home

Planned NYC Islamic Center Clears Hurdle

Plans to build a Mosque near the site of the former WTC cleared a final hurdle today. The ACLU says:

We congratulate the Landmarks Preservation Commission for promoting our nation's core values and not letting bias get in the way of the rule of law. "The free exercise of religion is one of America's most fundamental freedoms. For hundreds of years, our pluralism and tolerance have sustained and strengthened our nation. On 9/11, religious extremists opposed to that very pluralism killed 3,000 Americans. Those fanatics would want nothing more than for our nation to turn its back on the very ideals that make this country so great.

The ACLU calls the planned center a "monument to pluralism, symbolic of America's commitment to religious freedom."

I agree the Islamic Center has every bit as much of a right to be built on the site as any other kind of building. To reject it because of 9/11 is to further the very prejudices we should be striving to overcome. [More...]

According to The Times, the center will

... focus on interfaith dialogue, include members of other religions on its board, and feature what its developer called “a Sept. 11 memorial and contemplation space.”

Islam is a religion, it is not al Qaeda. Tolerance will get us a lot farther than blind prejudice.

< Reid On GOP Push To Return To Dred Scott | Wednesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • The ACLU figures are a little off (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 09:28:34 PM EST
    In fact, according to Wikipedia, it seems that there were approximately 2669 U.S. fatalities caused by the 9/11 attack, plus 310 foreigners (including the 19 hijackers: 291 not counting the perpetrators) -- nearly 10% of those killed.  To say "3000 Americans" is to overlook the randomness, and thus part of the cruelty, of terrorist violence.  And no doubt quite a few of those 2960 non-hijackers killed were themselves Muslims.

    Not to be purer than thou (none / 0) (#6)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 10:49:44 PM EST
    or anything, but as far as I'm concerned, everybody who was killed on 9/11 (except the hijackers, of course) was an American, no matter what their citizenship.

    Parent
    This is not a hard question at all (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 10:11:09 PM EST
    I'm embarrassed for America that there is any "controversy" at all.

    Me too. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by desertswine on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 10:17:17 PM EST
    They have the right to build the Mosque/ (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by tigercourse on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:56:11 AM EST
    cultural center. But it's in poor taste. Just as it was in poor taste for the NRA to hold a convention in Denver around the 1st anniversary of Coloumbine.

    not unless (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CST on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 09:49:30 AM EST
    the groundbreaking is happening on Sept 11th.

    I didn't see anyone argue that the NRA should never go to Denver.

    Parent

    Nah... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 10:27:03 AM EST
    what is in poor taste is the haters making so much hay about it, causing unnecessary grief for those who lost loved ones on that tragic day.  

    Consider this...there is an existing mosque closer to the towers site, and this part of Manhattan was once called "Little Syria"...there is a long history of Americans practicing islam in this area...a history of tolerance we should be proud of, and continue.

    Parent

    kdog, the problem is the (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:23:51 AM EST
    building of the mosque.... Quit blaming the victims and supporting the aggressors.

    Parent
    Blaming the victims? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:28:54 AM EST
    Newt, Sarah, and that crazy lady from uptown with the blog are victims?  Victims of what?

    Parent
    One hemispehere in their (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:32:59 PM EST
    brains is eating the other hemisphere.

    It's the old "enemy within" thing.

    Parent

    The problem is bigotry (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:50:12 AM EST
    and prejudice.  Your views are the very definition of bigotry.  

    Your views are why we need a First Amendment.

    Your views--as they run contrary to the First Amendment--are unAmerican.

    Parent

    I will stand with Karl Popper (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:22:42 PM EST
    "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." - Karl Popper



    Parent
    I thought you didn't like (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:27:05 PM EST
    secularists. I know Popper's work and he would laugh you out of the room if he knew you were trying to use him to bolster your arguments.  

    Parent
    As the Chinese say.. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:30:07 PM EST
    when the wrong man says the right thing it means nothing.

    Parent
    You can't stand it when (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:49:26 PM EST
    the truth is pointed out, can you.

    Parent
    about as much (none / 0) (#128)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    as you can stand telling it. In very small, selective portions.

    Parent
    Popper said what he said. (none / 0) (#170)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:40:21 PM EST
    His religion or lack of it has nothing to do with the accuracy of his comment.

    Parent
    The First Amendment (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:34:22 PM EST
    requires something it appears you cannot abide....

    You are saying all Muslims are intolerant.  And would stop them from building a mosque.

    There is not a more clear-cut example of the violation of the First Amendment.

    Parent

    You are very quick to make (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:48:17 PM EST
    false claims and put words in my mouth.

    Nowhere did I say, or even imply what you claim.

    You are joining squeaky and Jondee as serial smearers.

    Parent

    You can't have it both ways (none / 0) (#140)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:34:50 PM EST
    You can't say that you support the First Amendment, and yet oppose the mosque being built in NYC.

    You can't say that building the mosque is awful without condemning the entire religion.  

    You have made it clear that Islam as a religion is flawed in your view.

    Own it--you are biased against Isalm and Muslims.  

    Parent

    The Constitution is not a suicide (none / 0) (#177)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:47:28 PM EST
    pact.

    And saying that a mosque should not be built in a place with deep meaning to millions of Americans as a "thumb in your eye" expression by Muslim extremists has nothing to do with freedom of religion.

    And I can say that building a church in an inappropriate place is wrong without condemning the religion or its practitioners.

    There is absolutely no connection between the two.

    You are as intolerant as can be.

    I stand by Popper.

    "

    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." - Karl Popper



    Parent
    he wouldn't stand (none / 0) (#179)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:56:34 PM EST
    by you. Except maybe to apply the ECT device to chase out all that six-days-of-creation, "secularist threat" malarkey.

    Parent
    Building of chruches in inappropriate places (none / 0) (#180)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 03:21:07 PM EST
    Would you oppose the building of a Catholic Church next to a school?

    Parent
    While all religious buildings are (none / 0) (#185)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 03:48:22 PM EST
    tax exempt - shouldn't there be a consideration given to the value of real estate?

    For example, in a high-end business rental district, such as the Wall Street area, wouldn't it serve better for NYC to be able to receive revenue from taxing this property rather than having it designated as tax free?

    Or, start taxing these properties and, perhaps, it will become a deterrant to building in high-end locations resulting in higher taxes for all homeowners.

     

    Parent

    Can't be done (none / 0) (#186)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 03:49:41 PM EST
    Against the law.  See RLUIPA.  

    Parent
    and none of it's taxed.

    Parent
    While all religious buildings are (none / 0) (#187)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 03:50:07 PM EST
    tax exempt - shouldn't there be a consideration given to the value of real estate?

    For example, in a high-end business rental district, such as the Wall Street area, wouldn't it serve better for NYC to be able to receive revenue from taxing this property rather than having it designated as tax free?

    Or, start taxing these properties and, perhaps, it will become a deterrant to building in high-end locations which now results in higher taxes for all homeowners, since there is a deficit in the proper sharing of taxes.

     

    Parent

    If was the location at which a (none / 0) (#193)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 04:11:25 PM EST
    group of priests killed 3000 students, yes.

    Parent
    Let's assume (none / 0) (#195)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 04:14:34 PM EST
    that several of the students had been molested by Catholic priests.

    In that event, would you oppose the building of a Catholic Church next to the school?

    Parent

    This quote (none / 0) (#121)
    by CST on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:52:47 PM EST
    is exactly why I have a hard time being "tolerant" of your posts.

