Muslims in NYC Planning to Build Second Mosque Near Ground Zero (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Pickles]

Are we over this yet?

 

[jamny]

Am I seeing a different video? I see one guy in a hard hat approach him with the older guy and tall guy trying to keep the peace. The "no mosque here" chant doesn't seem directed at him, it's what is going on even before the black guy enters the picture. Everyone else is either press or just standing there. Not a lot of crazy hatred or embarrassing displays imo.

 

[Go DC Yourself]

That video illustrates why I have to call b.s. on folks who claim the whole "sensitivity" excuse or 'it's in poor taste' for opposing the Islamic Cultural center.

If all it takes is a brown guy with a skull cap passing by for the facade to break down and make that crowd start foaming at the mouth, then there's no justifying their position, their motives become all too clear.

It's embarrassing.

It's completely embarrassing...MORE than embarrassing. I believe a lot of the people sincerely believe they are not illustrating ignorant, bigoted behavior when they are holding up signs like "Mosque supports Hamas" (or whatever that one woman's sign in the video said). I just wish that for every hour of HATE that they watch, read or spew, they'd spend even ten minutes learning a bit more about the issue from the other side of the aisle...spectrum...whatever. Listen to the other side for a while (people who don't agree with you), and see if your opinions on any of the issues move. And don't just pretend to listen or spend the whole time building your counter-argument...really l-i-s-t-e-n. TIA.

The hatred and bigotry towards the right demonstrated on this forum is so outrageous. They wish to paint all the opposition with this broad brush based upon the actions of some angry mob or some sign that one person holds. That crap happens at leftist demonstrations too. When leftists act like raging lunatics that is praised by liberals as showing their passion for some issue. How many leftists demonstrations have flag burners in them? So by leftist logic is should be fair to call all leftist anti-American crazies.

Seriously misplaced analogy. The animus towards Muslims is now front and center on the news, because rightwing opinion leaders like Palin and Gingrich have placed it there. I don't recall there being any widespread movement on the left to burn flags. Also, my understanding is that the protesters who set upon that guy were part of the Pam Geller group that has been agitating on this issue for months. This issue didn't bring them out of the woodwork, they concocted this issue because they think this is what America is about.

 

[Woogie Lee]

That video illustrates why I have to call b.s. on folks who claim the whole "sensitivity" excuse or 'it's in poor taste' for opposing the Islamic Cultural center.

If all it takes is a brown guy with a skull cap passing by for the facade to break down and make that crowd start foaming at the mouth, then there's no justifying their position, their motives become all too clear.

It's embarrassing.

It's completely embarrassing...MORE than embarrassing. I believe a lot of the people sincerely believe they are not illustrating ignorant, bigoted behavior when they are holding up signs like "Mosque supports Hamas" (or whatever that one woman's sign in the video said). I just wish that for every hour of HATE that they watch, read or spew, they'd spend even ten minutes learning a bit more about the issue from the other side of the aisle...spectrum...whatever. Listen to the other side for a while (people who don't agree with you), and see if your opinions on any of the issues move. And don't just pretend to listen or spend the whole time building your counter-argument...really l-i-s-t-e-n. TIA.

The hatred and bigotry towards the right demonstrated on this forum is so outrageous.

 

[mad sweeney]

That video illustrates why I have to call b.s. on folks who claim the whole "sensitivity" excuse or 'it's in poor taste' for opposing the Islamic Cultural center.

If all it takes is a brown guy with a skull cap passing by for the facade to break down and make that crowd start foaming at the mouth, then there's no justifying their position, their motives become all too clear.

It's embarrassing.

It's completely embarrassing...MORE than embarrassing. I believe a lot of the people sincerely believe they are not illustrating ignorant, bigoted behavior when they are holding up signs like "Mosque supports Hamas" (or whatever that one woman's sign in the video said). I just wish that for every hour of HATE that they watch, read or spew, they'd spend even ten minutes learning a bit more about the issue from the other side of the aisle...spectrum...whatever. Listen to the other side for a while (people who don't agree with you), and see if your opinions on any of the issues move. And don't just pretend to listen or spend the whole time building your counter-argument...really l-i-s-t-e-n. TIA.

The hatred and bigotry towards the right demonstrated on this forum is so outrageous.

It's either Jon_mx with his same old tired Christian/Right oppression, or it's someone Burtoning it up with an alias trying to be like Jon.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

fighting words

A Test of Tolerance

The "Ground Zero mosque" debate is about tolerance—and a whole lot more.

