A mosque near ground zero?

They have a radical muslim who preaches hate in NYC. He is guarded by the police department and is allowed to say what he wants. I do not want to see this guy at Ground Zero disrespecting those who have died.

To build the Islamic Center near Ground Zero is the same as to put a sculpture of Hitler in the middle of Auschwitz

Please don't tell me there needs to be dialoge between Islam and Christians? Don't force that down my throat becuase I don't buy it!! Was there dialoge on 9/11? Was there? Did those people have a chance? No way. They all died from followers of Islam. Extream or not. Now you tell us there has to be dialoge!! It's all a slick willy scam to frieght train Islam into the mainstream America. I say no way to a Mosque at Ground Zero. No Way

Please don't tell me there needs to be dialoge between Islam and Christians? Don't force that down my throat becuase I don't buy it!! Was there dialoge on 9/11? Was there? Did those people have a chance? No way. They all died from followers of Islam. Extream or not. Now you tell us there has to be dialoge!! It's all a slick willy scam to frieght train Islam into the mainstream America. I say no way to a Mosque at Ground Zero. No Way

Jihadist

In the United States, we had a caste system, the white people and the black people. That is gone now, but we still deal with it heritage. In many ways, we have made progess and are doing well. But still, there is a submerged, smoldering hostility between the races, not in every single person, but in a lot of people.

So, there is also discordance between Muslims and secular / Christian Americans. It is just there, not in every single person, but in a lot of people. So, we must have courage and hope for the best, work for the best, live for the best; and be careful about what situation we might get oursevles into.

Sometimes, maybe we must tip-toe around on eggshells, to get through the day. But then, there is always another day, to try again.

"Looks like not a good idea for any Muslim to be anywhere near Ground Zero or the Cordoba House/Park 51 (if it ever gets built)"

It is an unfortunate situation, and it is not America's fault, but America must keep an extra special close eye now on it's muslim population and mosques. It must allow this mosque to be built, but it must keep a close eye on it, as well as all mosques.

America should do so with as much respect and as little obstruction as possible. But it must do this. And this is not racial profiling. This is ideological profiling and it is wise not bigoted.

Freedom of religion does not include freedom from being looked upon as suspicious if your beliefs are say, Charlie Manson's beliefs, or Mohammed's beliefs.

If Ground Zero is "sacred ground", why aren't people bothered by the legions of hucksters selling cheap, Chinese-made 9/11 memorabilia at the site? When I was there in 2005, that offended me more than any potential mosque does. I guess if GZ is sacred ground, this version allows moneychangers in the temple.

"Looks like not a good idea for any Muslim to be anywhere near Ground Zero or the Cordoba House/Park 51 (if it ever gets built)."

I would guess that 90% or more of the people posting negative comments here live nowhere near NYC, and will never visit NYC in their lives.

Looks like not a good idea for any Muslim to be anywhere near Ground Zero or the Cordoba House/Park 51 (if it ever gets built).

Everyone from folks from Homeland Security to the Tea Party may be marking or listing Muslims who do so as possible terrorists, or are already terrorists for being of a particular faith group by "association".

So, better for Muslims to just invest in casinos in the US and go to strip clubs for pole dancers and lap dancers, and have peeks at peep shows when there. To open up Muslim minds and be free from intolerance in all its forms and manifestations.

"We might as well let the Japan put a victory memorial next to the USS Arizona at Pearl harbor or let Mexico put one next to the Alamo"

If it was on private property, we would have no legal grounds to stop such a thing. Thank god for the constitution.

"I understand why people believe we "needed" slavery to get here"

We may have needed slavery to get HERE, but who says we needed to get HERE? The place we would have gotten to without slavery might have been much much better. And no, by better, I don't mean financially richer.

Runnin,

""...in the reported...." Get it?"

Read it again. The way you have it worded the it is the "writings" that are only "reported" but the list of the world's greatest thinkers included Jesus among known historical figures as though he was just like them.

But that's okay, I guess I know what you meant now kind of.

Regardless, famine happens but I don't worship it.
Might makes right happens but I don't worship it.

The article is too good to be true, and it's not. Since we want to speak the truth and the truth only, we cannot fool ourselves with theoretical illusions. The point is that there is no tolerance in Islam faith. The minority symbolized by the Ahmadi group, whatever it's size may be, will always be undermined and subject to denunciation by the vast majority of muslems considering islam,a religion of conquest and convert, as supirior faith and they accep willingly it's brutality,violency and intolerancy and non compromise. Others ethnic groups such as christians,jews and buhdists are considered to be infidels who have no choice other than convert or die.
Whatever happens in the US and Europe in the last 50 years is the fulfillment of islam's global objectives. The name of the game is "winning grounds" step by step: Increase population,open culture's centers, schools and mosques, thus increasing influance and foothold within guest countries administrations until they reach the point of no return.
It's happening in the US where they are still in the first phaze, in Europe they are in the middle of second stage where they feel much stronger, thus allowing themselves to be bold and agressive, while the administrations in countries such as France, Belgiume,Germany,England are already in real panic and trying to block the flood. All those countries came too late to the conclusion that those islamic groups are not interested at all in integration,loyalty to the guest countries or tolerating the democratic systems. They are in fact using the democratic systems to serve their goals.They are interested in taking others place and not living with the others side by side in harmony. This is the truth, you can sweep it under the carpet but you cannot get rid of it.
The question is who are the sponcers supporting this giant movement. The answer is America's closest friend Saudi Arabia, Lybia,Malesia, Iran and oil rich countries "arab emirates". The tragedy is that those countries will be the first to fall once the radical islam reach it's targets.

Moaamar Kaddafi from Lybia named one of his sons "saif el islam" which means "the sward of islam". May be this name symbolize what we all know but don't want to talk about. May be, if he would have changed the name to modern acceptable human nature names then we might say that there is hope .

Also, the "church in Mecca" comparison is inaccurate and out of line. Ground Zero is most definitely not a Christian holy site. The American fight against terrorism is not a fight for Christianity or against Islam. Complaining about the "unfairness" of Saudi Arabia not letting churches in Mecca wrongly implies that America and Christianity are the same thing.

This question is ridiculous. Building a mosque near Ground Zero is only "provocative" if one falsely assumes 9/11 was the work of all Islam. That would be like assuming that all African-Americans support the Black Panthers, and objecting to an Alpha Phi Alpha building near the site of a Panthers terrorist attack.

We might as well let the Japan put a victory memorial next to the USS Arizona at Pearl harbor or let Mexico put one next to the Alamo.

Esteemed Psolus,

Here is another Nasruddin story for you.

One day Nasruddin went to a banquet. As he was dressed rather shabbily, no one let him in. So he ran home, put on his best robe and fur coat and returned. Immediately, the host came over, greeted him and ushered him to the head of an elaborate banquet table. When the food was served, Nasruddin took some soup with spoon and pushed it to the his fur coat and said, - Eat my fur coat, eat! It's obvious that you're the real guest of honor today, not me!

"There is NOTHING in their writings that does NOT say exactly the same? The double negatives here make this sentence meaningless."

Yes, it is reported Confucius suggested, "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself."

And I wrote, "...in the reported speeches and writings of the world's best known thinkers -- Confucius, Lao-Tzu, Buddha, Jesus...."

"...in the reported...." Get it?

Of course, you paraphrased that sentence as, "...in their writings..." leaving out, "the reported...writings."

You're too clever, by half.

False dichotomies:

"I, frankly, would rather die believing in a delusion that we are all one, then live believing that my relationship to you is empty of transcendental meaning"

The option to believe neither makes this a false dichotomy.

"logical possibilities: there is a transcendental, there is a material, there is not one or the other"

Logical possibilities: there is a Santa Clause, there is a tooth fairy, there is voodoo, witches exist, some or all of these things do not exist.

Observation: There is a material.
Observation: none of those other things seem to exist.

"the fact of non-teleological scientific reasoning leading to material determinism is not a new idea. It is well recognized"

Heck even I recognize it.

"Materialism has not solved determinism"

Believing in neither and leaving it an unsolved mystery solves a lot of headaches. Was that a Madonna lyric too?

"Too bad I also want to embrace the scientific methodology, and the economic, and the historical, and the artistic"

What is "too bad" about that?

"being a mystic and wanting to be in this world too"

You go girl. Say hello to Doug Henning if you fly by him.

Psolus,

Thank you so much for your story! Alas, it is wise and deep as a well. Perhaps you are a descendant of Nasruddin!

I must contemplate your meaning.

farnaz_mansouri2,

Here is a story for you of a humble D.C. ne'er-do-well, Peregrine Solus.

Yesterday, Peregrine was walking down his apartment building hallway, going to check his mail.

He happened upon a young man wearing a yarmulke.

- Excuse me, can you help me? asked the young man.

- Sure, what do you need? answered Peregrine.

- I left my air conditioner off over night, replied the young man, and now I can't turn it on because it's the Sabbath. Can you come to my apartment and turn in on for me? It's just around the corner.

- No problem, replied Peregrine.

He followed the young man to his apartment, followed him into the overly-warm apartment, and turned the air conditioner on (High Cool).

- Thank you very much, said the young man, I appreciate it, and shook Peregrine's hand.

- You're welcome, replied Peregrine, and went to check his mail.

I hope you're not disappointed with my little story.

It probably doesn't convey the wisdom that your story does.

I'm just not a wise person.

Psolus,

Here is a story for you of the great Sufi sage, Mullah Nasruddin.

One day an illiterate man came to Mullah Nasruddin with a letter he had received.

- Mullah Nasruddin, please read this letter to me. Mullah Nasruddin looked at the letter, but could not make out a single word. So he told the man.

- I am sorry, but I cannot read this. The man cried:

- For shame, Mullah Nasruddin ! You must be ashamed before the turban you wear (i. e. the sign of education)

Mullah Nasruddin removed the turban from his own head and placed it on the head of the illiterate man, said:

- There, now you wear the turban. If it gives some knowledge, read the letter yourself.

"when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled"

Not if the elephants are fighting on sand.

"Odd though, the grass tries to be happy until it gets trampled."

How do you know?

Is it drinking wine and eating cheese?

crunched v crunching

"when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled"

Odd though, the grass tries to be happy until it gets trampled.

I understand why people believe we "needed" slavery to get here. Slavery is, of course the proof of the failure of free markets. I believe that hierarchy is needed (based on the inequitable distribution of aptitude amongst humans). But, though slavery brought us here, we used ideology to overcome the biological force of differentiation. (and of course that means we still try to make it better)

my grandma what big teeth you have... all the more for us to "fix" and in do doing, hone our self. In some near future, I will be trampled by that big elephant called time, In the mean time, I get to play with this cool awesome mystery with others that are different yet alike.

hariaum

clear dichotomies:

logical possibilities: there is a transcendental, there is a material, there is not one or the other. These are connected, these are not connected...

the fact of non-teleological scientific reasoning leading to material determinism is not a new idea. It is well recognized. The argument against that is based on a false understanding of Heisenburg and then, lately, extrapolations on quatum theory that, if placed in the theist camp, would be called "woo woo physics."

Materialism has not solved determinism. Likewise, theism with a watchmaker god has the same problem.

There are more options, but these problems are at the heart of these ideological systems.

The Mystery of life. I suppose that was Madonna that said that first. Let me see if I can stop my laughter to write this: life is a mystery, embrace the mystery of life, and face that mystery directly, attempt to engage the mystery fully... oh my lady gaga, I'm a mystic!

Too bad I also want to embrace the scientific methodology, and the economic, and the historical, and the artistic,... dam-bursts - being a mystic and wanting to be in this world too - gee golly. Timmy my brother! we are one again!

hariaum

ROADRUNNIN

"Interesting. There is nothing in the reported speeches and writings of the world's best known thinkers -- Confucius, Lao-Tzu, Buddha, Jesus, Spinoza, Descartes, Kant, et al and etcetera, that does not say exactly the same"

There is NOTHING in their writings that does NOT say exactly the same? The double negatives here make this sentence meaningless. And Jesus, who probably did not even exist, is one of the world's best known thinkers?

"Right makes right" has been with us for a long time"

That's because it's right.

Our argument is with the un-right behavior of the so-called followers of these fellow's thinking"

Our argument? Speak for yourself. I've never had a problem with anyone following the thinking of any of the people listed above.

"We humans seem to always need to revert to might makes right, to get humans to behave better"

No, we SOMETIMES need to resort to might. But that is not the same as resorting to "might makes right". Grow up and think about it.

"Whether that human is an "A-theist," or theist, and whether or not they accept, "Life is a mystery," behavior is the test"

And the behavior of those who accept the mystery as compared to those who claim answers for the mystery speaks quite loudly. BTW Stalin falls under the category of not accepting the mystery.

Your Stalin argument may work against atheist communists, but it does not work against atheist agnostics. And I do not know of any atheist communists alive today, though I'm sure there are a couple at least.

"So in the new millennium, I think it's "right makes right."

Interesting. There is nothing in the reported speeches and writings of the world's best known thinkers -- Confucius, Lao-Tzu, Buddha, Jesus, Spinoza, Descartes, Kant, et al and etcetera, that does not say exactly the same. "Right makes right" has been with us for a long time.

Our argument is with the un-right behavior of the so-called followers of these fellow's thinking. We humans seem to always need to revert to might makes right, to get humans to behave better.

Whether that human is an "A-theist," or theist, and whether or not they accept, "Life is a mystery," behavior is the test.

Navin,

"False dichotomy," or not, that whole piece is one of the prettiest world views I've ever read. Unfortunately, I don't think many will go see the movie.

Although, most historians agree that the civilization we know was impossible without the institution of slavery. You included the number crunchers, but left out the result of number crunching.

Life is a mystery. Theists are those who either can not, or will not accept that.

A-theists are people who are not theists.

NAVIN1

"I, frankly, would rather die believing in a delusion that we are all one, then live believing that my relationship to you is empty of transcendental meaning"

False dichotomy alert. Above is a classic false dichotomy. And a very common one put forth by the religious.

