What if it were radical "Catholics?"

[jmjconder]

archive.org/details/television_archive_911_Summary

This is a long video to watch…although I urge you to do so. It is a chilling reminder of that day. I remember exactly where I was ~ watching in utter disbelief the events in realtime unfold before the REAL world. At that time it did not matter who was responsible only that it happened. However years later…

My question is…not if it is legal or within the rights of the Consititution…I have wondered if this were a group of radical “Catholics” (and I know they are active under the same claim) would the world/US/State/City allow a Catholic Bacilica to be built at ground zero.
I think not.

As an active member of the Catholic Church I would never ask this of the country I love.

Thoughts?

 

[Lujack]

Ground Zero is not equivalent to Lower Manhattan. How far away are Muslims permitted to worship, especially when they aren’t even the same denomination? This situation is more like trying to put a Catholic basilica in the region as a Mormon terrorist attack.

 

[Dylpickleh8]

Besides, it’s not even a Mosque, it’s similar to a YMCA.

 

[coolduude]

Besides, it’s not even a Mosque, it’s similar to a YMCA.

No, it’s a mosque. Even the New York Times says so:

President Obama delivered a strong defense on Friday night of a proposed Muslim community center and mosque near ground zero in Manhattan, using a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan to proclaim that “as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.”

nytimes.com/2010/08/14/us/politics/14obama.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=ground%20zero%20mosque&st=cse

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

archive.org/details/television_archive_911_Summary

This is a long video to watch…although I urge you to do so. It is a chilling reminder of that day. I remember exactly where I was ~ watching in utter disbelief the events in realtime unfold before the REAL world. At that time it did not matter who was responsible only that it happened. However years later…

My question is…not if it is legal or within the rights of the Consititution…I have wondered if this were a group of radical “Catholics” (and I know they are active under the same claim) would the world/US/State/City allow a Catholic Bacilica to be built at ground zero.
I think not.

As an active member of the Catholic Church I would never ask this of the country I love.

Thoughts?

I watched it LIVE. I smelt the burning wire from 60 miles away two days after.

I agree with you.

 

[mlund]

My question is…not if it is legal or within the rights of the Consititution…I have wondered if this were a group of radical “Catholics” (and I know they are active under the same claim) would the world/US/State/City allow a Catholic Bacilica to be built at ground zero.

I certainly would disapprove of a Church, Religious School, or Parish being erected in a building-site destroyed 9 years prior by Catholic Fanatic Terrorists when alternative sites were available. I’d be especially upset if the project were lead by a man who acted as an apologist for the terrorists in question or threw part of the blame for the terrorist acts back upon the United States. I’d consider such actions insensitive, hurtful, and uncivil - beneath the dignity deserving of Christ’s Church here on earth.

But you don’t even need such an extreme example to see what the right thing to do (morally) is. The late Pope John Paul II showed us an example.The Carmelite nuns had a small convent just outside of Auschwitz. They had a legal right to be there, were making no political statements, and established their convent over 40 years after Auschwitz was liberated. They remembered the dead, prayed for peace, and that the horrors that ground witnessed might never be repeated. Saint Maximilian Kolbe was martyred in that camp, along with thousands of Polish Catholics and St. Edith Stein, a Carmelite nun.

Despite all this, our Holy Father decided to show profound respect and civility towards those scarred by the Shoah by moving the convent when it raised an outcry from the Jewish community. He did not question their hurt feelings, pound the table with rhetoric about people depriving the nuns of freedom of religion and expression, nor did he call them bigots and haters. He sought to understand the pain of those victimized and treat them with love and respect.

• Marty Lund

 

[PatrickSebast]

I will never accept the insensitivity argument till their opponents start being more sensitive. There are plenty of verbal attacks and negative assumptions about these people with nothing but the vaguest of proof against them. If the plan was really a terrorist training center, as some like to claim, in the heart of NYC, and it was really being funded by extremists then homeland security would have already been all over this place. They even like to act like their actions aren’t harmful to the Muslim community because SOME members have come out against the Mosque or said they understand that people are offended by it. We can’t forget that there are millions of Muslims in the country who simply can’t help but feel hurt to see 70%+ of the country still immediately associates anything people of their faith do, even a community center, with one of the largest attacks on US soil in decades. The building has been in the planning for years and no one said anything against it, but now when the contracts have all been signed, the design work has been payed for, the planning is almost finished and the clearances have all been granted certain people finally got wind of it and started making it a major issue. No one wants to hear about how hard and costly it is to uproot a major project like this when you are this close to the ground breaking. Few people mention how hurtful or offensive some of the protesters signs are. Whether any of us Catholics agree with the Mosque or not we should be keeping the Muslim community in our prayers at this especially sensitive time.

