TOLERANCE SHOULD BE A TWO WAY STREET. And Christ never preached TOLERANCE. He preached TRUTH... REPENTANCE... LOVE...AND NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME. Get the hell over it and please stop calling yourself a Catholic.

"It is necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." - Pope Boniface VII

Catholics have done their share of killing or been complicit in such. See Crusades, Inquisition, the Holocaust.

test~!

"There is no provision of law that can deny them the right to build a mosque on property that they own and fabricating "special" conditions to deny them equal rights as Charles Krauthammer advocates is simply un-American. Mr. Krauthammer makes a living writing columns that regularly offer foreign policy advice to the United States, most often in ways to benefit the Israeli government."
______________________
Actually, this isn't the case with Krauthammer, Anthony.

And kindly explain what his position on Israel has to do with his position on the center? Did you read his article?

Here is a significant problem for you, Anthony. You have posted antisemitic ravings before, some under the guise of anti-Israeli rants, but Rauf and Khan have never said anything antisemitic. Rauf has been critical of Israel, but then so have I, and I am Jewish.

Racists like you do not help the cause of Rauf and Khan. They help no one's cause. Your ignorance of Catholicism has left you almost bereft of Catholic bloggers. That is a shame.

Your ignorance of most other things has left you bereft of most other readers. I still cringe as I recall your having stated that scholars define schizophrenia as "split personality." That, I ignored, awaiting the corrections that would follow.
And follow they did. Big time.

I don't understand why you don't seem capable of doing the least bit of research, improving your reading comprehension, or of ridding yourself of the bigotry that poisons your soul.

"American Muslims should not be forced into a back alley today in order to worship."

I live in NYC and I find your comments revolting.

There are at least 100 mosques in NYC.

No one is stopping muslims from praying or from building a mosque.

American's are simply saying STOP POKING US IN THE EYE.

As for location, the building in question was struck nby the landing gear of one of the 9/11 planes.

And the dust from the burning bodies of 2996 innocent victims of muslims was strewn all over lower Manhattan.

So your comments about location are pure tripe.

This isn't about freedom of religion, it's about allowing a group that tolerates terrorism to put a jihadist victory memorial on the graves of 3000 who were killed by Imam Rauf's co-religionists.

(Imam Rauf has NEVER condemned Hamas, and THEY support this mosque)

You don't like Gingrich's comments about the holocaust?

I am a Jew and his comments resonate for me.

Try this one with your Black friends; why not let the KKK put up a community center adjacent to the African Slaves Graveyard a few blocks away in Manhattan?

Would you DEMAND they put their community center there?

Or better yet, why don't we put up a Texas Victory Monument in Mexico City? Will that float your boat?

Islam has been building monuments on /near their conquests for 1300 years.

Perhaps you should look the history of Islam vs CATHOLICISM.

Are you even aware of the hundreds of thousands of Catholics murdered and enslaved over centuries by islam in Europe, and how the muslims put up mosques in those locations?

You are either ignorant of islamic history or you an active shill for jihad.

Get an education, and stop trying to brainwash Americans.

Well reasoned and put the lie to Krauthammer regarding the nuns at Auschwicz.

What is leading this fear but bigotry? All Islam is not evil - but a few terrorists are.

Just as all Christians are not evil for the the death they have visited on the world over 2000 years in the name of faith.

I thought we judged individuals, not groups.

Anthony is no Catholic; he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is people like him who have been bent on destroying the Church from within.

He makes me and other TRUE Catholics sick.

It is amazing what some people will do to try to destroy the Church in search of the almighty dollar.

The Church has survived over 2000 years and it will survive long after Anthony's face to face meeting with Lucifer.

Anthony is no Catholic; he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is people like him who have been bent on destroying the Church from within.

He makes me and other TRUE Catholics sick.

It is amazing what some people will do to try to destroy the Church in search of the almighty dollar.

The Church has survived over 2000 years and it will survive long after Anthony's face to face meeting with Lucifer.

I like Mayor Giuliani's approach. Constitutionally, they have a right to build it.

But if they are really about peace and harmony, they will back off, just as our own beloved Carmelite nuns did at Auschwitz. Back off and foster peace. Or build it and show this "culture center" is really a shrine to Islamic dominance.

Again they have the right to build it, but let them prove who the really are through their actions.