By Christopher Hitchens

Posted Monday, Aug. 23, 2010, at 2:01 PM ET

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two weeks ago, I wrote that the arguments against the construction of the Cordoba Initiative center in lower Manhattan were so stupid and demagogic as to be beneath notice. Things have only gone further south since then, with Newt Gingrich's comparison to a Nazi sign outside the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum or (take your pick from the grab bag of hysteria) a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor. The first of those pseudo-analogies is wrong in every possible way, in that the Holocaust museum already contains one of the most coolly comprehensive guides to the theory and practice of the Nazi regime in existence, including special exhibits on race theory and party ideology and objective studies of the conditions that brought the party to power. As for the second, there has long been a significant Japanese-American population in Hawaii, and I can't see any reason why it should not place a cultural center anywhere on the islands that it chooses.

From the beginning, though, I pointed out that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was no great bargain and that his Cordoba Initiative was full of euphemisms about Islamic jihad and Islamic theocracy. I mentioned his sinister belief that the United States was partially responsible for the assault on the World Trade Center and his refusal to take a position on the racist Hamas dictatorship in Gaza. The more one reads through his statements, the more alarming it gets. For example, here is Rauf's editorial on the upheaval that followed the brutal hijacking of the Iranian elections in 2009. Regarding President Obama, he advised that:

He should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution—to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faquih, that establishes the rule of law.

Coyly untranslated here (perhaps for "outreach" purposes), Vilayet-i-faquih is the special term promulgated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to describe the idea that all of Iranian society is under the permanent stewardship (sometimes rendered as guardianship) of the mullahs. Under this dispensation, "the will of the people" is a meaningless expression, because "the people" are the wards and children of the clergy. It is the justification for a clerical supreme leader, whose rule is impervious to elections and who can pick and choose the candidates and, if it comes to that, the results. It is extremely controversial within Shiite Islam. (Grand Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq, for example, does not endorse it.) As for those numerous Iranians who are not Shiites, it reminds them yet again that they are not considered to be real citizens of the Islamic Republic.

I do not find myself reassured by the fact that Imam Rauf publicly endorses the most extreme and repressive version of Muslim theocracy. The letterhead of the statement, incidentally, describes him as the Cordoba Initiative's "Founder and Visionary." Why does that not delight me, either?

Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance. It would be nice if this were true. But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject was that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything "offensive" to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter …

As for the gorgeous mosaic of religious pluralism, it's easy enough to find mosque Web sites and DVDs that peddle the most disgusting attacks on Jews, Hindus, Christians, unbelievers, and other Muslims—to say nothing of insane diatribes about women and homosexuals. This is why the fake term Islamophobia is so dangerous: It insinuates that any reservations about Islam must ipso facto be "phobic." A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. Islamic preaching very often manifests precisely this feature, which is why suspicion of it is by no means irrational.

From my window, I can see the beautiful minaret of the Washington, D.C., mosque on Massachusetts Avenue. It is situated at the heart of the capital city's diplomatic quarter, and it is where President Bush went immediately after 9/11 to make his gesture toward the "religion of peace." A short while ago, the wife of a new ambassador told me that she had been taking her dog for a walk when a bearded man accosted her and brusquely warned her not to take the animal so close to the sacred precincts. Muslim cabdrivers in other American cities have already refused to take passengers with "unclean" canines.

Another feature of my local mosque that I don't entirely like is the display of flags outside, purportedly showing all those nations that are already Muslim. Some of these flags are of countries like Malaysia, where Islam barely has a majority, or of Turkey, which still has a secular constitution. At the United Nations, the voting bloc of the Organization of the Islamic Conference nations is already proposing a resolution that would circumscribe any criticism of religion in general and of Islam in particular. So, before he is used by our State Department on any more goodwill missions overseas, I would like to see Imam Rauf asked a few searching questions about his support for clerical dictatorship in, just for now, Iran. Let us by all means make the "Ground Zero" debate a test of tolerance. But this will be a one-way street unless it is to be a test of Muslim tolerance as well.

Like Slate on Facebook. Follow Slate and the Slate Foreign Desk on Twitter.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the Roger S. Mertz media fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2264770/

 

[Jewell]

Good fair & balanced article, Ivan.

Let me drop another...

Are Hijackers Extremists Proper Muslims or Contenders in a Civil War?

Prof. Barry Rubin - 1/27/2010

LINK: Global Politician

One of the most controversial issues today is the relationship of the political doctrine of Islamism (including revolutionary activity and terrorism) and the religion of Islam.

Given the desire of too many people to distort this discussion with slogans, insults, and name-calling, it is a very dangerous one. Yet the importance of the issue requires it be analyzed.

Let’s begin by defining three positions. The dominant, establishment view in the West is that Islam is a religion of peace and has nothing to do with violence, hatred of non-Muslims, mistreatment of women, terrorism, or ambition for political power. Anything bad is said to be a distortion of Islam’s “real” message. As a result, the image offered is one of extremists--who are in effect heretics--trying to “hijack” Islam.

