Plan for Mosque near Ground Zero

[J70]

Obama seems willing to try and placate characters such as Palin, but he might be better off saying "Alright then – nothing Islamic near Ground Zero, but that principle applies to everything. So every Catholic Church within two blocks of a school is being shut down, as it would be grossly insensitive to allow an institution with such a record of child abuse to worship near its victims.

So you and J are obviously singing from the same liberal hymn book I see.... It was idiotic when he pedaled it (admittedly)
and hasn't improved much with your delivery of it

Maybe you should read what I said again... I said that while I personally think it is idiotic, it is no more idiotic than objecting to the building of this mosque because of 9/11 (and so has everyone else who has made the same bleeding obvious point). But, once again, if I'm mistaken and these people are in some way guilty with regards to that atrocity, then please explain how.

That's what I said...Dixey is every bit the eejit that you are for quoting that same hymn book, I'm not arguing with you

I guess its safe to say that you don't think the mosque should be opposed on 9/11 or terrorism grounds then. If not, then why?

[Tyrones own]

I guess its safe to say that you don't think the mosque should be opposed on 9/11 or terrorism grounds then. If not, then why?

No, I am opposed to it but the reason being is that if the people behind the locating and building of this thing were actually serious about
building bridges and mending relations this sure as hell was not the way to go about it.
It was a divisive, contentious decision, completely unnecessary in my view and it has absolutely nothing at all to do with
and goes well beyond the first Amendment rights IMHO.

[Carmen Stateside]

Do you actually think they picked this site on purpose?

[Midman]

Charlie Brooker in the Guardian puts it way better than I ever could ;-)

Millions of Americans are furious about the 'Ground Zero mosque'. But it doesn't exist

Things seem awfully heated in America right now; so heated you could probably toast a marshmallow by jabbing it on a stick and holding it toward the Atlantic. Millions are hopping mad over the news that a bunch of triumphalist Muslim extremists are about to build a "victory mosque" slap bang in the middle of Ground Zero.
The planned "ultra-mosque" will be a staggering 5,600ft tall – more than five times higher than the tallest building on Earth – and will be capped with an immense dome of highly-polished solid gold, carefully positioned to bounce sunlight directly toward the pavement, where it will blind pedestrians and fry small dogs. The main structure will be delimited by 600 minarets, each shaped like an upraised middle finger, and housing a powerful amplifier: when synchronised, their combined sonic might will be capable of relaying the muezzin's call to prayer at such deafening volume, it will be clearly audible in the Afghan mountains, where thousands of terrorists are poised to celebrate by running around with scarves over their faces, firing AK-47s into the sky and yelling whatever the foreign word for "victory" is.
I'm exaggerating. But I'm only exaggerating a tad more than some of the professional exaggerators who initially raised objections to the "Ground Zero mosque". They keep calling it the "Ground Zero mosque", incidentally, because it's a catchy title that paints a powerful image – specifically, the image of a mosque at Ground Zero.
When I heard about it – in passing, in a soundbite – I figured it was a US example of the sort of inanely confrontational fantasy scheme Anjem Choudary might issue a press release about if he fancied winding up the tabloids for the 900th time this year. I was wrong. The "Ground Zero mosque" is a genuine proposal, but it's slightly less provocative than its critics' nickname makes it sound. For one thing, it's not at Ground Zero. Also, it isn't a mosque.
Wait, it gets duller. It's not being built by extremists either. Cordoba House, as it's known, is a proposed Islamic cultural centre, which, in addition to a prayer room, will include a basketball court, restaurant, and swimming pool. Its aim is to improve inter-faith relations. It'll probably also have comfy chairs and people who smile at you when you walk in, the monsters.
To get to the Cordoba Centre from Ground Zero, you'd have to walk in the opposite direction for two blocks, before turning a corner and walking a bit more. The journey should take roughly two minutes, or possibly slightly longer if you're heading an angry mob who can't hear your directions over the sound of their own enraged bellowing.
Perhaps spatial reality functions differently on the other side of the Atlantic, but here in London, something that is "two minutes' walk and round a corner" from something else isn't actually "in" the same place at all. I once had a poo in a pub about two minutes' walk from Buckingham Palace. I was not subsequently arrested and charged with crapping directly onto the Queen's pillow. That's how "distance" works in Britain. It's also how distance works in America, of course, but some people are currently pretending it doesn't, for daft political ends.
New York being a densely populated city, there are lots of other buildings and businesses within two blocks of Ground Zero, including a McDonald's and a Burger King, neither of which has yet been accused of serving milkshakes and fries on hallowed ground. Regardless, for the opponents of Cordoba House, two blocks is too close, period. Frustratingly, they haven't produced a map pinpointing precisely how close is OK.
That's literally all I'd ask them in an interview. I'd stand there pointing at a map of the city. Would it be offensive here? What about here? Or how about way over there? And when they finally picked a suitable spot, I'd ask them to draw it on the map, sketching out roughly how big it should be, and how many windows it's allowed to have. Then I'd hand them a colour swatch and ask them to decide on a colour for the lobby carpet. And the conversation would continue in this vein until everyone in the room was in tears. Myself included.
That hasn't happened. Instead, 70% of Americans are opposed to the "Ground Zero mosque", doubtless in many cases because they've been led to believe it literally is a mosque at Ground Zero. And if not . . . well, it must be something significant. Otherwise why would all these pundits be so angry about it? And why would anyone in the media listen to them with a straight face?
According to a recent poll, one in five Americans believes Barack Obama is a Muslim, even though he isn't. A quarter of those who believe he's a Muslim also claimed he talks about his faith too much. Americans aren't dumb. Clearly these particular Americans have either gone insane or been seriously misled. Where are they getting their information?
Sixty per cent said they learned it from the media. Which means it's time for the media to give up.
Seriously, broadcasters, journalists: just give up now. Because either you're making things worse, or no one's paying attention anyway. May as well knock back a few Jagermeisters, unplug the autocue, and just sit there dumbly repeating whichever reality-warping meme the far right wants to go viral this week. What's that? Obama is Gargamel and he's killing all the Smurfs? Sod it. Whatever. Roll titles.

