Obama backs mosque near ground zero

[ChristopherJB5]

A Catholic parish is not simply a religious center either - we educate people in faith, we also have fish fries, celebrate holidays together, have parish carnivals… it is a place where people who share a faith may come together in community.

Our treasured religious liberty is only worthy of defense when it is equally available to all.

Catholicism has not been taken issue with. Islam has. Stay on topic.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

OK, try to understand this: I am saying that building an INDIVIDUAL mosque, anywhere else, would be a non-story.

The demographic trends of mosque-building and Muslim immigration are interesting and relevant, and opposition to them will be expected. Mass movements, yes, they’re interesting.

Building a single mosque wouldn’t appear as a national issue in the USA Today, NYT, Boston Globe–nobody would care about this mosque if it were anywhere else.

The distinction between “mosque building” and “Muslim immigration” is a red herring. The protests are started based on the construction of a single mosque, and only expand their opposition to “Muslim immigration” as an afterthought.

 

[4elise]

OK, try to understand this: I am saying that building an INDIVIDUAL mosque, anywhere else, would be a non-story.

The demographic trends of mosque-building and Muslim immigration are interesting and relevant, and opposition to them will be expected. Mass movements, yes, they’re interesting.

Building a single mosque wouldn’t appear as a national issue in the USA Today, NYT, Boston Globe–nobody would care about this mosque if it were anywhere else.

What I’ve tried to show (with links to articles on this topic) is that in fact people DO care and OBJECT to other mosques VERY FAR from ‘ground zero’ - so no, it isn’t just because of the location that it is being objected to -

I believe we should be jumping on the opportunity to SUPPORT the building of this to show that we are NOT LIKE THE EXTREMISTS - we practice a different kind of law here, we have different values, we value the right of individuals to practice their religion.

I think it would be ideal if in the same block there were also a Jewish Temple, a Catholic Church, a Baptist Church, a Buddhist Temple, a Christian Science Reading Room, - I am not free to practice my religion unless everyone is, it is really very simple.

Now it is the Muslims, once it was Germans, Japanese, — hate is a great distraction - We are called by our Catholic faith to be people who see the world differently - Wishing you peace

 

[4elise]

Catholicism has not been taken issue with. Islam has. Stay on topic.

I’m sorry if that was confusing - I was drawing a parallel - this is something I believe can be done in civil discussions.

I am willing to take that from the top - you said that the Islamic center being proposed is not just a mosque.

Perhaps you would like to illiterate what else you believe it is.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The distinction between “mosque building” and “Muslim immigration” is a red herring. The protests are started based on the construction of a single mosque, and only expand their opposition to “Muslim immigration” as an afterthought.

Actually, it’s not about “a single mosque”. Or mosque building. New York City has at least a hundred mosques.

It’s about a specific location. Put the mosque almost anywhere else and no problem.

A mosque located at the Pentagon or at Fresh Kills [where the dust containing the remains of the 3000 victims of 9/11 happens to have been brought] would also be objectionable.

And then there was the name “Cordoba Mosque”.

Not good.

Insensitive.

To quote/paraphrase President Obama when he objected to Israeli work in Jerusalem.

As a gesture of good faith, the Muslim community should donate the 51 Park Place site to St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church and also donate the money to help them build the replacement for the church destroyed by their co-religionists on 9/11.

 

[ChristopherJB5]

I have read back through your posts and have not seen you make any argument for insensitivity that does not fit my summary. For example: you said that “the September 11th attack can still be justified as ‘success’ for Islam.” which is an overt attempt to associate moderate Muslims with radicals. You have made many other claims with similar ends. This only different from my summary in that your equating radicals with moderates was not accidental.

**k dude, stop using Fox News terms to discuss this subject. They’re horrible and clumsy to begin with, because ‘radical’ and ‘terrorist’ don’t tell us a single thing about the people who committed the September 11th attacks and what they actually believe.

Those people were orthodox Muslims,–call them ‘radicals’, if you must, but if they are ‘radicals’ in the sense that they took a ‘risky course of action due to their beliefs’ then they are more Muslim than the Muslim who casually eats pork during Ramadan and denounce their backward ‘cousins’.