    However, this particular mosque I have no problem with.  Since I do not see any intolerance being promoted in that case.

    Parent

    Follow the money (none / 0) (#189)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 03:59:42 PM EST
    And if it was not meant to be an insult, why build where millions of Americans do not want it?

    That is not the actions of a group that is wanting to be "inclusive."

    Parent

    Because they were already there (none / 0) (#196)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 04:16:54 PM EST
    Because there a lot of Muslims in NYC.

    Because they are just trying to freely exercise their religion.

    George Wallace was offended too.....Many had hurt feelings when the Army was integrated.  So what?

    We should not validate racism or bigotry.

    Parent

    inclusive like mega churches (none / 0) (#199)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 04:24:43 PM EST
    preaching apocalypse in the ME..

    If they didn't want be "inclusive" and participate, they wouldn't be here..

    But people who live to trade off one "threat" (commie, secularist, Sharia Law) for another will never consider that and will always attribute endless malevolence and resources to their boogie man.

    Parent

    Nudge me when... (none / 0) (#184)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 03:41:44 PM EST
    4 walls and a fancy dome can be "intolerant"...or when women are forced to wear burkas on Park Ave...then we're being too tolerant, we ain't even close yet.

    I know, I know...by then it'll be too late!

    Parent

    Yes, by then it will be too late, (none / 0) (#192)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 04:08:27 PM EST
    I totally disagree, Tiger (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:46:01 AM EST
    It is not in poor taste.

    You equate Muslims with terrorists....That is unfair.  Even George W. Bush knew better.

    There are millions and millions of Muslims worldwide.  

    You accept the broad brush that because the terrorists were Muslim, all Muslims are terrorists....

    You accept bigotry.  This is why we need a First Amendment--because people's "feelings" and their "common sense" views will lead to prejudice, bigotry and discrimination.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:19:52 PM EST
    Well good to know that those on the left, if you are on the left, are just as capable of bigotry as the rabid wingnuts, KKK, and other racists.

    The "poor taste" argument is pretty much why the KKK went after blacks and catholics who had the "poor taste" to buy a house in a white neighborhood.

    To select out a highly vocal and politicized opinion of WTC survivors relatives and use their opinion to tyrannize 1.5 billion people who are adherents of Islam is about as bigoted as can be.

    Muslims are not the problem. Bigots, criminals, and those who would favor collective punishment on a group because some WATB's are screaming that righteous racism can be earned, are a problem, and a very serious one at that.

    Parent

    Get up to date. (none / 0) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 04:16:59 PM EST
    The KKK is gone.

    And the issue is NOT what Muslims have done and believe and want to do, but what RADICAL Muslims have done, believe and want to do.

    And building a mosque in a location that is special to millions of Americans and opposed by them is not an inclusive act.

    Parent

    Well said (none / 0) (#12)
    by ding7777 on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 06:54:10 AM EST
    The NRA is not composed (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 08:17:20 AM EST
    of people who belong to a religion whose radical members attacked the US and killed about 3000 on 9/11/01.

    The results of which were cheered wildly in certain countries.

    Columbine was a tragedy that had no connection to the NRA.

    Parent

    Except for, of course (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 10:06:10 AM EST
    The gun show loopholes that the NRA vigorously supports,

    Parent
    You of course have (none / 0) (#45)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:09:19 AM EST
    stats to backup the problem of the gun show loophole.  

    Parent
    I don't need stats (none / 0) (#181)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 03:22:19 PM EST
    The very fact that loopholes exist at all supports my comment,

    Parent
    We are all asking (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 09:51:08 AM EST
    some New Yorkers to take a risk, some are very afraid and I certainly respect that.  All people are different, some scar easier than others and some lost a lot.  People lost things that I cannot comprehend and I'm not likely ever to.  I don't buy into any idea that somehow America collectively deserved what happened, though some people try to sell it.

    To create a peace, people need to be at peace within or have the capacity for it.  If New Yorkers in majority, and it seems that exists, can get this thing kicked off.  I trust that they can support those who are afraid and create the emotional capacity for the community.

    In my experience, peace is made through mutual respect...the emphasis on MUTUAL.

    Parent

    I agree in principle (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 10:01:49 AM EST
    And while it wasn't just NY'ers who died that day, peace has to start somewhere.

    On the flip side, you can't always be the one to "turn the other cheek".

    Personally, I don't care where they build the mosque, but as another commenter said, it does seem a bit insensitive when emotions are still a bit raw.  Hopefully peace and good works will come to the neighborhood as a result.

    Parent

    It was nine years ago (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by CST on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 10:17:22 AM EST
    I don't think emotions are still that raw.  At least not in NY.  Maybe for some, but for the overwhelming majority - the community seems to support this.

    And in those last 9 years we have done everything but "turn the other cheak".

    Parent

    If this was more of a done deal (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 10:26:04 AM EST
    You wouldn't be able to say that we had done everything but turn the other cheek.  You have strong feelings too.  There are a lot of strong feelings.  I think if they can build this thing it is a starting point to building community.  And it flips the finger to terrorism...unless this center is used for a breeding ground for terrorism....then everyone who was so afraid was right.  So the organizers and the leaders do have a duty in my mind to clearly express to New Yorkers and even the U.S. for that matter that this centers goals are community and mutual respect.  Otherwise, this is only more damage.  And it is their right to be able to not address anyone and tell everyone to screw off, but they shut the door on peace doing that.  Peace cannot be one sided.  I won't condone Christian terrorists.  I'm fine saying it too.  I won't condone Muslim terrorists either.  And I'm fine saying that too....are they?

    Parent
    yes they are saying that (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CST on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 10:41:21 AM EST
    Link

    "We are the people who want to embolden the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism to stand up to the radical rhetoric."

    Read the whole article.  It will give you a pretty good idea of where this guy stands.

    Parent

    It sounds wonderful (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:23:48 AM EST
    I'd go there if I were nearby.  This is odd though from the New York Times.

    "There is some ambivalence within the community," said Hussein Rashid, a visiting professor of religious studies at Hofstra University who specializes in Islam in America. "We still want to know who is going to be involved in this. So far, we have heard from just a few Muslim voices. If this is meant to be a community center, who in the community will be involved?"


    Parent
    Regarding "breeding grounds"... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:01:13 AM EST
    What is a mosque?  4 walls and a fancy dome.  Buildings don't breed terrorism...things like poverty, hopelessness, powerlessness, hate, religous extremism, imperialist foreign policies breed terrorism.

    If the breeding of terrorism is the concern, a mosque is the last thing we should be worried about...it's just 4 walls and a fancy dome.  It is what is inside the people inside the mosque that may or may not be of concern...if they don't meet in a mosque they meet in an apartment or at Starbucks...wtf is the difference?

    Parent

    Not true (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:10:19 AM EST
    It is in my experience the desire for power that usually breeds terrorism.  It then feeds on poverty, hopelessness, and powerlessness, and it usually feeds on the young who don't have their frontal lobes in yet.

    The Allah stamp of approval and "jihading" is a biggy though in Islamic terrorism....all specifically religion related.  And it is Imams really breeding the hate and the jihading.  Are the Imams of this center going to associate with and thereby give approval to and connections to Imams breeding terrorism?  These are valid questions.  