"I choose to believe I am not just a series of particles bouncing off in a predetermined spectacle (by the laws of physics or, for that matter, the laws of a hateful, jealous god)"

Do you often go around forming beliefs about negatives? "I choose to believe I am not X." Isn't this similar to "I choose to believe not god" ?

I don't believe in a world that is without ethical foundation. If that is my delusion, I am happy with it.

I see caring, compassion, love, beauty, truth, everywhere I go. It is so commonplace that we forget what we are seeing.

Every poor mother has the opportunity to kill her child and eat it. Every father has the same choice. (or they can hunt down another's child and eat it.)Every predator has the opportunity to kill as many prey as possible and then just eat the parts it likes, let the rest rot. Every pet owner could eat his/her pet whenever there was a hankering for it. Every nuclear state can wipe out its enemies capital and then "apologize" to avoid being wiped out. Every prisoner of war can become just another tortured death... Our sense of society could be based on I destroy you or you destroy me.

yet they don't.

The argument for genocide has often been evolution and selection. That is a reasonable argument if we accept that life is mere matter without other meaning - destroy your competitor before they can destroy you.

But most people don't live like that even in the cruelest states. Modern capitalism, medieval religion, etc is a history of enslavement and power. I am not shy of the atrocities of history.

But each generation tries to make it better. We don't know what is better. We just try. It is because we see what went before us and find fault in it. Now I can stop thinking and say there was only fault. But I choose not to. I see the errors of my, our, ancestors. But I also see the heroic effort to make it better.

Imagine the faith that the first civilization had when someone came up with the idea, let's save food in a silo rather that eat what we have today and we can keep accounts with knots. Everybody must have looked at this person and wondered what s/he was talking about. Famines come, famines go, people live, people die, starvation comes, starvation goes. How can we make it "better," and that too while believing in this person with a crazy idea of storing communal food as if somehow we were a single group as opposed to a collection of individuals. (and yes, I do attribute our ancestors that created civilization with the same intellectual power as we have today)

Imagine a person inventing a series of negative numbers. What audacity. Or an irrational number, irrational indeed. Or those crazy academics playing with "powers" of ten to write numbers in decimal notation - who needs it.

Or imagine someone who had run away from the very society that civilization built, perhaps even chased out, and then coming back as a Zarathustra or Prometheus and saying there is another way. And then the fools living in poverty and self deprivation to memorize some useless book of stories. What fools they must have been to try to make it better, yet they tried.

Our history is bleak. Somebody has to kill the bad guy and even be wrong about who the bad is sometimes. But our human history is filled with wonders of the human spirit trying to transcend the simple logic of selection by competition and adding, then, that Darwinian element - cooperation, and that spiritual element - love.

I, frankly, would rather die believing in a delusion that we are all one, then live believing that my relationship to you is empty of transcendental meaning. I choose to believe I am not just a series of particles bouncing off in a predetermined spectacle (by the laws of physics or, for that matter, the laws of a hateful, jealous god). If I am wrong, my worship of the truth demands I face it, but that is a truth I prefer to face when my particles have suffered a heat death and they are blissfully dissolved into the entropic demise of time. (of course, being a mystic, I see I won't have to face that truth based on the evidence that I have experienced)

hariaum

In the equation "might makes right" it is important to note that "might" used to be a result of braun and now "might" is a result of the brain, and wouldn't you know it, so is "right".

So in the new millennium, I think it's "right makes right."

In other words, this can all be worked out intellectually now.

NAVIN1

"got to kill the bad guys"

First you have to correctly identify who the bad guys are and you've made an error if you think that the people who want to put this mosque up are the bad guys that we need to kill.

"so, if there is no universal ethic, and everyone feels oppressed, and the reasonable response to the feeling of being oppressed is violence, then the people of Israel have the right to kill off all those that oppose them. Might makes right, we can't say who is or who is not a terrorist. So the more powerful can kill off the less powerful, no violation of ethics, no moral outrage..."

"what nonsense"

Well, Navin, that does seem to be the way it is. Let's face it, as much "respect" that is thrown around, for the founding fathers of the USA, that is exactly the thinking of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al. And later, A. Lincoln, a veritable "saint," as the monument to him denotes.

From the history, it took General Washington about one second to sign the order to hang John Andre, even to his (Washington's) stated regret. And, by the history, John Andre was a lover, not a fighter. John Andre's intrigue caused no physical harm to any human, not that it wouldn't have, had his intrigue been successful.

There are all kinds of sad stories coming from much of human endeavor. It is very difficult to get humans to behave, we have learned.

In my observance of all life on this planet, I note the stronger eating the weaker -- a conundrum for our feelings.

so, if there is no universal ethic, and everyone feels oppressed, and the reasonable response to the feeling of being oppressed is violence, then the people of Israel have the right to kill off all those that oppose them. Might makes right, we can't say who is or who is not a terrorist. So the more powerful can kill off the less powerful, no violation of ethics, no moral outrage...

what nonsense

hariaum

This is precisely why it provides us, the free-thinking and reasonable, the perfect opportunity to force them to embrace the same tolerance of us.

*******************************************

Free thinking? Reasonable? Tolerance?

And then to use force for that, to be that.

A most unique approach.

I think what would be interesting would be to demonstrate to the Cordoba Initiative what tolerance is. For them, it appears to be a one-way street where they have an agenda and, as long as they are not breaking any laws, they should be allowed to proceed with it and any attempt to oppose them is intolerance. In fact, they are right. It is an act of intolerance to not allow someone to act out based on their beliefs. Of course, not everything should be tolerated, and the opposition to dangerous ideas and ideologies such as fascism is a form of intolerance of something that actually deserves to not be tolerated. But, regardless of personal feelings, the expression of religious views, however repulsive they may be, are protected. And, the Cordoba Initiative has a legal right to build their mosque. We, if they decide to move forward against the wishes of many and in a display of bad taste which is valuable in itself through what it reveals, must accept and tolerate their offensive expression of their views. This is precisely why it provides us, the free-thinking and reasonable, the perfect opportunity to force them to embrace the same tolerance of us. We must also be sure to express our views about their religion and place a center of our own near the sacred ground where we are free to share the truth of Islam with everyone. There should be a center focusing on the barbaric history of Islam and the questionable behavior of its illiterate founder. We should have prints of historical paintings showing the siege of Vienna, the conquest of Constantinople , interviews with notable Islamists outlining the supremacist nature of Islam, biographies of notable figures in Islam and how their doctrines fueled 9/11. We could show films, such as Fitna and Submission, and other films we could produce that tell the stories of the bandit raids of Mohammed, the murder of Jews at Khaybar, etc. We could have a fun “interactive” area where people could tear up paper verses of the Quran that they find offensive (which we would, of course recycle). In Los Angeles, there is a Museum of Tolerance focused on the holocaust and white supremacist groups. Now is the time for a Museum of Tolerance focused on the global jihad and the danger of the ideology of Islam. Oh, and I think it should be as close to Ground Zero as possible and we could hand out flyers outside of the Cordoba House encouraging people to visit to learn more about Islam and its impact on world history. Wouldn’t that be great? Of course, we would probably need a lot more security than the Cordoba House since we know what happens when anyone dares to criticize Islam.

PSolus

My pet peeve is when people say, "I have no idea ... "

Just kidding ... I have no idea what made me post such a thing ...

Jihadist,

I have no idea if you are a good person, and I have no idea what people who know you think about you.

I also have no idea if that bothers you, or any one else.

Jihadist

I think you are a very good person, and I am sure that everyone who knows you thinks that too.

What encourages extremism?

1) an ideology
2) a cost/benefit analysis
3) a method to deliver
4) a likelihood of success

check on 1

cost: a few lives of their own, some thousand to millions of dollars

benefits: go to heaven, many lost lives of the other, terror in the heart of the other, a sense of self worth for following one's ideology, get rid of some unwanted followers (the nut cases sent on the missions)... and apparent power. With apparent power, more recruits and more funding - high yields.

measure of benefits: the world is talking about you (advertising and hegemony), moneys sent to you (increased shareholders), evidence that your ideology is dominating (in the free execution of the will of the people you are trying to conquer) - building mosques where once stood Hindu temples, Jewish temples, christian churches... Evidence of the "badness" of the enemy is not needed - even if the enemy treats you well, the ideology tells you to ignore the deception.

method of delivery: more resources (capital and labor), more methods become available.

likelihood: more resources, likelihood increases.

The US and Europe have supported various development programs around the world including democracies (and autocracies). The radicals don't care if you build a school, a power plant, a watering well, or even a full fledged economy. (consider Pakistan/taliban cooperation in derailing Indian assistance programs in Afghanistan) They want to destroy your ideology - no matter how nice and principled you are, they want to destroy you.

As an individual, we can live and die on the high morals of our ideology - and so I believe we should. But, as a nation, pragmatism is first. Enlightened pragmatism is the undefinable goal. Governments got to do "bad" things to make the world "better". See Plato, Chaunakya, Confucious, Marcus Aurelius, Machiavelli... Personal morality informs civic behavior of an individual, yes, but civics is not defined by personal morality - got to kill the bad guys (and perhaps prevent them in the future if you can).

hariaum

"Change the Constitution, if you want your "feelings" observed"

See? I opened on this thread with the remark "this one is a no brainer" and here I am proven right. Even Roadrunnin can not deny that Timmy is right on this one. And so is Roadrunnin.

Jihadist,

"Actually, I am happy with my faith"

Of course. Otherwise it wouldn't be your faith.

"Only problem is all them folks telling me I'm a either victim of western secular decadence or Islamic religious repression and want to rescue me from either and tells me I am deluded about one or the other"

I understand. My best friend didn't think he was an alcoholic so he was quite offended when I told him that he was. He thought I was wrong and being mean.

"and then seek to impose what they believe and think is right for me"

This I have not done, and would never do, in fact you can plainly see here that I am battling those who would seek to impose what they think is right for you by their government's hand.

You have the right to believe whatever evil nonsense you want and I have the right, and responsibility, to call it out for what it is.

"Only problem is all them folks telling me I'm a either victim of western secular decadence or Islamic religious repression and want to rescue me from either and tells me I am deluded about one or the other, and then seek to impose what they believe and think is right for me."

Welcome to the club; this is similar to what all non-believers have to put up with.

Show contempt the islamic faith, sure. But show love and compassion for it's victims. You know, unless they pull a knife on you.

*******************************************

Actually, I am happy with my faith. Only problem is all them folks telling me I'm a either victim of western secular decadence or Islamic religious repression and want to rescue me from either and tells me I am deluded about one or the other, and then seek to impose what they believe and think is right for me.

By his reasoning, his rationality, his knowledge of the USA Constitution, and his suggested application of psychology, TIMMY2 wins this one, 100% to 0%.

Change the Constitution, if you want your "feelings" observed.

If one is thinking practically one would realize that most American muslims, including the ones who want to erect this mosque/cultural center, whether they are right or wrong, believe that Islam is a religion of peace. And they practice it as a religion of peace even if they have to turn a blind eye to certain verses to do so.

Most are attempting to modernize the religion and make it something that is compatible with US culture. Personally, I think this is an impossibility and and a waste of time. I think they should just give-up the whole damn thing. But what I do know is that they are human beings who have been indoctrinated into this religion since infancy and they are victims of it not perpetrators of it.

These people are human beings and deep down they have the same natural peaceful intentions as we do. Exactly the same. And they, like our Christians, have had that peaceful nature hijacked by a diabolically clever religion.

There is no question in my mind that this mosque is intended to be an attempt (albeit a hyper naive one) at making amends and showing the American people the true peaceful nature of their religion. They are deluded not evil intentioned. It's just like the Christian lady who comes to your door and wants to save you from your sinful ways. She is insulting you but not on purpose. She is deluded and thinks that she has something wonderful and transcendent to offer you.

We don't blame people for being indoctrinated in to a cultish religion from infancy. And we do not outlaw their religion. But we also do not humor them or show any respect for their religius beliefs. We just help them get out of the cult as best we can, which in my opinion is by using our free speech to dismantle their religion before their very eyes.

Show contempt the islamic faith, sure. But show love and compassion for it's victims. You know, unless they pull a knife on you.

STREET1776

"It's like adding insult to injury"

Last I checked, adding insult to injury was perfectly legal.

RKSINGH

"Why is a mosque required at the ground zero site"

It's not at the ground zero site. It's NEAR the site, just like some cigar stores and jewelry shops which are also not "required" but are legally allowed to be there. It is on private property around the corner and it's none of your business until they do something illegal.

DITLD

"You are speaking from a position of pure idealism. I am speaking from a postion of practicality.

Precisely the opposite. Those who understand that there are no legal grounds to stop this thing and that it hurts the terrorists cause are the ones who are speaking practically. It is everyone else who is thinking with their emotions.

"If there is a way to stop this project, it should be stopped"

Well we already know that there is no legal way, so what are you suggesting? A torch carrying mob?

"Nothing is un-Constitutional until the Supreme Court says it is"

Thank you for reminding us that any attempt to stop this thing is a complete waste of time because it is a no brainer case for the supreme court. The supreme court will decide in favor of the mosque in a heartbeat. They really have no choice.

"But even if all of the legal obstacles are overcome, and the project goes ahead, there will be social and psychological problems assoiciated with it"

Currently the KKK is allowed to meet anywhere they want any time. We can not stop them because it hurts people's feelings. People need to grow up. We can not outlaw bad taste.

PATRIOT

"The constitution does not allow me to build a cesspool or a firing range in the middle of a city, even if I own the land"

No the founding fathers saw no need to protect anyone's right to build a cesspool or a firing range, but thankfully the saw the need to protect our right to freedom of religion and so the constitution most certainly does protect a person's right to worship whenever and wherever they want.