Now, if we agree that:
-‘Muslim’ is a religious category, that encompasses a set of people who share to varying degrees a certain set of beliefs.
-The ‘so-called radical Moslem terrorists’ can be called ‘orthodox’ because they shared all or most** of the religious injunctions and beliefs that compose the ‘Muslim’ category, including the underlying world view.
-Now, would the September 11th attack, would appear to be a ‘success’ of the Islamic system, because Islam–as constituted–seems to accord with the aims and conclusion of the September 11th attack.

Therefore, I am not conflating ‘radicals’ and ‘moderates’ but saying that the degree of Islamization for a person or region is commensurate with the degree of danger they present to civil society and religious freedom. I am not conflating Islam with September 11th’s tragic events, but stating the obvious: that it was completely within the purview of Islamic practice.

As a matter of policy

Shall we review the definition of prejudice?
“unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.”

I don’t dislike Muslims. Like a good Catholic, I hate the sin, not the sinner. Islam as a system–and this is the crux of my argument–is a warren of all the worst sins in human history. Argue against that.

I think you will admit that you hold hostile feelings towards the religious group of Islam.

No, as stated above.

Are those feelings unreasonable?

On the contrary, these beliefs (I correct your misnomer) are absolutely reasonable, having been formed with a prodigious intimacy with Muslims (secular and religious), travel in Muslim-majority countries and neighborhoods, speaking and taking classes under Muslim clerics, and studying what they believe.*

This website: mediamonitors.net/riadabdelkarim3.html shows that Muslims explicitly condemned the terrorist attacks.

That website demonstrates no such thing. The followers of Islam compose a demographic region that belts the globe, and numbers in the hundreds of millions.

A refusal to believe the statements of Muslim leaders is, to me at least, unreasonable.

**Does Obama speak for all of us? Does Pope Benedict XVI and our holy prelates–unfortunately–speak for every Catholic?

Get real.**

It would be as unreasonable as saying “Catholics worship Mary” and refusing to listen to any Catholics who say they do not.

**No, but I can read that ‘some Jews reject the messiah-hood of our Lord’ in the Talmud, and hear many Jews tell me this in conversation, and ya know what? I’m inclined to believe them. **

If you feel that my summary is a straw man, why don’t you lay out your arguments in a nice simple way, as I did.

Been there, did that.

---

 

[4elise]

Yes, this was a point I was making on the other thread. Moderate Muslims are like moderate Catholics. They’re cafeteria-style Muslims. Spiritual secularists.

But traditionalist Catholics aren’t necessarily as inclined to kill people who don’t agree with them, because Catholicism doesn’t demand it. We don’t have to ignore direct commands from Christ or the Pope in order to live in peace with our neighbors.

So between these lines you are saying/inferring that Muhammad instructed his followers to kill people who didn’t agree with them and that Islam demands this?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Consider the total speech act in the total speech situation.
Let’s learn something about the Mohammadans, shall we?

Let’s start with what a mosque is not, since you all are so apt to confuse it with a church or a synagogue: A mosque isn’t a church. Its not a community hall. Its not a rec center. It doesn’t even sell falafels, … sorry to disappoint.

Its not simply a religious building–that’s part of the reason why all of these idiotic ejaculations to the effect of: “Defend religious freedom!” are not in season.

A mosque–from the architectural ideal that shapes its spire and the crescent it thrusts into the skyline, as near as its builder can place it to the actual moon, to the sermons the cleric preaches inside–are a testament to the victory of Islam. This victory of Islam takes place at the exclusion of all other beliefs, and internal dissidents are ejected from the community.

Its aim is to make the world and the ‘Dar al Islam’ synonymous, and to shrink the ‘Dar al Harb’–the non-Muslim world–into oblivion. Do you know what the ‘Dar al Harb’ means in Arabic? The realm of war. Not that because the high-minded Muslims believe that we are warlike barbarians… but because pious Muslims are free to make war on us without repercussions. ‘War’ is essentially ‘free game’. Muslim women are strictly forbidden to marry non-Muslims in classical Shari’a, but Muslim men can marry non-Muslims with impunity. Not only do they want to take our women, literally–yes, they mean what they say–, they want to take our churches, plaster over our saints and angels, and shred the voluminous legal tracts detailing the trials initiated in defense of their ‘religious rights’ housed at the ACLU’s headquarters to use as toilet paper.

