I
iamrefreshed
Guest
Yeah, kinda like 9/11 victims.
- Status
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
1368 feet.You still haven’t told me how far is far enough to build the mosque…
S
seekerz
Guest
Guess we’re at a real stalemate because if you remove the example of Prop 8 (or reword it) and substitute right for left and liberal for conservative, that is the exact experience some moderates on the left would relate to you…
S
seekerz
Guest
Now I know there is a hidden symbolism to that distance but I can’t put my finger on it: searching…searching…searching…
S
scipio337
Guest
“People on the left support abortion because they hate babies”?
The “distance of the mosque” isn’t for me to say. I’m not a New Yorker. I lost no family members during 9/11. I just support their public demonstration that they disapprove. I agree with President Obama. (that hurts) They have every right to build there. But given the reaction to building at that location, I’m not sure it will do much to foster interfaith dialougue, as was the stated intent.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
The original name for the mosque invoked “Cordoba”, which makes it, in fact, a “Victory Mosque”.
Second, Rauf’s purpose with this building, this cultural center, is to make it the headquarters for imposition of Shariah Law on the United States.
There is Jihad and there is “stealth Jihad”. Both are the mechanisms for bringing Shariah Law.
And this building is part of the campaign of stealth Jihad.
The current Constitution has “negative rights”, in that it limits government. The current administration has already stated that want government to have the freedom to do MORE. By changing the Constitution, the central government would then have the authority to impose more dictation from Washington. And that would be another necessary step toward imposing Shariah Law.
www.jihadwatch.org
centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.xml
Don’t believe me; look it up for yourself.
Cordoba
Shariah or Sharia [phonetic spelling of the Arabic]
Google “stealth Jihad”
Many useful hits: youtube.com/watch?v=w10MhUiHO1g
amazon.com/Stealth-Jihad-Radical-Subverting-America/dp/1596985569/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282683601&sr=8-1
If you don’t happen to have a personal stake in the controversy, then perhaps read a local newspaper:
nypost.com/
Second, Rauf’s purpose with this building, this cultural center, is to make it the headquarters for imposition of Shariah Law on the United States.
There is Jihad and there is “stealth Jihad”. Both are the mechanisms for bringing Shariah Law.
And this building is part of the campaign of stealth Jihad.
The current Constitution has “negative rights”, in that it limits government. The current administration has already stated that want government to have the freedom to do MORE. By changing the Constitution, the central government would then have the authority to impose more dictation from Washington. And that would be another necessary step toward imposing Shariah Law.
www.jihadwatch.org
centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.xml
Don’t believe me; look it up for yourself.
Cordoba
Shariah or Sharia [phonetic spelling of the Arabic]
Google “stealth Jihad”
Many useful hits: youtube.com/watch?v=w10MhUiHO1g
amazon.com/Stealth-Jihad-Radical-Subverting-America/dp/1596985569/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282683601&sr=8-1
If you don’t happen to have a personal stake in the controversy, then perhaps read a local newspaper:
nypost.com/
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
The height of the original towers.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
There is another parallel.
The Battle of Lepanto.
The Christians did NOT sit back and allow the “Turks” [Musliims] to have free passage to do whatever they wanted.
Instead, the Christians massed the largest fleet in history and what followed was the largest naval battle in history.
Yes, yes, religious freedom is wonderful.
But not when the Muslim have as before hidden under the mask of religion and then used it as a pretext for conquest.
They’ve done it before.
Let us not allow them to do it again.
If they want to worship quietly, that is fine.
But no more Jihad, stealth or otherwise.
militaryhistory.about.com/od/navalbattles14011600/p/lepanto.htm
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Lepanto
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto
The Battle of Lepanto.
The Christians did NOT sit back and allow the “Turks” [Musliims] to have free passage to do whatever they wanted.
Instead, the Christians massed the largest fleet in history and what followed was the largest naval battle in history.
Yes, yes, religious freedom is wonderful.
But not when the Muslim have as before hidden under the mask of religion and then used it as a pretext for conquest.
They’ve done it before.
Let us not allow them to do it again.
If they want to worship quietly, that is fine.
