Obama backs mosque near ground zero

[scipio337]

You may have noticed that I was responding to a post/s (which reflects a lot of what I’ve heard lately in this debate) which was all about the fear of being destroyed from the inside (of course with the help of the insider who’s really and outsider )…and I did use the word “some”, so the question of lumping is really irrelevant. It’s not a question these days of how many but how loudly they shout. BTW, bigot, like racist, is not an invective, it’s a specific description for particular patterns of behavior.

in·vec·tive   /ɪnˈvɛktɪv/ Show Spelled[in-vek-tiv] Show IPA
–noun

1. vehement or violent denunciation, censure, or reproach

dictionary.reference.com/browse/invective

The problem is, neither side of this issue has handled the subject effectively. One side yells “secret Muslim” or “terror supporters”, the other yells “racist” or "bigot"or “right wing propoganda machine”. If both sides would have quietly met and discussed some of the families’ concerns, would this be a national issue now? I think the opposition has some legitimate concerns (as one of the planners who was interviewed said). I also think we need to be tolerant.

The whole debate now has turned into a gigantic fallacy of the excluded middle, on a national scale.

 

[golfsarge1]

I’ve read these posts and no one has touched on the demographics of the area. I live in NYC and can tell all there are no muslims living in that area. Well maybe 2 or 3. That is because there are only a hand full of new Condo buildings on the river and no others within a mile or so. So why build the Cordoba project (named coincidentally for the largest sustained city / population of mohammedans into Europe in the middle ages) in an area where no one lives and in the shadow of an islamic military victory over the infidel west?
Spin it as you will, those are the facts. Under the US constitution and all local laws can they build it??? Yes. But what does it say of their motivation? It says to me that the builders want to bring worshipers from all over to see their “victory”. The property in that area is as expensive as any in the world. If they had, ahem, Christian motives of love and charity they would abandon these plans and spread the wealth into areas like Jersey city, or Brooklyn that have muslim populations and may need the services etc of a “community” center.

 

[Kokomoka]

I don’t think the man had any choice but to back it. It’s easy for some pundit to rant and rave about it, but when it gets down to it I think it would be kind of scary to say: “No. You can’t build a religious center here because we don’t like your religion.” We can’t pick and choose on such things, or at least shouldn’t in the U.S.

Exactly. I don’t like it…but if we are going to uphold the Constitutional Rights of everyone, we must do this. I would think the Islamic community would have more sensitivity in this, but regardless, they do have the right. Just because the majority of those polled think differently doesn’t make it right. We must uphold religious freedom, no matter how uncomfortable we are with the particulars. I applaud the President. He’s sworn to uphold the Constitution, and as unpopular as this issue is, (along with a host of others he’s been criticized for), I think he is trying to abide by his sworn duty. He has stated that if his decisions make him a one term president, so be it. He feels he needs to do what he’s been sworn to do-no matter what.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

dictionary.reference.com/browse/invective

The problem is, neither side of this issue has handled the subject effectively. One side yells “secret Muslim” or “terror supporters”, the other yells “racist” or "bigot"or “right wing propoganda machine”. If both sides would have quietly met and discussed some of the families’ concerns, would this be a national issue now? I think the opposition has some legitimate concerns (as one of the planners who was interviewed said). I also think we need to be tolerant.

The whole debate now has turned into a gigantic fallacy of the excluded middle, on a national scale.

I think that Jon Stewart did a pretty good job uncovering the ridiculousness of many of the claims being made here:
thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover—homeland-edition

Skip to 7:05 for a very very good segment.

 

[scipio337]

Exactly. I don’t like it…but if we are going to uphold the Constitutional Rights of everyone, we must do this. I would think the Islamic community would have more sensitivity in this, but regardless, they do have the right. Just because the majority of those polled think differently doesn’t make it right. We must uphold religious freedom, no matter how uncomfortable we are with the particulars. I applaud the President. He’s sworn to uphold the Constitution, and as unpopular as this issue is, (along with a host of others he’s been criticized for), I think he is trying to abide by his sworn duty. He has stated that if his decisions make him a one term president, so be it. He feels he needs to do what he’s been sworn to do-no matter what.

My goodness, why hasn’t anybody caught on to this in how many pages?

NOBODY QUESTIONS THEIR RIGHT TO BUILD THERE.

What is the issue, and what the President did not address, is the “WISDOM” of buidling at that location, or if it is insensitive.