A second view is that Islam is an innately extremist hate-filled religion and that this cannot change because such materials are built into the sacred texts.

This is what those in the first group like to call “Islamophobic.” That is, by the way, a badly chosen term since it implies these people are afraid of Islam, a fear that may be attributed to xenophobic bigotry but in reality comes largely from the violent activities and extremist statements made by (some, many) Muslims. The choice of the phrase reveals its weakness and even dishonesty. A more accurate word for unreasoning haters would be “anti-Islamic.”

One weakness of this second position is to freeze Islam into a single stance, whereas it is easy to show that historically there have been many different ways Islam has functioned regarding the state and society. The "religion of peace" advocates believe they can merely find one era when Islam has been tolerant, and this not only proves the "Islamophobes" wrong but somehow--illogically--shows that Islam is always tolerant and moderate.

But there is a third standpoint, which the “religion of peace” advocates often like to slander by putting it into the “Islamophobic” category for daring to say anything critical at all. This is to say that Islam, like all religions, must be interpreted by its adherents, and they never all agree on how to do so. Even if the texts remain the same--as in Christianity and Judaism--the way they are implemented does not always have to stay frozen.

All the things radical Islamists claim can be found in the basic Islamic texts. They are not mere lying, isolated, heretics, but a legitimate competing group within Islam.

This third group, let's call it the realistic school, argues that it is an urgent task to deal honestly with this reality, reject pretending that everything is just fine, and to urge or demand that non-radical Muslims wage the war of interpretation against the radicals.

Yet they are also in political conflict with what had been, up until recently, mainstream Islam in terms of practice, which I call conservative, traditional Islam. In every country, most of the ulama overwhelmingly support the existing regime--and are well-paid for doing so, too. But an Islamist triumph is against their own self-interest as well since the revolutionaries view them as traitors.

Similarly, most rank-and-file Muslims also do not support the Islamists who want to transform their own country, though a large number will cheer them on to kill non-Muslims. That is why, of course, it is so tempting for Islamists to focus their attacks on Israelis and Westerners. Otherwise, their victims will be conservative traditionalist Muslims who represent the majority populations in their own countries.

That is why, according to this third standpoint, the best way of describing the relationship is that of rivals fighting over control of the steering wheel rather than a hijacking by a group of Islamists who are mere criminal interlopers. Daniel Pipes has described this situation in his own words as radical Islam being the problem and moderate Islam being the solution.

While respecting his formulation, I’d use my own phrasing: There are three contestants: The powerful Islamist political movement; the strong but perhaps weakening conservative traditional Islam (which is being influenced by Islamism, too); and the very weak reformist Islam. Islamism is the worst of those alternatives. I would say: Radical Islam in the form of Islamism is the problem; moderate Islam is the best solution; but even conservative traditional Islam is preferable to Islamism and is far more likely to win--like it or not--than some grand project for reforming Islam that would take decades if not centuries.

This is by no means to idealize mainstream conservative traditional Islam, which is in many respects retrograde and sabotages economic and social progress. Yet it would have been far more permissive--in reality if not in theory--of change. Obviously, of course, conservative traditional Islam in Saudi Arabia is far more extreme than in a country like Egypt or Tunisia. And the spread of the Saudi version, undermining more tolerant Islam as far afield as Indonesia, is also part of the modern Islamist problem. As one Saudi put it, what big Usama says is in large part what little Usama learned in (Saudi) school.

Two more brief remarks about why the problem is far more one of political Islamism than it is of the religion of Islam as such.

Let us assume that the immigration of Muslims to the West was happening 50 or even years ago. This was in a period before Islamism took hold. And so whatever problems did take place--many of them cultural, too--there would be no huge problem as there is today with a powerful Islamist interpretation often dominating the field and controlling organizations and often mosques and schools. There would be no terrorism issue. While many Muslims would want to keep apart and reject Western ways, they would do so quietly and peacefully. While women who became Westernized and anyone wanting to convert to another religion would face some harassment, they would not face a high likelihood of being murdered. The younger generations would become more, not less, comfortable and accommodating with Western society.

(Of course, back then, Western societies would also have unapologetically advocated assimilation or acculturation, which would also have reduced the problem.)

Finally, my view is that all the material for extremism is present in Islam but it requires a specific interpretation to focus on all the most radical parts of the texts rather than ignore them. In short, there is certainly a parallel to Medieval Christianity, for example. But the problem for the apologists is that Islamism represents an interpretation of Islam in 2010 that was last seen in Christianity (with a few exceptions) 500 years ago. Thus, the religions may be parallel in principle but not in actual practice.