    Parent

    Re: "jihading" (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:21:39 AM EST
    While I'm not that familiar w/islam, my understanding of this term is "jihadist" does not mean war w/others in the sense you may be familiar with.  It is, war w/oneself against demons only you know.  I.e. knowledge of self and working against those things that prevent one from being a good muslim.

    The Imam is no different than any other person - they don't need a special bldg to pervert meaning nor to breed terrorism.  I'm talking to you right now and I don't even know you.  :-)  Should we want to conspire, pretty sure we could do it even though we're miles apart.

    Parent

    An Imam is an Islamic leader (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:28:14 AM EST
    There is greater and lesser Jihad.  And what the meaning of those terms are is different all over the faith just as the meaning of many terms in the Christian faith mean different things to the factions.

    And there are Muslims who think that greater Jihading is seaking out killing Infidels in order to fulfill the prophecy that one day Islam with be the faith of the entire world, and there are Muslims who preach that and teach that from on high.

    Parent

    My point exactly..... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:42:25 AM EST
    .....And what the meaning of those terms are is different all over the faith

    I know the role the Imam plays - no different than the local pastor, reverend or rabbi.  That is again the point - there are catholics, protestants and jews who feel the same way - and spout similar rhetoric.  

    We can't be afraid of everyone who threatens violence.  We have hidden nutjobs all over the place.

    Parent

    I have no goal of becoming (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:49:03 AM EST
    the Netherlands either.  And they've had one hell of a tough go of it too.  My husband says that in Afghanistan Nato soldiers have evil jokes they make about each other all in good nature, but everyone shuts that interaction down when soldier from the Netherlands are in the room.  They've paid dearly, and they are pretty sensitive about what they have lived through.  No jokes about any of that stuff at this time.  And you can't make Pollack jokes either.  They are sick of our jokes.

    Parent
    And you can't make Pollack jokes either (none / 0) (#76)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:53:10 AM EST
     - heh

    Parent
    Im sure thats true (none / 0) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:28:54 AM EST
    but that is obviously not how the guy in the documentary means it.


    Parent
    No argument... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:25:49 AM EST
    but I still don't see the difference if some bastard imam sets up shop in a mosque, in his basement, or on the internet.  If his heart is set on it, he's gonna spread his polluted message whether we let freedom ring or ban mosques nationwide...and banning mosques nationwide would only add fuel to his evil spiel.

    Parent
    Nobody wants to ban mosques (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:30:37 AM EST
    nationwide that I know of.  I'm only addressing some of the issues around 9/11 and how many of the survivors and New Yorkers cannot fathom such things going down next to the World Trade Center site.  And I cannot fault them for their feelings and their emotional needs on the subject.

    Parent
    this is true (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:13:28 AM EST
    watch the trailer for the doc I just posted.
    the guy says that Mohammed is the "profit of jihad".

    they believe it.

    and I am not taking sides.

    Parent

    Bingo. (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:29:49 AM EST
    Not true It is in my experience the desire for power that usually breeds terrorism.


    Parent
    Revenge, or if you prefer (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:44:42 AM EST
    (semi) divine retribution. You dont have to be Sicilian or Corsican to crave that..

    Parent
    Yep, we all have been wronged, (none / 0) (#78)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:54:14 AM EST
    we all have axes to grind, and the ability to "set things right" requires power...

    Parent
    A mosque (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by star on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    is far more than 4 walls and a dome. average muslims meet in the mosque at least once a day and devoute ones about 3 -5 times a day. Imams (moderate or extreme) preach to their congregation on all these times. Imam has considerable power over his listeners.
    Meeting in mosque gives what ever sh$$t imam is preaching religious sanction and brings any questions or concerns to a dead stop. Do you seriously think meeting in starbucks, an imam can produce suicide bombers?

     Even a moderate muslim (truly moderate one like my husband who prays only once a week and drinks alcohol and has married a non-muslim and not bothered to convert me) dare not contradict fellow muslims in a mosque - how ever radical or nonsense they are talking. such is the power of community. So calling a mosque just another building is a bit naive.

    It is important to look into the ideology of this particular imam and the people funding this mosque. other than that there is really not much anyone can do since the law of this land protects religious freedom.

    Appealing to muslims to make any accommodation to hurt feelings of non-muslims is a waste of time. It will not happen. there is NO history of Muslims of any stripe accommodating for any one other than perhaps out of fear.

    Parent

    none of this (none / 0) (#163)
    by CST on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:28:37 PM EST
    describes my experience with Muslims.  Which is also fairly extensive on a personal level.

    Parent
    Poverty doesn't appear (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:22:36 AM EST
    to be a driving force. All the terrorists I am aware of 9/11 onward were middle class and well educated and associated with radical religious teachings.

    Parent
    That is true (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:33:14 AM EST
    Most of them had pretty exceptional upbringings and educations.  They seem to be true believers stricken with religious fervor.  The Mumbai attackers though were deeply impoverished kids and it does seem to make many kids vulnerable to the notion of being suicide bombers.

    Parent
    Do you agree some imans w/i some (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:51:10 AM EST
    mosques advocate jihad?

    Parent
    et tu? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:57:58 AM EST
    Too many conflate terrorism with Islam.

    How many Southern Baptist preachers with okay with the KKK?  The Southern Baptist Convention has apologized for its instituional acceptance of racism.

    Nonetheless, no one has ever questioned the Baptists, building a church anywhere--nor should they.  


    Parent

    Don't read more into my question than (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:11:13 PM EST
    is there.  Plus, my question is addressed to kdog in response to his comment.

    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:19:20 PM EST
    Hagee is a radical Imam (none / 0) (#99)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:22:32 PM EST
    if I ever saw one.

    But he's got that the-enemy-of-my-enemy thing going for him, so he and his ilk get a pass..

    Parent

    I actually bought the first Left Behind (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:29:57 PM EST
    book after a lady in Costco told me while I was browsing the book section that it was absolutely true and based on the Bible.

    So, I read it.  Sixth grade vocabulary.  Simple cartoon-like plot and characters.  Yet, I thought how smart by the authors to know what would sell and to provide the product....

    Parent

    it's the WWF (none / 0) (#135)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:23:51 PM EST
    version of theology. Or the theological equivalent of news reels of big nosed semitic types chasing little German girls.

    There Will Be Blood would've been a better title, if it hadn't already been taken.  

    Parent

    In USA (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by star on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:23:57 PM EST
    I have not heard active Jihadi preaching openly. but intolerance to any one not muslim is preached on a daily basis in many diff mosques i have attended.
    people who celebrate New years day or thanksgiving along with their american friends are regularly reprimanded and called morons and such in front of the whole crowd. There is not much room for tolerance.

    Parent
    9 years (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:06:57 AM EST
    Isn't long a time.  Read the WSJ piece from yesterday (I think) that talks about the nuns who had a convent near Auschwitz -50 years after the war and how emotions were still raw about the Holocaust.

    9 years isn't that long.

    Parent

    Different issue (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:02:15 PM EST
    No one was suggesting that the Nuns should not have a convent at Auschwitz because Catholics caused the Holocaust.

    The idea was to not have anything at the site that would take the focus away from what happened there....

    It wasn't anti-Catholic bigotry.  It was a preservationist view.

    Parent

    The point, being, of course (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:07:22 PM EST
    That emotions can still run high after as many as 50 years, so to say that "it's been 9 years" doesn't really mean anything.

