Obama Strongly Backs Islam Center Near 9/11 Site

[Harold Tuttle]

actually right across the street from the towers is St Pauls

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be4q6X9B3nA

there was a Greek Orthodox Christian Chapel on the site

[Monkeyleg]

Have any radical Greek Orthodox Christians killed 3,000 people in the US recently?

This isn't about religion. It's about respect. The people who are behind building the mosque say that they are sensitive to the feelings of the families of the 9/11 victims, as well as the feelings of many people in the US. If they were sensitive to these feelings, they wouldn't be pushing against 70% of the American public to build a block away. Being "sensitive" to the feelings would mean picking another location.  So, they're lying.

What is so special about that spot that they're willing to anger so many Americans?

[Harold Tuttle]

http://www.projo.com/news/content/GROUND_ZERO_SIDEBAR_08-19-10_C3JJLLL_v6.8e4a58.html

Plan to rebuild Greek Orthodox church at Ground Zero remains puzzle

[MillCreek]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100819/ap_on_go_ot/us_mosque_fact_check

Interesting article.

[Ron]

In another forum I frequent I posted this over a month ago.

My initial reaction was "what a horrible idea".

After some thought on the subject I can see no legitimate reason to stop the construction of a mosque in the area of the WTC crater.

The fact that the Muslim community thinks this is a good idea, pursues and defends it, tells me all I need to know about moderate Muslims. This is such a tone deaf stupid move that they are either truly ignorant of the PR backlash this will engender or they really don't care what "infidels" think. Even if the intentions and motives are as pure as the driven snow, that is not how it will look to flyover country. Not the best move for winning hearts and minds IMHO.

Nonetheless, they should be allowed to build their mosque wherever they want. That is a better outcome than allowing the micro managing of zoning bureaucrats to dictate where religious buildings are built, any day.

Sometimes the best we can hope for is the opposition to overplay their hand. 

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Is this whole thing a Fred Phelps-ian attempt to get people to torch the site/shoot at people/etc so as to sue them/the city/whoever for big money? I see the opening date listed as 9.11.2011, and that is clearly intentional.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

you folks realize the site is already used as an overflow site for muslim worshipers in manhattan?

[longeyes]

The Mosque is about the American people waking up to the realization that they don't run their own country.  There is so much the American people didn't know.  They didn't know that the Mexican invasion was as big as it is, so impactful on their nation, that sections of Arizona are no longer "America."  In the same way, until The Mosque made them focus the way the Arizona bill did, they didn't know that there were already over two thousand mosques in America, that there are over two hundred in New York.  They didn't know there were so many Muslims in America, and now they're wondering how they got here, who invited them, and, most important, why, even after 9/11.

We have a long, long way to go on both subjects.

[taurusowner]

The Mosque is about the American people waking up to the realization that they don't run their own country.  There is so much the American people didn't know.  They didn't know that the Mexican invasion was as big as it is, so impactful on their nation, that sections of Arizona are no longer "America."  In the same way, until The Mosque made them focus the way the Arizona bill did, they didn't know that there were already over two thousand mosques in America, that there are over two hundred in New York.  They didn't know there were so many Muslims in America, and now they're wondering how they got here, who invited them, and, most important, why, even after 9/11.

We have a long, long way to go on both subjects.

Which all really doesn't do jack to explain why, if the builders are as committed to understanding and peaceful coexistence as they claim, they refused offers to help them move to another spot on the state's dime.

[MicroBalrog]

The Mosque is about the American people waking up to the realization that they don't run their own country.

I didn't know the millions of Muslims holding US citizenship aren't Americans.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Which all really doesn't do jack to explain why, if the builders are as committed to understanding and peaceful coexistence as they claim, they refused offers to help them move to another spot on the state's dime.

i missed the states offer to move them gratis.... and since they already use the coat factory for worship what happened to make that a problem..... i mean besides rush and beck finding out

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/changingface.asp

a picture worth a thousand words

[Jamisjockey]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100819/ap_on_go_ot/us_mosque_fact_check

Worship already taking place at the site, its just not an "official" mosque.

[Monkeyleg]

I'm sure everyone remembers the NRA paring back to only essential meetings at its 1999 convention in Denver following Columbine. The NRA wasn't responsible for the Columbine shootings (although many anti's tried to say we were), nor did the NRA represent in any way the Columbine shooters. Yet the NRA, aware of public opinion, all but cancelled the convention.

What if the NRA had planned to build something like the Whitfield Center in Littleton? Would there have been a public outcry? Would the NRA have picked another location? I think everyone here knows the answer.

The mosque and cultural center will stand day after day for decades, and every day be a thumb in the eye of millions of Americans. Surely the people behind building the mosque must know this. They can't be that tone deaf. That begs the question, why are they doing this despite overwhelming and sometimes fierce opposition?