Oh and yes the government would allow Catholics to build a church there if radical Catholics had done it because the government doesn’t have the legal authority to prevent it, nor should they.

 

[surritter]

I certainly would disapprove of a Church, Religious School, or Parish being erected in a building-site destroyed 9 years prior by Catholic Fanatic Terrorists when alternative sites were available. I’d be especially upset if the project were lead by a man who acted as an apologist for the terrorists in question or threw part of the blame for the terrorist acts back upon the United States. I’d consider such actions insensitive, hurtful, and uncivil - beneath the dignity deserving of Christ’s Church here on earth.

But you don’t even need such an extreme example to see what the right thing to do (morally) is. The late Pope John Paul II showed us an example.The Carmelite nuns had a small convent just outside of Auschwitz. They had a legal right to be there, were making no political statements, and established their convent over 40 years after Auschwitz was liberated. They remembered the dead, prayed for peace, and that the horrors that ground witnessed might never be repeated. Saint Maximilian Kolbe was martyred in that camp, along with thousands of Polish Catholics and St. Edith Stein, a Carmelite nun.

Despite all this, our Holy Father decided to show profound respect and civility towards those scarred by the Shoah by moving the convent when it raised an outcry from the Jewish community. He did not question their hurt feelings, pound the table with rhetoric about people depriving the nuns of freedom of religion and expression, nor did he call them bigots and haters. He sought to understand the pain of those victimized and treat them with love and respect.

• Marty Lund

But these analogies don’t really fly, because any Catholic group wishing to construct a facility on a site such as the ones you mention would not hesitate to renounce the evil that had taken place there.

In this Ground Zero case, the imam doesn’t seem to want to renounce the terrorist attacks of 9/11. There’s the rub.

 

[mlund]

I will never accept the insensitivity argument till their opponents start being more sensitive.

“I won’t stop spitting in your face until you stop telling me I’m behaving badly for spitting in your face,” is a juvenile and invalid argument.

There are plenty of verbal attacks and negative assumptions about these people with nothing but the vaguest of proof against them.

The overwhelming volume of serious objections I’ve heard raised have absolutely nothing to do with unfounded negative assumptions. Take it up with the American Islamic Forum For Democracy.

If the plan was really a terrorist training center, as some like to claim, in the heart of NYC,

Seriously? Anybody outside of a total random crank, paranoid, or plant thinks that? Even if you this guy were an Al-Qaeda sleeper he’d have to be an incompetent moron to train terrorists in a high-profile venue like that.

We can’t forget that there are millions of Muslims in the country who simply can’t help but feel hurt to see 70%+ of the country still immediately associates anything people of their faith do, even a community center, with one of the largest attacks on US soil in decades.

Um, nobody is throwing shoes or protesting at the other mosque a couple of blocks away, you know. This guy’s project drew scrutiny because he picked a very specific spot that is loaded with emotional and political implications - and refuses alternatives.

certain people finally got wind of it and started making it a major issue.

You mean the information finally got into the public media and people began to scrutinize the guy behind it?

No one wants to hear about how hard and costly it is to uproot a major project like this when you are this close to the ground breaking.

I’m sure there’s some expense to be incurred. I’m sure plenty of people would be happy to contribute to a fund to make up the difference and move this construction project to a more thoughtful location.

Few people mention how hurtful or offensive some of the protesters signs are.

Few people are surprised that when you make rude public displays you’ll provoke others to be rude. I don’t approve of painting all Moslems with the same brush. I do approve of deeming this project and its leadership as insensitive and hurtful towards the victims of 9/11. The signs will go away. This Islamic Center and its offensive Imam, on the other hand, will hang around for a long, long time.

Whether any of us Catholics agree with the Mosque or not we should be keeping the Muslim community in our prayers at this especially sensitive time.

Certainly. I pray thy won’t have to perpetually suffer high-profile media figures from their religion embarrassing them like this, nor be burdened with the influences of fanatics and fascist running off with their faith abroad.

Oh and yes the government would allow Catholics to build a church there if radical Catholics had done it because the government doesn’t have the legal authority to prevent it, nor should they.

