The "ground zero mosque"

I cannot believe the backlash about the Islamic community center two blocks from ground zero. I find it completely ludicrous that anyone would oppose religious freedom in favor of "sensitivity."

I think Obama made a huge mistake in commenting on it. He is the President, not a zoning commissioner. And the stupid stupid comment of "I'm not sure how wise it is... " Why does he think he has to answer to anyone in this regard. Now everyone in Washington is being forced to taking a stand on it. I'm not looking forward to the mid-terms and hearing about it over and over.

When religious freedom is revoked because it's "insensitive," something is fundamentally broken in my country.

I too thought it was another case of the president commenting on something he really shouldn't be (Cambridge Police / Beer Summit as well), only this time, nobody from the press asked him to comment on the mosque.

How far away is the mosque from Ground Zero? And I hear what you're saying about religious freedom/insensitivity...but still, they're planning a big celebration for it on 9/11/11. Wouldn't that be like us celebrating nuclear energy in Hiroshima on August 6?

It's two blocks away. I dont see the parallel. If "they" are celebrating extremism and terror, then yea it would be a bit weird (though still constitutionally protected free speech). You are doing the same thing that many are guilty of, which is equating all of Islam to terrorism.

That's where I'm rubbed the wrong way. A mosque near ground zero is only "insensitive" or "unwise" if we are willing to sell ourselves on the notion that all Muslims are terrorists. Think about it... you (probabaly subconsciously) used the word THEY. Did you mean THEY = terrorists, or THEY=Muslims? I'm not calling you out, just calling out the stupid and ridiculous politicians (our president and Harry Reid among them) that are not seeing what objection to this mosque actually means... that Americans are now able to discriminate based on religion, because muslims are known/assumed/profiled as terrorists.

Yeah, when I used "they" I was referring to Muslims, not terrorists. I try not to associate all Muslims as terrorists as I'm sure some do (kind of like saying anybody from Kentucky or Tennessee is a Hillbilly). I just think in this day and age, it's such a sensitive issue for so many. Fortunately (or unfortanetly), the legal system doesn't look at "insensitivety" as a reason to prevent someone from doing what is within their legal right.

Pez wrote:...that Americans are now able to discriminate based on religion, because muslims are known/assumed/profiled as terrorists.

What's your viewpoint on this story or is the left only concerned about the muslim community?

Archdiocese Says Officials Abandoned Project

It is the location of the mosque. Yeah, just like if the Japanese wanted to build a temple on Ford Island. It is the location. Some people look at ground zero as sacred ground.

LTRT wrote:

Pez wrote:...that Americans are now able to discriminate based on religion, because muslims are known/assumed/profiled as terrorists.

What's your viewpoint on this story or is the left only concerned about the muslim community?

Archdiocese Says Officials Abandoned Project

Speaking only for my view, I would feel exactly the same way if there was a non-Mulsim church that owned property and there was similar uproar surrounding the development of the property for religious worship.

In the case of St Nicholas, it didn't take too many keystrokes to find out that they made a deal in 2008 to sell the property to the Port Authority for $20 million dollars. For omitting that fact, I really question the neutrality of the article you cited.

Scooby01_98 wrote:It is the location of the mosque. Yeah, just like if the Japanese wanted to build a temple on Ford Island. It is the location. Some people look at ground zero as sacred ground.

When you say sacred, in what sense do you mean it?

Pez wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:It is the location of the mosque. Yeah, just like if the Japanese wanted to build a temple on Ford Island. It is the location. Some people look at ground zero as sacred ground.

When you say sacred, in what sense do you mean it?

In the sense of Gettysburg, Pearl Harbor pick any battlefield.

Pez wrote:I cannot believe the backlash about the Islamic community center two blocks from ground zero. I find it completely ludicrous that anyone would oppose religious freedom in favor of "sensitivity."

Rep. Pelosi calls for investigation of WTC mosque opposition

I sure hope that you're not drinkin' outta her Kool-aid pitcher.

Pez wrote:

In the case of St Nicholas, it didn't take too many keystrokes to find out that they made a deal in 2008 to sell the property to the Port Authority for $20 million dollars. For omitting that fact, I really question the neutrality of the article you cited.

Was it a forced sell? You know where they couldn't get permits to rebuild from the port authority and had to sell. They (the port authority) own the land where the twin towers were and land around where they stood. So yeah the liberal media would make it look like a $20 million buyout vs denying them to rebuild.

Of course the NY Governor offered land and money to build somewhere else in lower Manhattan and that was turned down.....hmmmm makes you wonder what the Imam's goal really is.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/ny-gov-paterson-mosque-compromise-use-gov-t-land

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/NY-governor-meeting-with-Ground-Zero-mosque-developer-to-get-it-moved-elsewhere.html

Build it

Build it and they will come.

Scooby01_98 wrote:
Of course the NY Governor offered land and money to build somewhere else in lower Manhattan and that was turned down.....hmmmm makes you wonder what the Imam's goal really is.

To practice religion in an atmosphere free from persecution.

(slight tangent)

I find it ironic that about a year ago or so in New Haven, somebody wanted to open up a porn shop in that castle-looking building on 930, and the neighbors said "oh no you don't." So then I think (if memory serves) an ordinance was enacted saying that the owners couldn't make it a porn store.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:(slight tangent)

I find it ironic that about a year ago or so in New Haven, somebody wanted to open up a porn shop in that castle-looking building on 930, and the neighbors said "oh no you don't." So then I think (if memory serves) an ordinance was enacted saying that the owners couldn't make it a porn store.