That is why their mosque is insensitive. The September 11th attack opened a book in history. The municipal authorities of NYC allowing Muslims to build a mosque within sneezing distance of those ruins is the beginning of a fitting conclusion. Not a necessary one, mind you, but one that the American people have willed collectively.

This post identifies some very important issues, not previously stated, that everyone needs to read and pass along on other forums.

 

[ChristopherJB5]

The distinction between “mosque building” and “Muslim immigration” is a red herring. The protests are started based on the construction of a single mosque, and only expand their opposition to “Muslim immigration” as an afterthought.

Yeah, nice try, get a life kid.

Don’t accuse me of another fallacy the meaning of which you yourself are unsure of.

Even so. ‘Mosque building’ and ‘Muslim immigration’ are entirely different things. Has Catholic immigration been indistinguishable from church building? No. Want to argue about it–just look at Catholic life in pre-Emancipation Britain.

The reason why I mentioned these terms, were because the poster stated that there were news articles featuring other ‘controversial’ mosques. These news articles only noted demographic trends in mosque-building–NOTE: still not a SINGLE mosque, but HUNDREDS–and immigration. They only appeared in the paper because they were en mass, and the controversial sub-story was simply to spice them up.

No single mosque in the entire country has reached the headlines as this one has. End.
of.
story.

 

[ChristopherJB5]

so between these lines you are saying/inferring that muhammad instructed his followers to kill people who didn’t agree with them and that islam demands this?

its in the ****ing quran get a grip.

 

[JReducation]

It only takes one loose cannon to organize the destruction of the twin towers, so why were they not deterred from being built? They were, after all, a symbol of our capitalist system.

It only takes one loose cannon to blow up a mosque anywhere in the world.

You suggest that building the mosque is inappropriate because of safety concerns. Why would you worry about safety if the mosque were uncontroversial? You wouldn’t! If you wanted to increase the safety of the mosque, the best thing to would be to try and reduce the controversy and convince people that such a building is acceptable. If you go around sowing the idea that the mosque was somehow a bad idea (regardless of your rationale) you are only giving more ammunition to those “loose cannons.”

If the mosque is built and attacked by a loose cannon, you would be right in telling me that you saw it coming. I would respond that you were the one supplying people with cannons.

My friend, there are some dangers that are more predictable than others.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[CatholicGerman]

Now it is the Muslims, once it was Germans, Japanese, — hate is a great distraction - We are called by our Catholic faith to be people who see the world differently - Wishing you peace

**You’re just a bunch of bigoted hate mongers! **-- Wishing you peace.

As a German, I can assure you that it can be perfectly moral to oppose the take-over of your country by destructive forces. Now it is the Muslims, once it was the Nazis, the communists, the facists, the segregationists, the slavers…

Just because it is a religion does not mean that it cannot be a destructive force. There were moderate Nazis too, you know. I know some of them personally, as they are my relatives. There are moderate communists. There are moderate white supremicists. There are moderate, pro-choice, fornicating Christians.

The fact that a group contains moderates does not negate the fact that the group’s core ideology is destructive to those around it. It just means it has hangers-on who don’t really mean it.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The Cordoba Mosque in New York: “A Symbol of the Islamic Conquest of Christian Lands”

by SHEIK YERMAMI on AUGUST 14, 2010

sheikyermami.com/2010/08/14/the-cordoba-mosque-in-new-york-“a-symbol-of-the-islamic-conquest-of-christian-lands”/

Excerpt:

The second article entitled “Mosque Unbecoming” was published 25 May, 2010 on the website of Family Security Matters. Its author, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, is the founder and chairman of the American IslamicForum for Democracy. He served in the U. S. Navy as a physician, and is now in private practice. I found the following excerpts from his article very touching and heart-warming:

“In the 1960s, my parents left their despotic motherland of Syria for the promise of genuine liberty and religious freedom in America. In the decades since, we have led the construction of a number of mosques in the towns where we lived.