Yup. Freedom of expression is a two-way street. You have the freedom to be uncivil and offensive towards others building on your property, and those offended have the right to call you an unmitigated bore and picket your property telling you that your views are unwelcome.

• Marty Lund

 

[mlund]

In this Ground Zero case, the imam doesn’t seem to want to renounce the terrorist attacks of 9/11. There’s the rub.

No. Don’t confuse the issue. He’s on record as saying that terrorism is in violation of Islam and that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were wrong.

He’s also on the record as holding the U.S.A. culpable for the attacks because, in his world-view, we were provoking the radicals with our injustice and killing of innocent Moslems.

• Marty Lund

 

[HeavenlyRoses]

slate.com/id/2264770

I am no fan of Christopher Hitchens, but the linked article brings up some interesting points.

 

[surritter]

No. Don’t confuse the issue. He’s on record as saying that terrorism is in violation of Islam and that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were wrong.

He’s also on the record as holding the U.S.A. culpable for the attacks because, in his world-view, we were provoking the radicals with our injustice and killing of innocent Moslems.

• Marty Lund

OK – thanks for the correction on the first point. But your second point is 'nuff said.

What if JPII said, “Well, these nuns disagree with the Holocaust, but the Jews brought it on themselves.”

Isn’t that akin to tacit approval?

 

[PatrickSebast]

“I won’t stop spitting in your face until you stop telling me I’m behaving badly for spitting in your face,” is a juvenile and invalid argument.

…You mean the information finally got into the public media and people began to scrutinize the guy behind it?

It is a perfectly valid argument and that is a perfectly bad analogy. I was not defending the Mosque with that statement nor did I do it anywhere in my post. My point is that people, especially Catholics, need to wise up and respond to this issue properly They didn’t do it to be purposely offensive and the information has been out in the media for a while. analogy would be Here is a favorable fox news report on the center from December. youtube.com/watch?v=q7WbTv_gsx4

The overwhelming volume of serious objections I’ve heard raised have absolutely nothing to do with unfounded negative assumptions. Take it up with the American Islamic Forum For Democracy.

Seriously? Anybody outside of a total random crank, paranoid, or plant thinks that? Even if you this guy were an Al-Qaeda sleeper he’d have to be an incompetent moron to train terrorists in a high-profile venue like that.

Just about every conservative talk radio host has hinted that they might have terrorist ties, some more blatantly than others. I believe Beck (might have been Bortz) even called himself an Islamaphobe on his own show the otherday and then went on to justify it.

Um, nobody is throwing shoes or protesting at the other mosque a couple of blocks away, you know. This guy’s project drew scrutiny because he picked a very specific spot that is loaded with emotional and political implications - and refuses alternatives.

I’m sure there’s some expense to be incurred. I’m sure plenty of people would be happy to contribute to a fund to make up the difference and move this construction project to a more thoughtful location.

It isn’t the matter that no one will fund it, it is the fact that no one has acknowledged it. Also considering the project is so near ground breaking initial costs planning and design costs, in combination with those for drawing out of contracts are as a general rule of thumb going to run them from 10-20% which is $10 -20 million dollars, and though I completely believe in showing love to these people in whatever way possible I am not entirely sure if a Catholic should really donate money to another faith and I think many people of various faiths would question doing so as well. They still might be able to recover it, but it is a little more than a dip in the bucket.

Few people are surprised that when you make rude public displays you’ll provoke others to be rude. I don’t approve of painting all Moslems with the same brush. I do approve of deeming this project and its leadership as insensitive and hurtful towards the victims of 9/11. The signs will go away. This Islamic Center and its offensive Imam, on the other hand, will hang around for a long, long time.

Certainly. I pray thy won’t have to perpetually suffer high-profile media figures from their religion embarrassing them like this, nor be burdened with the influences of fanatics and fascist running off with their faith abroad.

The Imam is hardly controversial when compared with other American figures. Sure he says things that aren’t politically popular, but I haven’t seen one comment from him that convinced me he was a bad guy. Sure he made a comment in 2005 about how the U.S. has killed more innocent Muslim children with their military operations in the Middle East than people were killed in 9/11, but he sited UN records for those numbers, and he was saying it to make a point about why the Middle East is so unaccepting of Western influence and perhaps to attack the nature of war, not to defend the 9/11 attacks. He has publicly condemned them as has his wife (in fact she even did so in the video I just posted), and he has clearly has no love for terrorists. He is simply speaking against an American political ideology which has been condemned by many besides him.