[mylestheslasher]

I guess its safe to say that you don't think the mosque should be opposed on 9/11 or terrorism grounds then. If not, then why?

No, I am opposed to it but the reason being is that if the people behind the locating and building of this thing were actually serious about
building bridges and mending relations this sure as hell was not the way to go about it.
It was a divisive, contentious decision, completely unnecessary in my view and it has absolutely nothing at all to do with
and goes well beyond the first Amendment rights IMHO.

Why would the people building this mosque have to build bridges at all. Are you saying that every Muslim in the world has got to build bridges because muslims from Saudi crashed planes into Manhattan!!! Maybe if you think for a minute you would realise how stupid that is. Do christians in Indonesia have to build bridges with protestants in Ulster for the IRA bombing of Enniskillen, no Indonesian christain church should be allowed to be built within a certain distance of the center of Enniskillen I suppose? Do you just lap up all this bull from Fox and their correspondants or is it possible you think for yourself (Sarah Palin is now on Fox giving her well thought out political opinions on a regular basis, if people thought that station could not go any lower think again). What we are seeing in the US now is a bit like in Germany before WWII but thankfully on a lower level. Republicans and right wing bible bashers are trying to whip up hate to build a support base to get back into power. We saw the same with Paisley so you would think that someone supposedly from Tyrone would have the brains to see what is happening. Are you from Tyrone, TO or are you an Irish American with a distant relation from Ireland?

[give her dixie]

[ardmhachaabu]

TO, it seems to me your idea of abuse is when someone disagrees with you and says so

[Arthur_Friend]

I guess its safe to say that you don't think the mosque should be opposed on 9/11 or terrorism grounds then. If not, then why?