“These were all humble mosques, funded locally by our congregations. It’s plain the planned ‘Ground Zero mosque’ is something very different. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, his wife, Daisy Khan, and an investor intend to build ‘Cordoba House,’ an ostentatious $100 million, 13-story Muslim community center including a gym, a swimming pool, a performance-arts facility and a mosque.

 

[josephdavid]

**You’re just a bunch of bigoted hate mongers! **-- Wishing you peace.

As a German, I can assure you that it can be perfectly moral to oppose the take-over of your country by destructive forces. Now it is the Muslims, once it was the Nazis, the communists, the facists, the segregationists, the slavers…

Just because it is a religion does not mean that it cannot be a destructive force. There were moderate Nazis too, you know. I know some of them personally, as they are my relatives. There are moderate communists. There are moderate white supremicists. There are moderate, pro-choice, fornicating Christians.

The fact that a group contains moderates does not negate the fact that the group’s core ideology is destructive to those around it. It just means it has hangers-on who don’t really mean it.

Are you suggesting the core of Islam is violent?

 

[josephdavid]

its in the ****ing quran get a grip.

It is also in the Christian Bible and the Jewish Torah, so why don’t you get a grip too!

 

[tjm190]

The fact that a group contains moderates does not negate the fact that the group’s core ideology is destructive to those around it. It just means it has hangers-on who don’t really mean it.

Wouldn’t you expect the majority of Muslims to support terror if terror was at its core?

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

It may well be insensitive …

Ya think???

Here’s what I think …

From a variety of different surveys, we know that a large majority of Americans and New Yorkers are against the building of the Mosque on that particular site. Count me in with that group. There are several different lines of inquiry, all pointing to a majority in opposition to the Mosque. If the Imam’s intentions were benevolent, altruistic and pure, he’d say something along the lines of, “Hey, guys. I didn’t realize how this would be so controversial, offensive and insulting.That wasn’t my intentions. You are right. I’ll build elsewhere.”. If he were to do something like that, I’d have a hell of a lot more respect for him, and have a more positive view of Islam.

But, no. He is driving this thing through, regardless of the consent of the citizenry. That tells me a different story about his true intentions.

And for the rest of you Islamic sympathizers and Politically Correct lemmings: “Useful Idiots of the West” ~ Vladimir Lenin … Look it up.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Are you suggesting the core of Islam is violent?

Gee, I don’t know.

But, read the following and tell us what you think.

Someone went to the trouble of collecting the appropriate passages from the Koran about the killing of infidels. And here they are:

wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html

Here is an excerpt … a SMALL fraction of the quotes from the Koran: click on the link above for a LOT more.

KORAN commands to kill infidels:

Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98

On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God’s entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39

Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.

… martyrs… Enter heaven - Surah 3:140-43

If you should die or be killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and forgiveness would surely be better than all they riches they amass. If you should die or be killed, before Him you shall all be gathered. - 3:157-8

You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah 3:169-71

Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah 4:74

Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil. - 4:76

But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. - 4:89

Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that they have done. - 5:14

O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54

Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme - 8:39

O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65

It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67

Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5

 

[tjm190]

@Christopher- The September 11th hijackers were far from Orthodox Muslims- historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101beforepinkpony

Many if not all of them are known to have frequented strip clubs, consumed alcohol, and slept with prostitutes.

 

[Linda_Marie]

I saw part of the announcement on cnn the other day. Did they or did they not say that obama had just celebrated a muslim dinner or event? Please tell me am wrong.

Yes, Obama made this speech at a Ramadan Iftar dinner. I was curious about this as well and searched on ‘white house iftar dinner’. Obama is not the first American President to host an Iftar dinner at the White House.

President Bush Hosts Iftar Dinner at White House
Hosting his fifth Iftar dinner October 17 at the White House, President Bush spoke of the spirit and compassion of Islam and thanked the Muslims nations that have joined the coalition in the War on Terror.

Does Obama back this cultural centre/mosque or not? In his speech, he certainly sounds like he strongly supports the building of this centre but after receiving some flak, he has modified his statement saying he was only talking about their freedom to build there, not the wisdom of such an action.

So what does he really think? What is his position on this? Does he support the building of the centre or not?

If he was not supporting it, why did he even bring it up?