"That is why there are ordinances to protect everyone else from some nutcase building a public nuisance in their midst"

There are mosques all over America and New York. They are not public nuisances.

"If this was to occur in any of their mother countries, they will all be swarming around angry as a hornet with their swords and their human bombs"

So you are suggesting that we act like them instead of acting like us?

"This is a deliberate attempt to tell us how dumb we are, and how smart they are"

I don't think you are correct about that.

There are hundreds of mosques in the US and no one has objected to them. Building a mosque by ground zero is what the real issue is. There wouldn't be a ground zero if it weren't because of the Islamist. It's like adding insult to injury.

What unbelievabe stupidity. Why is a mosque required at the ground zero site. Why did not anybody think of a Hindu temple? More Hindus dies on 911 than muslims. So why the mosque? To honour the hijackers?

I guess only radical vermin like muslims get respect in a country like USA. Not law-abiding people like Hindus.

I feel there should be no religious structures there at ground zero. The twin towers should rise again. It will be like a slap in the face of Islamic terrrorists.

Timmy

I understand your point. You are speaking from a position of pure idealism.

I am speaking from a postion of practicality. In life and in the world, you do what you have to do.

If there is a way to stop this project, it should be stopped. Nothing is un-Constitutional until the Supreme Court says it is.

But even if all of the legal obstacles are overcome, and the project goes ahead, there will be social and psychological problems assoiciated with it.

There may be mass demonstrations against it. There may be physical obstructions to building it. But even if it is built, there may be quiet vandalism against it. Even if there is high security and metal detectors like at an airport, people may still enter to cause a lot of trouble in a lot of little ways. And even after all of this, there could be real terrorism directed at this building; even a suicide bomber bent on the destruction of Islam. I believe that there will be that much hostility against this project.

I don't care what the terrorists think; I wouldn't even consider it; do they even think anything worth regarding? I don't care if they want this building built or if they don't want it built. What difference should that make?

You wouldn't take a stick and stir up a hornets' nest and not expect to be stung, even if it is Constitutional to do so, would you?

TIMMY2:
The constitution does not allow me to build a cesspool or a firing range in the middle of a city, even if I own the land. That is why there are ordinances to protect everyone else from some nutcase building a public nuisance in their midst. The jihadies have no reason to complain. If this was to occur in any of their mother countries, they will all be swarming around angry as a hornet with their swords and their human bombs. This is a deliberate attempt to tell us how dumb we are, and how smart they are.

NAVIN

"I do not doubt that the building of the mosque will send a signal to radicals that they succeeded in bringing down a symbol of America's power and replacing it with theirs (and thus encouraging further attacks)"

So so backwards. They need no encouragement for further attacks, they have all they need in their book. Further attacks will come regardless. But their ability to recruit more foot soldiers will greatly be diminished if this mosque is built and not strongly opposed.

The victory for the terrorists will be if they get us to break our constitution because of what they did.

I do doubt the veracity of those that claim to want to build this mosque as a symbol of tolerance as I doubt that they will incorporate such ideology into the building.

KASE

"How 'bout no house of worship?
After aii- religion was the root cause of the attack..."

Because it would break one of the most important ideals of any free nation.

ICELANDER

"The muslims are laughing at our political correctness in actually allowing our murderers to ensconce themselves close to the scene of their murders"

Actually the terrorists who attacked us will not be pleased if America allows this mosque without protest. It hurts them in a big way. The American muslims who are opening this mosque are not the one's who attacked us.

The terrorists want us to crush this mosque harshly and swiftly because it will greatly help their cause. If you don't think that is true, u r dumb.

DITLD

"Why do relgiious people think that they should have preferential treatment over people who are not religious?"

What special treatment? There is no special treatment here.

The only special treatment would be not allowing them to put a place of worship on their private property. That would be the special treatment because currently anyone is allowed to open a place of worship on their private property. You break the constitution if you make an exception in this case. You can't just drop the most important ideals of the nation because you think this is a bad idea.

DITLD

"Denying this particular mosque is not going to hurt anyone"

If we try to do it legally or by obstruction, it hurts everyone who relies on the constitution for the protection of their own right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

GOPAK1

"There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia"

So you want America to act like Saudi Arabia instead of acting like America?

"No mosque"

So forget the constitution for this particular instance then? Act like Saudi Arabia?

You are letting your emotions get the better of you. You are not thinking clearly.

The commenter who spoke for all New Yorkers was really speaking for him or her-self, not all New Yorkers.

I know people who live in Manhattan who have a smoldering resentment against Islam. Call it whatever you want; hatred; ignorance; xenophobia; whatever; but that does not change the fact that many people feel this way.

One poster said that New York is not the center of the world. But, in a way, oh yes it is. It is certainly the center of American secular society; people in New York and in Manhattan not only realize that, they take pride in it.

Lessons in multi-cultural diversity are lost on Manhattan; Manhattan should teach the world, not be talked down to by the world.

People don't "need" a place to pray in the middle of their work day; they simply do not. Pray where-ever you are, or else, stop calling it prayer.

I do not live in New York, but on my commute to work, I pass three mosques, everyday. And I am sure there are more all around that I do not see from my route. I am sure there are a lot of Mosques already in Manhattan. Denying this particular mosque is not going to hurt anyone.

Why is it necessary to put it near Ground Zero, which was destroyed by religious zealotry? Let's don't call it Islam; let's just call it religion at its worst.

Why do relgiious people think that they should have preferential treatment over people who are not religious? It is this since of special entitlement that is so off-putting about Islam, which unfortunately is shared equally by Chrisianity.

I think it is a pretty rude suggestion to put a mosque or an Islamic center next to Ground Zero. And I am a pretty moderAte person. I can just imagine what will happen if it is built.

Is it OK to get down from the rhetorical mountaintops and talk about some practical realities? Downtown New York is not a symbol, it's a real neighborhood where real people live and work. There are hundreds of thousands of Muslims living quite peacefully in the New York metro area. Many thousands of them work in downtown Manhattan and undoubtedly a good number live there. To us New Yorkers, these are our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends. (It's estimated that about thirty who worked in the World Trade Center lost their lives on 9/11.) Quite simply, they need places to pray.

I lived in the downtown neighborhood for about ten years (leaving in 1995, so I missed the horror), and know about its odd, lopsided mix of institutions. Downtown is well served by some fine historic churches, to which the faithful resort at lunch hours, but other, newer faiths are shortchanged. A fine new mosque would be an amenity.

But a mosque with a good swimming pool! Especially if the neighbors were invited to take up memberships . . . would be a little bit of paradise.

NEVER NEVER NEVER
The muslims are laughing at our political correctness in actually allowing our murderers to ensconce themselves close to the scene of their murders. This is teachery, not peace. This is NOT a group of peace. This is a murderous group of fanatics who cause trouble everywhere--and yet their "sensitivities" are catered to. Are we nuts? Building this mosque will be the ultimate stab in our backs, the ultimate laugh at our grief. Don't you know that the minute muslims buy a piece of land it becomes sacred and no one else can ever own it? They already own the damaged building they have been meeting in for years since 9/11. It's their sacred ground now--so you think we can give them more ground at the gravesite of our murdered people? Were I president, I would stop all immigration of muslims, put the rest in camps like we did the Japanese, and watch both north and south borders for illegal muslims who are coming in like water. America, this is the enemy within, and unless you kick your political correctness habit asap, we will all be living under sharia law. These maniacs have to be stopped.

My understanding is that a good number of the victims working at the Twin Towers on Sept 11, 2001 were Muslims. Why shouldn't the families of these people build their mosque near there? This is America, isn't it?

NEVER NEVER NEVER
The muslims are laughing at our political correctness in actually allowing our murderers to ensconce themselves close to the scene of their murders. This is teachery, not peace. This is NOT a group of peace. This is a murderous group of fanatics who cause trouble everywhere--and yet their "sensitivities" are catered to. Are we nuts? Building this mosque will be the ultimate stab in our backs, the ultimate laugh at our grief. Don't you know that the minute muslims buy a piece of land it becomes sacred and no one else can ever own it? They already own the damaged building they have been meeting in for years since 9/11. It's their sacred ground now--so you think we can give them more ground at the gravesite of our murdered people? Were I president, I would stop all immigration of muslims, put the rest in camps like we did the Japanese, and watch both north and south borders for illegal muslims who are coming in like water. America, this is the enemy within, and unless you kick your political correctness habit asap, we will all be living under sharia law. These maniacs have to be stopped.

How 'bout no house of worship?
After aii- religion was the root cause of the attack...
Why do you people, with your silly imaginary friends, continue on this way?
Now you will continue to fight about the appropriateness of a mosque in the area...
The fact is all of your various superstition systems have no place in the 21st Century.

New Yorkers, I think I understand your sentiment, I even tend to agree. But every US soldier dies for US. They do not die for NY, LA, Chicago... They sacrifice themselves for our nation and our values as a whole. The attack of 911 was not just an attack on NY. It included much of the Eastern US. That does not exclude the western US from mourning the suffering of our co-citizens. We are one people. I agree entirely with the idea that we should not have attacked Iraq. (But Iraq is better off for it.)

others: who understands Islam? Anyone can say they understand anything. But how do we conclude who really understands a thing. Perhaps the pacifist muslims fail to understand Islam. Perhaps the sufi worshiping mulims fail to understand islam. Perhaps the wahabis fail to understand islam. This argument is fundamentally, "because I say so, so you should believe this is what it is." When people refer to other traditions we use history to understand their traditions. When people refer to self traditions we use our own anecdotes (our parents and friends) to understand the tradition. It is just poor, biased, reasoning.

The use of history is the most clear tool for me. This allows one to say that the US has been genocidal but the values the US aspires for are individual liberty and a more perfect union to sustain that. This also allows one to say, the chirsto-islamists have had the greatest genocidal thrust throughout their history, but try to be decent to their own. And yes, that India is riddled with the problem of Caste that Hinduism has not been able to expunge. And, misogyny and self loathing are ongoing problems of modernity.

But this, even, is only the beginning of the analysis. We then need to look at underlying causes. If the koran says the infidel is hated by god, and it does, then that is a legitimate cause for the understanding that allah and his followers will hate me no matter what concessions I give them. If the bible says that only through jesus will I be granted salvation, and it does, then that is a legitimate cause for the understanding that the followers of jesus' think I am less deserving than they are to enjoy the bounty of god's love.

But we can go further. If we remove the names, jesus, bible, koran, communists... then we find in each of these constructs of righteousness leading to rights to dominate the conscience of others. Then if we build a mosque that includes the right of conscience of others, or a church, or a temple... the we abolish the power of those mono-ideological constructs (perhaps I can borrow the myth of "meme"). Then you can stand up and say this mosque, this church, this temple supports your individual right to conscience and here, here you can worship Krishna, Rama, Buddha, Allah, Jesus, or any other fill in the blank name of god, or even you can sit and recite Dawkins. But that is not what the cordoba house, what Eboo, et al are proposing. These are sites where only one way to see the world is considered legitimate. The site is where only one prophet, one god, one right way to see that god will be tolerated. It is a temple to intolerance, it is a temple to the right to hate the infidel that god hates (for those passages of the Koran will be recited there).

And it does not reflect the desire of these individuals to create tolerance. Their individual desire to create tolerance would drive them to solve the problems of intolerance in their own communities. They likely send money back home, they should also be sending ideas back home - you don't have to fear the infidel, the koran is likely wrong to preach god hates...

I do not doubt that the US law is to allow the mosque. I do not doubt that the building of the mosque will send a signal to radicals that they succeeded in bringing down a symbol of America's power and replacing it with theirs (and thus encouraging further attacks). I do doubt the veracity of those that claim to want to build this mosque as a symbol of tolerance as I doubt that they will incorporate such ideology into the building.

hariaum

“Peaceful Muslim” is a Trojan horse. It is an oxymoron, it is a contradiction, it is utterly without logic. Look at the history of the spread of Islam throughout the world. Wherever it went, its manifesto has always been to eradicate every other faith in its way. By swords, by guns, by bombs, by suicide bombers. Everything but peace. Peaceful Islam first, innocent burqua second, sharia for their community third, agitation for their Islamic centers fourth, jihadi grooming fifth, terrorism sixth, burqua for all women seventh, acid on the faces of those who do not comply with burqua eighth, sharia for everyone ninth and victory for allah tenth. That is the progression, not necessarily in that order.

Islam is akin to crabgrass in your lawn. Once it sets in, it kills your beautiful lawn, and nothing short of burning the entire grounds to powder and starting over will bring the old grass back. Even then, the crabgrass remains dormant to come back again.

There has never been “Peace” in any Islamic dominated country. Show me one, just one. It is a faith of the barbarians from the seventh century. Unfortunately, the world is full of barbarians, everywhere. If not physically, but certainly mentally. Bring the Trojan horse into this country, and we will go the way of England, France, and the rest of Europe and Asia. They all have barbarian enclaves breeding jihadies left and right. Peacefulness is only until they reach a critical mass.

We have enough mosques throughout the USA to accommodate every muslim in this country and some. A mosque next to ground zero is nothing but a poke in our eyes by the Saudi backers just to tell us that the crabgrass has arrived and spreading. Watch out for the political correctness of our politicians and the elites. Stop this nonsense now before it becomes too late. Religious freedom does not mean the rest of us have to fall in step with islam.

You can't say you don't get diverse opinions at On Faith. No wonder I can't make up my mind:

PAMELA TAYLOR:
All of my concerns, however, were washed away when I found out recently just who is proposing the mosque -- an organization led by fellow On Faith panelist Imam Feisal Rauf. Imam Rauf has a long track-record of interfaith cooperation and dialogue. His understanding of Islam is liberal, tolerant, pro-woman. I have no doubts that the center, as run by Imam Feisal, will not only serve the needs of the local Muslim community, but also be a forum for bringing people together, fostering healing between communities, and building bridges where the crimes of others have driven wedges between us.
JORDAN SEKULOW:
Imam Feisal Rauf, who is leading the charge to build Park 51 (formerly Cordoba House) in New York City, supports Shariah law courts in the United States of America, is tied to the funding of the Gaza Flotilla , called the United States an accessory in the 9-11 attacks, and will not designate Hamas a terrorist organization. This Imam and his mosque must be stopped.