    Parent
    My point being (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:14:22 PM EST
    that there are people, like the aforementioned hack/war propagandists, who have dedicated themselves to insuring that those emotions CONTINUE to run high.

    Just as the hysterical flailing around of the usual suspects is behind so much of this current tempest-in-a-teapot.

    Parent

    I'll start believing (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:41:47 AM EST
    the "clash of civilizations" neocon hacks at the WSJ have a shred of objectivity about this issue when they write a piece or two about the overt provocative intent involved in the our govt bankrolling messianic settlements..Separation of church and state, my eye.

    So, what should the size of the mosque-free perimeter be: ten or twenty blocks? With any of the ones built before 2001 torn down and - just to be on the safe side - preemptive internment camps set up?

    Parent

    Only "insensitive" (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:54:47 AM EST
    if you accept the bigotry about Muslims.

    There are close to a billion Muslims on Earth.  Even George W. Bush stated--in the week after 9/11--that Islam is a religion of peace....

    It appears that the more Christian one is, the more willing one is to accept bigotry about Muslims....

    How many people believe in the First Amendment?

    Parent

    Yes, insensitive (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:04:39 PM EST
    How about if the Michigan militia (aka - friends / cohorts / etc.) of Timothy McViegh wanted to open an office near the old Murrah building?  I'm not saying they couldn't do it, but you can't be surprised when people might object.

    Are many of the nay-sayers bigots?  Yes.  Does that mean everyone who voices a concern is a bigot?  Not a chance.  But I suppose if you are trained to look for bigotry in every statement made by someone you disagree with, you are predisposed to find it.  

    Parent

    This is an important issue (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:17:11 PM EST
    Bigotry can come in a soft form too.

    You are blaming Islam for 9/11--in a roundabout way.  You accept the idea that Muslims in general share the values of the 9/11 terrorists....

    That is the problem.  The underlying assumption is a bigotted one.

    Bigotry and prejudice do not always come in the form of just overt hatred or dislike--they can take the form of assumptions that tar an entire group with an adverse trait.  

    There are bigots who are kind, etc.  I met many of them growing up in the South years ago.  They used to say the proverbial "some of my best friends are....."

    Nice people used to say the most racially charged things  and beleive in awful racial stereotypes.  But they would never accept that they were racists.  "Racists" lynched African Americans and they would never do that.  They had pure hearts...but they believed racist ideas....

    Parent

    Hardly (none / 0) (#123)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:54:20 PM EST
    Doing the squeaky trick of trying to read my mind does not bolster your argument.

    Seems to me that anyone who does not agree with this decion, or points out that there are legitimate feings and concerns that do not comport with your view is not to be taken seriously and must be a bigot.  That is just as small-minded as those decried on the right.

    It's really ok to acknowledge someone's position as valid without resorting to belittling it.

    And my Muslim friends would laugh at your comment.

    Parent

    I am only reading your comments (none / 0) (#138)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:30:01 PM EST
    I would be hard pressed to say there are any "legitimate" concerns about building a mosque in NYC.

    And, after I write of the soft bigotry of those from the South who would try to absolve themselves with the proverbial "some of my best friends are....," you end your comment with something about your Muslim friends?

    Parent

    Soft? (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:43:40 PM EST
    I guess I disagree with the soft description of the bigotry.  A bigot is a person who displays intolerance to another group, typically a religion or race.

    Wanting restrictions put on religion is just plain, good, old-fashioned bigotry.

    Parent

    Perhaps trying to soften the blow (none / 0) (#145)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:54:39 PM EST
    just loses clarity.

    Parent
    Mind Reading? (none / 0) (#143)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:51:19 PM EST
    There is no need to read your mind as your bigotry, and reactionary views are transparent.

    Parent
    "Mind reading" - yes indeed (none / 0) (#161)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:27:42 PM EST
    The perceived "transparency" is just a natural result of lots of practice.

    Parent
    You need a new schtick (none / 0) (#182)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 03:25:31 PM EST
    Really? (none / 0) (#190)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 04:00:05 PM EST
    Doing the squeaky trick of trying to read my mind does not bolster your argument.

    Sounds to me that you are begging me to slam you.

    If you don't like my "schtick" I find it curious that you would want to be a provocative A'hole.

     

    Parent

    Do you think there (none / 0) (#159)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:26:49 PM EST
    would be "legitimate" concerns about building a Catholic Church next to a school where children had been molested?

    Parent
    Wow! That's a thought! (none / 0) (#191)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 04:05:04 PM EST
    Glad to know you believe in local (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:19:48 AM EST
    control and local problem solving...

    I would have never guessed you were a AZ1070 supporter.

    Parent

    Then by that logic, ... (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 08:42:45 AM EST
    ... we shouldn't allow any Christian churches to be built in Oklahoma City, Pensacola, Mobile, Brookline, Birmingham, Amherst, Wichita, etc., etc., ...  After all, the anti-abortion, anti-government terrorists belong to a religion whose radical members attack and kill those they deem to be "sinners".

    The results of which are wildly cheered among some Christian fundamentalist groups.

    Hey, ..... do we have to tear down the existing churches, or do they get "grandfathered" in?

    Response to Jimakappj (none / 0) (#16)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 08:44:13 AM EST
    #13.

    Parent
    I wish some could explain to me (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 10:07:17 AM EST
    The construction of a new one {mosque} purposefully at the site is a very different thing.

    If a building can instigate so much hatred and fear in Americans, we are no better than those who chose to attack builidings to make a point.

    Oh and btw, it was people, not a religion that attacked NYC.


    Christians will disagree with this (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 10:27:05 AM EST
    Christians inherently believe they are better than those that follow Islam.  I think it's different because you are making more space for even more of them to gather.  Anger doesn't surround McVeigh to this degree because he was white.  These aren't just brown people, they are another religion.  They are doubly 'other'

    I don't know anyone that has taken 9 years to get over a loss, but I am aware that some can be so bitter they can't move on.

    Parent

    Come on (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 10:40:24 AM EST
    There are many factions of Islam that teach they are much better than you you Infidel.  Both of those factions kick off the wars, and love every minute of it.

    Parent
    Oh absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 10:52:50 AM EST
    There are nuts on both sides and unfortunately, those of us sick of their wars are stuck in the middle and stuck financing them.  I was just discussing this from the point of US extremism.

    Parent
    We talk about this a lot in this house (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 10:59:48 AM EST
    People die because of them too.  We always come to the conclusion that we must not suffer radicals and extremists anymore quietly.  It can get lonely in the bible belt too at times, but I'm sick as hell of crazy.  Just sick as hell of it.  It does nothing but damage.

    Parent
    Jewish can be referred to as (none / 0) (#38)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 10:56:31 AM EST
    'brown' people as well -

    Why do you bring race color in with religion?  Is it for further division?  Do you believe all Christians to be white?

    Italians, as well as Spanish, French, Latin people, were (are, can be) considered 'brown' as well and have been all through history.

    As far as I know, McVeigh had nothing whatsoever to do with religion.  He was a kid suffering from the effects of war.  He was offered no type of assistance as how to cope with such raw emotions and, simply, he felt betrayed.

    Parent

    That was my point with McVeigh (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:18:01 AM EST
    Not just that he was white and muslims are brown, but that one event was non and one was religious..... hence those that follow Islam are doubly 'other'

    So yes, religion on top of race provides the opportunity for more people to jump on the bandwagon against a community center.