But no more Jihad, stealth or otherwise.
militaryhistory.about.com/od/navalbattles14011600/p/lepanto.htm
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Lepanto
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
estesbob et al,
Thanks for your articulated position, as well as those of scipio367, Catherine D, iamrefreshed, Monte RCMS, bbarick8383 and many others here, whose views on the mosque I share. The reasons given may not have been distilled to one basis for opposition to the mosque, as the other side would have us present it, but the reasons are not conflicting or mutually exclusive. It’s not confusing but we get confused reactions, for sure.
When I hear overt or subliminal charges from the other camp of racism, bigotry, lacking independence or intelligence separate from those of the pundits and the media, I do not get bent out of shape. I realize it’s not coming from a position of strength or reason.
But I pray the efforts of the Bishop and NY Governor lead to a break …
The thing is if no compromise is reached and the controversial mosque is built at this site, we all just move forward. Opponents to the mosque would not be surprised, what with all that muscle on the other side, including our own President, the NYC mayor, speaker of the House, etc. We recognize only too well that the builders have the right and the identified site is private property, as they emphasize. But proponents have to know in their hearts it’s not about religious freedom, or bigotry by all of 70% mosque opponents.
If or when the mosque does get erected, I think it would surprise Muslims, because, if the tables were turned, Islamists would not let Muslims allow a victory structure to go up at or near a place or conquest or an enemy “hit”. The association to the attack would be too much, the pain palpable, the symbolism undeniable.
Not getting much media coverage are the voices of peaceful Muslims who are against the mosque, because they know it would just create a bigger divide between them and non-Muslims in America, making for a really sad unintended consequence, opposite to the stated goal of “building bridges”.
Now off I go, time to prepare dinner for hubby.
Blessings.
Thanks for your articulated position, as well as those of scipio367, Catherine D, iamrefreshed, Monte RCMS, bbarick8383 and many others here, whose views on the mosque I share. The reasons given may not have been distilled to one basis for opposition to the mosque, as the other side would have us present it, but the reasons are not conflicting or mutually exclusive. It’s not confusing but we get confused reactions, for sure.
When I hear overt or subliminal charges from the other camp of racism, bigotry, lacking independence or intelligence separate from those of the pundits and the media, I do not get bent out of shape. I realize it’s not coming from a position of strength or reason.
But I pray the efforts of the Bishop and NY Governor lead to a break …
The thing is if no compromise is reached and the controversial mosque is built at this site, we all just move forward. Opponents to the mosque would not be surprised, what with all that muscle on the other side, including our own President, the NYC mayor, speaker of the House, etc. We recognize only too well that the builders have the right and the identified site is private property, as they emphasize. But proponents have to know in their hearts it’s not about religious freedom, or bigotry by all of 70% mosque opponents.
If or when the mosque does get erected, I think it would surprise Muslims, because, if the tables were turned, Islamists would not let Muslims allow a victory structure to go up at or near a place or conquest or an enemy “hit”. The association to the attack would be too much, the pain palpable, the symbolism undeniable.
Not getting much media coverage are the voices of peaceful Muslims who are against the mosque, because they know it would just create a bigger divide between them and non-Muslims in America, making for a really sad unintended consequence, opposite to the stated goal of “building bridges”.
Now off I go, time to prepare dinner for hubby.
Blessings.
M
mlund
Guest
They aren’t very complicated.Read your post again. Basically you’re saying he deserves whatever he gets, but the onus is on him to be sensitive and civil and to do the right thing.I guess the confusion can only get worse from such a viewpoint…even I’m dizzy just trying to sort out your views.
Imam Rauf and his supporters initially supported a position that no matter how offensive or hurtful this project might be, the right to such expression was sacrosanct.
Now they express outrage and injury at being protested against.
Rauf’s expression is “sacred.” The expression of his detractors is “hateful.”
Rauf and his supporters are the worst kind of hypocrites.
If you provoke others unnecessarily in an uncivil and insensitive fashion and hide behind freedom of speech, do not cry “victim” when those you have offended identify you as swine. There is no necessity or onus in this matter for Imam Rauf. He and his backers want this site because something about it is more important to them than the feelings of those victimized on 9/11.