 

[Linda_H_1]

This President is not in touch with Americans at all. I find it very sad that he supports the mosque. This hurts so many who lost loved one at Ground Zero. He does not deserve to represent the American People when he refuses to listen to what we want and need. All we can do is pray for this man who to me seems to be selfish and out of touch with God and Americans.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

My goodness, why hasn’t anybody caught on to this in how many pages?

NOBODY QUESTIONS THEIR RIGHT TO BUILD THERE.

What is the issue, and what the President did not address, is the “WISDOM” of buidling at that location, or if it is insensitive.

Its been a while, so here:

Since this thread has grown so long, here is my summary of the arguments so far:

1. Opposition group: The Islamic centre is insensitive.
2. Support group: Why is the Islamic centre insensitive?
3. Opposition group: Because those involved with the Islamic centre are Muslim, as were the 9/11 terrorists.
4. Support group: But those involved with the Islamic centre, along with the majority of other Muslims, have denounced the terrorists’ interpretation of Islam. Therefore equating the two groups because of religion is not reasonable.
5. Opposition group: But those involved with the Islamic centre have not proven they have not taken money from terrorists, nor can we be sure they do not sympathize with the terrorists.
6. Support group: No, but we have no reason to be suspicious. Why do you suspect the Muslims involved with the Islamic centre are lying about their beliefs and intentions?
7. Opposition group:
   a) Normal response: I’m not saying I don’t believe them, I am saying that if they wanted to be sensitive, they could build somewhere else.
   b) Prejudiced response: They are not being truthful because they are Muslims, we should be suspicious because Islam says x y and z. Discussion ended.
   c) Possible response (not yet observed): You are right, I guess it does not make sense to be offended by this mosque. Discussion ended.
   d) Possible response (observed, but evidence is insubstantial or anecdotal): no, here is substantial evidence that the centre is affiliated with terrorism. Discussion shifted to the validity of evidence.
8. Support group response to 7a: Why is the Islamic centre insensitive? (goto 3)

 

[gilliam]

Wolfson on Obama and Park 51

On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”:

“I think the president went out there and took a pretty bold stand.”

“On the one hand, you can’t say, ‘The president shouldn’t have come out in favor of the mosque.’ And other people are saying, ‘Oh, he equivocated. We don’t know where he stands.’ You cant have it both ways.”

“I think the average American has a pretty good idea of where the president stands on this.”

“Our sense is that… I think he cares. The president came out in favor of religious freedom, in favor of religious liberty. I think he came out in favor of the mosque.”

thepage.time.com/wolfson-on-obama-and-park-51/

Video

thepage.time.com/2010/08/20/wolfson-obama-supports-islamic-center-at-ground-zero/?xid=rss-page

 

[scipio337]

Its been a while, so here:

a 4b) would be

4b) I’m aware of that, but the terrorists interpretation of the tenets of Islam was the motivation behind the 9/11 attacks, whether the communities planners share the same interpretation of Islam or not.

1. Islam wasn’t the motivation behind the attacks, it was a politcal move, because the US has unfair in its foriegn policy towards Muslims.

Return to 1. This cycle began around post #412, but seeing that us, as a “true centrist” equate “calls to move the mosque are analogous to calls for blacks to move to the back of the bus.”

Is there really any argument you would find as reasonable? I’m guessing “NO”.

Which puts you in direct odds with some of the planners:

1. Do you concede there are genuine, valid concerns about this project which are not derived from Islamophobia or racism? What do you think those concerns are and how would you respond to them?
   [Sharif el-Gamal, CEO of SoHo Properties and lead developer of the Park 51 project]

In a recent poll, even New Yorkers with a favorable opinion of Islam had reservations about the project. People have real questions and we need to work hard to make sure we get them answers, and that’s not going to happen overnight. We’re going to make sure our fundraising and planning involves people from across the city and we’re going to make sure we do so in a way that hears concerns and responds to them.

blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2010/07/qa-with-sharif-el-gamal-about.html

True"Centrist": [glib dismissal of any concerns as valid]

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

a 4b) would be

4b) I’m aware of that, but the terrorists interpretation of the tenets of Islam was the motivation behind the 9/11 attacks, whether the communities planners share the same interpretation of Islam or not.

1. Islam wasn’t the motivation behind the attacks, it was a politcal move, because the US has unfair in its foriegn policy towards Muslims.

Return to 1. This cycle began around post #412, but seeing that us, as a “true centrist” equate “calls to move the mosque are analogous to calls for blacks to move to the back of the bus.”

Is there really any argument you would find as reasonable? I’m guessing “NO”.