    I was just picturing a group of blond, blue-eyed 20-something women that have converted and wanted to build a center.  ha!  I just can't imagine it getting the same amount of negative attention.

    Parent

    Correct, religion itself didn't attack (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 10:28:56 AM EST
    Word Trade Centers, but the attack was done in the name of religion - as with most wars.  

    Religion is the root of all evil - organized religion, not one's personal spiritually.

    Parent

    Not really disagreeing w/you. (none / 0) (#40)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:00:09 AM EST
    I would submit it is man's interpretation (or lack thereof) of the structure on one's life that religion imposes that is the issue.

    Parent
    I keep on learning (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:55:03 AM EST
    Religion caused the Cold War?

    WWII?

    Spainish Civil War?

    WWI?

    Mao's Communist Revolt?

    Pol Pot's killing fields??

    Spainish American War?

    Civil War?

    Revolutionary War?

    Have I missed many?

    Parent

    Too many Christians (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:48:33 PM EST
    find it too easy to stereotype.

    The worst offenders imo of the Jim Crow South were the Southern Baptists.....Accepting of overt racism.

    The old Confederacy used the Bible to justify slavery.  There are quotes--primarily from Paul--that accept slavery, and indeed tell slaves to obey their masters....

    The least tolerant of gays and Muslims (it is no longer okay to be publicly prejudiced against African Americans) seem to be conservative Christians.  Fancy that.

    Parent

    And reading many of your comments (none / 0) (#183)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 03:33:47 PM EST
    You prefer to lump almost 2 billion people called Christians into one pile and declare them all bigots and intolerant.  Besides being wildly offensive, it's also incredibly innacurate, yet you continue to equate them.  

    And again, just because someone doesn't agree with you a) doesn't mean you are right or b) they can't have valid concerns

    Parent

    I said "too many" Christians (none / 0) (#198)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 04:21:52 PM EST
    not all....

    And I was specific--I talked about the Jim Crow Southern Baptists.

    I talked about conservative Christians.

    I talked about the Confederacy.  

    Parent

    Genghis Kahn? (none / 0) (#87)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:10:53 PM EST
    Saddam Hussein?

    Attila the Hun?

    Maximilien Robespierre?

    Idi Amin?

    Leopold II?

    Vlad the Impaler?

    Ivan IV?

    Hirohito?

    Parent

    you are aware that (none / 0) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:46:01 PM EST
    most of Vlads offenses were against muslims, correct?

    I sure there are religious undercurrents to some of the others on that list as well.


    Parent

    Well, many of his impalees were not Turks (none / 0) (#131)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:06:34 PM EST
    but the point remains, religion wasn't the goal of these cheery fellas, power was. Religion was merely one of many methods they used to divvy up the teams...

    Parent
    power (none / 0) (#144)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:53:41 PM EST
    that he gained by taking on the mantle of "protector of the faith" like so many before and after him.


    Parent
    No arguments. Any coalescing "belief" (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:11:41 PM EST
    that can be used to make your team think they are the good guys, and that is sufficient enough to  the team with enough numbers to gain power to do what they think is right, will work. Religion is hardly the only tool available for doing this, though it surely has been, and will be, used...

    Parent
    kind of (none / 0) (#149)
    by CST on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:06:53 PM EST
    a distinction without a difference IMO.  Whether religion is the goal or not, it's the means - and the means are what ultimately makes the impact.

    Also, if it is the means, whether it is the goal of the top dog or not, it is probably the goal of those who are actually going out and implementing said means.

    Parent

    I disagree, it's "a" means, (none / 0) (#154)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:21:38 PM EST
    not "the" means.Plenty of other means used over the years.

    Stalin killed, what? 40,000,000?

    Religion certainly was not the force he used to motivate his flock (though he did use "belief" in the communist way to help codify his power, maybe it was more of a big a$$ cult than a religion?), nor was it for most of the other cheery dudes I listed above.

    Power is everything, to some, and any and all tools will be used to gain it.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#158)
    by CST on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:25:01 PM EST
    I thought we were talking about Vlad specifically.

    I agree it is not always the means.  But when used, it is fairly effective.

    Parent

    I was trying to speak more generally (none / 0) (#164)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:29:26 PM EST
    in reponse the core concept under discussion:
    Religion is the root of all evil
    sorry that I wasn't clear.

    Parent
    Less than 40M (none / 0) (#194)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 04:13:04 PM EST
    as there was only about 160M Russians at that time.  But it was in the 10M to 20M number group.

    He was trained as a priest and it is there he turned to Maxism.  

    In turning away from religion and its belief in reaping rewards after death, Stalin believed in the here and now.  Ideally he believed in the human accomplishing his or her full potential while on earth and not waiting for some promises of heaven or virgins upon death.

    So in a way - religion did help corrupt his mind, imo.

    Parent

    "It is not the (none / 0) (#91)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:17:02 PM EST
    consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."  Marx

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:19:24 PM EST
    "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed (none / 0) (#106)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:37:22 PM EST
    creature, the heart of the heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation." . . . Marx

    Do you really feel that the lack of religion in socialists leaders wasn't one of the main reasons for the West's irrational fear of its success?

    Don't you think the blue coats didn't think of their opponent grays as being WASPS?

    Would there be a Holocaust if Judaism did not exist?

    Parent

    Oh, as for Saddam, (none / 0) (#107)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:43:32 PM EST
    there is this little difference in the Muslim religion - Shiites and Sunnis - remember that is why Iran and Iraq had been at war, like, forever.

    Heh yourself!

    Parent

    If we had some ham we would have some (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:54:12 PM EST
    ham and eggs if we had some eggs.

    Would there be a Holocaust if Judaism did not exist?


    Parent
    What?? (none / 0) (#125)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    What does ham and eggs have to do with Hilter, the holocaust and Judaism?

    Doesn't this have any sensitivity with you?

    I find your analogy offensive.

    Parent

    My analogy is a (none / 0) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:24:01 PM EST
    nonsensical expression meant to show that your statement is nonsensical.

    The holocaust was real and I find your blaming Judaism for Hitler's actions offensive to the max.

    It is the typical "blame the victim" position too many people are taking today.

    Parent

    Wait a minute! (none / 0) (#166)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:32:47 PM EST
    YOU listed Hilter as having nothing to do with religion - right?

    So what part of the Holocaust has nothing to do with religion?

    And, what part of the Holocaust has to do with eggs and ham (something offensive to devoted Jews and Muslims)?

    Parent

    The issue was starting or causing... (none / 0) (#169)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:38:51 PM EST
    you are saying the Jews caused the war...

    Or at least that's what I think you are saying.

    Parent

    Then you are wrong . . . (none / 0) (#178)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:54:24 PM EST
    Religion, and I repeat, imo, is the root of all evil.  That can mean the lack of tolerance for another's religion - which, sadly, is the foundation of religious doctrine.  Not just by the Muslim, the Jews, the Christians, but the doctrine of all religions, including Hinduism.

    imo

    Parent

    When are people going to get it through (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 10:36:36 AM EST
    their heads that Muslim does not equal terrorist, any more than Christian does?  Are we not aware of the fact that plenty of blood has been shed in the name of Christianity?  And that that fact does not make all Christians card-carrying or undercover Terrorists for Jesus?  Is it our so-called majority Christian population that somehow allows us to label that unpleasant fact "different," and not ever to be part of the conversation?