KMD1:

“Ok. First there are many here who accuses the Koran of violence, they simply do not understand Islam. just to note, the Koran list events of the past and orders given by God to his prophet in specific situations that do not apply as a general rule.”

OK. I don't understand the Koran, but now I know that you have a weak God that doesn't know how to give clear commands. The followers of the Koran, including high leaders, kill people just because they draw their prophet. This is what you call a religion with a book that do not promote violence. Who do you think you are lying to?

Freedom of religion means EVERY religion - not just Christianity. Let the mosque/community center be built. It's certainly better than the abandoned eyesore that's there now. However, instead of "Cordoba House", may I suggest that the community center be named after Tariq Amanullah, an Islamic community organizer who worked on the 96th floor of WTC2, and died on 9/11? Or the 36 other Moslems (that we know of) who died in the WTC and on the planes? This way, both sides win.

My comment to to just reiterate Newts comment because it could not be said any better.

There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

The proposed "Cordoba House" overlooking the World Trade Center site – where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks - is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites. For example, most of them don’t understand that “Cordoba House” is a deliberately insulting term. It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex.

Today, some of the Mosque’s backers insist this term is being used to "symbolize interfaith cooperation" when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest. It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way.

Those Islamists and their apologists who argue for "religious toleration" are arrogantly dishonest. They ignore the fact that more than 100 mosques already exist in New York City. Meanwhile, there are no churches or synagogues in all of Saudi Arabia. In fact no Christian or Jew can even enter Mecca.

And they lecture us about tolerance.

If the people behind the Cordoba House were serious about religious toleration, they would be imploring the Saudis, as fellow Muslims, to immediately open up Mecca to all and immediately announce their intention to allow non-Muslim houses of worship in the Kingdom. They should be asked by the news media if they would be willing to lead such a campaign.

We have not been able to rebuild the World Trade Center in nine years. Now we are being told a 13 story, $100 million megamosque will be built within a year overlooking the site of the most devastating surprise attack in American history.

Finally where is the money coming from? The people behind the Cordoba House refuse to reveal all their funding sources.

America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.

No mosque.

No self deception.

No surrender.

The time to take a stand is now -
Newt Gingrich -

I live in New York. I was in New York on 9/11 when OUR towers fell. How many of these commentators can say the same? For unless you are a New Yorker YOU SHOULD KEEP YOUR OPINION TO YOURSELF! It is none of your business. So, SHUT UP!

Quite a few of us are pretty disgusted that politicians WHO DO NOT EVEN LIVE IN OUR STATE took the attack on OUR towers as an excuse to invade Iraq. Let me tell you, if it had been up to New Yorkers, we WOULD NOT have invaded Iraq. We were also disgusted by those (mostly) country songs about how we were going to kick Arab butt. That was not how most of us felt. We just felt Sad.

Now it is almost ten years later and there is some attempt at reconciliation by building a mosque close to the site where OUR towers fell. Some of us are opposed. I personally favor the proposal. But make no mistake, if you oppose the mosque it does not arise out of some sort of sympathy. It is pure bigotry and we are New Yorkers and we won't have that.

As for Sara Palin and Newt Gingrich, neither of them live in New York so their opinions are WORTHLESS. They should not even be reported in a newspaper.

DITLD

"How is opposing this building hurting people?"

Well if we oppose it with our free speech only then it is hurting no one. But if we oppose it legally or by obstruction, then we have hurt everyone who relies on the constitution to ensure their own freedom of religion and speech.

Jihadist,

“You reasoning is akin to those who posited that since Jews killed Christs, therefore, all Jews are guilty of that till today.”

No. For my reasoning to be akin to the mythical Christ (Jesus) being killed by the Jews you need to cite where in the supposedly sacred Jews book is the specific order to commit that act. I have no knowledge that this command exist, but you tell me if I'm wrong.

****************************************************************
“If the Vatican caused the Inquisition, then all Catholics are guilty of that till today.”

Nobody can be guilty of things done by anteccesors. But if somebody joins a group that has committed criminal acts, his/her message is that agrees with the present and past acts of that group.

****************************************************************

“So, logically, as Al Qaeda declared war on the US, 19 terrorists caused 9/11, therefore, all Muslims are responsible and accountable for what the 19 and Al Qaeda did. So we have Islam on "trial" and such and all Muslims are violent due to the Qur'an.”

Absolutely yes, Islam is on trial in front of the world's opinion. All Muslims follow the same book, all belong to the same decentralized franchise. The brand name is corrupted by those and hundreds of similar acts. Because a few committed the terrorist act you cannot minimize the fact that thousand if not millions of muslims cheered in front of the TV. The avalanche of Muslim support to the criminal act overrode the few that condemned 9/11.

****************************************************************

Still you have not responded directly to my original post: “If your supposedly sacred book and your sharia law are misrepresented in this blog, please address this directly.”

Your religion slogan is that Islam is a religion of peace. Your books and laws say a different thing. What is worst, the behavior of the members of your religion are worlds apart from your slogans. At the end your product do not match your advertising claims. And yes, you are part of the problem.

It will be a befitting response to the terrorists who call themselves Muslims. It will be a monument to democracy,the American way of life. However if the Americans feel offended for some reason than the project should be scrapped..that too is democracy.

BTW

Syria just banned women students and teachers from wearing the face veil in colleges and universities. So, it is not just France, the rest of Europe, and the US where this is a problem and a controversy.

Tolerance is one thing; maintaining and respecting religious tradtions is all very fine; but you must draw a line when these traditions involve personal abuse and mistreatment of people, in this case, women.

I am not a hateful, ignorant xenophobe, and I think this Islamic Center is a lousy idea.

In a funny way, it is blasphemous to build monuments to religion around Ground Zero, in a nation that is covered over from sea to shining sea with such monuments, when the cause for all this destruction is, in the first place, was religion.

To put up a mosque there is rude, insenstive, and in bad taste. If religion is to have any credibility at all, should it not respect the sensibilities of people?

How is opposing this building hurting people? Smacking someone in the face is hurting them, not denying a multi-million dollar religious PR construction project.

Ok. First there are many here who accuses the Koran of violence, they simply do not understand Islam. just to note, the Koran list events of the past and orders given by God to his prophet in specific situations that do not apply as a general rule.

Two, this so called mosque is not only a mosque , it is first of all a library that have a mosque inside it for prayers. It will be perhaps a very beneficial
library holding knowledge many people can benefit from including the chance t understand what Islam is about. There will be people answering questions and it is open to Muslims and non-Muslims.

I understand there are many people out there filled with hatred and ignorance, but this is a land for every American to live and worship as they please unless you want to change the constitution and everything that we stand for and make us Americans.

Don't use 9/11 to justify your hatred and ignorance, it is obviously, this opposition to the project is an attack on American Muslims. remember that 9/11 was an attack on American Muslims as well as many Muslims died that day.

Good Grief! What possible difference can having a mosque near ground zero make? The 9/11 disaster had nothing to do with religion in the first place, few if any of those that are objecting will ever go to ground zero, must less a mosque nearby; a mosque is basically a place to refresh the spirit, why would anyone object to that in a place like Manhattan; and finally its legal, lawful, and not contrary to zoning, codes, etc. So just relax and if it offends you, look the other way!

without going into the "fairness" of them against us, which is a bit childish, instead reflect on the fundamental idea that we are all immigrants with a few exceptions.

Our charter is one that supposes everyone can live together in harmony in THIS land.

Forget Mecca - we have no voice in Mecca; it is NOT ours to demand.

But our democracy is one of the hardest things to keep going, and unified, yet it's our country, collectively, people of German, Spanish, Russian, Syrian, Indonesian - all countries are uniquely represented in this land, and is markedly different than any land on earth in that respect.

Given the xenophopic comments on this board on this topic, you wold think that there was an 'American' genome, or American Roots - there are none of these things except for a bunch of attitude thinking ther "ought" to be - but like it or not we have no native "version of an American" except for the Natives that were here before Europeans came to this land.

So while I see freedom in the idea that it could be done, in practical terms you're also expressing a lot of hatred towards people 'not like you'.

so how's that STAB you?

The choice of the word "STAB" was unnecessary, Palin.

LOVE2MUCH

"The Muslim Faith nor the Muslim people did not attack us on September 11"

You are half right. The muslim people did not attack us. But the muslim faith most certainly did. Read the Koran.

"All of us suffered and lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks but we can't take that out on the MUSLIM FAITH!!!"

We should not take it out on the muslim people because they, like us, are victims of their faith. But we most certainly can take it out on their faith.

"That’s like me as a black woman blaming all white people for Slavery"

Again it would be if we were taking it out on the muslim people. But it is nothing like your slavery analogy if we blame their faith, because it is written in their books.

BTW I am in favor of the mosque being allowed to be built and I think that it is no big deal. But I just wanted to clarify for you the difference between blaming the muslim people, which is not right, and blaming the Islamic faith which I feel is perfectly justifiable when you read the Koran.

The Muslim Faith nor the Muslim people did not attack us on September 11, a bunch of radicals who happen to be Muslim did. There are radicals in every religion that we care not own but we can't penalize everyone of that Faith for what some folk did.

Are we that ignorant and immature? Come on ADULTS. I agree with who said - this is the country that is free for all, freedom to practice religion, build the Mosque, please. Promote change, tolerance, peace etc. That's the only we heal as One.

All of us suffered and lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks but we can't take that out on the MUSLIM FAITH!!!

If building a Mosque at Ground Zero bothers you - seek some mental help please. You have hatred for people of a different faith who didn’t do anything to you and that’s not right

That’s like me as a black woman blaming all white people for Slavery – that would not be right now would it.

The Muslim Faith nor the Muslim people did not attack us on September 11, a bunch of radicals who happen to be Muslim did. There are radicals in every religion that we care not own but we can't penalize everyone of that Faith for what some folk did.

Are we that ignorant and immature? Come on ADULTS. I agree with who said - this is the country that is free for all, freedom to practice religion, build the Mosque, please. Promote change, tolerance, peace etc. That's the only we heal as One.

All of us suffered and lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks but we can't take that out on the MUSLIM FAITH!!!

If building a Mosque at Ground Zero bothers you - seek some mental help please. You have hatred for people of a different faith who didn’t do anything to you and that’s not right

That’s like me as a black woman blaming all white people for Slavery – that would not be right now would it.

GERRYMANSINGH

"I would suggest anyone who think Mosque is a good idea to read works of...."

It's not about whether or not we think this mosque is a good idea. It's about whether or not anyone thinks that making an exception to the constitution this one time is a good idea.

WmarkW,

"If we can get Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq to agree that this mosque would aid understanding and tolerance, then they can go ahead."

They will probably go ahead irrespective of whether or not Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Ibn Warraq agree that the mosque would aid understanding and tolerance.

BTW, it probably won't aid understanding and tolerance at all - but, hey, what are you going to do?

Excellent idea, gerrymansingh.

If we can get Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq to agree that this mosque would aid understanding and tolerance, then they can go ahead.

I would suggest anyone who think Mosque is a good idea to read works of Wafa Sultan and Charles Trifkowiz or just read the koran itself to see what it says should be done to Jews (whom it calls monkeys and dogs) and other infidels.

The laws of God, the laws of man,
He may keep that will and can
And how am I to face the odds
Of man's bedevilment and God's?
I, a stranger and afraid
In a world I never made

I do not condone slander or defamation. But I do support criticism. Let anyone who thinks that I am guilty of slander or defamation make their case. They rarely succeeds.

- Timmy2

*******************************************

Timmy2,

And I had thought you only NOT want to be hyper politically correct in your criticisms. :)

Frankly, I am not aware of cases of slander and defamation brought by individuals against anonymous individuals in blogs. Sometimes individuals or groups try to make a case against blog owners as being responsible for the contents of blogs written by someone else they don't like, don't agree with.

Goodnight and cheers.

PSolus :

"Of course she yelled back at us for chastising her and, I have to say this, almost exactly what you said here as per it's not her fault!"

As I saied, the nerve of her!

Next thing you know, she'll probably be demanding an education!

*******************************************

Nahhh......

It is the nerve of our fathers to insist on education for us!

We'd really rather be in niqabs and hijabs in body and mind as ignorance is bliss within the harem.

We really like let men do all the thinking and messing up the world as they did before, now and in future from religion to governance to finance.

Who needs an education and better access to opportunities to mess up everything?

Oh, I forgot. Women is the root of all evil in the world, the cause of the downfall, the descent of man from Eve to Palin to Lohan. Can't blame the serpent too.

What you have been told in this and other treads is that your book commands you to do terrible thinks to other humans, and is “archaic and dictatorial”. This is not stereotyping, this is mentioned as a fact and you keep trying to diffuse the reality of this fact. Your book tells your coreligionists to do horrendous things. They do just that, it doesn't matter if they are only 1% or 50% of all muslims. It doesn't matter how good you are individually, still you are part of this infamous group. If your supposedly sacred book and your sharia law are misrepresented in this blog, please address this directly.

- Justacomment

*******************************************

How many brights does it take to fix the religious dimwits?

Four. One to say the end of faith is near, One to say religion poisons everything. One to say God is delusion. One to break the spell of religion.

You reasoning is akin to those who posited that since Jews killed Christs, therefore, all Jews are guilty of that till today.

If the Vatican caused the Inquisition, then all Catholics are guilty of that till today.

So, logically, as Al Qaeda declared war on the US, 19 terrorists caused 9/11, therefore, all Muslims are responsible and accountable for what the 19 and Al Qaeda did. So we have Islam on "trial" and such and all Muslims are violent due to the Qur'an.