Arguments against the mosque that rely solely on public opinion I compared to civil rights issues. I think that the reasons are fairly clear, it was at one time unpopular to consider blacks as equals. That by itself did not justify the burdens placed on the black community.

I gave an example of reasonable arguments here:

Just repeating that “it is insensitive,” “he could have moved it,” “they’re fanning the flames,” and “victims say so” does not explain why it is insensitive in the first place. An acceptable reason looks like this:
I feel this is insensitive because:
–The imam has made some specific hurtful claim.
–Here is a donation from a known terrorist organization.
–Here are those involved making disparaging remarks about victims.

Unacceptable reasons look like this
I feel this is insensitive because:
–Other people feel that way. (why do they feel that way?)
–Muslims are fanning the flames (there are no flames until someone declares it insensitive, what is the reason for the initial declaration?)
–Islam has teachings x, y, or z. (Teachings x, y, and z must be both a justification for the terrorists and also believed by the imam or this is a red herring)

So there you have it, I have laid out a few criteria which, if met to my satisfaction, would change my mind. What would I have to do to change your mind?

 

[Vezelay]

Did these specific muslims have anything to do with 9/11?..No
Have these muslims done anything wrong?..No
Have these muslims broken the law?..No
Is it a terrorist training camp?..No
Are muslims our scapegoats?..You bet

We spend billions in iraq and afghanastan and kill off thousands in the name of helping muslims but then we can’t even allow them to use a building that hasn’t been occupied since airplane landing gear blew through the roof and will otherwise remain abandoned?

lims died on Oh yeah, here’s a fun face. Innocent mus9/11 as well.

TERRIFIC post. Bless you.

I had just been thinking of the $billions we are spending everyday now to help millions and millions of Muslims in the Pakistan disaster and yet some people don’t want to let Muslims, Sufi Muslims mind you, build a community center (swimming pool, gym, library, museum, cooking school) and, oh, yes, a place for prayer just as there is a place for Muslim prayer in the Pentagon and on every military base.
When I was a kid in Yonkers NY the Jewish Community Center had a much better swimming pool than the Catholic Youth Organization center. Guess what? we went to the JCC instead of the CYO. The Jews welcomed us just as the Sufis at Park 51 plan to welcome those in the community who wish to use its amenities
Again, my question is who would buy this bldg from the Sufis? who has that money (I think they paid $4.5million for it) and yet some say they shouldn’t put it to use. If you would refuse them their legal constitutional right to use it as they see fit, you must compensate them for their costs. And who would buy them a new bldg on a new sight?

 

[estesbob]

Its been a while, so here:

1. Opposition group: The Islamic centre is insensitive

.
2) Support group: You are a bigot

1. Opposition group: Because those involved with the Islamic centre are Muslim, as were the 9/11 terrorists

.
4) Support group: You are a bigot

1. Opposition group: But those involved with the Islamic centre have not proven they have not taken money from terrorists, nor can we be sure they do not sympathize with the terrorists.

1. Support group: You are a bigot

1. Opposition group:
   a) Normal response: I’m not saying I don’t believe them, I am saying that if they wanted to be sensitive, they could build somewhere else.
   b) Prejudiced response: They are not being truthful because they are Muslims, we should be suspicious because Islam says x y and z. Discussion ended.
   c) Possible response (not yet observed): You are right, I guess it does not make sense to be offended by this mosque. Discussion ended.
   d) Possible response (observed, but evidence is insubstantial or anecdotal): no, here is substantial evidence that the centre is affiliated with terrorism. Discussion shifted to the validity of evidence.

1. Support group response to 7a: You are a bigot

 

[estesbob]

*29% of Americans think the Ground Zero mosque should be built in its planned location. That number is roughly the same percentage as those who think Barack Obama was a foreign born Manchurian candidate and those who think 9/11 was an inside job.

The media has called the latter two groups fringe, but instead of calling the first group fringe has resorted to calling the 70% of Americans opposed to the mosque racists and bigots. The reason is simple - the media and political elite are in the 29% who think the mosque is a good idea.

As G. K. Chesterston said, “Tolerance is the virtue of a man without conviction.” The only conviction this fringe elite have is in their own self-righteousness. They label mainstream America fringe and racist. But in November, mainstream America will strike back.

By the way, if any of you think Barack Obama is a foreign born Manchurian candidate, these past few weeks have hopefully convinced you otherwise. Surely if some country or group had taken the time to train him up as a sleeper cell one of them most certainly would have taught him competence.