    The people who freaking live in the neighborhood where this center is to be built are not offended by these plans, nor are they fearful of a Muslim presence in the community, so this seems to boil down to just one more occasion to make sure there is no chance that anti-Muslim sentiment will be going away any time soon.

    Yes, please let's demonize people on the basis of their religion - that is just so in the spirit of this country, isn't it?  Double bonus - a lot of these people are also brown!  I mean, it's just so un-PC to be openly anti-African American, so if you don't like people of color, who better these days than Muslims - and let's not forget Latinos - they're taking over, you know?

    Are we just so shallow, so convinced of our own moral and social superiority that we feel entitled to engage in this constant demonization of one group or another?  Are we all so afraid we might one day end up on the bottom of some heap that we have to make sure we identify and go after others to make sure we aren't?

    I look at stories like this and think we have not only not made progress, we are taking some giant leaps backward, into behaviors and beliefs so many have worked so hard to change.  And this is the result?

    To say I am disgusted and ashamed would be to understate how this makes me feel.

    Well (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:00:26 PM EST
    I have often been told that timing is everything..

    Are we not aware of the fact that plenty of blood has been shed in the name of Christianity?

    Now let me see, 900 years ago???

    The issue remains that Islam has not been reformed the way the Catholic Church was, and that was a bloody affair itself. Are we seeing the start of Islamic reformation? Where is Imam Luther?

    BTW - Do you see the connection between "local control by the supporters of the mosque" and "local control of immigration problems in AZ?"

    Parent

    What about the blood spilled (none / 0) (#117)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:50:50 PM EST
    in Palestine today by the Israelis?  Isn't that all about religion, but religion under the disguise of a flag!

    Parent
    war is heaven (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 10:39:46 AM EST
    Holy Wars

    Holy Wars is about two men with two different ideologies, both deeply rooted in fundamentalism - Christianity and Islam. The film follows Aaron Taylor, an evangelical Christian Missionary from the Bible Belt, and Khalid Kelly, an extremist Muslim Irish convert living in London. Both men believe that an apocalypse is inevitable, after which their religion will rule the world. Over the course of tracking their lives from the inception of the "War on Terror" through the election of Barack Obama, one of the men goes to the darkness of uncompromised hate, the other towards the light of a better understanding. Holy Wars is an extraordinary, thought provoking portrait of two radical believers who are transformed by events in our changing world.


    I need to see this (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 10:54:18 AM EST
    Someone we used to know spoke often about how the apocalypse would be the greatest.  He and his kids would be sucked up into heaven, and all their worries would be over.  Everything would be positively terrific.  In a sense he worked every single day to achieve this glorious outcome.  Josh and I just watched the documentary 'Confessions of a Superhero' and I am positive that the Hollywood Blvd Superman is less delusional.

    And the kids they brainwashed into the Mumbai attacks were convinced that when they were killed for Jihad, the faces of their dead bodies would glow golden.  But they didn't, we all saw that as well as the sole survivor of that band.  But a bunch of "religious and pious" old men preached different.  How shocking, they were liars and delusionals creating more delusionals.

    Parent

    I saw a similar thing a couple (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:04:45 AM EST
    of days ago on netflix.  something about the apocalypse.  possibly the same one.

    I remember thinking, apart from everything else, what unbelievably horrible parenting.  telling these kids they wont grow up.

    Parent

    Say wut? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:01:36 PM EST
    There are many factions of Islam that teach they are much better than you you Infidel.  Both of those factions kick off the wars, and love every minute of it.

    It's we "infidels" who have invaded and destroyed many, many, many more countries with unecessary wars than all the factions of Islam in the world combined--all to show them how much better we are than they are, excuse me, and to bring them our wonderful "democracy" (while destroying their countries and making lots of them die in really horrible ways). Oh, and most of those people we're currently doing this to are Muslim (although we've certainly spread the love far and wide and don't seem to discriminate when it comes to kicking off wars and loving it). We should be grateful that they even want to build a mosque on our godforsaken soil, after everything we've done to them.

    And if we're going to get hysterical about mosques breeding terrorism -- personally, I'm going to get a hell of a lot more hysterical about the blind eye we turn toward the funding of illegal occupation and terrorism that gets a daily pass. Stuff like this:

    A New York Times examination of public records in the United States and Israel identified at least 40 American groups that have collected more than $200 million in tax-deductible gifts for Jewish settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem over the last decade. The money goes mostly to schools, synagogues, recreation centers and the like, legitimate expenditures under the tax law. But it has also paid for more legally questionable commodities: housing as well as guard dogs, bulletproof vests, rifle scopes and vehicles to secure outposts deep in occupied areas.

    ...

    Take the Capital Athletic Foundation, run by the disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In its I.R.S. filings, the foundation noted donations totaling more than $140,000 to Kollel Ohel Tiferet, a religious study group in Israel, for "educational and athletic" purposes. In reality, a study group member was using the money to finance a paramilitary operation in the Beitar Illit settlement, according to documents in a Senate investigation of Mr. Abramoff, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to defrauding clients and bribing public officials.

    Mr. Abramoff, documents show, had directed the settler, Shmuel Ben Zvi, an old high school friend, to use the study group as cover after his accountant complained that money for sniper equipment and a jeep "don't look good" in terms of complying with the foundation's tax-exempt status.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/world/middleeast/06settle.html?pagewanted=all

    Yeah, that would be funding for settlements that are illegal under international law, not to mention contrary to U.S. policy (like we've ever done a thing about it, but anyway, it is contrary to our stated policy), not to mention immoral and outrageous in every sense. But THAT kind of religion-funded terrorism is apparently OK.

    What do the mosque builders call it? (3.00 / 2) (#2)
    by diogenes on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 09:49:08 PM EST
    ""There is some ambivalence within the community," said Hussein Rashid, a visiting professor of religious studies at Hofstra University  who specializes in Islam in America. "We still want to know who is going to be involved in this. So far, we have heard from just a few Muslim voices. If this is meant to be a community center, who in the community will be involved?"
    Most of the voices heard are the same old "hate the USA" liberal voices.  New York is a gigantic place.  What exactly is the purpose of building a mosque in that spot except to poke a finger in the eye of opponents?  
    The ACLU calls it a monument to religious freedom; is this a mosque of the "reform" branch of Islam that explicitly repudiates jihad and openly condemns terrorism and will members of this mosque, say, agree that Moslems in Arab countries have the right to convert Christianity or even that Christians and Jews throughout the Islamic world have the right to worship in peace and toleration?  

    A better question would be . . . (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 10:03:21 PM EST
    What exactly is the purpose of building a mosque in that spot except to poke a finger in the eye of opponents?

    What exactly is the purpose of building a community center in that spot . . . .

    And, what do you think they should do with the other mosque that is already by the GZ site?

    Parent

    Oh it's farther away (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 09:23:24 AM EST
    The one that's there is 800 feet away.  This one will only be 750 feet away.

    Isn't it Ghandi who said something along the lines of 'I like your Christ, I just don't like your Christians'?  I have to admit, Al Qaeda won.

    Parent

    Surely you can see the difference between (none / 0) (#19)
    by tigercourse on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 09:47:38 AM EST
    a Mosque that existed pre attacks and one that is being built in the shadow of them? The presence of A Mosque isn't the affront. I doubt anyone cares about that. I see no calls to remove it. The construction of a new one purposefully at the site is a very different thing.

    Parent
    Do you not see (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:52:46 PM EST
    that you are assuming that Muslim==terrorist?