And then, in reaction too, to simultaneously bring about regime change, democracy, freedoms, human rights "war on terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan which cost USD 1 trillion, at least 5,000 US troops' lives, civilian casualties running into hundreds of thousand and an estimated 4 million refugees. Oh these Muslims...if only they would not subscribe to their faith anymore, all will be well in the world.

There’s not just this row over “Cardoba House”. There's still this row over the "Museum of Tolerance" in Jerusalem. To be build over the site of a Muslim cemetery, which was turned into a parking lot and now for the museum. Has to be built due to lack of space, land or for its perfect location. Depending on who is saying what and when.

The sites of killing fields and cemeteries for new buildings, tolerated or intolerated for religious, secular and legal reasons. Whatever works, it seems, to attain an objective.

Eboo is nonsense.

If he, or any other muslim, wants to promote the peaceful cooperation of muslims with infidels, he would be aggressively campaining in the islamic world to open up Mecca and the rest of their holy places to free and open diversity of worship sites.

Sorry, reform is needed in the 1 billion strong homelands of the muslims. Reforming a secular open democracy, with its limitations, is the moral equivalent to ignoring poverty and telling the rich man he should be richer. There is a poverty of tolerance in the islamic population. Let him address that poverty then tell us how he succeeded. He may then have insight as to how we can improve.

Until then, he is an advertiser, at best, for an ideology of intolerance.

hariaum

Anyone who thinks that this mosque will threaten America or it's way of life in any way is being hysterical. And we won't be breaking the constitution over your hysteria. Grow up.

Jihadist

"but one is not too sure if slander, defamation will be thrown out or accepted by court"

I do not condone slander or defamation. But I do support criticism. Let anyone who thinks that I am guilty of slander or defamation make their case.

"Of course she yelled back at us for chastising her and, I have to say this, almost exactly what you said here as per it's not her fault!"

As I saied, the nerve of her!

Next thing you know, she'll probably be demanding an education!

"It's not your fault too for seeing everything from the prism, perspective of your own culture, belief, society, nation."

If I were to choose to do so, it certainly would be my fault.

PSolus :

"We chastised her for going shopping and seeing a movie alone and returning late at night."

The nerve of that woman!

Shopping and seeing a movie without a male relative with her!

What happened to her was entirely her fault!

What would Muhammad/Muhammed/Mohammed think!

*******************************************

As I stated, it was summer of 2002. Late July to precise. It was less than a year after 9/11.

There were reports in the British media of Muslim women in headscarves and hijabs being harassed, mosques graffitied or worse, doors of Muslim residences painted with interesting words.

We did warn her not to move about alone if she can help it. Of course she yelled back at us for chastising her and, I have to say this, almost exactly what you said here as per it's not her fault!

It's not your fault too for seeing everything from the prism, perspective of your own culture, belief, society, nation.

Jihadist wrote:

“And surely we all already know that stereotyping and/or pigeonholing of every ethnic groups, religious adherents, professions happens and provides much fodder for not only humour but vilifications.

Or else we won't have Irish jokes, lawyer jokes, Catholic jokes, women's jokes, Muslim jokes etc. Or slurs about the French, Japanese, Arabs, Canadians, Javanese, Hispanics, Malays etc.”

What you have been told in this and other treads is that your book commands you to do terrible thinks to other humans, and is “archaic and dictatorial”. This is not stereotyping, this is mentioned as a fact and you keep trying to diffuse the reality of this fact. Your book tells your coreligionists to do horrendous things. They do just that, it doesn't matter if they are only 1% or 50% of all muslims. It doesn't matter how good you are individually, still you are part of this infamous group. If your supposedly sacred book and your sharia law are misrepresented in this blog, please address this directly.

Where do you people get the right denying a permit based on religious discrimination.

Do you all have contempt for the First Amendment?

When you protest Catholics building a church next to a middle school, your comments will ring of something more than shallow bigotry.

I think the mosque should be the biggest, most in-your-face religious symbol on the block at the 9/11 site. It would say we are america, we are the home of the brave and we embrace the victims of BOTH hijackings, the planes AND the muslims.

Or is this country not big enough for that kind of a gesture anymore?

"We chastised her for going shopping and seeing a movie alone and returning late at night."

The nerve of that woman!

Shopping and seeing a movie without a male relative with her!

What happened to her was entirely her fault!

What would Muhammad/Muhammed/Mohammed think!

If muslims wanted to heal 9/11, they would rebuild WTC; but muslims want a mosque to represent what?
- Murder of American-kuffars?
- Attack on American-Infidels?
- Dar-al-Harb?
- Sharia?

Who is funding this mosque?

If 'Even muslims were murdered on 9/11' they were killed by fellow muslims. If resisting a mosque is 'intolerance', where is Islamic tolerance for seculars in Dar-al-Islam? Where is the tolerance for fellow muslims (e.g. Ahmediyas, Hazaras etc..). Begin your charity at home (Al-Riyadh), before preaching to America, who muslims attacked on 9/11.

This mosque is the foundation of Sharia. Just ask Wafa Sultan: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1200/mosque-at-ground-zero-equals-victory

I think this is a great chance for both sides to show acceptance. A mosque should be built. And it should be built another block or two further away. I can't see any legal reason to challenge the building of the mosque. It is our chance to show the world our religious tolerance and that the United States takes the First Amendment seriously. It is also time for Islam to say 'we recognize Islam is being used throughout the world for violence, domination and intolerance, so we will move the Mosque to show we accept the feelings of others and to protest against those who use Islam for wrong reasons.'

Then both sides should scream and yell at the top of their lungs about the compromise.

Hello Timmy2,

Yes, I already know no faith groups should have special rights or protection from criticisms. Presumably, this would include those not affiliated to any faith group. Incidentally, this is always invoked by those who are preparing to do so, or have done so as freedom of speech. Nothing wrong with that and that is a right, but one is not too sure if slander, defamation will be thrown out or accepted by court.

And surely we all already know that stereotyping and/or pigeonholing of every ethnic groups, religious adherents, professions happens and provides much fodder for not only humour but vilifications.

Or else we won't have Irish jokes, lawyer jokes, Catholic jokes, women's jokes, Muslim jokes etc. Or slurs about the French, Japanese, Arabs, Canadians, Javanese, Hispanics, Malays etc.

When Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states allow the unfettered practice of non-Muslim religions, including the visitation of "infidels" to the holy city of Mecca and the wearing of inconspicuous symbols of non-Muslim religious faith, a mosque near "Ground Zero" may be considered--but not before.

DanielintheLionsDen :

But if I am at the airport, or even just walking in the street, and I see a stranger in conservative Islamic attire, I feel a little afraid.

Tell me, what should I do?

******************************************

Hello Daniel in the Lion's Den,

I really don't know what to say Daniel. A friend in headscarf, not even a hijab, got her's rudely pulled off by a druken English lout accompanied by his inventive invectives the summer of 2002 in London, England. A couple of Americans, students on summer holiday, came to her rescue in forcibly pushing off the lout, returning her scarf, escorting and waiting for her to get on her train to make sure she's safe. We chastised her for going shopping and seeing a movie alone and returning late at night. She could have been in a worse state were it not for her rescuers.

And some Muslim fundamentalists are afraid of women degarbed to bikinis and men to thongs on beaches and in ads, and pushed for dress codes on such degarbment.

I really can't do anything about human kindness or cruelty at the personal level as that is personal and particular to people, and comes unexpectedly.

I can't do anything on where and when I will be killed by terrorists, and depend on those involved in security matters to ensure it don't happen and they be detained.

I am concerned about what my government and fellow citizens do and want to do related to secular and Shariah laws affecting all of us.

When Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states allow the unfettered practice of non-Muslim religions, including the visitation of "infidels" to the holy city of Mecca and the wearing of inconspicuous symbols of non-Muslim religious faith, a mosque near "Ground Zero" may be considered--but not before.

could it be that they really believe their murderous terrorists wouldn't bomb a Mosque next time?

somewhere in an anti islamic site i read that the property for the mosque was purchased for five million dollars...for prime building land in the middle of NY...?

elliotstetzer :

I was expecting to open these comments and discover a bunch of Sarah Palin sound-alikes.

******************************************

You may want to read essays by the On Faith panelists too.

I just read them and found Cal Thomas to be Palinian and Churchillian in one breath.

oh you americans! why dont you cool it a bit-- do a bit of lateral thinking? for ex:does the USA have a legal definition of religion? can anybody create a god and have it accepted as a religion? can i proclaim hitler to be the prophet of my god satan and build a goodwill for all skyscraper in NY?would i get the same constitutional protection that islam is getting? are you guys capable of envisioning political power based on religion?your noble constitution can be used to destroy your democracy-- a nation has to be able to recognize it´s enemy and do what has to be done to protect itself, including doing what is unconstitutional; if a nation is so full of it´s own nobility that it can´t deal with it´s enemy,then the enemy will deal with that nation...common sense

I was expecting to open these comments and discover a bunch of Sarah Palin sound-alikes. I am proud of most of you who recognize that a mosque near ground zero is the ultimate affront to those who defile this country, and a rare step, these days, to show America in its best light. Sara needs to be "refudiated" for her unamerican, racist stance.

Would it be considered inappropriate to have a Christian Chapel at the Oklahoma City bombing site because the terrorist in that case was a hard-core Christian? Or would most people agree that the values HE represented were not truly Christian?

Jihadist

Muslims have the right to to worship as they please in America. But they do not have any rights to protection from criticism of their archaic and dictatorial doctrines. They can pretend that Islam is peaceful religion but they can not hide from the words in their book which say otherwise.

If you are going to believe in something primitive and horrible, you are going to get criticized. Just like Charles Manson. Your religion is no less sane than he was. Just be happy that you have freedom to believe whatever you want and say whatever you want. This is not the case in countries where your religion originated.

As for stereotyping. That's the price of worshiping a book that justifies the actions of the terrorists in black and white. Deal with it.

It has been close to a decade ago that religious terrorists flew planes into the twin towers and still there is a gaping hole at Ground Zero. Even though America is incapable or rebuilding anything on that spot, the Muslim community is planning on building a Mosque a few blocks away. Yet it wasn’t until Sarah Palin weighed in on this topic that the Washington Post’s “On Faith” section decided to discuss it.

First let me point out that this wasn’t Sarah Palin’s first tweet on this topic. Her first two tweets contained misused words and are a little embarrassing. However, Sarah Palin isn’t the issue here. She holds no elected office and no one really cares what she has to say because she is an idiot and everyone knows it (including her fans).

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-8928-Philadelphia-Atheism-Examiner~y2010m7d21-On-Faith-The-Ground-Zero-Mosque

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

Dear Jihadist

I am not afraid of you. And there is a family from Morroco that lives accross the street from me, and I am not afraid of them.

But if I am at the airport, or even just walking in the street, and I see a stranger in conservative Islamic attire, I feel a little afraid.

Tell me, what should I do?

oy!

Like the hapless Pope who keeps digging himself deeper and deeper in his pervert priest scandal, Muslims not denouncing their murderous terrorists loud and often enough have put themselves in this position.

Both are further proof Abraham was an arrogant and delusional bully.

The anger of Americans is too well experienced by Muslims travelling through US borders, watching Fox News, watching Hollywood fare such as the TV series "24", movies such as "The Kingdom", consequences of American wrath in Afghanistan and Iraq, blogs by non-Muslims and ex-Muslims in the US and the rest of the world etc.

I am not going into arguments over "my anger" is more valid than "your anger". Nor of arguments that "my deaths" is more valuable, more "innocent" than "your deaths". The angriest folks the folks with the most deaths, the most sorrowful folks are those living in states which are the ground zero of armed conflicts and wars.

How American Muslims live their lives in the US post 9/11 after leaving their countries of origin for the United States for any given reasons from seeking a better life, to seeking a refuge from persecutions or strife due to political, ethnic and religious differences is best articulated by them.

It must be difficult for them in being regarded by some Americans as a Fifth Column of Islamic domination and dhimmitude of the United States and viewed with suspicions, and calls for expelling or banning Muslims from the United States. American Muslims are stereotyped by some Americans. Whatever they do and say is alleged dissimulation when they are striving for assimilation as Americans and keeping their faith too. As do Americans of other faith and cultural groups.

A telling example is the blog of Eboo Patel here in On Faith. No matter who were his guest columnists were, are in his blog, posters regardless, focus on vilifying him and even ascribing the essays of his guest columnists to him. Eboo Patel is a fellow into promoting non-fanaticism, non-extremism among Muslims and for interfaith dialogue and cooperation too. His blogs and the reactions of non-Muslim posters to him is interesting to me. He is not personally responsible for 9/11. He is not personally responsible for all that is deem to be wrong in Muslim states, societies and belief.

It would seem that phases of homegrown American bigotry shifted from American Indians to African American to Irish to Jewish to Japanese and now Muslims. Among religious or ethnic groups in America, resentment and bigotry against Catholics seem to be a class on its own as the group which has to endure the longest, most constant and persistent since America’s founding days. Perhaps that is a requisite baptism of fire for any ethnic and religious group before being considered and accepted as “real” Americans. This is a form of social torture, a social waterboarding of groups leaving them unable to breath, gasping for breath. This happens in other multi-religious and multi-ethnic countries too, but most are not quite land of the free and equal by Constitution, by law and by ideals.

It is a big deal to recognise differences, to find commonalities of interests and to work for the public good. Cordoba House may be at a wrong place at a wrong time, but its reason for being is in the right place.

"Muslims and Christians are about as different from each other as a Chevrolet is from a Ford."

Chevy Chevelle SS 454. 429 Mustang. Plymouth Roadrunner with 426 Hemi or the 440 six pack. Hemi Barracuda...Better than religion, as long as the oil keeps flowing. But then again, a nice childlike prayer is nice...

Compromise at ground zero? Gay bar called Mecca? Maybe a nice park for the kids to play in....

