Obama backs mosque near ground zero

[stinkcat_14]

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.

I agree that a lot of people are offended and are against it. And of course, people are free to protest it all they wish. However, in a nation that supposedly protects property rights the landowner should have the right to put a mosque or a church or a liquor store or a strip club on his property regardless of the opinion of his neighbors. I have no problem with people protesting, what I have a problem with is the idea that the government has any role in this whatsoever.

 

[4elise]

Lets see if they are so different:

This is more comparable to a black person sitting in the front of a bus when white people want to sit there. Does he have a legal right to be there, on public property? Yes. Should he be there? No. Should the white people looking for a seat take his action as an affront, or just assume that he just happened to feel the urge to sit in that particular seat? You decide. Are the white people who claim that black people are anti-republican, racist, and inherently violent just a bunch of hate-mongers, or might they have some sort of point?

edit so if someone invented surgery that could effectively change skin color, it would be acceptable to frown on people being black, because it is now a choice?

Seriously?

 

[josephdavid]

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.

I really feel sorry for you. I would ask you to seek consultation with your parish priest. Ask him what he thinks of your thoughts.

 

[tomarin]

What would that be, and how did his statement serve it?

There are two principles actually. One is that religious freedom applies to everyone across the board; otherwise it’s a meaningless concept. Muslims shouldn’t have to jump through hoops that other religions don’t have to.

Another is that just because a torch-carrying mob shows up at City Hall demanding Muslims be denied their rights, public officials should not cave in. We are a country governed by laws, not mob rule.

He articulated the first principle in his statement; he stood up for the second principle by not jumping on the populist anti-mosque bandwagon like so many other politicians are doing. I admire him for that.

 

[4elise]

“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.”

The same first amendment that guarantees the right of all people to practice their religion - gives the right of people to protest the building of this mosque.

The history of Catholics in this country should, IMHO, give Catholics more appreciation and understanding when a minority group tries to practice their religion.

Of course - we can apply the ‘golden rule’ - strive to live as Christ taught us ‘be not afraid’ — or we can insist that others do not deserve the same rights we have because we live in fear…

 

[pnewton]

Maybe ideally, but regrettably public policies take into consideration the feelings of hostile mobs pretty quickly–Muslim or non-Muslim.

Prior to the Barak Hussein Obama’s inaguaration, this was true. Today, the current president only kowtows to Muslim sensitivities. The feelings of others, like the family of the thousands who were killed by Muslims and the country that watched in shock the day of that vicious attack, those are not relevant to the current Commander in Chief. Yes, Muslims have the right to build on private property and worship as they please. However, the President has a right to voice his objection to such an incredibly stupid and insensitive exercise of rights. Instead, he supported them in their obamination, showing where his true loyalties lay.

 

[TedDC]

I agree that a lot of people are offended and are against it. And of course, people are free to protest it all they wish. However, in a nation that supposedly protects property rights the landowner should have the right to put a mosque or a church or a liquor store or a strip club on his property regardless of the opinion of his neighbors. I have no problem with people protesting, what I have a problem with is the idea that the government has any role in this whatsoever.

I have to agree with you, reluctantly. I can’t see any valid legal justification for the government to prohibit the construction. But it’s also very clear to me, from the promoters’ stubborn insistence on building the facility despite widespread public objections, that one of their objects is indeed, at some level, to poke a stick in the eye of America and to celebrate the Islamic “triumph” of 9/11.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There are two principles actually. One is that religious freedom applies to everyone across the board; otherwise it’s a meaningless concept. Muslims shouldn’t have to jump through hoops that other religions don’t have to.

Another is that just because a torch-carrying mob shows up at City Hall demanding Muslims be denied their rights, public officials should not cave in. We are a country governed by laws, not mob rule.

He articulated the first principle in his statement; he stood up for the second principle by not jumping on the populist anti-mosque bandwagon like so many other politicians are doing. I admire him for that.

A “torch carrying mob”??? Is that how some view the sentiments of their countrymen? This has been compared, on here, to the plan to build a convent at Auschwitz; a plan that was withdrawn because it violated the sensitivities of a people who had every human reason to be sensitive about it. Did the nuns kill Jews in WWII? No. Did they have a legal right to build at Auschwitz? Yes. Did they have a moral obligation to change their plan, once that offense was clear? Yes.

There is something in human heart that recoils from anything that looks like exultation over the tragedy of another. So ancient is the recognition of that, that Homer had the gods strike Achilleus down for dragging the body of Hektor behind his chariot; something that, in the ancient code of warfare, Achilleus had every “legal” right to do. And here, some two and a half millenia later, there are those of us who still don’t “get it”.