    The only way to take offense to the new mosque is if you believe in this underlying assumption.

    Parent

    I don't think all Catholics are murderers (none / 0) (#148)
    by tigercourse on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:04:41 PM EST
    but if the Catholic church built a new church across the street from where DR. Tiller was killed, I'd have a problem with that as well. Or if some Atheist group put up some kind of atheist structure (whatever that might be) next to the site of a massacre done in the name of atheism.

    Parent
    highly ironic (none / 0) (#151)
    by CST on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:08:44 PM EST
    Since Dr. Tiller was in fact killed while in church.

    Parent
    umm also (none / 0) (#155)
    by CST on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:21:55 PM EST
    his murderer as far as I understand was not Catholic.

    Very little about this comment makes sense.  What does the Catholic Church have to do with Dr. Tiller?  They oppose abortion?  Many Catholics are pro-choice.  Most Christian churches oppose abortion.

    Complete non-sequitor.

    Parent

    Validating bigotted feelings (none / 0) (#176)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:47:14 PM EST
    is not the way to go.

    Parent
    Once it is built (none / 0) (#127)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:03:01 PM EST
    what will be the difference between the two (aside from the pool, basketball courts, auditorium, culinary school, etc)?

    Parent
    One will be a house of worship for a (none / 0) (#150)
    by tigercourse on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:07:58 PM EST
    particular religion. The other will be a symbol at the site of an American tragedy. If the Japanese wanted to put up a "cultural center" next to the Arizona or the United States wanted to put a "cultural center" in Hiroshima I'd feel the same.

    Parent
    So you have a problem with (none / 0) (#153)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:19:44 PM EST
    "promoting" community near certain sites? What are your boundaries then? Where in this lower Manhattan 'hood can they build a community center that doesn't offend you? And seriously, one place of worship/prayer will not be any different from the other except when it was built and amenities . .

    What if it was another Jewish cultural/community center?

    Parent

    who the hell knows (none / 0) (#7)
    by pitachips on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 10:53:14 PM EST
    But it is another opportunity for us to naively, yet stridently, yell out loud about how inclusive we are.

    This is a joke.

    This place will end up being a flashpoint, not a center of "interfaith" dialogue. Muslims here and even abroad are not going to automatically change their opinion of the US because we allowed the mosque/community center to be built near ground zero. It just makes us look weak.  

    Parent

    I think it says how inclusive (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 11:18:36 PM EST
    NYC is, not so sure about the rest of the "we" that you refer to, lol!~

    Parent
    Honoring the First Amendment makes (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:06:59 PM EST
    us strong, not weak.

    This is the bedrock of what it means to be an American.  We let people freely practice their religion.

    And, the irony here is that conservatives pushed through federal legislation (using the ol'  Commerce Clause rationale, federalism be damned) the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) that makes it very difficult to prevent a Church from getting a building or use permit.  Marci Hamilton fought RLUIPA on constitutional grounds and lost.  She argued that it gave preference in zoning and land uses issues to religious uses.

    Religious advocates argued that RLUIPA was necessary because local governments were using content-neutral issues like traffic and noise to prevent Churches from even remodeling.  Now, it is pretty much a strict scrutiny test to stop a religious organization from building--even when evaluating content-neutral issues such as traffic, noise, too many people, etc......

    Talk about hoisted on one's own petard.  The anti-Muslims, and that is what they are, cannot even use traffic or density or use restrictions as an excuse to prevent Mosques from being built.

    Parent

    i think (none / 0) (#142)
    by pitachips on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:48:48 PM EST
    that we hope that it projects a sense of strength - or maybe if we were on the other side, we may believe that way. but in that part of the world i doubt very much that is the prevailing sense. it looks like they're thumbing their nose.

    Parent
    thumbing your nose (none / 0) (#147)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:59:04 PM EST
    like getting ten or twelve million a day in aid, to do whatever provocative, nose-thumbing thing you want with.

    Parent
    Not all Muslims dislike the U.S. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 09:59:45 AM EST
    though, and many Muslims who do hate us have distorted the Qur'an just as many Christians have distorted the Bible.

    The United States at this point is not going to evolve into a nation that is going to allow the creation of terrorists on our own soil.  I have no doubt that if this center becomes a breeding ground for American hate and anyone there attempts to harm others or tries to make plans to do so, they will be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent.  And Geez, the FBI don't need no stinkin warrants now to monitor all of us :)  I'm not feeling very vulnerable right now to terrorists.

    Parent

    Did you read Greenwald a couple days (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:43:56 AM EST
    ago on outsourcing the caching of internet data for future provision to U.S. Government?  Headed by--ta ta--lots of former U.S. Government bigwigs.  Really scary.  "Vigilante."

    Parent
    I did (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:51:49 AM EST
    Between that and the google earth discussion, I've come to the conclusion that my privacy is what is becoming the illusion these days.

    Parent
    I enjoy facebook but noticed recently (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:13:11 PM EST
    after I posted a photo via my blackberry that when it appeared on facebook the photo identified where I was when I posted the photo.  Way too much info, as I do not indicate on facebook where I live.  

    Parent
    On the internet though (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:21:10 PM EST
    I have tried to find the new Al Qaeda internet magazine called 'Inspire'.  I want to see it with my own eyes.  All I can find are news stories about it still.  Is it being blocked in the United States?  My forehead was all crinkly though when I was looking for it.  Josh asks what's wrong and I tell him I can't find this online terrorist magazine and he says, "What's it called, 'Osamastones'?"  Who is the kid?  How did he get in the house?

    Parent
    oh really? (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:17:56 AM EST
    The United States at this point is not going to evolve into a nation that is going to allow the creation of terrorists on our own soil.

    That's not working well here if we can believe MSNBC.

    Parent

    Changes nothing for me Jim (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:42:10 AM EST
    Somebody obviously told on them.  It is sort of like how the whole left hated the whole military for Abu Ghraib and refused to even admit that someone in the military was who exposed what was going on.

    If I want empowered moderate Muslims, I can't get that by hating them.

    Parent

    It isn't over til it's over (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 11:35:17 PM EST
    We have embarrassed ourselves.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 11:42:52 PM EST
    The wingnuts seem to have a knack for that. Usually though, they never acknowledge it, good for you ppj...

    Parent
    Personally, I feel religion, (none / 0) (#17)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 09:06:54 AM EST
    particularly ALL organized religions, are merely divisive organizations.  Reglion has caused the most evil in our world, since the beginning of time.

    They should not be tax free.  

    All religious buildings should be built on their own private land, far away from center centers and populated areas.

    The former World Trade Center is no place for the exhibition of one's spiritual preference.  Not should not be viewed as an inclusion or exclusion of any sort, no matter how trendy it sounds.

    just as an fyi (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by CST on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 09:51:52 AM EST
    this is being built on private land.  And it is not actually going to be on the World Trade Center Site.  It's down the street.  There is no place in NYC that is "far away from populated areas".

    I agree that religious organizations should not be tax free.

    Parent

    I am well acquainted with NYC (none / 0) (#43)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:05:02 AM EST
    having lived there.

    Places of worship should be situated outside city limits, even in NYC, Chicago, LA, etc., much as airports.  IMO.

    Religion, imo, has no place other than an evil division and needs to finally find its place as an organized dictatorship of the few to profit from the naivity of the masses

    imo

    Parent

    I share your opinion... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:15:23 AM EST
    of religion, but can't get down with your banning of houses of worship proposal...that sounds like another brand of tyranny akin to what the religions are selling.