Isn't religion a mess?

Muslims and Christians are about as different from each other as a Chevrolet is from a Ford.

Big Deal.

Why not modify the plans for this Islamic Center and make it an Ecumenical Center for Islam and Christiantiy? Or better yet, for Jews, too? and atheists, too?

If this idea cannot even be considered, well then, I guess we should just call the whole thing off.

I do not think Muslims comprehend the deep-seeated anger still resonnant over 9/11, and that, as innocent as they may feel themselves to be, they must live with the burden and the consequences of this act for the rest of their lives.

It is naive to suppose that people are just suddenly going to forgive and forget, and hold hands in brotherhood, because that is not going to happen.

One of the posters here commented that the current location of the planned Cordoba Center is a boarded up old abondonned building. "Would the people of New York rather have that instead?"

I think the answer is "yes" they probably would prefer an old boarded up, abandonned building to an Islamic Center, just like they would prefer to have the World Trade Towers instead of great big hole in the ground.

I do wonder now if the rest of the world, especially developing countries, is wrong being insensitive in building structures on or near ground zeroes of civilian deaths due to deliberate attacks and during armed conflicts and wars. And in being cold in not commemorating, remembering civilian deaths of such in building markers, plaques or monuments. The killing fields are also necessary land for the living, to sustain the living and to move forward with their lives.

God knows we have our share of politicians like Sarah Palin, Virgil H. Goode and passionate religionists like Pat Robertson in the “Muslim world” apart from terrorists killing “us” and “them”, and more “us” than “them” in numbers. I have no doubt quite a number of Muslim mirrors of Sarah Palin and Pat Robertson would be angered if churches are build on Ground Zeros of death and destruction in Baghdad and Kabul. And no doubt, Muslim extremists would capitalise on that with fighting, inflammatory slandering words, and terrorists would justify the bombings of such churches as an extension, a manifestation of their war of “us” against “them”.

The Cordoba House is an unnecessary provocation, a stabbing of hearts and not in the interest of healing if it was planned, build and managed by non-peace seeking fiends such as Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The name chosen for the centre is “Cordoba”. What it stands for would be interesting reading for Ms. Palin. It does not quite stand for intolerance, bigotry and ignorance. Her advisers may help her on this.

Ms. Palin’s foreign policy advisers may also have not briefed her the pain of 9/11 is not limited to Americans. Among the 2,752 or 2,819 persons (here estimates varies) killed during 9/11, the majority are Americans. There are also foreigners from many nations and faiths too, estimated to be some 310. Among them were 3 Malaysians from a country one can’t see from across Alaska. Nor have her advisers quite briefed her on the “pain” caused on countries and populations said to have links with or harboured the perpetrators of 9/11.

The matter of being “sensitive” and taking care of “sensitivities” is obviously sensitive and certainly rub a lot of sensitivities for myriad reasons before, during and after 9/11 in the so-termed “clash of civilizations” and “culture wars”. Extremists capitalize on and stand to benefit most from sensitive issues and sensitivities on it, deepening frictions and frissons of differences, cultivating desires for raptures in groups and ruptures among groups.

The bog of intolerance, bigotry and ignorance will never be completely drained. The building of the Cardoba House is a necessary provocation to stab the hearts and fork the minds of the intolerant, the bigots and the ignorant in the battles and war for hearts and minds. It would be great if the Cardoba House in New York is emulated in Muslim majority countries and cities around the world to bleed off the intolerance, bigotry and ignorance in which extremists and terrorists feed off and thrive on.

The KKK did not become an irrelevant pariah because we outlawed it or because we tried to prevent them from meeting. We gave them rope and let them eventually hang themselves. (sorry, couldn't think of a better analogy or a worse one)

There's an old advertising saying that goes, "nothing kills a bad product faster than good advertising."

Let them preach their rigid dictatorial ideology anywhere they want. And also let them see how tolerant our way of life is compared to theirs. And let them hear all of our harsh criticisms of their ideology whilst we still let them go about it.

Islam might be a problem in the middle east, but it is not much of a problem in the US. The great thing about the US is that it doesn't say "you can't do that" when it comes to religious worship, it says, "well go ahead and do that if you want, but we're not going to stop anyone from telling you that it is archaic and disgusting and for the trash heap."

We make them hear our disapproval whilst protecting their right to believe what they want. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech take care of each other very well. It is countries where there is no freedom of speech and little freedom of religion where religion can cause such horrible things as Islamic terrorism and abject misogyny.

AREYOUSAYING wrote: "By the same logic, we should prevent Catholics from building any of their churches near middle schools because some of their priests molested young boys."

Catholics buildings should be prevented near middle schools not because some priests molest young boys, but because they do not report inmediately to the proper civil authorities for investigation.

VICKYNC

"Muslims would certainly not allow a church or synogue to be built anywhere close to one of their sites in Mecca or Medina!"

And that's what makes us better than them. You want us to be more like them? You want to follow their lead? Tit for tat? An eye for an eye? Rise above my friend. Rise above.

ATHENA4's post is an example of sensible pragmatic thinking. People are letting their emotions get the better of them and not thinking straight.

VICKYNG

"Wake up America---the debate about the mosque being built close to Ground Zero is NOT about freedom of religion"

I'm afraid that legally and constitutionally it is.

"it's about preventing a travesty and insult to the U.S. people and those murdered 9/11"

The insult would be to break our ideal of freedom of religion because of what happened on one day in September of 2001.

All of you people who are calling for this mosque to be disallowed. On what legal grounds? Are you aware that we are a country of laws and that we can not make exceptions to certain constitutional rights whenever we want without destroying everything we stand for?

This mosque is far far from a victory for the terrorists. It would be in their f@%king faces. They don't want us to be civil towards American muslims. The terrorists want us to do exactly what you all are suggesting. You are playing right into their hands. They saw you coming. They own you right now. Wake up. It's embarrassing.

If you don't live in NYC, there's not really any reason to care. For most of the country, 9/11 was something that we saw on TV. Heck, it happened right over my head and I only saw it on TV. So, for those people who don't live in NYC, I think that we should butt out. For those people that DO live in NYC, your elected officials approved the mosque by a vote of 29-1. I suggest that you stop whining on the Internet and complain to the Board of Supervisors.

Where are the new comments posted? The two I have just submitted are not anywhere to be seen?

I agree with "Physicianexec"---our country is being destroyed by naive and misguided people who are so afraid of being called racist or a religious bigot and politicans who want to be "politically correct" that something like the commemorative mosque to show the world Islam's "superiority" to the Infidels of the "decadent" West is considered perfectly O.K. Muslims would certainly not allow a church or synogue to be built anywhere close to one of their sites in Mecca or Medina! It should be pointed out that there really are times when intelligent and prudent people should be judgmental--to not be afraid of being considered intolerant and who do not always ascribe to "judge not, lest ye be judged." To the individuals pointing out that Ground Zero is not a church (adding sarcastically unless money is what is being worshipped)you are completely missing the point of what Ground Zero symbolizes to the families of the victims of the 9/11 atrocity--it is considered Holy Ground because of all the victims who died there and whose remains are still there. The mega-mosque would indeed symbolize an Islamic victory in the name of Allah against America and all Americans and should not be built anywhere close to Ground Zero.

Note to "Physicianexec": I know you were being facetious about the comment about the strip club, but soldiers who have served in the Middle East report that hard-core pornography, esp. showing blondes is greatly prized, collected and passed around by the "faithful" (men, of course)----and all you have to do is go to any large city in Europe and count how many men in Arab dress are drinking and watching the nude or semi-nude show girls---and just who is the most decadent, the people supplying it or the customers that keep it profitable and available through attending and spending money to watch it?

Wake up America---the debate about the mosque being built close to Ground Zero is NOT about freedom of religion---it's about preventing a travesty and insult to the U.S. people and those murdered 9/11.

As for banning churches near schools, I don't get that either. Kicking them out of the schools was good enough. Somehow I don't worry about kids wanting to check out that church service near their school unless they have already been indoctrinated by their parents at home. I imagine most kids will skip by the church and head straight for the arcade.

When I talk about indoctrinated children, I'm talking about the indoctrination of kids who not only aren't old enough for school yet, but who aren't even talking yet and who still have their soft spots.

NAVIN

"As I see it, the majority of good religious people, in all religions, take pieces of their native religions and reinterpret it for their instinct for living a good life"

Really? The majority of American religious people are still anti gay because of what it says in their sacred texts. Christians are not much better than muslims in this regard.

"but the ideology is what does not deserve respect"

So don't give it any. I don't.
But what I do give respect to is religious freedom. It is paramount. And stopping this mosque goes against that which is bad for society and bad for secularism.

As an American I am deeply offended by the proposed building of a 13-story mega-mosque and Islamic cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero. Historically Muslims have built large commemorative mosques close to the sites of their victories in the name of Allah over the "infidels". It it blatantly false propaganda that this mega-mosque will be a tribute to the victims of 9/11 and a symbol of friendship between Muslims and the U.S. When the Muslim suicide bombers flew American passenger airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in NYC and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, it was a declaration of war, "jihad" against America and all Americans. The coordinated attacks were calculated at a time that would cause the most death, property damage and chaos. While Americans were still in shock, donating blood, money and supplies to help the victims of these atrocities and crimes against humanity--in many Muslim countries the people were rejoicing and celebrating in the streets the victory of their martyrs and heroes in the name of Islam over the despised Americans. NYC Mayor Bloomberg publicly supports the building of the mega-mosque two blocks from Ground Zero to demonstrate to Muslim countries that we believe in religious freedom and that we are a tolerant and just society. These rationalizations on Mayor Bloomberg's part are at best idealistic, naive and seriously misguided. This mosque is, and was always intended to be, a symbol to America and the rest of the world of the superiority of Islam over the "Infidels" (i.e. anyone not Muslim) and that Islam is going to dominate all countries of the world. British citizens were able to stop Muslims from building a large commemorative mosque close to the site of the subway bombings during rush hour---again the timing calculated to cause the most fatalities and chaos. If the British can prevent the insult to their nation, Americans can stop this one. There is already a mosque 4 blocks from Ground Zero and the Muslims have the right to build their mosque somewhere else in NYC--just not 2 blocks from Ground Zero. 9/11 was an attack on all of the U.S.,all Americans and is an insult to the 3,000 victims of this slaughter by religious zealots; and as such, Mayor Bloomberg does not have the right to allow this horrible reminder of 9/11 close to Ground Zero, considered sacred ground by families who lost loved ones in 9/11. If Muslims are truly sincere in wanting to heal the breach between Muslims and Americans they can start by being sensitive to how provocative this act is perceived to be by the majority of Americans--and adding insult to injury is the date September 11 for initiating the building or dedicating this victory mosque. It would also be helpful for Muslims to stop encouraging sedition and treason against the U.S. and defacement of the American flag in our own country while ranting that Islam is going to dominate the world and destroy all Infidels. The proposed mega-mosque near Ground Zero is an insult to America, all Americans, people of the free world and the families of the 3,000 victims of these barbaric acts of war carried out by Muslim zealots.

"By the same logic, we should prevent Catholics from building any of their churches near middle schools because some of their priests molested young boys."

Well, now that you mention it...

Actually

I would ban churches from within a mile of a school just as we zone out red light districts. Tax payer dollars are used to educate children in the US way of life including secularism. The churches use their proximity to schools to warp that in the minds of young kids as if the two are some how connected (and provide "seminaries" and after school programs during which they can indoctrinate (and in the case of catholics, rape) the children.

Of course I would also ban fast food restaurants, alcohol sales, tobacco sales, political advertising, large businesses, etc as I believe that childhood should be, at least the early parts, a protected environment in which to develop one's internal self. (Rich kids do it by boarding in some isolated little town.) But then, my opinion doesn't count for much as I really haven't looked at that data.

Timmy

again, I tend to want to agree with you. But as I read history, after a good muslim leader who teaches tolerance etc, come several cruel bastards that decimate the local population and the bastards outnumber the good guys. Since the problem is doctrinal, the koran and the bible, the recurrence of violence in the name of islam and jesus are repeat events in history. They are themes central to the existence of these ideologies - the right and divine compulsion to oppress.

As I see it, the majority of good religious people, in all religions, take pieces of their native religions and reinterpret it for their instinct for living a good life. But a bastard armed with an ideology of hate just needs an inch to drive the good guys to submission and then wreaks havoc over the world. And this happens over and over, if we don't combat a bad idea, it will recur.

I don't feel the people are probabilistically worse, that would be racism (and often the underpinnings to banning mosques etc), but the ideology is what does not deserve respect - except in the spectrum of ideas (hence my suggestion of a round polyalter shared by the whole community...)

Hariaum

Isn't this just asking for trouble? Isn't this going out of your way to make trouble? Isn't this poking a hornet's nest with a stick?

Muslims talk, talk, talk about what a great religion Islam is and what a peaceful religion Islam is.

But is it really? This is a provocation, that is unnecessary. If they are so peaceful, then why can't they back down for once? Are they ever wrong about anything?

By the same logic, we should prevent Catholics from building any of their churches near middle schools because some of their priests molested young boys.

"While opposition to the opening of an Islamic center at Ground Zero is certainly not surprising, it reflects a dismal level of intolerance, bigotry and ignorance that continues to plague our country."

It's the dismal level of intolerance, bigotry and ignorance in muslim countries that led to 9/11 and subsequently this controversy. The fact that muslims don't recognize or don't care about the sensitivities involved here should not be surprising.

BRUCE30 :

i have a problem with this mosque. it is another chance in the minds of muslims to build a mosque on their enemy's sacred ground just like they did in jerusalem when they intentionally and disrespectfully built a mosque directly on top, yes right on top of judaism's holiest site. they have no respect for anyone or anything. not even themselves. phony and liars.