And let’s be real about this. Calling it the “Cordoba Initiative” makes the exultation as plain as plain can be made. But even if we ignore that, it has to be recognized that the murders of 911 were committed in the name of Islam, and Muslims could reasonably be expected to exercise more charity toward people of this nation than this plan evidences. Even some Muslims have publicly recognized that and expressed their opposition to the plan, precisely because it has that “dragging the body of Hektor” look to it.

I realize the twists and turns of partisan politics can sometimes motivate people to take a narrow position defending the indefensible. That motivation should not, however, extend to calling people “a torch carrying mob” who watched as people, driven by fire to desperation and hopelessness, jumped from those windows to their deaths, or perhaps those who never found so much as a scrap of a body of their loved ones to bury.

No, the plan should be withdrawn out of a very normal sense of human decency, and people are right to be offended by the refusal to do it, and by the defense of that refusal.

 

[jjdrury81]

i still can’t figure out why anyone would be upset about this…

 

[Stjudeprayforus]

A “torch carrying mob”??? Is that how some view the sentiments of their countrymen? This has been compared, on here, to the plan to build a convent at Auschwitz; a plan that was withdrawn because it violated the sensitivities of a people who had every human reason to be sensitive about it. Did the nuns kill Jews in WWII? No. Did they have a legal right to build at Auschwitz? Yes. Did they have a moral obligation to change their plan, once that offense was clear? Yes.

There is something in human heart that recoils from anything that looks like exultation over the tragedy of another. So ancient is the recognition of that, that Homer had the gods strike Achilleus down for dragging the body of Hektor behind his chariot; something that, in the ancient code of warfare, Achilleus had every “legal” right to do. And here, some two and a half millenia later, there are those of us who still don’t “get it”.

And let’s be real about this. Calling it the “Cordoba Initiative” makes the exultation as plain as plain can be made. But even if we ignore that, it has to be recognized that the murders of 911 were committed in the name of Islam, and Muslims could reasonably be expected to exercise more charity toward people of this nation than this plan evidences. Even some Muslims have publicly recognized that and expressed their opposition to the plan, precisely because it has that “dragging the body of Hektor” look to it.

I realize the twists and turns of partisan politics can sometimes motivate people to take a narrow position defending the indefensible. That motivation should not, however, extend to calling people “a torch carrying mob” who watched as people, driven by fire to desperation and hopelessness, jumped from those windows to their deaths, or perhaps those who never found so much as a scrap of a body of their loved ones to bury.

No, the plan should be withdrawn out of a very normal sense of human decency, and people are right to be offended by the refusal to do it, and by the defense of that refusal.

 

[tomarin]

A “torch carrying mob”??? Is that how some view the sentiments of their countrymen?

I see populism as mob rule, yes. Both right-wing and left-wing populism. But maybe I shouldn’t have characterized it in such an inflammatory way, given how high emotions are running on this issue.

I don’t want to see the rights of people to practise their religion curtailed or put under arbitrary conditions, even if their religion isn’t particularly popular right now. I think that the people building this mosque are being unfairly blamed for the actions of a bunch of fanatics on 9/11. I can separate the two.

I also honestly think that the exultation you’re characterizing is something you and the other opponents of the mosque are reading into it. I give most Muslims the benefit of the doubt as decent people and don’t believe that they’re secretly rooting for al Qaeda. Most Muslims aren’t fanatics.

Therefore I think Obama made the right call, and I was a little offended that you (cyncically, in my opinion) chalked it up to cynical motives.

 

[scipio337]

I see populism as mob rule, yes. Both right-wing and left-wing populism. But maybe I shouldn’t have characterized it in such an inflammatory way, given how high emotions are running on this issue.

I don’t want to see the rights of people to practise their religion curtailed or put under arbitrary conditions, even if their religion isn’t particularly popular right now. I think that the people building this mosque are being unfairly blamed for the actions of a bunch of fanatics on 9/11. I can separate the two.

I also honestly think that the exultation you’re characterizing is something you and the other opponents of the mosque are reading into it.

Therefore I think Obama made the right call, and I was offended that you chalked it up to cynical motives.

And I think the planners of the mosque are being incredibly insensitive to public opinion.

Whether you agree or disagree with the legality of the plans (and I recognize there is scant legal standing) I think anyone can agree that this is horrible PR for the now renamed “Park 51” project. For a “community center” that portends to foster understanding and interreligious dialouge, methinks more damage has been done on that front than the proposed center could or ever will repair.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

No, the plan should be withdrawn out of a very normal sense of human decency, and people are right to be offended by the refusal to do it, and by the defense of that refusal.