For example, the great debate from the mid-1500s onward in Europe, though it took about 300 years to resolve, was between those who said that the king's power derived from the people and was limited, and those who said that the king's power came from God and was unlimited. In the Arabic-speaking world (along with Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran) the debate that began in the late twentieth century was between those who said that the dictator's power came from God (or from the Nation with a capital "N," which amounts to the same thing) and was unlimited against those who said that Islamic law should have supreme power to which all people must yield.

That's a heck of a lot of historical gap. The debate over real democracy hasn't even begun yet.

To say that all religions contain extremist ideas and thus are the same might be true in response to the “Islamophobic” argument that nothing ever changes. But it has nothing useful to say for an era in which millions of Muslims hold views equivalent to those of Christians at the time of the Crusades while Christians have become overwhelmingly of the “turn the other cheek” variety when it comes to relations between their own religion and others or society in general.

Are Muslims the main victims of radical Islamism or, if you wish, radical Islam? The answer is absolutely yes. Yet if that’s true then what we are dealing with here is a civil war within Islam in which Muslims have chosen different sides, neither a hijacking nor the “inevitable interpretation” of Islam. After all, if the Islamists were impersonators, they would have no support, and if they were unquestionably the correct form of Muslim, they would have all Muslims’ support.

Pretending that those who rule Iran and the Gaza Strip, who are the most powerful force in Lebanon, who are the main opposition movement in every Arabic-speaking country, and who are engaged in revolutionary movements from Morocco to Indonesia aren’t “real” Muslims is not going to help anybody.

The key here is political, not theological. Not all Muslims are good; not all Muslims are bad; not all Muslims are “moderate”; not all Muslims are “radical.” The same tools of historical study and political analysis should be used on the issue of Islam and Islamism as on all other questions.

The bottom line is that even the most controversial issues should be approached in the most balanced, rational, and calm way.

 

[BobbyLayne]

When the video starts the folks on the right are pointing with each syllable.NO! MOSQUE! HERE!

What are they pointing at? The black man coming from the left wearing a skull cap.

When he stops walking and turns around to talk to the older man, they stop chanting. You can here him:

"What the eff? I got an opinion about this, but you people don't know, you haven't asked me, I'm not even a Muslim."

Blue hard hat guy comes from the left and confronts him; when he gets in his face, the crowd starts up again:

NO! MOSQUE! HERE!



There's nothing to even interpret; that is simply hatred and racism personified, and only blind man could not see it.

The video continues as he walks away and blue hard hat follows:

Run away coward! Mohamed is a pig!

etc etc

 

[KarmaPolice]

I think the entire focus of people is very skewed on this issue. There is no fundamental problem with Islam. However, the religion has recently been hi-jacked by radical conservatives (not a shot at American conservatives, conservative/liberal have very different meanings in different places) for political gain. Instead of being suspect with Islam, we should see that the real issue is radicalism. Whether far right like the NAZI party of Taliban or far left Communists in Russia, radicals are the ones who are a threat to America. The more American backlash to Islam, the more we push the liberal and moderate Muslims towards the conservative power base. I think it is very important that America shows a great deal of tolerance towards peaceful, law-abiding Muslim citizens. By saying that an Arab Cultural Center/Mosque being built 2.5 blocks from Ground Zero is offensive or insensitive, implies that entirety of Islam is somehow responsible for or should hold some guilt over 9/11.

Since they are hiding the source of their funding and actually even lying about it, how do we know it is moderates behind it? The very provocative nature of this project at this particular location, the logical conclusion would be it is the more radical fractions of Islam who is donating to this cause. I would hope the moderate mulsims would be open to discussing alternative locations. So far this group has refused every efforts to have any discussion on alternatives. That does not sound moderate at all to me.

Maybe because they feel they shouldn't have to prove where the funding is coming from even if asked. I actually don't know - do you have to make public where money comes from for building projects? If I wanted to put up a store and got outside help, would I have to list where all the money came from in a proposal or anything?

 

[jamny]

I see people chanting and maybe one or two pointing. Hard hat guy is the one that says coward and is the one being confrontational. If you watch it through :17 it just looks like the black guy is walking through the crowd except for some people with cameras. When the chanting starts up again, you can hear a woman start it off to the left, sounds like in the distance. It's before the hard hat approaches the black guy and I wouldn't say 100% because of that confrontation. It could be totally unrelated and just a continuation of a chant they probably were doing all day.

Look at all the people. Point out who, besides hart hat, is being confrontational. People are looking too much into this. To call this an embarrassing frothing at the mouth mob is wrong.

 

[Gigantomachia]

The number is the most significant thing to you? Not how their actions mirror those of other cults? Their methods? I don't care about the muslims in places where they're still trading their daughters for goats. In the US they represent approximately 0.8% of the population which is Scientology territory. Also, look at the actions of their religious leader. Does he seem more like Manson and Koresh or Jesus? Think about it.

holy crap, seriously? even you cant be that naive.

it's all shtick until someone calls him out. then, and only then, is he just "joking around."