I remember that. I'm pretty sure that if the porn store guy had some well-heeled lawyers, the ordinance would not hold up to a legal challenge. Thats kind of a mixed-fruit comparison though...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of ill-repute...

thejoker wrote:Build it

Build it and they will come.

Construction workers: Hell no! We won't build it...

Pez wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:
Of course the NY Governor offered land and money to build somewhere else in lower Manhattan and that was turned down.....hmmmm makes you wonder what the Imam's goal really is.

To practice religion in an atmosphere free from persecution.

Wow do I have a bridge to sell you.

Scooby01_98 wrote:

Pez wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:
Of course the NY Governor offered land and money to build somewhere else in lower Manhattan and that was turned down.....hmmmm makes you wonder what the Imam's goal really is.

To practice religion in an atmosphere free from persecution.

Wow do I have a bridge to sell you.

Did you know that there is already a mosque on the site?

59 Murray Street
New York, NY 10007-2201

Is the address of the New York Dolls strip club. Three blocks from ground zero.

How about the pentagon chapel. It's a non-denominational chapel built as the Pentagon was repaired. It's 80 feet from where the planes hit, and Muslims are allowed to pray there.

You cannot object to the Park 51 project unless you are willing to say that all Muslims are terrorists. That is certainly your right, but at least call it what it is.

Pez wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:

Pez wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:
Of course the NY Governor offered land and money to build somewhere else in lower Manhattan and that was turned down.....hmmmm makes you wonder what the Imam's goal really is.

To practice religion in an atmosphere free from persecution.

Wow do I have a bridge to sell you.

Did you know that there is already a mosque on the site?

Yes, they were there before the attack and not damaged. No they should not have to move. Just don't build more that close to the site.

Pez wrote:
How about the pentagon chapel. It's a non-denominational chapel built as the Pentagon was repaired. It's 80 feet from where the planes hit, and Muslims are allowed to pray there.

You cannot object to the Park 51 project unless you are willing to say that all Muslims are terrorists. That is certainly your right, but at least call it what it is.

Yep the pentagon allows muslims to pray...whoopee. Guess what the federal gov't employees muslims Imam for the muslim troops in the armed forces.

It's the sensitivity to the people that lost love ones. Not the religion. Come on I thought you were smarter than that!!!

With all sincere respect, that is utter nonsense. If the building needs a new roof it would then be insensitive for them to replace it?

Maybe I'm out of line here, and I recognize that I probably am. But please check yourself, what I see in your opinions (and others) is bigotry and prejudice. I'm the guy that is saying you have metaphorical spinach in your teeth.

Scooby01_98 wrote:

Pez wrote:
How about the pentagon chapel. It's a non-denominational chapel built as the Pentagon was repaired. It's 80 feet from where the planes hit, and Muslims are allowed to pray there.

You cannot object to the Park 51 project unless you are willing to say that all Muslims are terrorists. That is certainly your right, but at least call it what it is.

Yep the pentagon allows muslims to pray...whoopee. Guess what the federal gov't employees muslims Imam for the muslim troops in the armed forces.

It's the sensitivity to the people that lost love ones. Not the religion. Come on I thought you were smarter than that!!!

But a mosque 2.5 blocks from ground zero offends you, yet a muslim chapel 80 feet from where the plane crashed into the pentagon is ok.

How far away from Ground zero should they go before they will be allowed to freely practice their religion?

How about Staten Island...
http://www.silive.com/eastshore/index.ssf/2010/06/proposed_midland_beach_mosque.html
Oops, no, they believe all muslims are terrorists there too.

How about Wisconsin?
http://www.fox6now.com/news/witi-100505-sheboygan-muslims,0,4795698.story
Oops, no, they believe all muslims are terrorists there too.

How about Tennessee?
http://www.kansas.com/2010/08/09/1438951/opposition-plagues-many-proposed.html
Ooops, no they think muslims are terrorists there too.


This is religious persecution, plan and simple. I cannot believe that it's not plainly evident to everyone, even more, I cant believe that Imam Rauf is being labeled an extremist by the right wing media, who conveniently forgets the fact that he served under the Reagan administration to help improve islamic relations...

And Hannity is all frothing at the mouth saying that he refuses to call Hamas a terrorist organization, omitting the fact that he didnt say they weren't either. He said he didnt want to answer the question because he is not a politician, but is rather a bridge builder that refused to be placed on one side or the other.

Stop allowing yourselves to be misled by conservative media. This is a mid-term election ploy.

Scooby01_98 wrote:Yes, they were there before the attack and not damaged. No they should not have to move. Just don't build more that close to the site.

You were doubting the Imam's intentions earlier in the thread, now that it's been pointed out to you that the same Imam has been at Park 51 since before the attacks is ok, just so long as he doesnt make the building bigger. You must see the juxtaposition of those viewpoints.

Pez wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:Yes, they were there before the attack and not damaged. No they should not have to move. Just don't build more that close to the site.

You were doubting the Imam's intentions earlier in the thread, now that it's been pointed out to you that the same Imam has been at Park 51 since before the attacks is ok, just so long as he doesnt make the building bigger. You must see the juxtaposition of those viewpoints.

Park 51 is currently not a mosque. So no to the mosque at that location. The other mosques are fine they have been in those locations. Doesn't matter to me who the Imam is at the other mosque's whether same or different.