Fastbreak

This whole thread was opened under the question of whether this mosque is "A Stupid Idea?" I have stated that "Yes" I do think it is a stupid idea, and I was stupid enough to state why I believe this specific mosque at this specific location by this specific imam is a stupid idea. For this I have been tarred with broad sweeping hyperbole fueled generalizations concluding in essence that since I think this singular mosque is a bad idea, I am automatically: … against ALL mosques everywhere in this country… …a narrow minded bigot, racist that’s intolerant of any religion other than the one I choose to follow… …a hypocrite that wants the full force of the First Amendment protecting my rights but unwilling to extend them to others with whom I may disagree. I have then been feathered with impassioned lectures on the merits of the First Amendment. This is absurd! I have said nothing whatsoever indicating I am against people who choose to peacefully practice Islam… on American soil. I do however; have tremendous issues with those who take it to its fullest extremes. In reading extensively to actually understand the dynamics of what's going on here, I am not connvinced that this Imam is being honest. This is NOT a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment covers the freedom to worship as we choose, to assemble peacefully and to speak freely and openly. It does NOT grant anyone the right to build whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want. That is a matter of zoning and public acceptance best left to residents of the communities in which they live. SO TO BE CLEAR… I have not stated anywhere that government should do anything. ( Believe it or not, government is the solution for all of us. ) AND… I think building the proposed mosque, at this specific location by this specific Imam is a stupid idea. :thumb:

That's some great intel Card. :thumb: This puts the proposed GZ Mosque within 300' of Ground Zero. It also explains how one woman I heard interviewed could state that you could see Ground Zero from the site of the new mosque and vice versa. Wow... I'm beginning to believe there are some who would support the erection of a mosque in the center of Ground Zero, but this realy puts things in perspective for me.

The fact that we are able to debate such issues openly and in a civil manner illustrates the very principles of freedom that are a testament to American values and tolerance. No one of any significance has suggested banning Islam or mosques... or the freedom to practice Islam… even near ground zero. What is being said is that the location of this specific mosque is unreasonably provocative, insensitive and hurtful. The right to express our views is the essence of a truly free republic. It IS the First Amendment. Americans across New York and the nation have a First Amendment right to voice their opposition to the ground zero mosque. These voices are that treasured “marketplace of ideas” protected by the First Amendment. The attempt to silence them through cries of racism, bigotry and religious intolerance in the name of that same First Amendment is ironic to say the very least.

I'm not a proponent of either type of establishment in the first place, so I think they would be tacky to say the very least. If on the other hand, two planes hijacked by gay strippers were flown into the Twin Towers, I'd be strongly against it. You know, sometimes it just makes sense to acknowledge the elephant in the room. If it weren’t for the teachings of jihad and promises of six dozen virgins as a reward from a god in the afterlife of each murderous loony that carried out the insane and horrific acts of 9/11, Ground Zero would not exist in its present form. Thousands of lives would not have ended in senseless tragedy. Thousands of kids would still have mom or dad coming home evenings. Ground Zero is a battlefield on American soil worthy of the reverence attributed to Pearl Harbor, Gettysburg and other American battlefield shrines. Allowing an egocentric cleric with political aspirations to build a monument to the ideology that fomented this tragedy and arguing that this is a First Amendment issue is shortsighted, insensitive and nonsensical. The relevance of introducing Sharia into the debate is the fact that Islam in its purest form is not merely a religion, but an entire social system with laws and codes of conduct overseen by imams, ayatollahs and other “religious” clerics. It is the antithesis of the respect we share for individual liberties. Without the protective shield of religion, Islam would be forbidden in the civilized world as a political ideology of hate with no compulsion for allowances.

That's what I'd call the bike ride back to work after I realized I forgot something important at home. "I left the presentation folder on the coffee table, so I biked home and recycled back to the office."

Here's an expanded view. You can see the distance to the proposed mosque is considerably closer than the distance across Ground Zero. :thumb:

Here's a view from Google Earth.