Yup. Freedom of expression is a two-way street. You have the freedom to be uncivil and offensive towards others building on your property, and those offended have the right to call you an unmitigated bore and picket your property telling you that your views are unwelcome.

• Marty Lund

I would never deny the protester their freedom, I would never even deny Westboro Baptist their freedom to protest. I will however call out the protesters for having many uninformed members, and for being less than loving while proclaiming to be members of Christianity. If you find the mosque insensitive and want to call for it’s movement that is fine, I don’t mind people doing that, though I do think it is far to late in the game to have any realistic hope of anything changing. What I mind is people losing their heads over this and doing things like running major advertisements claiming the Mosque is AT ground zero or constantly ignoring that their are people with feelings at both ends of this issue. I can’t hold the Muslims to any sort of Christian standards here, but I can certainly hold the Christians, and especially the Catholics to them. If it were Catholics doing this I would say that we should move because JP2 set that example for us, but since it isn’t Catholics I instead hold the Catholics to the idea of giving the Imam the love, respect, and understanding all of God’s children deserve.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

But these analogies don’t really fly, because any Catholic group wishing to construct a facility on a site such as the ones you mention would not hesitate to renounce the evil that had taken place there.

In this Ground Zero case, the imam doesn’t seem to want to renounce the terrorist attacks of 9/11. There’s the rub.

More than a rub—it’s a bonfire.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

No. Don’t confuse the issue. He’s on record as saying that terrorism is in violation of Islam and that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were wrong.

He’s also on the record as holding the U.S.A. culpable for the attacks because, in his world-view, we were provoking the radicals with our injustice and killing of innocent Moslems.

• Marty Lund

So why is the Imam looking to Saudi, Arabia, and Iran for financial support?

 

[Bob_Aliano]

We Catholics who truly believe would lay down our life in defense of our faith, why would anyone not expect as much from devout Muslims? Our Bible tells us that God will deal with non-believers, not us. Perhaps a few quotations from the Koran might present the muslim perspective:

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.
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216

Especialy this one;
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
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

There is considerably more of this language but you get the point, I hope.

 

[PatrickSebast]

So why is the Imam looking to Saudi, Arabia, and Iran for financial support?

I have seen no proof of this whatsoever. He is currently over there yes, but it is on the request of the US government as a Middle East relations official. A role he also performed in during the Bush and Clinton years. The idea that he is asking anyone over there for his own financial support is a statement that has yet to be backed with anything but assumptions and conjuncture.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Besides, it’s not even a Mosque, it’s similar to a YMCA.

There are credible reports stating that the “non-mosque” you claim will have the capacity to hold upwards of 1,000 worshippers. My understanding of Islam is that worshippers gather in mosques. So, a mosque is an integral part of this “community center”.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

I have seen no proof of this whatsoever. He is currently over there yes, but it is on the request of the US government as a Middle East relations official. A role he also performed in during the Bush and Clinton years. The idea that he is asking anyone over there for his own financial support is a statement that has yet to be backed with anything but assumptions and conjuncture.

Well I guess we will just wait until it happens then try to reverse it.

 

[PatrickSebast]

We Catholics who truly believe would lay down our life in defense of our faith, why would anyone not expect as much from devout Muslims? Our Bible tells us that God will deal with non-believers, not us. Perhaps a few quotations from the Koran might present the muslim perspective:

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.
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216

Especialy this one;
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
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

There is considerably more of this language but you get the point, I hope.

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Acts 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

That really wasn’t very hard to do. And before you go off trying to explain them to me, let me ask if you afforded the same effort to those verses from the writings of Mohamed? The Surah is often quoted for its violent tendencies, but few people like to mention that it was the commands of Mohamed in regards to an actual physical and political conflict that they were involved in. Come the end of the wars the commands on how to treat unbelievers change. I am certainly not going to even attempt to claim that Islam is an entirely peaceful religion, or that its prophet didn’t have a great many questionable traits/flaws, but it certainly isn’t fair to just quote verses out of context like that to paint Muslims in a certain light. Yeah those verse may be used by some Muslims in much the same way some protestants like to twist the words of the bible to their particular meaning while ignoring historical context and the like, but there are many Muslim denominations out there that know better as well.