No, I am opposed to it but the reason being is that if the people behind the locating and building of this thing were actually serious about
building bridges and mending relations this sure as hell was not the way to go about it.
It was a divisive, contentious decision, completely unnecessary in my view and it has absolutely nothing at all to do with
and goes well beyond the first Amendment rights IMHO.

Why would the people building this mosque have to build bridges at all. Are you saying that every Muslim in the world has got to build bridges because muslims from Saudi crashed planes into Manhattan!!! Maybe if you think for a minute you would realise how stupid that is. Do christians in Indonesia have to build bridges with protestants in Ulster for the IRA bombing of Enniskillen, no Indonesian christain church should be allowed to be built within a certain distance of the center of Enniskillen I suppose? Do you just lap up all this bull from Fox and their correspondants or is it possible you think for yourself (Sarah Palin is now on Fox giving her well thought out political opinions on a regular basis, if people thought that station could not go any lower think again). What we are seeing in the US now is a bit like in Germany before WWII but thankfully on a lower level. Republicans and right wing bible bashers are trying to whip up hate to build a support base to get back into power. We saw the same with Paisley so you would think that someone supposedly from Tyrone would have the brains to see what is happening. Are you from Tyrone, TO or are you an Irish American with a distant relation from Ireland?

Perfectly put.

[Tyrones own]

I guess its safe to say that you don't think the mosque should be opposed on 9/11 or terrorism grounds then. If not, then why?

No, I am opposed to it but the reason being is that if the people behind the locating and building of this thing were actually serious about
building bridges and mending relations this sure as hell was not the way to go about it.
It was a divisive, contentious decision, completely unnecessary in my view and it has absolutely nothing at all to do with
and goes well beyond the first Amendment rights IMHO.

Why would the people building this mosque have to build bridges at all. Are you saying that every Muslim in the world has got to build bridges because muslims from Saudi crashed planes into Manhattan!!! Maybe if you think for a minute you would realise how stupid that is. Do christians in Indonesia have to build bridges with protestants in Ulster for the IRA bombing of Enniskillen, no Indonesian christain church should be allowed to be built within a certain distance of the center of Enniskillen I suppose? Do you just lap up all this bull from Fox and their correspondants or is it possible you think for yourself (Sarah Palin is now on Fox giving her well thought out political opinions on a regular basis, if people thought that station could not go any lower think again). What we are seeing in the US now is a bit like in Germany before WWII but thankfully on a lower level. Republicans and right wing bible bashers are trying to whip up hate to build a support base to get back into power. We saw the same with Paisley so you would think that someone supposedly from Tyrone would have the brains to see what is happening. Are you from Tyrone, TO or are you an Irish American with a distant relation from Ireland?

Perfectly put.

The answer to that can even be found in Midmans post above;
Its aim is to improve inter-faith relations.
Should I post links to the Imam's very own selling of that very point both here and
his American tax payer funded trip around the Middle East 
This taken directly from his Wiki page;
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (Arabic: فيصل عبد الرؤوف‎, born in 1948, in Kuwait) is an Arab-American Sufi[1] imam, author, and activist whose stated goal is to improve relations between the Muslim world and the West.[/b][2]
So I'll ask again.... was this honestly the best way forward in an attempt to improve relations between Muslims and the West?

[Tyrones own]

Do you actually think they picked this site on purpose?

Hard to say but sure since picking it, they are now fully aware of it's implications

[deiseach]

So I'll ask again.... was this honestly the best way forward in an attempt to improve relations between Muslims and the West?

One could just as easily turn this around. How is it helping relations between Muslims and the West to fight this proposal tooth-and-nail? You have to laugh at the idea that the three thousand-odd who died in the WTC at the hands of a few nutters mean Islam has to build bridges with the West while the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died at the hands of the United States and her allies do not require any atonement

[muppet]

Do you actually think they picked this site on purpose?

Who Tyrone's Own and Stew?