Seems like I've been called out plenty in this thread and held my own.Sorry I'm not one of these PC cats that just rolls over when the word "muslim" is mentioned.If you want to debate a particluar stance of mine, I'm ready. Go toe to toe with me on the merits of Muhammad vs. Jesus. I dare you.

 

[Statorama]

Eh, we've all kind of made our points. Think I'm going to turn my outrage to people that don't like deep fried corn on the cob.

 

[datonn]

Seems like I've been called out plenty in this thread and held my own.

Sorry I'm not one of these PC cats that just rolls over when the word "muslim" is mentioned.

If you want to debate a particluar stance of mine, I'm ready. Go toe to toe with me on the merits of Muhammad vs. Jesus. I dare you.

Separation of church and state in the United States"The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from various documents of several of the Founders of the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The modern concept is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was intended, as The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted it, to mean that religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of both, including the idea that the government must not impose religion on Americans nor create any law requiring it. It has since been in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court,[1] though the Court has not always fully embraced the principle."

The reason I posted that (above) is because this issue is not about "Muhammad vs. Jesus." Personally? I think Catholicism is Christianity with shackles and hundreds of non-Biblical rules and regs designed to have the Church/Pope take the place of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit for political and financial gain. Islam? Misguided, at the very least. Jehovah's Witnesses? Ten-times the "cult" that you seem to want to call Islam. Scientology? See: Jehovah's Witnesses.

This issue is not ultimately about the merits of Islam vs. Christianity. This issue is about the First Amendment and the government's role as it relates to religion...which is basically to stay the heck out of the way, as long as said group is complying with all the laws of the land. This proposed development, by all accounts, seems to be complying with "the laws of the land," so anything short of allowing it to be built, particularly the injection of one religion and its particular set of beliefs and values over another, is an embarrassment to our nation.

I'm not choosing Islam. I'm choosing the First Amendment...just like so many people on the Right are FIERCELY loyal to the Second Amendment...no matter how many thousands are killed annually because of it. [/op ed]

 

[Statorama]

Well, yeah, I think we're all on the RIGHT to free religious expression. I also belive in the RIGHT of people to peacefully protest it.

I'm certainly not arguing that they CAN'T build it there, nor would I want them to create a law that it CAN'T be built there. It's a slippery slope I'd rather not risk.

 

[jamny]

If nothing else, Imam Rauf has boosted his worldwide recognition. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the plan all along.

 

[Statorama]

If nothing else, Imam Rauf has boosted his worldwide recognition.

If he's been misquoted or taken out of context like he claims on several of his more radical viewpoints, this could be a good thing.

 

[the moops]

Since they are hiding the source of their funding and actually even lying about it, how do we know it is moderates behind it?

Why are we entitled to know where the funding comes from? Do you ask the same of all other construction projects in the lower Manhattan area?Let me answer that for you. Of course you don't. You are scared of muslims and think that any project must be one funded by radicals.

 

[datonn]

Since they are hiding the source of their funding and actually even lying about it, how do we know it is moderates behind it?

Why are we entitled to know where the funding comes from? Do you ask the same of all other construction projects in the lower Manhattan area?Let me answer that for you. Of course you don't. You are scared of muslims and think that any project must be one funded by radicals.

Didn't The Daily Show cover where at least a portion of this "mysterious terror-money" is coming from last night? http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-augu...nt-company-trap

 

[oneohh]

Since they are hiding the source of their funding and actually even lying about it, how do we know it is moderates behind it?

Why are we entitled to know where the funding comes from? Do you ask the same of all other construction projects in the lower Manhattan area?Let me answer that for you. Of course you don't. You are scared of muslims and think that any project must be one funded by radicals.

So you're saying there are no grounds whatsoever to investigate the funding of this project?

 

[Jewell]

Since they are hiding the source of their funding and actually even lying about it, how do we know it is moderates behind it?

Why are we entitled to know where the funding comes from? Do you ask the same of all other construction projects in the lower Manhattan area?Let me answer that for you. Of course you don't. You are scared of muslims and think that any project must be one funded by radicals.

Go back and read the Hitchens article that Ivan posted regarding Rauf. A reasonable, unbigoted person could have reservations about Rauf (who's instrumental in procuring the project's funds) without having reservations about all Muslims.

 

[Ilov80s]

Since they are hiding the source of their funding and actually even lying about it, how do we know it is moderates behind it?

Why are we entitled to know where the funding comes from? Do you ask the same of all other construction projects in the lower Manhattan area?Let me answer that for you. Of course you don't. You are scared of muslims and think that any project must be one funded by radicals.