Imam Rauf’s actions draw a direct parallel in my mind to the Westboro Baptists. Yes, they have a legal right to go to military funerals with their placards in front of friends and family saying that God killed their loved one because he hates gays. Their actions are also utterly beneath contempt.
Because of that they have earned ill will.
Likewise those who are respectful and caring towards others in the exercise of their legal rights earn good will.
- Marty Lund
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
This was just received from a friend, Chuck Muth, who has a public blog/Web e-letter:
News & Views subscriber [name deleted] weighed in on the so-called “Terror Mosque” brouhaha in New York this morning with a rather colorful perspective:
“They have a First Amendment right to build a mosque on their own property. I have a First Amendment right to draw a disrespectful picture of Mohammed. They say, ‘You must be sensitive to our feelings!’ But the would-be mosque builders have no concern for the feelings of most Americans. For them, sensitivity is a strictly one way street. If I lived in that area, I’d be feeding the pigeons bacon bits every day.”
Nice visual.
In a similar vein, our friend and Toledo, Ohio, talk-show host Brian Wilson sent us the following:
“There is a move afoot to counter the mosque that might be built a hundred yards from Ground Zero by opening a homosexual bar next to it. One act of tolerance deserves another, right? In fact, I’m looking at setting up the bar, a brothel, a dog boarding facility, a Southern-style BBQ and a donkey petting zoo…all within 100 yards of this so-called ‘mosque.’”
Potential names for the new gay bar being contemplated include: Turban Cowboys, Outfidels, Très Sheik, Infidelicious, JiHot!, Al-Gay-Da, Homohammed’s, The Ba’ath House, You Mecca Me Hot, Talibuns, and Ground Queero.
Vintage American response.
Frankly, I personally could go either way on this mosque mess. The Muslims have freedom of religion and property rights on their side; the Americans have the rights of free speech and association on theirs. As long as both sides are exercising their rights without violence or property damage (as is often the case involving labor union protests; but I digress), this will work itself out one way or the other in the end.
But then this came out Sunday in the Wall Street Journal:
“A leader of a planned Muslim community center near Manhattan’s Ground Zero compared opposition to the project to the persecution of Jews, in comments that could add to the controversy over the center’s proposed site. ‘We are deeply concerned, because this is like a metastasized antisemitism,’ said Daisy Khan, who is spearheading the project with her husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. ‘It’s beyond Islamophobia. It’s hate of Muslims.’”
Playing the “Jew card”? An American citizens can’t object to the proposed location of this project unless they “hate Muslims”? Scrw these people. Move your dmn mosque.
News & Views subscriber [name deleted] weighed in on the so-called “Terror Mosque” brouhaha in New York this morning with a rather colorful perspective:
“They have a First Amendment right to build a mosque on their own property. I have a First Amendment right to draw a disrespectful picture of Mohammed. They say, ‘You must be sensitive to our feelings!’ But the would-be mosque builders have no concern for the feelings of most Americans. For them, sensitivity is a strictly one way street. If I lived in that area, I’d be feeding the pigeons bacon bits every day.”
Nice visual.
In a similar vein, our friend and Toledo, Ohio, talk-show host Brian Wilson sent us the following:
“There is a move afoot to counter the mosque that might be built a hundred yards from Ground Zero by opening a homosexual bar next to it. One act of tolerance deserves another, right? In fact, I’m looking at setting up the bar, a brothel, a dog boarding facility, a Southern-style BBQ and a donkey petting zoo…all within 100 yards of this so-called ‘mosque.’”
Potential names for the new gay bar being contemplated include: Turban Cowboys, Outfidels, Très Sheik, Infidelicious, JiHot!, Al-Gay-Da, Homohammed’s, The Ba’ath House, You Mecca Me Hot, Talibuns, and Ground Queero.
Vintage American response.
Frankly, I personally could go either way on this mosque mess. The Muslims have freedom of religion and property rights on their side; the Americans have the rights of free speech and association on theirs. As long as both sides are exercising their rights without violence or property damage (as is often the case involving labor union protests; but I digress), this will work itself out one way or the other in the end.
But then this came out Sunday in the Wall Street Journal:
“A leader of a planned Muslim community center near Manhattan’s Ground Zero compared opposition to the project to the persecution of Jews, in comments that could add to the controversy over the center’s proposed site. ‘We are deeply concerned, because this is like a metastasized antisemitism,’ said Daisy Khan, who is spearheading the project with her husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. ‘It’s beyond Islamophobia. It’s hate of Muslims.’”