Erick Erickson*

 

[kaid100]

It is exceedingly hard to get zoning approved for churches anyways. A NIMBY attitude prevails with not just a little anti-Christian bigotry in the mix.
It would be good though to set a precedent that an event as big as the slaughter of 3000 be considered before building in this location. Pope John Paul II already established that principle and precedent for us when he firmly requested his cherished Carmelite nuns to not build a convent overlooking Auschwitz. To do so would be to disrespect the genocide against Jews that defined those grounds as hallowed. It would have been an inappropriate response for decent people to not understand some of the feelings that such actions would injure.

In fact there is a Catholic center within 600 metres of Auschwitz, the Carmelite Convent was closed not because it was close to Auschwitz but rather because it was in a building used by the Nazis to store the poison gas. As for the NIMBY argument, this is a reason for different religions to unite to make it easy for them all to build places of worship, not an argument against building a mosque because churches are also hard to build. I don’t believe anyone called Ground Zero “Hallowed” until the recent debate about the mosque inspired people to use religious language to provoke fear and confusion.

 

[scipio337]

Arguments against the mosque that rely solely on public opinion I compared to civil rights issues. I think that the reasons are fairly clear, it was at one time unpopular to consider blacks as equals. That by itself did not justify the burdens placed on the black community.

But the implications are that opposition to the mosque = racial segregation. Its a false analogy.

TheTrueCentrist:

So there you have it, I have laid out a few criteria which, if met to my satisfaction, would change my mind. What would I have to do to change your mind?

“I feel it is insensitive because:…”

–The imam has made some specific hurtful claim.

He has refused to call Hamas, [so designated by the EU and US State Department] or the Muslim Brotherhood [inindicted co-conspirators the HLF Trial] terrorist organizations.

nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/imam_terror_error_efmizkHuBUaVnfuQcrcabL#ixzz0rJTKPGE6

–Here is a donation from a known terrorist organization.

Not exactly, but

"a “special, non-commercial edition” of his book was later produced, with Feisal’s cooperation, by two American tentacles of the Muslim Brotherhood: the Islamic Society of North America and the International Institute of Islamic Thought. The book’s copyright page tells the tale:

http://www2.nationalreview.com/images/pic_mccarthy_072310_420px.jpg

nationalreview.com/articles/243536/raufs-dawa-world-trade-center-rubble-andrew-c-mccarthy

It would do well to understand who these two outfits are:

Unindicted co-conspirator/relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, 2007–08

In the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing case, the United States Department of Justice named ISNA, along with Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the North American Islamic Trust, as an unindicted co-conspirator and one of a number of “entities who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood…”

In addition, the American Muslim Congress, the Aafaq Foundation, the Center for Islamic Pluralism, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, and the International Quranic Center charged in a letter in 2008 that ISNA:

“has a long history of association with extremist trends in Islam. ISNA has served as a front group for Wahhabism, the official sect in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia; the jihadist ideologies originating in Pakistan with the writings of a certain Mawdudi and the Deoband schools in that country – the latter of which produced the Afghan Taliban, and the Ikhwan al-Muslimun, or Muslim Brotherhood.”

They claimed that ISNA promate a radicalism that, regardless of ISNA’s rhetorical claims, is basically hostile to Jews and suppresses the intellectual and social development of Muslims."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Society_of_North_America#Unindicted_co-conspirator.2Frelationship_with_the_Muslim_Brotherhood.2C_2007.E2.80.9308

The amount of terrorist activity tied to the International Institute of Islamic Thought, is too long to post. It starts here, and goes on:

The Institute was founded in 1981 with seed money from the Muslim Brotherhood…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Institute_of_Islamic_Thought#Controversy

More IIIT links to the Muslim Brotherhood here, specifically, Page 4

If you like, I can provide some of the Muslim Brotherhood documents siezed, and used as evidence in the Holyland Foudation trial.

Just because these organizations funded an edition of his book does not he has similar views, but it should raise some concerns. If the Institute for Historical Review approached me and offered to publish a book of mine, I’d have to turn them down…

 

[John_Pascendi]

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100814/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_ground_zero_mosque_obama

Seems to me Obama is working towards being a one-term president.