Didn't The Daily Show cover where at least a portion of this "mysterious terror-money" is coming from last night? http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-augu...nt-company-trap :IBTL:

Fox News Funds Ground Zero Mosque?

 

[badmojo1006]

Since they are hiding the source of their funding and actually even lying about it, how do we know it is moderates behind it?

Why are we entitled to know where the funding comes from? Do you ask the same of all other construction projects in the lower Manhattan area?Let me answer that for you. Of course you don't. You are scared of muslims and think that any project must be one funded by radicals.

Didn't The Daily Show cover where at least a portion of this "mysterious terror-money" is coming from last night? http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-augu...nt-company-trap

Fox News Funds Ground Zero Mosque?

I really want to see the people opposed to the Cultural Center explain this

 

[mad sweeney]

Since they are hiding the source of their funding and actually even lying about it, how do we know it is moderates behind it?

Why are we entitled to know where the funding comes from? Do you ask the same of all other construction projects in the lower Manhattan area?Let me answer that for you. Of course you don't. You are scared of muslims and think that any project must be one funded by radicals.

So you're saying there are no grounds whatsoever to investigate the funding of this project?

How many buildings in NY do you figure are funded with mob money? Where are the demonstrations against that?

 

[Christo]

Since they are hiding the source of their funding and actually even lying about it, how do we know it is moderates behind it?

Why are we entitled to know where the funding comes from? Do you ask the same of all other construction projects in the lower Manhattan area?Let me answer that for you. Of course you don't. You are scared of muslims and think that any project must be one funded by radicals.

So you're saying there are no grounds whatsoever to investigate the funding of this project?

Are you aware of any "grounds" which would warrant an investigation?

 

[Radio Free Homer]

Since they are hiding the source of their funding and actually even lying about it, how do we know it is moderates behind it?

Why are we entitled to know where the funding comes from? Do you ask the same of all other construction projects in the lower Manhattan area?Let me answer that for you. Of course you don't. You are scared of muslims and think that any project must be one funded by radicals.

So you're saying there are no grounds whatsoever to investigate the funding of this project?

Are you aware of any "grounds" which would warrant an investigation?

They're Muslims!

 

[Statorama]

Since they are hiding the source of their funding and actually even lying about it, how do we know it is moderates behind it?

Why are we entitled to know where the funding comes from? Do you ask the same of all other construction projects in the lower Manhattan area?Let me answer that for you. Of course you don't. You are scared of muslims and think that any project must be one funded by radicals.

So you're saying there are no grounds whatsoever to investigate the funding of this project?

Are you aware of any "grounds" which would warrant an investigation?

"Grounds" Zero perhaps?????? BUMMMM BUMMMM BUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

 

[ScottyFargo]

So you're saying there are no grounds whatsoever to investigate the funding of this project?

Are you aware of any "grounds" which would warrant an investigation?

"Grounds" Zero perhaps?????? BUMMMM BUMMMM BUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

That's good.

 

[Phurfur]

Since they are hiding the source of their funding and actually even lying about it, how do we know it is moderates behind it?

Why are we entitled to know where the funding comes from? Do you ask the same of all other construction projects in the lower Manhattan area?Let me answer that for you. Of course you don't. You are scared of muslims and think that any project must be one funded by radicals.

So you're saying there are no grounds whatsoever to investigate the funding of this project?

No, I would investigate the friends and family of the 911 victims; they must have some ulterior motive.

 

[Phurfur]

Since they are hiding the source of their funding and actually even lying about it, how do we know it is moderates behind it?

Why are we entitled to know where the funding comes from? Do you ask the same of all other construction projects in the lower Manhattan area?Let me answer that for you. Of course you don't. You are scared of muslims and think that any project must be one funded by radicals.

So you're saying there are no grounds whatsoever to investigate the funding of this project?

How many buildings in NY do you figure are funded with mob money? Where are the demonstrations against that?

You still don't get it do you.

 

[the moops]

Since they are hiding the source of their funding and actually even lying about it, how do we know it is moderates behind it?

Why are we entitled to know where the funding comes from? Do you ask the same of all other construction projects in the lower Manhattan area?Let me answer that for you. Of course you don't. You are scared of muslims and think that any project must be one funded by radicals.

So you're saying there are no grounds whatsoever to investigate the funding of this project?

How many buildings in NY do you figure are funded with mob money? Where are the demonstrations against that?

You still don't get it do you.

Did you watch the Daily Show clip?

 

[Christo]

Since they are hiding the source of their funding and actually even lying about it, how do we know it is moderates behind it?

Why are we entitled to know where the funding comes from? Do you ask the same of all other construction projects in the lower Manhattan area?Let me answer that for you. Of course you don't. You are scared of muslims and think that any project must be one funded by radicals.

