It very well may be lawful, but I will say this - if it is built, it will show me that it's not just the radical terrorist Muslims who have it wrong. For the Muslim decision makers to show this level of insensitivity toward those who lost loved ones in 9/11 - even if it's lawful, it's a poor decision at best and an arrogant slap in the face at worst.

Lawful, yes. It's also lawful for me to voice my disapproval.

 

And I'm completely ok with that opinion. Not that you were looking for my approval, but you've got it anyway. :lol:

Sharia law is a debate for another thread.

Says who? I say it is an instrumental part of why I disagree with the Imam pushing for the mosque at Ground Zero. If the debate is over whether he should have his way… then I believe we should understand who this man is and what he’s up to.

 

The development of this mosque, in and of itself, is no different than the development of any other house of worship, no matter the beliefs. There are Christian churches that advocate similar objectives, yet nary is a word spoken about their right to be built. So long as they are not acting on their calls for the execution of homosexuals, we vehemently disagree with their opinions but allow them to hold them. The location of this mosque, the complaints about the disclosure of the donations, the complaints about the imam, and the specious attempt to describe this as some sort of trophy are all gloss attempting to hide the political benefits of rousing anti-Muslim sentiment. There is no other explanation.

There is a very logical explanation, but it becomes moot if you continue to ignore the facts.

 

Your posts often seem to contradict this.

Habib, you are welcome to search nearly 9,000 posts by me on this site and you will find nowhere I have ever made a blanket statement covering all Muslims. Believe it or not, I do actually have a number of friends who follow the Muslim faith. We disagree on a many points, but that does not prevent us from being civil to one another and actually enjoying each other's company. Just as I do not automatically agree with the words and actions of every person claiming to be a Christian, my Middle Eastern friends do not agree with all Muslims… including Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

 

While I don’t necessarily have a problem with polygamy in principle and will not justify its banning, as I said before, there is a difference between beliefs and actions. So long as a person’s exercising of their liberty does not encroach on the ability of me to exercise mine then they should have the right to it. I may argue, disagree, or denounce the religious opinions of others, but constructing a place for them to congregate bothers me none. I don’t care that Fred Phelps has a church and I don’t care where advocates of sharia place their mosque, but I will disagree with both of them.

If promoting peace and an interfaith dialogue is truly what this Imam is after, he needs to hire a new marketing firm. This is a boneheaded move of colossal proportions in that regard.

 

Right. Religious liberty does not extend to Muslims whose opinions differ from yours.

And I’m the one who’s supposed to be judgmental and narrow… R-I-G-H-T!!! :thumb:

Says who? I say it is an instrumental part of why I disagree with the Imam pushing for the mosque at Ground Zero. If the debate is over whether he should have his way… then I believe we should understand who this man is and what he’s up to.

 

It is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter which opinions any person building a place of worship holds. To argue that the opinions of the members of a particular church/mosque/synagogue/tabernacle must be scrutinized and meet a certain standard before they can practice is to argue against religious liberty.

 

There is a very logical explanation, but it becomes moot if you continue to ignore the facts.

 

I will reiterate: The development of this mosque, in and of itself, is no different than the development of any other house of worship, no matter the beliefs. There are Christian churches that advocate similar objectives, yet nary is a word spoken about their right to be built. So long as they are not acting on their calls for the execution of homosexuals, we vehemently disagree with their opinions but allow them to hold them.

 

Furthermore, this sentiment isn’t limited to this particular mosque; local politicians throughout the country are basing their campaigns on banning mosques in their towns. This one simply has enough variables opponents can use to rationalize their desires, though they are all hollow in the end. Or perhaps I could ask the counterfactual: if it is simply the imam’s views on policy that should cause the mosque to be banned, then how is the Cross Bearer Ministry allowed to operate since they advocate the execution of homosexuals, among others?

 

If promoting peace and an interfaith dialogue is truly what this Imam is after, he needs to hire a new marketing firm. This is a boneheaded move of colossal proportions in that regard.

 

What does this have to do with what I said? I will reiterate: So long as a person’s exercising of their liberty does not encroach on the ability of me to exercise mine then they should have the right to it. I may argue, disagree, or denounce the religious opinions of others, but constructing a place for them to congregate bothers me none. I don’t care that Fred Phelps has a church and I don’t care where advocates of sharia place their mosque, but I will disagree with both of them.

 

And I’m the one who’s supposed to be judgmental and narrow… R-I-G-H-T!!! :thumb:

If your argument isn’t “this mosque, a lawful religious structure, should not be built because its leader allegedly advocates a position I disagree with” then I will retract my statement.

It is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter which opinions any person building a place of worship holds. To argue that the opinions of the members of a particular church/mosque/synagogue/tabernacle must be scrutinized and meet a certain standard before they can practice is to argue against religious liberty.

What is irrelevant is asserting and arguing points I have never forwarded.

 

Nowhere have I stated that the beloved Imam and his throng should be denied genuine religious freedom to believe and worship whatever they choose. Right, wrong or otherwise… they are welcome to do so. THAT is what is covered by the First Amendment. THAT is what American heroes have fought and died to defend for over 230 years. I support this freedom to the point that it does not break existing laws or violate basic human rights. Any assertions beyond what the Constitution actually guarantees, is a weak reach.

 

What IS in question (and not covered anywhere in the First Amendment) is their “so-called” right to ignore common decency and to display incredible insensitivity by bullishly pushing through “where” their mosque is constructed. I see nothing in the Constitution granting any “religion” the “right” to erect houses of worship ANYWHERE they wish. My point in stating that there are over 100 mosques already in NYC was to establish that New Yorkers specifically and Americans-at-large are not opposed to genuine “religious freedom”. The insistence of labeling those opposed to this specific mosque at this specific location as bigots and religiously intolerant and racists and xenophobes is as shallow as it is absurd.

 

The area upon which the twin towers once stood is hallowed ground to many Americans… a place made sacred by the suffering and deaths of those who perished as the towers burned and collapsed. It is not unlike Gettysburg, Manassas, Concord Bridge, Bunker Hill or many other similar battle sites on American soil. I would imagine that if a developer wanted to build a mall or a casino too close to Manassas or Valley Forge, there would be strong resistance as well. This does not mean those opposing such development are against private commerce… any more than those opposing the LOCATION of this proposed mosque contest genuine religious freedom. It is entirely a matter of proximity and propriety.

 

I have a feeling that if this Imam or the Pope himself wanted to build a religious structure near the Pentagon... regardless of motive or purity of intent... it would be flatly denied... even if they could generate the finances necessary to obtain land in the vicinity.

 

I know for a fact that any church desiring to build a structure too close to the end of an airport runway can be denied by the FAA. Even if they get the right to construct off a runway end, there will be specific restrictions on the height of steeples or minarets. This has nothing whatsoever to do with impeding religious freedoms. Churches, Synagogues, Temples and Mosques do not have the "right" to be constructed just anywhere.

 

If the dear Imam is sincere in stating that the purpose of the proposed “Cordoba House” is healing, reconciliation and harmony, he sure has a strange way of demonstrating it… persisting when it is clear his initiative is dividing, enraging, rekindling the pain and loss felt by the families of 9/11 victims.

What is irrelevant is asserting and arguing points I have never forwarded.

 

Nowhere have I stated that the beloved Imam and his throng should be denied genuine religious freedom to believe and worship whatever they choose. Right, wrong or otherwise… they are welcome to do so. THAT is what is covered by the First Amendment. THAT is what American heroes have fought and died to defend for over 230 years. I support this freedom to the point that it does not break existing laws or violate basic human rights. Any assertions beyond what the Constitution actually guarantees, is a weak reach.

 

What IS in question (and not covered anywhere in the First Amendment) is their “so-called” right to ignore common decency and to display incredible insensitivity by bullishly pushing through “where” their mosque is constructed. I see nothing in the Constitution granting any “religion” the “right” to erect houses of worship ANYWHERE they wish. My point in stating that there are over 100 mosques already in NYC was to establish that New Yorkers specifically and Americans-at-large are not opposed to genuine “religious freedom”. The insistence of labeling those opposed to this specific mosque at this specific location as bigots and religiously intolerant and racists and xenophobes is as shallow as it is absurd.

 

If the First Amendment does not protect one from offending “common decency” then it protects nothing at all. It is to suggest that those who say or worship unpopular things are not allowed to do so or are deserving of punishment, which is precisely the opposite of that amendment’s intention. I’m struggling to find how you’ve gleaned from “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” that unpopular opinions are excepted as it is entirely at odds with the “free exercise” part. To suggest that caveat exists in the penumbra of the First Amendment is to neuter it of any power it has.

 

The area upon which the twin towers once stood is hallowed ground to many Americans… a place made sacred by the suffering and deaths of those who perished as the towers burned and collapsed. It is not unlike Gettysburg, Manassas, Concord Bridge, Bunker Hill or many other similar battle sites on American soil. I would imagine that if a developer wanted to build a mall or a casino too close to Manassas or Valley Forge, there would be strong resistance as well. This does not mean those opposing such development are against private commerce… any more than those opposing the LOCATION of this proposed mosque contest genuine religious freedom. It is entirely a matter of proximity and propriety.

 

I have a feeling that if this Imam or the Pope himself wanted to build a religious structure near the Pentagon... regardless of motive or purity of intent... it would be flatly denied... even if they could generate the finances necessary to obtain land in the vicinity.

 

I know for a fact that any church desiring to build a structure too close to the end of an airport runway can be denied by the FAA. Even if they get the right to construct off a runway end, there will be specific restrictions on the height of steeples or minarets. This has nothing whatsoever to do with impeding religious freedoms. Churches, Synagogues, Temples and Mosques do not have the "right" to be constructed just anywhere.

 

If the dear Imam is sincere in stating that the purpose of the proposed “Cordoba House” is healing, reconciliation and harmony, he sure has a strange way of demonstrating it… persisting when it is clear his initiative is dividing, enraging, rekindling the pain and loss felt by the families of 9/11 victims.

 

Of course, building a large structure at the end of a runway would make it useless due to safety concerns, thus a structure cannot be built there no matter what it is. To equate that with the denial of building a house of worship due to the beliefs of its members or the religion itself is preposterous. And your analogy to national historic sites is ill-founded. The area of this proposed mosque is an area where anyone may build, those opposing it do so because of the religion, not because the area several streets away should be preserved.

 

The thrust of your argument now is that this mosque is too close to Ground Zero. This is equally as absurd as your previous argument that the opinions of the imam you found unsavory were cause to prohibit its construction. First, it is equating modern, Western Muslims with the extreme fundamentalists who undertook the attacks, which is something you’ve repeatedly said you don’t do. Second, if the building of a mosque, any mosque, “near” Ground Zero is insensitive due to those reasons, then the construction of a mosque anywhere in this country is insensitive. You can’t have it both ways. As I have argued throughout this thread, the proximity, the imam, whatever excuse one can conjure are simply that: excuses. This mosque in NYC has drawn national attention, but many throughout the US are opposing mosques for the exact same reasons, the only difference is that they only appeal to their local populations. The argument against this mosque or any mosque is an argument against religious liberty, it can’t be put more simply than that.

 

 

In Murfreesboro, Tenn., Republican candidates have denounced plans for a large Muslim center proposed near a subdivision, and hundreds of protesters have turned out for a march and a county meeting.

 

In late June, in Temecula, Calif., members of a local Tea Party group took dogs and picket signs to Friday prayers at a mosque that is seeking to build a new worship center on a vacant lot nearby.

 

In Sheboygan, Wis., a few Christian ministers led a noisy fight against a Muslim group that sought permission to open a mosque in a former health food store bought by a Muslim doctor…

 

In all of the recent conflicts, opponents have said their problem is Islam itself. They quote passages from the Koran and argue that even the most Americanized Muslim secretly wants to replace the Constitution with Islamic Shariah law.

Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah wonder where the mosque’s sponsors got their money and they believe (actually they say they know) it's meant to be a deliberate provocation.

 

There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis.

If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to.

It’s a repugnant thought that $100 million would be brought into the United States rather than be directed at dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan.

 

The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book” — i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of “fitna

I wonder if they will build it with union labor and American engineers and construction company's??

I can see this happening here... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_germany_mosque_closed

I can see this happening here... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_germany_mosque_closed

 

Good link, unfortunately they're quite a few people that have no common sense on the issue and this won't persuade them. They will ask you what proof do you have that this will happen at this mosque and that you're a bigot for even considering this.

Again with the "facts" where there are no facts. You don't know where the money is coming from, so can you please stop assuming its a foreigner with ill-will towards the US?

 

Well the biggest money contributor to the Cordoba hall also was a big contributor to The Free Gaza movement, which from its beginnings has enjoyed intimate ties with the leadership of Hamas.

Is every one ready for sharia law in the U.S.

If the First Amendment does not protect one from offending “common decency” then it protects nothing at all. It is to suggest that those who say or worship unpopular things are not allowed to do so or are deserving of punishment, which is precisely the opposite of that amendment’s intention. I’m struggling to find how you’ve gleaned from “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” that unpopular opinions are excepted as it is entirely at odds with the “free exercise” part. To suggest that caveat exists in the penumbra of the First Amendment is to neuter it of any power it has.

How is this a First Amendment issue? No one says the Imam and his troops cannot worship as they wish, or that they have to worship in a manner prescribed by the U.S. government. They can believe whatever they want. This is what the First Amendment guarantees. The First Amendment grants no explicit “right” or license to build a mosque wherever they want. My analogy with the airport runway validates this.