    It's tempting though...as someone of the opinion that NYC needs some houses of superstition called casinos before we need anymore mosques, churches, synagogues, or temples.

    Parent

    I didn't advocate 'banning' (none / 0) (#67)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:44:09 AM EST
    all I am talking about is placement - as in zoning areas.  

    We tend to have medical centers, sport centers, in many of our cities - then why not religious centers?

    Many of these medical centers contain competitive hospitals who all seem to be able to work together toward the common goal of increasing profits, knowledge and advancement in medicine.  

    Why can't religions be of some useful purpose, other than breeding divisions of hatred and intolerance?  

    Once anything is banned, it becomes a lightening force in and of itself.

    Parent

    Zoning... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:01:13 PM EST
    is basically a ban from a certain area...can't say I'm down with making the zoning code any thicker...though I do take some perverse pleasure in imagining the devout treking to the industrial areas to worship just like the horn-dogs have to do to go to the strip clubs:)

    Parent
    Why would a religious center (none / 0) (#96)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:20:11 PM EST
    have to be in an industrial area?

    Are medical centers and sport centers in industrial areas?

    Parent

    Cuz thats where... (none / 0) (#129)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    the houses of worship for those that worship the flesh are...it is for the children:)

    Parent
    RLUIPA (none / 0) (#134)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:20:53 PM EST
    prevents the type of zoning restrictions you reference.

    If you can build a hospital, school or shopping center on certain land, you can build a church or a mosque there.  

    Under RLUIPA, only if something was zoned R-1, single family residences, would you have a good chance of preventing a church or a mosque from being built.  

    Parent

    Well, there is a lot of (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:34:50 PM EST
    praying going on in the typical casino.

    lol

    Parent

    The answer to intolerance is not to (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:45:09 AM EST
    broaden it by creating zones within which houses of worship are not permitted, nor is the cause of any so-called religious dictatorship (do we have that here?) diminished through the use of non-sectarian authoritarian power.

    You could tear down every house of worship known to exist, and you would not prevent people from practicing their faith; so, what next, then?  The ritual destruction of religious text, art, music?  The destruction of religious schools?  A reverse Inquisition, perhaps?  Religious thought crimes, anyone?

    Yes, that sounds rational, and bound to lead to a better America, for sure.

    [Not to sound too religious, or anything, but Jesus Christ on a crutch...]

    Parent

    Who knew? The things I learn. (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:50:27 AM EST
    Reglion has caused the most evil in our world, since the beginning of time.

    Religion caused Stalin to kill millions?

    Hitler?

    Mao?

    Pol Pot?

    Parent

    umm (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by CST on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:47:46 PM EST
    hitler?  really?  you don't think religion had anything to do with that?

    I wonder what your bffs the Israelis would say to that.

    Parent

    actually (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:50:50 PM EST
    the latest, from some of the fundie-pinwheel "base" seems to be that it was ultimately a good thing: because it sped up the formation of the state of Israel.

    Parent
    Nazism is a religion? (none / 0) (#165)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:29:43 PM EST
    The things I learn.

    BTW - So you too believe in blaming the victim.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#171)
    by CST on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:40:40 PM EST
    where exactly did I "blame the Jews"?

    I'm saying Hitler killed people because of their religion.  And I bet the Israelis would agree with me there.

    I honestly don't know why I bother with you since you intentionally mis-read everything.

    Nazism (is that even a word?) may not be a religion.  But religion was the means they used.  Al-Queda is not a religion either.

    Parent

    learn to read (none / 0) (#173)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:43:35 PM EST
    then we'll get to work on that thinking stuff you've heard so much about.

    Parent
    not you, CST (none / 0) (#174)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:45:13 PM EST
    No one claimed ... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:46:46 PM EST
    ... "Nazism is a religion", but nice try at dodging.

    BTW -

    In public, Hitler often praised Christian heritage, German Christian culture, and professed a belief in an Aryan Jesus Christ, a Jesus who fought against the Jews.  In his speeches and publications Hitler spoke of his interpretation of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating that "As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."

    Hitler, Adolf; Norman Hepburn Baynes (1942), The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922 - August 1939, London: Oxford University Press.

    Parent

    no (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:54:10 AM EST
    the Inquisition, the Crusades, the various Holy Wars.

    Parent
    Could we get within (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:20:33 PM EST
    800 or 900 years?

    Parent
    what's the total body count (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:45:52 PM EST
    accrued by "this christian nation" and other christian nations in the last hundred years?

    And if religious influence played no part in that, what does that say about the truth and power of religion?

    Parent

    perfect love caseth out all fear.. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:47:22 PM EST
    or, if not, a few thousand warheads will suffice.

    Parent
    casteth.. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:48:10 PM EST
    A lot less than those killed (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:51:27 PM EST
    by the murderers I listed.

    But you know that.

    Your strawman is burning.

    Parent

    like Tokyo (none / 0) (#124)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:59:09 PM EST
    after Bother Curtis got through with it.

    Parent
    Like the Phillipines, China and SE Asia (none / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:26:59 PM EST
    after Japan got through with it.

    WWII was not caused by religion but by Hitler's insane desire to rule the world and kill Jew's and Japan's mistaken belief they could attack the US and get away with it.

    Parent

    and an argument over control (none / 0) (#172)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:41:42 PM EST
    of spheres of influence and resources in the Pacific and Germany being humiliated and economically destroyed Post-WWI..

    There were more causes than are listed over and over in the Timelife - Texas Board of Education, History (simplified) For Neocons and Fundamentalists series.

    Parent

    wouldnt exactly (none / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 12:44:30 PM EST
    be the "beginning of time" then would it?

    Parent
    Ancient Egyptians (none / 0) (#139)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:32:57 PM EST
    had their deities and pharaohs - religious leaders imo, then there is Eli ('god') or in Isliam, 'Allah' - religion.  From there we 'progress' to Biblical mythology where from we learn a out pagans, infidels, gentile, as being inferior.

    And so we progress . . . war after war, in a downward religious spiral.  IMO

    Parent

    How about Israel today, (none / 0) (#137)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:24:18 PM EST
    the UK and N Ireland yesterday, Croatia, to name but a few within the last ten years.  All based on some ideology of self-rightousness, holier-than-thou philosophy of dominance under the falsify of religion wrappings.

    Parent
    Didn't know you wanted to count (none / 0) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:28:08 PM EST
    those killed by radical Muslims.

    Parent
    No, I wouldn't think (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:38:29 PM EST
    of blaming the victim.  Heh.

    Parent
    they're not all the same.. (none / 0) (#133)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:11:20 PM EST
    Buddhism and the Bahai religion - to mention two - emphasize respect and tolerance of other religious traditions as an essential part of their practice.

     

    Parent

    to be fair (none / 0) (#146)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:54:40 PM EST
    being a lapsed buddhist, not all buddhists are peaceful.
     

    Parent
    well it just comes (none / 0) (#156)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 02:23:25 PM EST
    down to people doesn't it?

    they're all varying degrees of mushuggah, cracked, nuts..etc etc

    Parent

    Its threads like this one (none / 0) (#201)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 05:40:51 PM EST
    Where I wish the 200 comment limit might be waived. Obviously, the subject is of great interest to many here and wonder if the limit is helpful.