[give her dixie]

Catholics, Muslims, and the Mosque Controversy
John T. McGreevy and R. Scott Appleby



"The American River Ganges," Thomas Nast's 1875 cartoon showing Catholic priests as crocodiles attacking the United States to devour the nation's school children


As historians of American Catholicism, and Catholics, we are concerned to see the revival of a strain of nativism in the current controversy over the establishment of an Islamic center some blocks from Ground Zero in lower Manhattan.

For much of the nineteenth century Catholics in America were the unassimilated, sometimes violent "religious other." Often they did not speak English or attend public schools. Some of their religious women—nuns—wore distinctive clothing. Their religious practices and beliefs—from rosaries to transubstantiation—seemed to many Americans superstitious nonsense.

Most worrisome, Catholics seemed insufficiently grateful for their ability to build churches and worship in a democracy, rights sometimes denied to Protestants and Jews in Catholic countries, notably Italy. In the 1840s and 1850s these anxieties about Catholicism in American society turned violent, including mob attacks on priests and churches as well as the formation of a major political party, the American Party, dedicated to combating Catholic influence. This led to novel claims that the US constitution demanded an absolute separation of church and state—claims that stem not from Thomas Jefferson and George Washington but from nineteenth-century politicians, ministers, and editors worried that adherents of a hierarchical Catholicism might destroy the hard-won achievements of American democracy. In 1875, a decade after accepting General Lee's surrender at Appomattox, President Ulysses S. Grant publicly warned that Catholicism might prove as divisive in American society as the Confederacy.

Like many American Muslims today, many American Catholics squirmed when their foreign-born religious leaders offered belligerent or tone-deaf pronouncements on the modern world. New York's own Bishop John Hughes thundered in 1850 that the Church's mission was to convert "the officers of the navy and the Marines, commander of the Army, the legislatures, the Senate, the Cabinet, the president and all." The Syllabus of Errors, promulgated by Pope Pius IX in 1864 denied that the Church had any duty to reconcile itself with "progress, liberalism, and modern civilization."

But a Catholic president was elected in 1960, and today Catholics hold more seats in Congress than any other religious body. The Vice-President and Speaker of the House are Catholics, as are six of the nine Supreme Court justices.

It took Catholics more than a full century to attain their current level of acceptance and influence, and they made their share of mistakes along the way, occasionally by trying too hard to prove their patriotic bona fides. (Exhibit A: Senator Joseph McCarthy, whose name is now, paradoxically, a synonym for "un-American activities.") But they earned their place, over the course of many decades, by serving (and dying for) their country, and building their own churches, schools and health care systems alongside public counterparts, which they also frequented and supported with their taxes.

Meanwhile, American Catholics helped transform parts of their own church that seemed at odds with the American freedoms they had come to cherish. An American Jesuit, John Courtney Murray, was decisive in shaping Dignitatis Humanae (1965)—the Declaration on Religious Liberty, in which the Second Vatican Council endorsed religious freedom for all people. In this sense, the American acceptance and encouragement of Catholic parishes and schools once seen as threatening, reshaped an international religious institution. The late Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington once commented on how ironic it was that the papacy had become the greatest global champion of religious freedom in the final quarter of the twentieth century.

Historical comparisons are bound to be inexact; but American Muslims, like American Catholics, are now building their own religious and cultural institutions, and they are seeking guidance from a wide variety of religious sources—some few from jihadists, most from accommodationists.

Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam at the center of the New York controversy, is an accommodationist. He claims, correctly, that the vast majority of the nation's Muslims abhor al-Qaeda. Moreover, Rauf seeks to demonstrate that Muslims are no less Americans than are their Christian and Jewish counterparts. They, too, pray for (and were among) the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorists and beg God's forgiveness for atrocities committed in his name.