So you're saying there are no grounds whatsoever to investigate the funding of this project?

Are you aware of any "grounds" which would warrant an investigation?

"Grounds" Zero perhaps?????? BUMMMM BUMMMM BUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Are you going to apply this reasoning to any construction near there? After all, Radical Muslim money could be being used to fund a front for anything from a bank to a McDonald's.

 

[John555]

Since they are hiding the source of their funding and actually even lying about it, how do we know it is moderates behind it?

Why are we entitled to know where the funding comes from? Do you ask the same of all other construction projects in the lower Manhattan area?Let me answer that for you. Of course you don't. You are scared of muslims and think that any project must be one funded by radicals.

So you're saying there are no grounds whatsoever to investigate the funding of this project?

No, I would investigate the friends and family of the 911 victims; they must have some ulterior motive.

Those damn victims who lost loved ones, obviously just bigots.

 

[Parrothead]

Eh, we've all kind of made our points. Think I'm going to turn my outrage to people that don't like deep fried corn on the cob.

sweet jesus/muhammed/buddah/satan/Gary Coleman what did you say? DEEP FRIED CORN ON THE COB????!!!!

oh my

 

[KarmaPolice]

Since they are hiding the source of their funding and actually even lying about it, how do we know it is moderates behind it?

Why are we entitled to know where the funding comes from? Do you ask the same of all other construction projects in the lower Manhattan area?Let me answer that for you. Of course you don't. You are scared of muslims and think that any project must be one funded by radicals.

So you're saying there are no grounds whatsoever to investigate the funding of this project?

No, I would investigate the friends and family of the 911 victims; they must have some ulterior motive.

Those damn victims who lost loved ones, obviously just bigots.

Granted they have a right to me angry and hurt. People took family members from them. But if they are lumping all Muslims together and think that this will be a breeding ground for terrorists, yes they are being bigots. Let's say that my son gets run over by a black man. Does that give me license to start being scared of/hate all black people after that?

 

[badmojo1006]

Rancor Over Mosque Could Fuel Islamic Extremists

Per these experts, the furor over the Cultural Center is given exactly want the extremists want

 

[timschochet]

Rancor Over Mosque Could Fuel Islamic Extremists

Per these experts, the furor over the Cultural Center is given exactly want the extremists want

I've been saying this for several days now. It's nice to see that somebody else gets it.

 

[ceo3west]

Rancor Over Mosque Could Fuel Islamic Extremists

Per these experts, the furor over the Cultural Center is given exactly want the extremists want

I've been saying this for several days now. It's nice to see that somebody else gets it.

You can't stop the radical right, you can only hope to contain them

 

[jamny]

Rancor Over Mosque Could Fuel Islamic Extremists

Per these experts, the furor over the Cultural Center is given exactly want the extremists want

I've been saying this for several days now. It's nice to see that somebody else gets it.

And many other people thought from the very beginning that they could have just moved to a different location before this got all blown out of proportion like it is now. It would have been a simple act of consideration and understanding but now lines have been drawn, the POTUS is involved and who knows how to end this.

 

[John555]

Rancor Over Mosque Could Fuel Islamic Extremists

Per these experts, the furor over the Cultural Center is given exactly want the extremists want

Real Americans don't take getting pooped on very well. The anger is only going to get worse. These moderate Muslims really know how to build bridges between their religion and the west. Oh yeah, don't forget the head moderate just accused the US of killing 500,000 Iraqi children. Pathetic how clueless their front man is.

 

[Jewell]

You can't stop the radical right, you can only hope to contain them

You can't stop radical Muslims, you can only hope to appease them

 

[John555]

And many other people thought from the very beginning that they could have just moved to a different location before this got all blown out of proportion like it is now. It would have been a simple act of consideration and understanding but now lines have been drawn, the POTUS is involved and who knows how to end this.

It was about location from Day One. Cardoba was a nothing group until it came up with this great idea to bput this building next to ground zero, then the radical Islam money started to roll in. If this building would have been proposed one mile from ground zero, it would never had much support.

 

[jonessed]

Since they are hiding the source of their funding and actually even lying about it, how do we know it is moderates behind it?

Why are we entitled to know where the funding comes from? Do you ask the same of all other construction projects in the lower Manhattan area?Let me answer that for you. Of course you don't. You are scared of muslims and think that any project must be one funded by radicals.

According to the law it has to be. Any large sum of money moved in the US is scrutinized by the government using the banks as intermediaries. The guidelines/technology to monitor money laundering and international money movements were seriously upgraded after 9/11. The government and the banks work in conjunction on this.There is a 100% chance the money funding this will be looked at.

 

[John555]

[Real Americans

Just stop.

You don't get how real Americans feel.