Playing the “Jew card”? An American citizens can’t object to the proposed location of this project unless they “hate Muslims”? Scrw these people. Move your dmn mosque.
- Chuck Muth
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
Many pages ago I brought up Westboro. It was, other than one poster, completely ignored.
I guess it hit home with the left so, just like JournaList, it was ignored.
C
Catherine_D
Guest
Some of the people interested in this topic might be interested to know that there are American Muslims (not just people in some beauty pageant, but others) that are opposed to both this mosque and this Imam. I heard an interview with one such person, a leader in his community, who stated just that. They don’t want to go backwards, as this Imam supports. There are Muslims in this country who left tyrannical regimes precisely because of the personal freedoms they could find in this country. They do not want to be associated with this mosque. In fact, they see some of this argument as a Muslim v. Muslim thing.
On another subject ~ there is this comparison of opposition to this mosque to “anti-semitism”, or as another poster has written, “playing the Jew card”. Anti-semitism involves many things that the people promoting this mosque have never experienced, so to suggest that opposition to this mosque is the same is, at the very least, completely inappropriate. Anti-semitism, in history, has expressed itself in wholesale slaughter of Jewish people, inquisitions, pogroms, murder by hamas & hezbollah, etc. The people promoting this mosque have not experienced any of that.
The opposition to this mosque is in no way parallel to anti-Semitism, notwithstanding the claim of Daisy Khan, the wife of Iman Rauf.
On another subject ~ there is this comparison of opposition to this mosque to “anti-semitism”, or as another poster has written, “playing the Jew card”. Anti-semitism involves many things that the people promoting this mosque have never experienced, so to suggest that opposition to this mosque is the same is, at the very least, completely inappropriate. Anti-semitism, in history, has expressed itself in wholesale slaughter of Jewish people, inquisitions, pogroms, murder by hamas & hezbollah, etc. The people promoting this mosque have not experienced any of that.
The opposition to this mosque is in no way parallel to anti-Semitism, notwithstanding the claim of Daisy Khan, the wife of Iman Rauf.
M
Mr_Skeptic
Guest
Agreed.
If his motives were truly innocent and noble, and if he were a reasonable individual, he’d take a few steps back and realize the hurt, anger and divisiveness this is causing New Yorkers and Americans, and without hesitation decide it’s a bad idea. Sensitivity and ‘understanding’ seems to be a one-way street.
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
As I said last time you brought it up:
The WBC is offensive because they actively preach hate. Their website is “godhatesfags.” I also explained why hate speech is offensive, in case you took issue with that.
Most of the recent posts have resumed attacks on Rauf, insinuating that he is purposefully being insensitive. This is not the case. His views are moderate, his intent was benevolent, and his reaction to the protesters justified. If someone came to me, and asked me to “reconsider” a $100 million dollar project after 6 months of planning, you had better believe I would want them to give me a good reason. So to all of those who say that he is insensitive I ask the question I have been asking all along: why is the mosque insensitive?
For anyone new, review this:
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)
As you can see, unless I missed something, this cycle can only end if the opposition group chooses b or c, or provides evidence from a reputable source that ties the centre to terrorism.
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
C
colmywaykurtz
Guest
And the right (personified by the authors of this type of statement) CAN tolerate dissent and refrain from ranting about bogey-men? Come off it.
M
Mr_Skeptic
Guest
Thanks.
In the mean time, why don’t you see this video: youtube.com/user/patcondell#p/u/6/vjS0Novt3X4
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
No, there is no comparison. Some branches of Islam teach that depictions of Mohamed are wrong. Deliberately violating this is offensive. Would you as a Catholic be offended by deliberate desecration of the Eucharist? Yes you would.
The difference here is the Muslims have not deliberately transgressed any teaching–religious, social or otherwise. They were able to publicly plan for several months with no one batting an eyelash. Until you can prove me wrong by telling me why the mosque is insensitive I don’t think that the analogy holds water.
C
Catherine_D
Guest
That video will not play on my computer.
- Status