am only an amateur apologist who tries to evangelize the online and “real life” population as much as I can. I do fail a lot but I also succeed sometimes too. However, I would say that these questions are best left to a professional apologist. If a professional apologist answers them in accord with the orthodox teachings of the Church, I would agree with the professional apologist in most cases.

More hopelessness. What if a Jim Jones or a David Koresh were to take over a church? Supposedly we’d have to oppose a church’s construction when we let hopelessness and irrational fear rule our minds.

.

This is true. I do sometimes suffer from irrational fear but that’s just a fact of life for me since I suffer from severe anxiety and sometimes paranoia. Thankfully, I usually am able to think correctly and without the paranoia that sometimes clouds my mind. I do take medication to control the anxiety and it really does help most of the time.

But yeah, again, this question was a hypothetical as I stated in my post. I am not saying that you did not keep this in mind but I am just reminding everyone of this. I admit that I asked the question partly out of my own personal fear but also partly out of mere curiosity and an attempt to prove a point though. I guess that failed.

But anyway, perhaps this whole question is best left to a professional apologist such as one of the apologists here on CAF. I never seem to get a response when I post it in the forums so perhaps I’ll call the office tomorrow and leave a voice mail for one of the apologists. I did that the other day and received an e-mail back within a very short amount of time.

 

[pnewton]

Of all the Imams in America, the the vast majority are not interested in promoting terrorism.

Nor do they seem interested in opposing terrorism. Evil triumphs because good men, who are in a position to do help, do nothing. If Islam is ever viewed as a religion of peace by me, I will first have to see this silent majority of peaceful Muslims everyone keeps touting cooperating fully with authorities in the prevention of terrorism. Until then, rhetoric does nothing for me. Even at that, there is preciously little verbal opposition to the evil that Islam has brought to the world.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Nor do they seem interested in opposing terrorism. Evil triumphs because good men, who are in a position to do help, do nothing. If Islam is ever viewed as a religion of peace by me, I will first have to see this silent majority of peaceful Muslims everyone keeps touting cooperating fully with authorities in the prevention of terrorism. Until then, rhetoric does nothing for me. Even at that, there is preciously little verbal opposition to the evil that Islam has brought to the world.

And until Catholics in the pew finally seem interested in opposing the things going on in their church, they can throw stones at other believers. Until then, it is all talk and no action.