 

[badmojo1006]

[Real Americans

Just stop.

You don't get how real Americans feel.

I don't feel the way you do. I was born 51 years ago in America. I am a real American. Don't pretend to speak for me

 

[John555]

Since they are hiding the source of their funding and actually even lying about it, how do we know it is moderates behind it?

Why are we entitled to know where the funding comes from? Do you ask the same of all other construction projects in the lower Manhattan area?Let me answer that for you. Of course you don't. You are scared of muslims and think that any project must be one funded by radicals.

According to the law it has to be. Any large sum of money moved in the US is scrutinized by the government using the banks as intermediaries. The guidelines/technology to monitor money laundering and international money movements were seriously upgraded after 9/11. The government and the banks work in conjunction on this.There is a 100% chance the money funding this will be looked at.

From the Obama Justice Department??? I put it at 1% chance of scrutinizing, 99% chance of looking away and providing cover.

 

[jamny]

And many other people thought from the very beginning that they could have just moved to a different location before this got all blown out of proportion like it is now. It would have been a simple act of consideration and understanding but now lines have been drawn, the POTUS is involved and who knows how to end this.

It was about location from Day One. Cardoba was a nothing group until it came up with this great idea to bput this building next to ground zero, then the radical Islam money started to roll in. If this building would have been proposed one mile from ground zero, it would never had much support.

yeah, that's why I said earlier about the Imam doing good things for his global reputation with this mosque. He was told early on that the location might cause problems and went ahead with it anyway.

 

[jonessed]

Seems like I've been called out plenty in this thread and held my own.

Sorry I'm not one of these PC cats that just rolls over when the word "muslim" is mentioned.

If you want to debate a particluar stance of mine, I'm ready. Go toe to toe with me on the merits of Muhammad vs. Jesus. I dare you.

Separation of church and state in the United States"The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from various documents of several of the Founders of the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The modern concept is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was intended, as The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted it, to mean that religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of both, including the idea that the government must not impose religion on Americans nor create any law requiring it. It has since been in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court,[1] though the Court has not always fully embraced the principle."

The reason I posted that (above) is because this issue is not about "Muhammad vs. Jesus." Personally? I think Catholicism is Christianity with shackles and hundreds of non-Biblical rules and regs designed to have the Church/Pope take the place of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit for political and financial gain. Islam? Misguided, at the very least. Jehovah's Witnesses? Ten-times the "cult" that you seem to want to call Islam. Scientology? See: Jehovah's Witnesses.

This issue is not ultimately about the merits of Islam vs. Christianity. This issue is about the First Amendment and the government's role as it relates to religion...which is basically to stay the heck out of the way, as long as said group is complying with all the laws of the land. This proposed development, by all accounts, seems to be complying with "the laws of the land," so anything short of allowing it to be built, particularly the injection of one religion and its particular set of beliefs and values over another, is an embarrassment to our nation.

I'm not choosing Islam. I'm choosing the First Amendment...just like so many people on the Right are FIERCELY loyal to the Second Amendment...no matter how many thousands are killed annually because of it. [/op ed]

Most people aren't arguing they can't do it, just that they shouldn't. The people supporting the building have every right to try and get it constructed and those not supporting it have every right to make that as hard as possible.

 

[timschochet]

Real Americans don't take getting pooped on very well.

Can you define what you mean by this term?

 

[John555]

[Real Americans

Just stop.

You don't get how real Americans feel.

I don't feel the way you do. I was born 51 years ago in America. I am a real American. Don't pretend to speak for me

Turn about is fair play. If you guys are going to group the opposition as a bunch of hate-mongering bigots, I will do the same and call you anti-American. I am sick of your double-standard games ythe leftist like to play. It is only OK to paint with a broad brush when they do it. You guys really don't like to play on a level playing field.

 

[jonessed]

Since they are hiding the source of their funding and actually even lying about it, how do we know it is moderates behind it?

Why are we entitled to know where the funding comes from? Do you ask the same of all other construction projects in the lower Manhattan area?Let me answer that for you. Of course you don't. You are scared of muslims and think that any project must be one funded by radicals.

According to the law it has to be. Any large sum of money moved in the US is scrutinized by the government using the banks as intermediaries. The guidelines/technology to monitor money laundering and international money movements were seriously upgraded after 9/11. The government and the banks work in conjunction on this.There is a 100% chance the money funding this will be looked at.

From the Obama Justice Department??? I put it at 1% chance of scrutinizing, 99% chance of looking away and providing cover.

The normal channels don't go through the justice department. If Obama wanted to stop the oversight he would have to go out of his way to muck things up. I couldn't imagine the fallout of him getting caught allowing terrorist funded organizations to put money into the center. It would completely overtake his presidency.