[Jamisjockey]

The mosque and cultural center will stand day after day for decades, and every day be a thumb in the eye of millions of Americans. Surely the people behind building the mosque must know this. They can't be that tone deaf. That begs the question, why are they doing this despite overwhelming and sometimes fierce opposition?

Oh, I agree with you there.  But sometimes, we just have to suffer with unpopular speech.  But we should never allow our unpopular speech to be stifiled by the left. 

[Monkeyleg]

Oh, I agree with you there.  But sometimes, we just have to suffer with unpopular speech.  But we should never allow our unpopular speech to be stifiled by the left.

Correct. And, if they go ahead and build the structure, they're going to have to suffer unpopular speech for a long, long time. Or are we going to be "re-educated" to accept it? Or is Nancy Pelosi going to follow through on her promise to investigate the funding of the people (meaning the people) opposed to the mosque, which is a pretty chilling statement.

[longeyes]

I didn't know the millions of Muslims holding US citizenship aren't Americans.

I have a surprise for you--no, not really: millions of people in this nation with legal residency and citizenship both "aren't Americans."  They are people who happen to live here but do not subscribe to the basic values that founded America and have sustained it.  I'm not talking just about immigrants, by the way.

My point was and is that Americans have been used, abused, and conned, treated as children by people in power, both inside and outside politics, who have their own agendas and who certainly don't have the best interests of this country at heart.  There's been a lack of transparency on issues of national "identity" for decades, since the immigration act of 1965 at least.  Now we're seeing all of that play out and people are asking WTF.

[longeyes]

Which all really doesn't do jack to explain why, if the builders are as committed to understanding and peaceful coexistence as they claim, they refused offers to help them move to another spot on the state's dime.

No, but it explains why this absurdity is happening in the first place.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

t what point were you granted the power of arbiter?  i missed the memo or we must move in different circles and missed that meeting.

I have a surprise for you--no, not really: millions of people in this nation with legal residency and citizenship both "aren't Americans."  They are people who happen to live here but do not subscribe to the basic values that founded America and have sustained it.  I'm not talking just about immigrants, by the way.

My point was and is that Americans have been used, abused, and conned, treated as children by people in power, both inside and outside politics, who have their own agendas and who certainly don't have the best interests of this country at heart.  There's been a lack of transparency on issues of national "identity" for decades, since the immigration act of 1965 at least.  Now we're seeing all of that play out and people are asking WTF.

[longeyes]

Too bad that "unpopular speech," aided and abetted by other forces, has a way of growing into major political division.  This is not just about tolerating minority opinion, it is about something far greater, the usurpation of control over a nation by manipulating the slice of America that pulls the strings.

[roo_ster]

A little something from Karl Popper wrote after WWII might be enlightening.  A mental astringent, if you will.

Link to full text (in several formats) of The Open Society And Its Enemies
http://www.archive.org/details/opensocietyandit033120mbp

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance : Unlimited tolerance must lead
to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to
those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society
against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed,
and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance,
that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies ; as
long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check
by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we
should claim the right even to suppress them, for it may easily turn out that
they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin
by denouncing all argument ; they may forbid their followers to listen to
anything as deceptive as rational argument, and teach them to answer
arguments by the use of their fists. We should therefore claim, in the name
of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that
any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we
should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, exactly
as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping ; or as we
should consider incitement to the revival of the slave trade.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://beta.dnainfo.com/20100818/downtown/63-percent-of-new-yorkers-oppose-ground-zero-mosque-poll-says

majority support constitutional right to build

[Ben]

majority support constitutional right to build

Is anyone here actually arguing against their constitutional right to build there? I think most are agreeing that they have the right to do so, but that doing so simply makes them jackasses.

Monkeyleg made an excellent reference with the NRA and Columbine. The NRA had every right (in fact a legal obligation) to hold the annual meeting. They chose to scale it back to the minimum legal obligation required in light of Columbine, even though the one had nothing to do with the other.

As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, Greg Gutfeld and his investors are moving forward with opening of the gay bar that will be Muslim gay friendly next to the Mosque. The Mosque builders are already upset about this. Why?

[MechAg94]

This was posted on the front page of http://www.lucianne.com/.  
 

I guess it might change by tomorrow.

[MechAg94]

Is anyone here actually arguing against their constitutional right to build there? I think most are agreeing that they have the right to do so, but that doing so simply makes them jackasses.

Pretty much.  I don't know if it can be legally stopped or not.  I just disagree with it being there. 

I do think there is precedent for zoning areas near monuments (not sure what sort of monument this is or not). 
I also think this is not at all a religious freedom issue.  I think it is primarily a property rights/zoning issue.  If it were just religious freedom, the location itself wouldn't be very critical to the builders.