I think that's an excellent question Mom. :thumb: First it might help to understand the actual proximity of the proposed mosque to Ground Zero. I suppose “blocks” is technically correct, but just barely. The existing building at the proposed mosque site was actually struck by part of the fuselage that broke apart after hitting the WTC, and is considered to be within the 9/11 "kill zone". The actual distance from the front door of 51 Park Place to the edge of Ground Zero is less than 600 feet. It is reported that once completed, the top floor of the new mosque would provide a view of Ground Zero. It genuinely boggles my mind that less than nine years after the attacks at ground zero, there is anyone that would question why some find this mosque an insensitive provocation. Siena College Research Institute released results of a poll conducted last week revealing that only 26% of New York residents support the proposed Ground Zero mosque. Over 63% are against it with less than 11% undecided… and we all know how conservative NYC is. So, I’m not alone, off in the weeds in my opinion. If the Imam’s true goal is to promote mutual respect, harmony and peace as he claims, he should reconsider. Intentionally inflaming emotional pain is not an act of understanding. Adding fuel to a religiously charged debate at Ground Zero is not a move for tolerance. These are provocations, by someone that is either witless or clearly banking upon the witlessness of the rest of us. The fact that he is not humbly relenting in light of understandable emotions belies his stated motives.

Did anyone on this site know that 72 sets of human remains were just recovered and identified at the Ground Zero site in June of THIS YEAR (2010) as a result of new construction work? I didn’t until I found it while reading about this matter. Why have we not been informed that they are still uncovering the bodies of 9/11 victims at Ground Zero nearly nine years after the attack? What is our media doing? Why aren’t we being told more about the victims and the fact that we are still finding them?

I always believe in Northern Hemisphere warming in August... and Northern Hemisphere cooling in January. We just came off one of the coldest winters with record cold temps in many places. I've never doubted the veracity of "climate change" it's been happening for millennia. What I do question is the assertion that a significant percentage is due to the activities of mankind. I have no desire to foul our nest, but the whole issue of carbon credits and offsets and cap and trade seems to be a massive push to transfer wealth via a worldwide tax... beginning with the transfer of more wealth to the lead shaman, Al Gore.

Let me open with... I think Travis is a tremendous athlete. I'm confident he will play at the next level, and I wish him nothing but the best. :thumb: I'm not attempting to turn the thread or attention away from him, but all the talk about D-I vs D-II got the wheels turning. Whether D-I, D-II, D-III, NAIA or otherwise, earning the opportunity to compete at the college level is a big deal. Getting any or all of your schooling paid in return for your skills is a really big deal. From an academic perspective, some of the smaller schools offer better options. It all really boils down to what each student athlete's goals are. I would never tell a young man not to shoot for a major D-1 full ride… but I would also encourage kids and parents not to overlook the significance (and relative rarity) of scholarship money at any level. To better put this in perspective, I find it very helpful to look at actual numbers: There are about 104,373 boys attending 279 KHSAA member high schools. This is divides out to an average of 93.5 boys per grade level per school. Out of these, an average of perhaps 4 per senior class, (about 1-in-23) have the talent, work ethic and perseverance to compete in basketball at each school. This represents only 4.3% of all boys attending KHSAA member high schools. So, just making the high school team puts a young man in select company. Of an average of about 1,120 senior basketball players per year in Kentucky, maybe 50-80 (depending upon fluctuations in talent levels and recruiting interest from class to class) have the opportunity to compete for an official college team at any level. (D-I, D-II, D-III or NAIA) That’s only about 4% to 7% of all graduating senior ballers… and only about 1-in-500 graduating senior boys statewide. Of these, maybe 3 – 10 (depending upon fluctuations in talent levels and recruiting interest from class to class) actually receive a full ride at a D-1 school. That’s less than 1% of all graduating senior basketball players. This means that only 1-in-110 to 1-in-225 of all kids playing basketball in the state of Kentucky will ever have the opportunity to compete at the D-I level. Stretch this out to include all boys in each senior class and the odds leap to 1-in-2600 to 1-in-5200. Opportunities at the D-II level are only slightly higher with maybe 5-15 boys going to D-II schools. D-III schools technically cannot offer “athletic” scholarships, but will offer partial to full rides based upon academic achievement and financial needs. Very often, skilled athletes are able to procure “scholarships” but they are difficult to quantify on equal terms with D-I and D-II schools due to their differences in calculating scholarship money. Generally, D-III athletes tend to be really good students, or to a lesser degree, really good athletes from really needy families. While these kids have strong basketball skills, academics tend to trump athletics. The payoff is that D-III student athletes tend to get very good educations at some very good schools. NAIA schools capture the greatest percentage of graduating seniors, and though they do have the ability to offer full rides, many schools are faced with the need to stretch their scholarship dollars further, and generally only offer partial scholarships in varying degrees. The bottom line is, it takes a special young man just to play high school basketball in Kentucky. For over 93% of all basketball players, this is as good as it will ever get, and they should enjoy the experience to the fullest. For the 7% or less that get to compete at the next level, and the 5% or so who may receive any form of financial aid for their skills… congratulations are in order for using your God given abilities to the fullest of their potential. You represent only about 1-in-500 of all boys graduating high school in the state each year. ( Hopefully, your future bride and children will think you’re one-in-a-million. :thumb: ) Let your ego push you to be the best you can be, but don’t ever let your ego get in the way of genuine opportunity. :thumb:

I've been reading so much on this, it all is starting to blend... good catch. :thumb: You know what they say about great minds... unfortunately, the same can be said about feeble minds as well... :idunno:

In an article entitled, “Mischief in Manhattan” Muslim authors Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah state, “…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.” Some additional excerpts: “When we try to understand the reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicentre of the worst-ever attack on the U.S., we wonder why its proponents don't build a monument to those who died in the attack?” “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.” “As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.” “The Koran implores Muslims to speak the truth, even if it hurts the one who utters the truth. Today we speak the truth, knowing very well Muslims have forgotten this crucial injunction from Allah.” “As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill. Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.” Read More: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html

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. 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:

Congratulations to Robbie and the whole Stenzel family. :thumb: Great folks all... EKU just increased their loyal fanbase. Robbie Stenzel has worked his tail off for this opportunity. I'm sure he'll do well.

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.

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. There is a very logical explanation, but it becomes moot if you continue to ignore the facts. 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. 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. And I’m the one who’s supposed to be judgmental and narrow… R-I-G-H-T!!! :thumb:

Semantics Ma’am… purely semantics. I do consider proponents of Sharia to be radicals, but in proper context within their own faith, they may not be so radical. Even so, are you suggesting that you would be in favor of Sharia here? I will find you some direct quotes from the dear sweet Imam that reveal his strong feelings about the need for imposing Sharia Law in the U.S… a set of intolerant religious rules that very effectively negate most of everything you state in the following: Pretty thoughts I generally agree with… but this would most definitely not happen under Sharia… :thumb:

What is nonsensical my friend, is for a bright young person like you to ignore the fact that this specific Imam – not just any random Muslim, but Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf – is a strong proponent of bringing U.S. laws in line with Sharia Law… a set of religious laws specifically discriminatory to women, other faiths, alternative lifestyles and out of line with much of our Constitution. Sharia is in many ways the antithesis of our freedoms. There are over 100 mosques in New York City alone… I have no problem with them. I am not a narrow bigot blindly against all Muslims. I do have a problem with this particular Imam’s intent and timing. Again, I ask you, if we are correct in denying certain Mormon sects the right to engage in polygamy, why then are we out of line to reject religious teachings even more out of line with our culture and Constitution at Ground Zero? I disagree. See above. :thumb:

You apparently have me confused with someone with no idea what the hell they're talking about... :lol: :lol: :lol: If stating easily verifiable facts is fear mongering, I'll shoulder that accusation. :thumb: As far as your assertion that I’m turning the thread… I’m totally puzzled. I read the very first post by RTS stating that permitting the construction of the proposed mosque at ground zero is a stupid idea. I have simply provided supporting information as to why I agree it is a poor idea. If you think that’s turning the thread, you will need to inform me how and why?