Is it imprudent for Rauf and his supporters to locate the proposed Islamic center so close to the site of terrible violence against Americans committed in the name of Islam? In fact the fault lies less with Rauf than with a debased effort to whip up partisan fervor around the issue. Must Muslims unequivocally reject all forms of terrorism—especially those Muslims who wish to promote full Muslim participation in American society? Of course. But if the Catholic experience in the United States holds any lesson it is that becoming American also means asserting one's constitutional rights, fully and forcefully, even if that assertion is occasionally taken to be insulting. The genius of the American experiment in religious liberty is precisely this long-term confidence that equal rights for all religious groups builds the loyalty every democratic society needs. Certainly American Catholics learned that lesson long ago.

R. Scott Appleby is the John M. Regan, Jr. Director of the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at Notre Dame. John T. McGreevy is the I.A. O'Shaughnessy Dean of the College of Arts and Letters at the University of Notre Dame

[mylestheslasher]

I guess its safe to say that you don't think the mosque should be opposed on 9/11 or terrorism grounds then. If not, then why?

No, I am opposed to it but the reason being is that if the people behind the locating and building of this thing were actually serious about
building bridges and mending relations this sure as hell was not the way to go about it.
It was a divisive, contentious decision, completely unnecessary in my view and it has absolutely nothing at all to do with
and goes well beyond the first Amendment rights IMHO.

Why would the people building this mosque have to build bridges at all. Are you saying that every Muslim in the world has got to build bridges because muslims from Saudi crashed planes into Manhattan!!! Maybe if you think for a minute you would realise how stupid that is. Do christians in Indonesia have to build bridges with protestants in Ulster for the IRA bombing of Enniskillen, no Indonesian christain church should be allowed to be built within a certain distance of the center of Enniskillen I suppose? Do you just lap up all this bull from Fox and their correspondants or is it possible you think for yourself (Sarah Palin is now on Fox giving her well thought out political opinions on a regular basis, if people thought that station could not go any lower think again). What we are seeing in the US now is a bit like in Germany before WWII but thankfully on a lower level. Republicans and right wing bible bashers are trying to whip up hate to build a support base to get back into power. We saw the same with Paisley so you would think that someone supposedly from Tyrone would have the brains to see what is happening. Are you from Tyrone, TO or are you an Irish American with a distant relation from Ireland?

Perfectly put.

The answer to that can even be found in Midmans post above;
Its aim is to improve inter-faith relations.
Should I post links to the Imam's very own selling of that very point both here and
his American tax payer funded trip around the Middle East 
This taken directly from his Wiki page;
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (Arabic: فيصل عبد الرؤوف‎, born in 1948, in Kuwait) is an Arab-American Sufi[1] imam, author, and activist whose stated goal is to improve relations between the Muslim world and the West.[/b][2]
So I'll ask again.... was this honestly the best way forward in an attempt to improve relations between Muslims and the West?

I'll accept that the cultural centre is meant to be a means of improving relations between muslims and the west. However, by objecting to this building being near "ground zero" you are implying that all muslims have something to apologise for with regards to 911 which is just totally ignorant. What religion was the oklahoma bomber, what army was he a member of? The fences being mended by a islamic cultural center are the fences put up by US foreign policy, US propaganda and mostly the US gutter media headed by Fox.  I note you didn't comment on the parallels i drew between this and Paisley, you think its totally different or did you never even hear of paisley before.

[stew]

lads and lasses (esp Mrsredandblack), this is a discussion forum. So DISCUSS

TO's views are as valid as anyone else's. I disagree with him more often than not but he reasons and shows his facts, and I for one respect that. And he's not the one starting the he said she said...

Mrs red and whack and her clampett hubby are the same clowns that protested the norn iron team when they played in Chicago, they are screaming liberals that suddenly got conservative after an Irish team showed up to train at a GAA club in the city at, by the way, the invitation of the local GAA club.

TO might be a conservative but ffs, some eejits on here do nothing but lazily throw fox out there, Oreilly out there and Hannity etc out there as if that is the only place the man gets his opinions from.

Screaming liberals and ultra right conservatives make me sick to my stomach so I doubt very much those two down hewers would make my Christmas card list.