The Romans built a pagan temple and the christians built a church, well before a mosque was built on the spot

If this were an Islamic Center dedicated to the study and erradication of the terrorist element in Islam, then maybe it might fly. But, otherwise, I don't think so.
---------------------------------------------

Yeah, the suspicious, wrapped packed in the checked luggage would deny boarding.

I saw the news story on televison about the Islamic structure to be built near ground zero.

It won't be a mosque; it will be something more like an Islamic Center, which might have a mosque inside of it. So, I assume, it will have the appearance of a very tall office building, like the other buidlings around it. And it is not AT ground zero, but a couple of blocks away.

I saw the guy who wants to build it. I felt a little sorry for him, because he was so dreamy-eyed and pi-in-the-sky about what a great idea this was to spread the word about what a good religion Islam is.

This is very naive. He didn't seem to have a clue, but I have a feeling he may be getting one now. He may have the best of intentions, but it is not a very good idea. He does not seem to grasp that he is adding insult to injury, and even if there are no legal ways to stop its construction, it will not go smoothly, and may even end up, finally, like the world trade towers. Why go out of your way to make this kind of trouble, when it is not necessay?

If this were an Islamic Center dedicated to the study and erradication of the terrorist element in Islam, then maybe it might fly. But, otherwise, I don't think so.

NAVIN1

"Our example will never satisfy the radical islamists. But our leadership will diminish the power of the radicals"

Disallowing this mosque increases the power of the radicals. Allowing it without protest diminishes the power of the radicals.

And it would not be the government that would be turning the other cheek, because the government would be allowing it only because not allowing it would be unconstitutional. You are right that government does not have the right to turn the other cheek on our behalf.

Legally it it can not be disallowed by the government. But the American people can disallow it by protesting and making it near impossible with civil obstruction tactics, but this to me increases the power of the radicals. If Americans were somehow able to act pragmatically and with clear heads, they would see that allowing a muslim place of worship so close to ground zero without protest would send a message to the peaceful muslims (which is most of them) that would be so powerful it would greatly diminish the power of the radicals to recruit foot soldiers.

The harsher America is on it's own muslims, the more power the radicals in the middle east gain. That's how I see it. America's muslims did not fly planes onto the twin towers. Wahabists from Saudi Arabia did.

It's no secret that I don't care for the muslim religion even as it is practiced by moderate American muslims. But I still think our greatest weapon against all superstitious monotheistic religions is steadfast freedom of religion. I still think that allowing this mosque to be built without protest is in the terrorists f@%king face. I think it says to the terrorists, "Booom! Take that scumbags!"

And I think they would take it like that. It would be a defeat for them. That's how I see it.

'From your post It sounds like you think that this thing is going to be at ground zero.'

For some reason I did have that impression - and I suppose that's why it sounded like such a bad idea. The land is owned by a Muslim, and apparently the deal is sealed, so construction will no doubt go forward.

I suppose it takes a certain amount of courage to build a mosque around the corner from ground zero, even so.

While I object to the doctrines of Islam and Catholicism with equal vigor, there's nothing I can do (or say) about zoning codes.

Timmy

In general, physical space is not as important as ideology. I tend to agree. But we are in a physical space, we need that to be part of our ideology, even if we restrict it to the physical space we call our bodies. We also don't want to abstract ideas to the point that the physical representations become meaningless. Most humans don't live in such abstract constructs that they can freely manipulate with the latest evidence. We need the abstract ideas to be relevant.

The pagans of Europe, the Natives of Americas, the Hindus, the Voodoo of Africa, the infidels of the middle east, etc all kept turning their cheek to the chirsto-islamic invaders. The moral of turning a cheek, to me, does not seem to be one of being a fool. Even if an individual turns a cheek, it is not the duty of a government to do so. The duty of the government is to protect the cheek. And, if by turning its cheek, it promotes more attacks, the government has failed (and Hindu rajas did this so much that they deserved to lose any rights to power).

We need to understand the goals of our enemies. Otherwise we fight a tactical war while they fight a strategic one - we are bound to lose. We have our strategic goals in mind. But if we are to promote tolerance and acceptance, sure enough we need to demonstrate it, but we also need to beam it past the barriers of information that purposefully poor educators in the middle east use to create hatred.

Where do we spend our effort: the marginal gain from advancing the tolerance of those that are already largely (though admittedly not entirely) tolerant, or the more significant gain in advancing the tolerance of those that are taught that America rules the world and a good man attacks America while ignoring their own oppressive regimes. Any economist will, I suspect, tell you, place your efforts on the front side of the diminishing returns curve, not so much on the top side.

Even if the US and the EU are imperfect in their efforts to be tolerant, there is a major difference from the middle east which is nearly perfect in its intolerance. Our example will never satisfy the radical islamists. But our leadership will diminish the power of the radicals. (And, frankly, though this may seem odd in view of our discussions, I think a most powerful way to do this is by rock and roll. Kids respond to the shared physicality of music. Kids that sing and dance together learn to live together (and reproduce which scares the dickens out of fundamentalists all over the world). The old bastards need to be killed off, but kids can still learn to love beyond geography. We just need to use economic power to indoctrinate the kids of the middle east in this freedom of consciousness.)

hariaum

Persiflage,

From your post It sounds like you think that this thing is going to be at ground zero. It's not. It's just going to be near ground zero. And even if one wants to call ground zero "sacred or hallowed ground" you can't extend that to the near by street corners as well. This proposal has nothing to do with the Ground Zero monument. It's just going to be right around the corner from there and that's what's got people so upset.

NAVIN1

"But the Washington Monument, the Lincoln memorial, the Jefferson memorial, the Capital building, the White House, the Supreme court chambers etc are physical locations that have meaning beyond just any place"

I know they do but I don't think that they should. I don't think that the physical locations or even the edifices should have any meaning. Only the ideal should have meaning. This goes to the very core of human war and strife. Physical places mean nothing. Ideals on how to live are what have meaning. As soon as we say the physical place holds the meaning of the ideal, the ideal becomes a physical thing that can be attacked and destroyed as a representative of that ideal. This includes countries which are physical things that represent certain ideals.

"we can identify the site of a massacre of our citizens"

Of course. But not give that place any meaning. As soon as you do, you have physicalized ideals and made them something that can be attacked. When they remain in your heart, they can never be attacked with bullets and fire.

"What do you think their true goals are?"

I don't know but I do know that they are moot to any discussion of whether or not this should be allowed. It's a legal issue. There is no grounds to disallow it. And if we do disallow it, then the terrorists will have won in taking us off our game. The game of religious freedom. I believe that our strongest weapon against Islamic terrorism is to be steadfast in our ideal of freedom of religion. Think of the powerful message it would send to the peaceful muslims around the world if Americans allowed this without a single protest.

I don't believe that Jesus was a real person but I do believe in the power of "turn the other cheek" in some circumstances, and this is one of those circumstances.

Philosophically speaking, it seems perfectly clear to me that any religious structure built at ground zero should represent ALL religions, or no religion at all.

The use of this as yet mythical structure should not be limited to or restricted by certain prescribed religious ceremonies, rituals, and traditions found in one expression of monotheism i.e. Islam.

The motives of the would-be builders and the zoning board may be pure and well-intentioned, and they are negotiating a perfectly legal land deal. That will matter little to those that object in very unpredictable ways, to a monolithic structure that sends a very mixed message.

Building this mosque will not make the intended statement that separates the wider world of Islam from the events that occurred here - the symbolism will not be clear by any means.

Any structure built in this location will memorialize 3000 murder victims, and will at the same time serve as a physical symbol of world peace. In no way should one religion dominate this particular location - whether or not one views this as sacred or hallowed ground, it is symbolically a very powerful parcel of land.

I wouldn't expect New Yorkers to welcome this idea with completely open arms....and the objections will by no means be limited to the local citizenry.

From Dr. Juan Cole's blog today:

A tiny fringe cult destroyed the Twin Towers in New York, not Islam in general (a religion of 1.5 billion human beings which could well be the religion of 3 billion human beings by mid-century). A monument to Usama Bin Laden or al-Qaeda would be in poor taste. A mosque, built anywhere in the United States, is not.

The classical Islamic law of war forbids sneak attacks. It forbids the killing of non-combatants. It forbids the killing of women and children. War is a collective duty declared by the duly constituted authorities, not an individual duty, and so not just any Ahmed or Moustafa can wake up in the morning and declare war on, say, Europe. See Khaled Abou El Fadl.

Al-Qaeda cultists reject these principles of Islamic law and they have been roundly condemned for doing so by all the major Muslim authorities– the rector of Al-Azhar Seminary in Egypt, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Iraq, television preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi in Qatar, Tahir al-Qadri in Pakistan, etc., etc., etc.

Finally, forbidding the building of a mosque in New York is inconsistent with the ideals of the Founding Generation of the United States of America, who explicitly mentioned Islam among the cases when they spoke of religious freedom:

‘George Washington asked in a March 24, 1784, letter to his aide Tench Tilghman that some craftsmen be hired for him: “If they are good workmen, they may be of Assia, [sic] Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, [Muslims] Jews, or Christian of any Sect – or they may be Atheists …”

I noticed a couple of commenters say that this Islamic Center near ground zero is in poor taste. That is right.

No matter how you may feel about this being a free country, and no matter how you may realize that the actions of the lunatic fringe do not represent the mainstream, still a terrible thing happened there, and it was done by Muslims in the name of Islam. Muslim people might like to forget that fact, but the rest of us are not forgetting it.

I would think that Muslim people would have a little respect for the feelings of people regarding this matter. If they do not, then they should not be so senstive about people disresepcting them. Respect is a two street, not "my way all the time."

I know that this center will never be built because even if it passes all of the approvals to build it, when the day comes to start construction, there will be protestors and hecklers, without end, blocking its construciton.

People have taken such radical action for a lot less cause, and have succeeded.

Perhaps there is no construct for sacred ground. But the Washington Monument, the Lincoln memorial, the Jefferson memorial, the Capital building, the White House, the Supreme court chambers etc are physical locations that have meaning beyond just any place. These are places where a people designate as physical expressions of their ideals. Just we have identified battelgrounds and national parks, we can identify the site of a massacre of our citizens. You don't have to feel a sacredness to such a site. I try to learn that the totality of Being is sacred. But my ego and ethno centrism still picks out difference.

It seems to me their true goals are to install an islamic government over the entire world that disallows human freedom of conscience. Hence a mosque fits right in.

What do you think their true goals are?

hariaum

Anyone who thinks that the terrorists will be cheering when we allow this mosque to be built doesn't understand what their true goals are.

I don't think that we could send a stronger or more educational message to the Muslim world about the wonderfulness of American freedom than to allow this mosque to be built.

And legally we have no choice. Hence, no brainer.

"We need to end the idea of "sacred ground" forever."

I agree; and I feel the same way about:

"If we [whatever], the terrorists win."

Except as a joke, of course.

NAVIN

"A reminder, though, this is a place where Americans were martyred for being American. It is a place that this nation should recognize as a unique place in US history, not just another business center"

I disagree. What you are suggesting is that this become some sort of sacred ground. And the idea of "sacred ground" is what has caused all of this mess in the first place and has been the cause of so much war and suffering over the millennia. We need to end the idea of "sacred ground" forever.

A memorial to the people who died there should be built. But ground zero should be considered no more sacred than any other piece of land anywhere in this world.

Putting a mosque at Ground Zero?? Hmmm, bad taste people. Tacky and ridiculous in my opinion. Why would you put a mosque at the site where radical muslims killed thousands of my countrymen? If this is to some how erect peace and love between people it wont happen. The towers were an AMERICAN landmark, to bring in something foreign in its place or even near its place would simply be irresponsible. What is this country turning into?

VOLKMARE

"They should not be allowed to build a mosque at ground zero"

Not be "allowed" based on what law or ordinance? You do know that this is a country of laws and constitutional rights don't you? You know that to disallow something we need legal grounds or constitutional grounds don't you?

If we disallow this mosque, the terrorists win.
If we allow this mosque, it is not a victory for them. It is in their f@%kin face.

This one is such a no brainer. Disallowing a mosque to be built on private property is against the laws and constitution of the United States of America. As crazy as it sounds, if we try to disallow the building of that mosque near ground zero, the terrorists win.

History shows that Muslims build a mosque everywhere they have had a victory.

They should not be allowed to build a mosque at ground zero.

Besides who would worship there, no one lives in the area?

Mark
Always seek the truth.

"I'm certain there would be less outrage if the building was a Scientologist "church" instead."

Perhaps, but to be fair, as Sam Kinison might say if he were alive:

"NO SCIENTOLIGIST EVER HIJACKED AN AIRPLANE AND FLEW IT INTO A BUILDING..."

"Should there be a mosque near Ground Zero?"

Yes, and women should be allowed in all areas of the mosque that men are allowed.

We pride ourselves on being a country of individuals when it suits us, yet we refuse to treat Muslims as individuals instead of stereotypes. I find the upsurge in anti-Muslim sentiment in this country appalling and blatantly un-American.

Few people seem to understand that in America, the price of your freedom is the freedom of others to do things with which you disagree. It's discouraging that the mosque issue has become a controversy. I'm certain there would be less outrage if the building was a Scientologist "church" instead.

The history of religious oppression often includes blowing up the enemies sacred spaces and then replacing it with that of the oppressor, then, of course, claiming that there was not a sacred space there before. Christianity and Islam have done this repeatedly throughout history.

Yes this is just another example. Can you imagine a US air-strike against Al Qaeda on a major part of Mecca followed by the building of a free public library that allows Saudi persons, male and female, equal access to driving courses, the full library of the world, and rights to worship as they choose. The tolerant muslims would not allow this to happen.

But the US does have a tradition and value of tolerance, where the islamic world does not. Ground Zero and surrounding areas are sacred to a democracy based on free market of ideas, a secular state. It is a place where a large number of citizens of this nation were martyred by the enemies of free choice in religion and otherwise. Their deaths came as a sacrifice, un-asked for, for what it means to be American. The attack was an attack on what it means to be American and the attack was an attack meant to project an islamist agenda.

These martyrs need to be remembered, lest we allow this to happen again. My own balance would be that the site be considered a US Heritage site. That the rebuilding be restricted to American Values of secularism, tolerance, free enterprise, democracy, the Constitution, etc. This would mean individuals could contribute to a rebuilding fund but could not control it:

a round egalitarian place of worship where all the gods are represented, each by one statue or artwork where no group is allowed to worship but individuals are allowed to sit quietly. This juxtaposed to a library dedicated to religious history, tolerance and intolerance. This juxtaposed to a center for research of religious cooperation. Above all that, a center for secularism and independent thought and the US Constitution / political history. Above that offices. Naturally, considering that intolerance will continue, a defensive arsenal sitting atop of that (and probably all tallest skyscrapers in the US).

But I suspect that the islamic sources will dry up when their carpet of allah will have to be placed next to a statue of Kali. Even the christians will be upset when their statue of jesus will be next to a statue of Zeus.

A reminder, though, this is a place where Americans were martyred for being American. It is a place that this nation should recognize as a unique place in US history, not just another business center.

hariaum

It seems in bad taste to me, but I could see it being good if this center was used to speak out not just against terrorism, but against the sort of hyper-conservative Islam that leads to terrorism, misogyny, and intolerance. Are the chances of that happening good? I remain skeptical, especially considering the most recent terrorist was living in New York, and the South Park death threats came from NYC itself. Ultimately I don't think the city should stop them, it is their freedom of religion. But if people ever want to protest the actions of militant Islam in NYC, hey there's a great stop right down town! The best way to show you disagree with someone's use of free speech is to use your own.

This is not about religious freedom or whose church is better than whose. This is about the heartache and loss of life that we as Americans have endured at the hands of these people. We talk about freedom and rights, but we always give ours up so other foreigners can come in and put up theirs. We should not allow a mosque close to ground zero because it only delivers a blow and a stab at the heart of those Americans who lost their lives there. It's like a joke to them, to laugh at our misery and our pain. We must take a stand and remember what our young men and women are fighting for and dying for.

I am more interested in:

- who is, or would be the imam of the mosque near ground zero?

- who are the ones who would be using the mosque regularly apart from Muslim tourists to New York taking a break for prayers and a nap after all the sightseeing in Lower Manhattan.

Why do the Muslims would want to build an Islamic Center with mosque very close to Ground Zero? Do they want to get their world-wide attention? Couldn't they find elsewhere just away from Ground Zero? They know they would fan the fire of anger among us Americans. Secondly, we MUST not forget that NO non-Islamic houses of worship are allowed to be built anywhere in Saudi Arabia and some other Islamic nations. Someone said it is the matter of freedom of religion. The Muslims do NOT recognize freedom of religion.

Americans have religious freedom guaranteed under the Constitution, and all human beings have the universal human rights of freedom of religion, freedom of worship, freedom of conscience as part of the Universal Human Rights. These freedoms must be unqualified freedoms without exception, without caveat; otherwise they are not freedoms at all.

The problem is not whether or not we should judge about the rights to have houses of worship at the Park Place mosque, or the Staten Island mosque, or the Brooklyn mosque, or the Murfreesboro, Tennessee mosque, or the Wilson, Wisconsin mosque, or the Temecula Valley, California mosque.

The problem is that we are asking this question about ANY houses of worship at all - whether it is an Islamic mosque, a Christian church, a Jewish synagogue, a Hindu or Buddhist temple, etc. The problem is that we are asking this question about freedom for anyone - especially those not like us, or even those some might not like.

When we are ASKING this question - we have serious problems in remembering and understanding what our Constitution rights and our universal human rights entail - for all Americans and for all people. The very idea that we are ASKING this question is un-American and a disgrace to human rights not just in America, but around the world.

Many individuals' religious freedom, freedom of worship, and freedom of conscience are routinely denied and assaulted. Are we to stay silent when such freedoms are also assaulted in the land of the free and the home of the brave? For shame. For SHAME.

Americans can and MUST do better than this. Americans must remember that we are ALL -- responsible for equality and liberty -- for all of our fellow Americans, regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

We must stop questioning such freedoms and instead DECLARE such freedoms.

This is a life-long liberal speaking.

The thing that bothers me about this is whether or not the mosque will broadcast the adhan, the Muslim call to prayer, so that it can be heard at Ground Zero five times per day. (The muezzin, a man appointed to call to prayer, climbs the minaret of the mosque, and he calls in all directions, "Hasten to prayer." Many mosques no longer require the muezzin to climb the minaret. Instead, a loud speaker carries the message. http://www.balaams-ass.com/alhaj/calltoprayer.htm)

Imagine being the relative of someone killed in the Twin Towers, coming to Ground Zero to visit the place where your loved one died, and hearing THAT. (I am a Methodist. If some fool had blown up the Saudi embassy in the name of John Wesley or Jesus Christ, I would not be in favor of building a Methodist church two blocks from the rebuilt embassy and playing "Onward Christian Soldiers" over a loudspeaker five times a day, either.)

If calls to prayer will be kept inside the mosque and it is not visible from Ground Zero, I see no problem with it, but dedicating it on September 11, 2011? Please. Good will may not be at issue here, but good taste and common sense seem to be in perilously short supply.

OK , WHAT PART OF THE 9-11 ATTACK ARE YOU PEOPLE NOT GETTING? THIS ATTACK WAS NOT JUST ON THE PEOPLE AT THE TWIN TOWERS IT WAS ON US!!! THE AMERICANS OF THE UNITED STATES!! HOW DARE THE VERRY PEOPLE THAT LEAD THE ATTACK AGAINST OUR PEOPLE TO BUILD ANY BUILDING IN OUR COUNTRY AT ALL!!!THEY CAN GO BACK WHERE THEY DO NOT HAVE TO SEE OUR FACES AT ANY TIME IN THEIR LIFE, EVER,BUILD A TOWER TO ALLAH AND STAY UNTIL DOOMS DAY!! WHY WOULD WE EVEN ALLOW ONE OF THE ENEMY TO LIVE IN OUR COUNTRY WITH A THREAT TO KILL US ALL??DEATH TO AMERICA, DO YOU THINK THIS A JOKE?? TO ME IT IS A VERY FRIGHTENING STATEMENT. IT INCLUDES ALL OF US !! NOT JUST THE PEOPLE IN THE TWIN TOWERS OR AT THE PENTAGON.THIS IS NOT OVER.IF WE DONT DO SOMETHING WE WILL ALL BE IN THE TWIN TOWERS, THEY HATE US!! ALL OF US!!!

Where were all these peace-loving Muslims when the towers went down? They were silent or, if in the Middle East, cheering. This center will be a trophy for the Muslim world. They felled our towers and now they build on their ashes.

Why not build the center in a Muslim population center in NY? Why in a financial district?

Those that refuse to see what is so clear are a victim of their own naiveness.

As a country, we cannot admit millions of people that despise our culture and our way of life. The fact that many left-leaning people also despise our country makes this all very complicated.

The name of the mosque should clarify its purpose. It is named -- according to reports -- after the location of the first mosque in Europe after the recent tide of Muslims into Europe.

Perhaps we cannot stop the mosque without violating the Constitution. But Americans can and should stop Muslims from immigrating to this country. We have no obligation to allow anyone to immigrate here, and to allow hostiles to immigrate to this country is folly.

It's interesting to see who is really committed to the principles of constitutional Americanism and it sure isn't the Palins, her teabaggers or the other racist and Islamophobic bigots who reject core values like the freedom of religion embodied by the First Amendment.

How many muslims live in lower New York City anyway? Where is the money coming from to fund this mosque, not the shell organizations... but the actual people who give the BIG money? Has anyone ever estimated how many muslims there are in america? And how many of those are terrorist sympathizers? Do most american muslims want to live under Sharia law? Lots of questions... that need clear concise answers.

Most Americans have tolerance and doing this would be a good message(ideally). But in order for there to be any practical significance of this, it needs to sink into the minds of the youth who are becoming extremists with every passing day. I don't see a village in Kandahar or elsewhere telling their kids about why they should respect Americans because they still respect Islam despite what happened.
In fact, in a practical sense, I see more conflict arising in the neighborhood of Ground Zero after this thing is built. I also creates a back door for extremists posing as peace-lovers to approach this area.

This is America. It's a free country. We don't tell people where they can or can't build (non-adult) establishments.

I think it is provacative. I don't like the thought. I understand that we are a nation of all religions, but this seems inappropriate. It is as if they are raising a flag of victory in the ashes of our murdered. or, perhaps that isnt their intent, but to the radical, I can almost see them laughing at us.

please check out http://www.islamicsolutions.com/do-they-even-know-what-islam-is/

Political correctness and denial should not be a factor in the decision to build a mosque on the site. Islam is, and has been, a problem dozens of times in the U.S in the last decade. It matters not that 'only a few' of it's followers choose violence. Have we considered how many Muslims are involved if even a tiny fraction of it's 1.5 billion subscribers choose violence?

Most previous U.S Islamic perpetrators of violence did so in the name of Islam, most appeared to be model citizens, and most were members of Mosques which advocated peace and cooperation within the larger communities in which they were located.

Remember, we are not submitting to massive security at airports and other locations because of the actions of Buddhists, Hindus, or Baptists.

Oh come on. Islam didn't bring down the towers; Al-Quaeda did. There's nothing wrong with a Muslim community center near ground zero. There's something VERY wrong with all the controversy stirred up about it. This reveals a great deal about the unconstitutional prejudice towards Muslims in the post 9-11 era. I'm a patriot, but in this instance, I am not proud of my fellow Americans.

If you're going to allow any whacko religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) then why not. People of all beliefs died there. This as a country of many faiths, even the True Faith, Pastafarianism.

Most Christians don't believe in biblical fundamentalism, most Jews don't buy into the extremism of Orthodox Judaism and most Muslims aren't radical fundamentalists.

Despite what the radical rightwing extremists in America might say, America is a free country.

Peace-loving New Yorkers should tell Sarah Palin to Refudiate THIS!

I guess the couple of tons of human corpse dust might make it sacred to some people.

Talk, talk, talk ...

This type of center, or mosque, or whatever one may call it, is simply not feasible in that location.

There are enough people in Manhatten who are offended by it, that it will never happen.

Right or wrong, fair or not, that is life in the real world.

Since when, and by whose determination, is Ground Zero "sacred ground"?

As for a mosque, a church, a synagogue, a temple, a church of scientology, etc. near ground zero, why not? I am sure the 3000 or so victims of 9/11 were from all the faiths of the world so why be selective? Of course there are some amongst us who like the "us vs them" approach when it comes to muslims. But they tend to see everything in life in that way. Best to just ignore them and the hatred they incite to feel relevant.

CAYZLE writes, "...bigots who are stirring up controversy where there is none."

I'll have you know that, "Stir It Up," Bob Marley, music video, YouTube, is one of the best, ever.

Sarah Keep saying these things and hanging out with the tea party and see if your reputation gets hurt. Now, I am not one to say that all tea party members are racist or anti-government, but to also say there are no racists or just a tiny few is a complete and utter lie. I mean I don't recall Martin Luther King marching with people in the crowds carrying signs that are even close to what I have seen at Tea Party protests....and to be truthful blacks had more of a reason because they didn't have equal rights. I like Sarah Palin but she has to distance herself from this crowd check the story here:

http://apleblog.com/2010/04/10/palin-must-distance-herself-from-tea-party-%E2%80%93-or-else/

A Mosque at ground zero will be a constant reminder of what radical Muslims are capable of. No matter what reasons they give for the building, what happened there would be reason enough to deny the building. There is no guarantee that radical Muslims will not be housed there.

Sure, let's put a strip club and/or church in Mecca and a mosque at the Vatican, if that was "our" America's space, but it's not.

Consider...churches can't be built at Mecca because 'it's too sacred' to jokes like Saudi/Bin Laden...it would be more of a pie in the face if we built all sorts of things at the site. We'd not ignore the sacred memory of people killed, but rather eradicate the idea of a space so sacred that nothing else can be built on it...that would show our solidarity behind our Constitution more...we're better people and will, of course, allow any worship space, including mosques, as part of our sacred spaces.

I have no opinion about whether a mosque is built near ground zero. Provided that _IF_ one is built there, the right to protest outside it is protected by law enforcement in a way that insures the safety of both the protesters and building occupants.

Oh please. The mosque is part of a larger cultural center with many components. It has no line of sight to Ground Zero. It is two city blocks away, which is a long distance in NYC. This is a non-issue created by right-wing partisans and bigots who are stirring up controversy where there is none.

This is the United States of America. Freedom of expression is guaranteed by our Constitution. Those wanting to build the center understand that quite well. Good for them. Now the rest of us should stand up and support their effort to denounce terrorism and hatred. Enough hatred and suspicion. If there is freedom of religion for some then there must be freedom of religion for all.

i have a problem with this mosque. it is another chance in the minds of muslims to build a mosque on their enemy's sacred ground just like they did in jerusalem when they intentionally and disrespectfully built a mosque directly on top, yes right on top of judaism's holiest site. they have no respect for anyone or anything. not even themselves. phony and liars.

And please don't allow yourself to think for a minute that if a mosque is built there, that it would be safe from terrorist attacks! Terrorists couldn't care any less about hurting muslims and blowing us up with everyone else!

If we agree with your plea, then we are saying what you are saying, that muslims destroyed the world trade center. And Muslims did not, some terrorist freaks who call themselves Muslim did. And what does building a mosque near the world trade center have to do with building a mosque in Mecca? Do Americans pray and worship in the world trade center? Oh yeah, some probably do since it was the money capital of the country.

I have no problem putting a mosque at ground zero, so long as we can put a church at the holiest site in mecca. better yet, how a bout a mall with a strip club? that wouldn't offend anyones sensibilities, would it?