I'd like to believe you're too smart to fall for this. So you're saying that a specific sect of a religion that asserts intolerance for all other religions but their own, the subjugation of women, death for homosexuals, honor killings, stoning of women accused of adultery, etc... essentially everything the First Amendment is not... has a First Amendment right to disobey the First Amendment? :lol: :lol: :lol: This is absurd to the Nth degree, and you know it. In June 2010, police in Dearborn, Mich. arrested Christians for proselytizing at an Arab festival. They were doing so legally, peacefully and completely within the law. BUT, this is forbidden by sharia law. The popos claim they were trying to prevent an incident, but the very clear 1st amendment right to freedom of speech and the exercise of religious freedom was sacrificed in deference to sharia’s intolerance against the preaching of religions other than Islam. Any country that tolerates the shameful offenses of Fred Phelp's bunch should be outraged by this action. How do you reconcile the U.S. Government forbidding polygamy when that was and is a certral tenet of certain Mormon sects? Why should they not be permitted to flaunt their religious freedoms too? I don't believe one of those statements as presented and I am against the mosque at ground zero. Try again. :thumb:

Who said anything about inventing new laws? ...except perhaps for the Imam of the Ground Zero mosque... he's all about imposing Sharia law here in the U.S. I'm sure you'd do really well under his form of religious/social integration. :thumb: Sharia is used to justify stoning, the execution of homosexuals, the subjugation of women, and does not permit freedom of conscience or permit Muslims to renounce their faith or convert to another religion. Sharia does not support religious liberty and is entirely at odds with core American values. It is a threat to all who believe in the freedoms maintained by our constitutional system. We have no "religious" obligation to permit a radical proponent of such barbarity to build a cardboard tent in lower Manhattan, much less a $100 million shrine. I will not be browbeaten and guilted into accepting the imposition of sharia in any American communities. You may believe what you want, but sharia is the antithesis of and enemy to true religious freedom.

I find it amusing that proponents of one of the most intolerant religions in the world could even remotely suggest that we are intolerant for not allowing adherents of the one true faith to place a victory shrine near the site of their greatest accomplishment of this century. :lol: This practice of building “victory” monuments dates back to just after the time of Muhammad himself, with the Dome of the Rock, the oldest existing Moslem structure in the world completed around 691 A.D. The Dome was built over the Rock of Moriah, the spot where Muhammad supposedly ascended into Heaven with the Angel Gabriel. It is no accident that this very rock was also considered the Foundation Stone of Solomon’s Temple and is the holiest site in all of Judaism, believed to be the site of the Holy of Holies during the Temple Period, and even the rock upon which Abraham was prepared to offer his son Isaac. The whole practice of Jews praying near the Western Wall began as a result of Muslim authorities refusing to permit Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount… aside from the fact that the site was considered holy for many centuries before Muhammad was even born. Muslims being the TOLERANT sort they are… Jews and Christians are still forbidden to pray on the site. The Western Wall is the site nearest to the Foundation Stone that is accessible to Jews. I get weary hearing how we need to be “sensitive” to a bunch of people that will not call known terrorists “terrorists” and will not disclose where they are procuring funding for their $100 million plus facility. If this is truly a gesture for healing and tolerance, why not make it a Jewish, Christian, Moslem interfaith center where healing may actually occur? This is a stupid idea... and we are stupid to fall for it.

Ace, I believe we are called to use our intellects and spirits to evaluate whether something is good (and worthy of our support) or bad (to be shunned or resisted.) If we are not called to… or are not able to “judge” between good and evil; how can any of us ever be accountable for our own disobedience… “sins”? Under such a scenario, how could any of us possibly miss out on Heaven? Why would the Bible clearly instruct us that we will all individually face judgment and that many will in fact join the devil and his angels in a place called Hell? Some in fact will claim to have been doing God’s business only to be rebuked by “the Word” and consigned to Hell. If there is no accountability and judgment from which to be rescued (saved), why was it necessary for Jesus to suffer the cross? I am not attempting to determine the eternal destiny of (judging) Nancy Pelosi. I genuinely hope to see the princess in Heaven for the next trillion years. I wish Hell on no one. In this ultimate regard, I sincerely dare not to judge anyone… it’s above my pay grade… and thankfully so. I do believe however; it is acceptable to point out that the dreamy words in her speech do not remotely align with her actions on the issue of abortion. At best, this is merely vapid pandering on her part; at worst, it is evil deception. I am in no position to know the intents of her heart and to “judge” which… but I am able to point out that whether by intent or oversight, the end result is equally evil and clearly out of line with the views of the Church she openly embraces and the Word as represented by her Church.

I get the feeling I'm being judged... :idunno: