What About the Ground Zero Church? Archdiocese Says Officials Abandoned Project

  • Thread starter Thread starter stanmaxkolbe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stanmaxkolbe

Guest
What About the Ground Zero Church? Archdiocese Says Officials Abandoned Project

The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America accused New York officials on Tuesday of turning their backs on the reconstruction of the only church destroyed in the Sept. 11 attacks, while the controversial mosque near Ground Zero moves forward.

The sidelined project is the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, a tiny, four-story building destroyed in 2001 when one of the World Trade Center towers fell on top of it. Nobody from the church was hurt in the attack, but the congregation has for the past decade been trying to rebuild its house of worship.

While the mosque project cleared red tape earlier this month, negotiations between government officials and the church stalled last year – and have stayed that way. Though the particulars of the two projects are completely different and on the surface unrelated, the church and its supporters see a disconnect in the way the proposals have been handled.
Read more:
foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/17/ground-zero-church-archdiocese-says-officials-forgot/
 
Obama isn’t trying to please the Greek Orthodox community, so he most likely won’t be speaking up on their behalf.
 
Perhaps it is because there are no “radical Greek Orthodox terrorists” who murdered 3000 innocent people on 9/11, therefore no threat to politicians safety if their church is never built???

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Pecatoribus!

mark
 
I have not heard this story in the news; “The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America accused New York officials on Tuesday of turning their backs on the reconstruction of the only church destroyed in the Sept. 11 attacks” as mention below, and wonder why. If true, and it seems very likely, given the fact of the mosque being planned, it is sad. Pray for those in NY and the Whitehouse, that they see the way and do the correct thing…:confused:
 
If Muslims really wanted to reach out to the American people they would not build that Mosque at that place.

There is Muslims speaking out saying its wrong to do this but you don’t hear too much about it from the LSM [Lame Stream Media].
 
The city made a very generous offer of $20 million, a free 24,000 square foot parcel, and a $40 million blast proof platform and foundation. Their only condition was a height restriction on the dome. The Archdiocese only has itself to blame.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
The city made a very generous offer of $20 million, a free 24,000 square foot parcel, and a $40 million blast proof platform and foundation. Their only condition was a height restriction on the dome. The Archdiocese only has itself to blame.
Click to expand...
Wrong talks broke down the Port Authority is no longer talking to them.

“The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original site, and we will pay fair market value for the underground space beneath that building,” a spokesperson with the Port Authority told Fox News.

But Father Karloutsos called the Port Authority’s claims “propaganda” and said the church has complied with all conditions. He said the government should honor agreements that date back to 2004, under former New York Gov. George Pataki.
Pataki, speaking with Fox News on Tuesday, agreed that the church should be rebuilt.
 
stanmaxkolbe said:
Wrong talks broke down the Port Authority is no longer talking to them.
Click to expand...
Again, the city made that offer and the archdiocese rejected it because they wanted all $20 million upfront and no height restriction on the dome. They can take the deal or the city will use emminent domain to seize the space it needs.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Again, the city made that offer and the archdiocese rejected it because they wanted all $20 million upfront and no height restriction on the dome. They can take the deal or the city will use emminent domain to seize the space it needs.
Click to expand...
You are not telling the full story:

“I don’t understand it,” Pataki said. “Why the Port Authority now has so far put roadblocks in the way of its reconstruction is beyond me. It’s not the right thing to do.”

George Demos, a Republican candidate for New York’s 1st Congressional District, has also drawn attention to the church negotiations. He released a written statement last week calling the Port Authority “disingenuous and disrespectful” for claiming the church project could go forward.

**“For the last year, the Port Authority has refused to meet with church officials and is now reneging on its commitment to rebuild the church,” Demos said. **

Demos said the stalled church plans are an “outrage,” considering New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Committee vote in early August to deny historical status protection to the building where the mosque is set to be built, clearing the way for the project to move forward.

A Mosque less than 700 feet from Ground Zero–Stan.
 
The Church says the Port Authority abandoned the Project.
The Port Authority says the Church rejected their generous offer and now they’re done negotiating.

Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But the fact remains that the Church is free to rebuild on its own using its own money.
 
The fact remains the President should have kept his mouth shut about the Mosque bad PR move. I don’t know who advises him but he/she needs to be fired.
 
stanmaxkolbe said:
The fact remains the President should have kept his mouth shut about the Mosque bad PR move. I don’t know who advises him but he/she needs to be fired.
Click to expand...
No, it was a reasonable PR move: fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/obama-defense-of-ground-zero-mosque.html

Interesting that Palin and Obama both went after 2/3rd chunks of the public. Obama courted the 2/3rds that think the Muslims have a right to build, while Palin went after the 2/3rds who felt offended. An interesting comment on their respective politics.

I tend to agree with an earlier poster. My guess is that neither the church’s nor the state’s stories give the whole picture.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
No, it was a reasonable PR move: fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/obama-defense-of-ground-zero-mosque.html

Interesting that Palin and Obama both went after 2/3rd chunks of the public. Obama courted the 2/3rds that think the Muslims have a right to build, while Palin went after the 2/3rds who felt offended. An interesting comment on their respective politics.

I tend to agree with an earlier poster. My guess is that neither the church’s nor the state’s stories give the whole picture.
Click to expand...
The thing is these other people are not the President of the United States—he or his Party is going to pay for it; normal Americans in flyover country do not support this.
 
It just shows where the priorities of the left are. Saudi oil dollars have allowed more than one politician to retire in very comfortable and prestigious circumstances.
Besides churches and believing Christians are antithetical to the goals of the left, and therefore it is counterproductive to accommodate them.

These are the values of the left. Elections will decide if the American people will confirm whether these values are their own, or whether they are ready to begin the long hard journey back from this void.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top