 

The thrust of your argument now is that this mosque is too close to Ground Zero. This is equally as absurd as your previous argument that the opinions of the imam you found unsavory were cause to prohibit its construction. First, it is equating modern, Western Muslims with the extreme fundamentalists who undertook the attacks, which is something you’ve repeatedly said you don’t do. Second, if the building of a mosque, any mosque, “near” Ground Zero is insensitive due to those reasons, then the construction of a mosque anywhere in this country is insensitive. You can’t have it both ways. As I have argued throughout this thread, the proximity, the imam, whatever excuse one can conjure are simply that: excuses. This mosque in NYC has drawn national attention, but many throughout the US are opposing mosques for the exact same reasons, the only difference is that they only appeal to their local populations. The argument against this mosque or any mosque is an argument against religious liberty, it can’t be put more simply than that.

Your use of hyperbole is impressive.

 

Yes, I do think this specific mosque by this specific Imam is too close to Ground Zero. This has nothing to do IMO with any other mosque anywhere in the world… including within the U.S. This is a unique and very special set of circumstances. The fact that you refuse to see that is unfortunate, but does nothing to validate your over-the-top assertions.

 

As far as the “historic” sites I referenced… they are “historic” because they were “battlefields”… sanctified by the blood and suffering of those who fell upon them. Ground Zero is the first battlefield on American soil in this century. There are many of us who feel it deserves the same reverence and honor.

 

There are no Shinto shrines on Ford Island near the USS Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor. While there may be those who would support such an initiative today, I doubt such an idea would have enjoyed much traction in 1949. Would it matter whether the Japanese pushing for such a shrine were peace loving or fiercely nationalistic? No. It simply is not appropriate. Does that make me a bigoted anti-Japanese racist too? :lol:

I wonder if they will have public stoning at the mosque??

How is this a First Amendment issue? No one says the Imam and his troops cannot worship as they wish, or that they have to worship in a manner prescribed by the U.S. government. They can believe whatever they want. This is what the First Amendment guarantees. The First Amendment grants no explicit “right” or license to build a mosque wherever they want. My analogy with the airport runway validates this.

 

The argument here is that this religious building may not be constructed, where any other structure may be built, religious or otherwise, due entirely to the nominal designation of the religion. This is not in a prohibited area – the only argument forwarded here is that this religion should be barred from what would be afforded any other religion. You are demanding the government constrain a specific religion from taking actions that would be allowed by any other religion due to the beliefs of its members. This violates every tenet, interpretation, and original intent of the First Amendment.

 

Your analogy to airport runways does not hold. There are no regulations that stipulate the beliefs and titles of the groups constructing an obstacle to a runway be evaluated; no religion is afforded special rights over others.

 

Your use of hyperbole is impressive.

 

Yes, I do think this specific mosque by this specific Imam is too close to Ground Zero. This has nothing to do IMO with any other mosque anywhere in the world… including within the U.S. This is a unique and very special set of circumstances. The fact that you refuse to see that is unfortunate, but does nothing to validate your over-the-top assertions.

 

As far as the “historic” sites I referenced… they are “historic” because they were “battlefields”… sanctified by the blood and suffering of those who fell upon them. Ground Zero is the first battlefield on American soil in this century. There are many of us who feel it deserves the same reverence and honor.

 

Your “very special set of circumstances” is that this religious structure will fall under the category of Islam. This has everything to do with “any other mosque” in the US. You attempt to rationalize this treatment with two caveats. You say that this mosque is too “near” Ground Zero. This is the verbatim argument made by groups protesting local mosques in California. You allege this imam is advocating ideas you find too radical. This is literally the argument made by groups protesting local mosques in Florida. To suggest that your argument applies to more than this single, specific development is not hyperbole, it is reality.

 

These arguments all boil down to this: if you are a Muslim you are subject to a separate set of standards than any other religion for doing precisely the same actions - in this case building a place of worship. That is as applicable in California as it is in New York.

There are no Shinto shrines on Ford Island near the USS Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor. While there may be those who would support such an initiative today, I doubt such an idea would have enjoyed much traction in 1949. Would it matter whether the Japanese pushing for such a shrine were peace loving or fiercely nationalistic? No. It simply is not appropriate. Does that make me a bigoted anti-Japanese racist too? :lol:

 

Your comment reminded me of the debate in Harrodsburg, KY when Hitachi set up their plant. There were some rumblings among the older community that a Japanese company was moving into Harrodsburg/Mercer County. With the sacrifice that community made at Bataan it was hard for some to swallow.

 

Not evaluating right or wrong on this just relating a story I think is relative to the thought process.