It’s been almost nine years; they need to get over it. If they were so concernced with what happens within a two block radius of ground zero then they should have purchased the property themselves or they should make an offer now.

 

[tomarin]

And I think the planners of the mosque are being incredibly insensitive to public opinion.

But that really shouldn’t matter when it conflicts with the iron-clad rights granted by the First Amendment. Perceived insensitivity doesn’t trump the Bill of Rights.

Whether you agree or disagree with the legality of the plans (and I recognize there is scant legal standing) I think anyone can agree that this is horrible PR for the now renamed “Park 51” project. For a “community center” that portends to foster understanding and interreligious dialouge, methinks more damage has been done on that front than the proposed center could or ever will repair.

It’s a tempest in a teapot, in my opinion – or it should be.

 

[Roy5]

1. Obama was either courageous or foolish to take such a principled position on the mosque when he probably could have avoided the issue. It probably will cost him votes. In my case, it makes me a bit more likely to vote for him again if I am provided that opportunity, though that depends a lot on whom on GOP runs. If it’s Palin or Gingrich or Sanctorium etc, I probably will vote for Obama. A more reasonable candidate could lead me back to the Republican fold.
   1. Like millions of others, I object to the mosque being built so close to Ground Zero. On the other hand, this is America and the Muslims have that right and I would not refuse them that right. It certainly tells the world that we have freedom of worship here, and I’m instensely proud of that. I would hope that the Muslims themselves would decide to build it further away.
   2. I was particularly offended by Gingrich’s remark. It’s as though we should follow the lead of Saudi Arabia, probably the most closed Muslim society in the world. It always has interested me that we get very pious about Muslim severity except for Saudi Arabia which is most severe and which we have as a treasured ally! Yet, we invade Iraq which was essentially a secular state, where Saddam was despised as an infidel by bin Laden, where Christians were not bothered, etc. With the fall of Saddam many thousands of Christians have had to flee Iraq for their lives. This is not to defend Saddam, who was an evil tyrant, but just shows us how complex all these issues are. Oh, by the way, we seldom hear that four Islamic nations have had women presidents or prime ministers - Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan and Bangladesh. This further clouds the issue, does it?
   3. The 'bomb ‘em’ crowd wants us - or Israel - to go after Iran now. Don’t we have enough war already? And doesn’t this just further convince Muslims that we are at war against Islam? I presume there are those who want to make more money off the blood of young Americans and innocent Irani civilians. When will this madness stop? “Blessed are the peacemakers…” But the propaganda-makers make louder noise than those os us who would like to try to imitate Christ and work toward some form of reconciliation. “All things are possible to those who believe…” I believe, and I hope you do, too.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s been almost nine years; they need to get over it. .

Really? WWI ended 92 years ago, and still “in Flanders’ fields the poppies grow beneath the crosses, row on row.” And people still visit there, with reverence, and sorrow, and with horror at what happened in that war.

 

[Kadaveri]

Oh please don’t equate the 9/11 attacks with the First World War that’s an insult.

 

[TMC]

Oh please don’t equate the 9/11 attacks with the First World War that’s an insult.

To who?

 

[pnewton]

There is something in human heart that recoils from anything that looks like exultation over the tragedy of another. So ancient is the recognition of that, that Homer had the gods strike Achilleus down for dragging the body of Hektor behind his chariot; something that, in the ancient code of warfare, Achilleus had every “legal” right to do. And here, some two and a half millenia later, there are those of us who still don’t “get it”.

That is common decency. Muslims are known for their hypocricy, not their decency. Would the Islamic world allow a Church next to Mecca, or a Jewish Temple next to the Dome of the Rock? Of course not. This push by supposedly peaceful Muslims that way they oppose the actions of extremists is such a blatant and huge hypocricy that I can not imagine there are still those in this country that fail to see that the Muslims of peace are little different from those that flew those planes.

I wish they would prove me wrong and do the right thing and abandon this lunacy. If they oppose the Jihadist, then do nothing that so blatantly supports their actions. If not, I will weigh their actions, not their rhetoric. As to the president, I know what he has* said* about his religious beliefs. Yet he chooses to weigh in for support of this project and is thus that I will consider his true core beliefs and loyalty.

 

[TedDC]

Oh please don’t equate the 9/11 attacks with the First World War that’s an insult.

You’re right - but not in the way you intended. As horrrible as it was, WWI was a declared war among nations, fought on battlefields. 9/11 was a cowardly sneak attack on innocent civilians in their homeland.