…actually I hope he lasts for two…he has done more to vitalize the sleeping giant of Americanism then anyone since Truman! He is obviously a muslim and hates America and Christianity…the others we have had…Clinton,the Bushes,Gipper,Carter,Nixon etc etc…also were in the same club but did not pull this…in your face bit!!! Folks that used to smirk when I walked by ,since I am noted as being…well,you know,the local right wing old time Catholic kook…now get respectful looks and one man,just before he died ,at a boy scout meeting,turned to me and whispered…“history has proven you correct !” this is not really what I wanted to hear,in many ways I wish I was wrong…sigh…my school lost over a dozen students and some 7 were former students of mine on 9-11! as Krush…used to mock us…'you spit in the face of these americans and they call it dew"

 

[seekerz]

…actually I hope he lasts for two…he has done more to vitalize the sleeping giant of Americanism then anyone since Truman! He is obviously a muslim and hates America and Christianity…the others we have had…Clinton,the Bushes,Gipper,Carter,Nixon etc etc…also were in the same club but did not pull this…in your face bit!!! Folks that used to smirk when I walked by ,since I am noted as being…well,you know,the local right wing old time Catholic kook…now get respectful looks and one man,just before he died ,at a boy scout meeting,turned to me and whispered…“history has proven you correct !” this is not really what I wanted to hear,in many ways I wish I was wrong…sigh…my school lost over a dozen students and some 7 were former students of mine on 9-11! as Krush…used to mock us…'you spit in the face of these americans and they call it dew"

Priceless…and your point is what exactly? Somehow, in the shouts for respect (I’ve been told this is a respect issue) we seem to have lost the idea that respect is earned and is MUTUAL. How about starting with respect for the expressed religious affiliations of our Presidents?

 

[seekerz]

I think that Jon Stewart did a pretty good job uncovering the ridiculousness of many of the claims being made here:
thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover—homeland-edition

Skip to 7:05 for a very very good segment.

I almost died laughing…then you would have been guilty of some serious sin.

Think I might add this link to my signature until the hubbub dies down cuz I firmly believe that when we laugh (especially at ourselves) all the stuff we get so worked up about becomes a mite more manageable.

 

[Norminha]

The Catholic church has had its share of public criticism that it has ignored, for the most part. Why haven’t they allowed women priests? Why haven’t they been quicker to deal with allegations of child abuse? Why don’t they allow condoms? etc etc.

Friend, for 2.000 years the Catholic Church is having Her share of public criticism and it’ll continue until the end of times, Christ Himself said it.

On the night Christ was betrayed, He chose 12 MEN (Peter, John, James….) commanded them to continue from that moment on the celebration of the Holy Eucharist Christ did not call Mary, Martha or any other woman to be ordained. For this reason, since Christ was born of the woman as a MALE and who is the Highest Priest, not even the Holy Father (Pope) can change this principle, simply because a priest acts in the person of Christ and Christ is MALE. It doesn’t matter you and I don’t like it, this is the way it is.
The child abuse thing, uh! The fact that a man is called by God to be a priest it does NOT mean this man will sin no more. Our priests have more temptation than you and me precisely because they have been set apart by God and the devil is not happy about it.
Last week the case in KY filed against the Holy See dropped the case, alleging that the accusers have already been compensated years ago for the abuses by the respective Archdiocese. By the way, please make your research correctly as to find out the percentage of priests who fell short their promise to serve God. We have the majority of our priest striving daily for holiness.

Condoms –wow, another biggy- For the same reason that for 2.000 years the Church has and will maintain the ordination of PRIESTS (male), the same Church condemns the use of condoms between husband and wife who when decided to get marry, accepted to co-operate with God to pro-create. A man and a woman got together in matrimony to receive all the children God sends them as gift otherwise, they would remain single. Did you know that the Church LOVES sex? Oh yes, She does, within the marriage -sex is a gift from God.

Finally, the Servant of God John Paul II, publicly asked for forgiveness to the entire world for all the sins the Catholic Church has committed. The current Holy Father Benedict XVI did the same in reference to the scandalous in the Church of Christ.

We the Catholics admit we ARE sinners, but our hearts are at peace when we trust in the infinite Mercy of our God, we repent, confess and make penance. We don’t presume our salvation.
In Jesus, Mary and Joseph, praying for you!

 

[pnewton]

Just like a moderate Catholic will never disown the violence in the old testament.
boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2009/03/scholar_compare.html

Yes, they will and they must. In fact, even before the comletion of the canon of the New Testament, we have the apostle Paul preaching that Christianity is separate from Judaism and not subject to the law given the nation Israel. We do not disown the Old Testament of a history of what God revealed to His people, but we do not follow the Law of Moses. We also do not respond to crime, war or anything else in the 20th Century like those who lived 1000-2000 B.C.

Now if you can show a similar holy writing where the followers of Mohammed are no longer bound by the law laid down in the Koran, then I would say the parallel would be legit. We have the New Testament and the New Covenant. What does Islam have that is similar?