"By the logic of some of the posters here, Virginia Tech should close down the Korean Student Association because the VA Tech shooter was Korean."

Nothing logical in your statement.
The Korean Student Association existed before the shootings and was not created later to be housed in a building where they can get the best visual they could of where the killings took place.

However, if for bizarre antagonistic reasons they decide to build such a building, be such to post back on it.

The number of offensive comments here makes it too daunting to deal with them all. I'm surprised they are not pre-moderated, because this issue has brought a lot of racists into the daylight, where they brazenly proclaim their hatred of Muslims, "white" people, and many other Americans.

I applaud the writer for his stand against those who would subvert the constitution for their own bigoted agenda. Krauthammer is a known bigot against Arabs and Muslims and I'm glad someone from WAPO's staff called him out as such.

Look, I'm really get tired of all of this:

Just have the Saudis ask the United States Department of State for permission to construct the Park51 mission. Then the Saudis can openly fund the construction and everybody will know what's going on.

I have no problem letting the Saudis build their missions in the United States.

The Park51 Mission would be an invaluable 'collection point' for the gathering of information for the on-going war on terror by many domestic and international law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

One thing I will not tolerate is the backward camel jockeys coming into my country and espousing their ignorant, violent cultural hegemony as 'just a religion'. Once the Saudis took over all of Islam and turned it into their ways of thinking, it lost its status as a religion once and for all...

Think of it this way: Say the United States government bought out the Mormons and started exporting their temples to foreign countries...would the Mormon church 'just be a religion?'

Enough: This is a matter for the United States Department of State. Hillary: Get off you fat white @ss and get to work....

Rohti57, I quite frankly find your disdain for the Constitution offensive. My forefathers fought and died, and members of my family are currently in harm's way to protect and defend it. However, it's ironically your right under that document to trash it.

And understand this:

"Liberal" and "Christian" are not mutually exclusive. Many people are the former BECAUSE they are the latter.

"Liberal" and "Catholic" are not mutually exclusive by any means. Note that the white faces on road to Montgomery often had clerical collars or habits framing them.

"Muslim" and "American" are definitely not mutually exclusive, as exemplified by the fact that Imam Rauf is A NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN.

If you want to encourage religious bigotry, if you want to create American ghettoes that are the only places acceptable to practice minority religions, if you want to stop any American citizen from praising God in any way he or she chooses, then quite frankly you are espousing the same views as our enemies.

Call me crazy, but I don't want my country to become like Saudi Arabia only with an Evangelical Christian flavor.

"Put me down as a Catholic in favor of reason rather than feeling."

So you and those who agree with you are enlightened with reason and everyone who disagrees with you (most of America) is an fool driven by emotion?

That speaks volumes about the writer and his feelings about the rest of us.

Posted by: battleground51

"Building a monument to the most hateful religion in the world is hateful to most Americans. That is a fact."
=========================================
Your comment underscores the far right fundamentalist "Christians" idiotic claim that theirs is the religion of a "loving " God . . . who is coming to Earth again and who will condemn EVERYONE (including children) who don't accept him is Savior and God to eternal torture.

So - Jesus Hates Muslims?

You should read the Koran as well as the Bible, but you obviously won't understand any of their worthwhile guide lines for life.

Lauratd, you said it precisely:
Stupid indeed if they insist on it.
------
Yes they have the legal right to build that mosque, but they are stupid if they do so. Ground Zero is a flash point for many Americans and their wanting to build a mosque near there is a direct slap in the face and they know it. Indeed it could be said that GZ is a burial ground as there is still human remains/ash embedded in the walls and sidewalks of buildings throughout the area. Tolerance should go both ways but the US has gone way too far for many years in showing tolerance. If an American goes to say Saudi Arabia they are required to follow their customs, such as no alcohol or women driving or on the streets alone after a specific time and our government goes blindly along with it. We put no such restrictions on them and allow them their customs here. Muslims need to learn tolerance for others. I think the plan to build the mosque there is part of a plan to deliberately slap America. Unfortunately what they are doing is going to cause a nasty backlash at all Muslims for their thoughtlessness. Stupid move.
Posted by: lauratd | August 19, 2010 8:47 AM

The idea of a mosque so close to a site representing extreme religious carnage and destruction is provocative. Some in the Islamic world will view the center as a shrine to Islamic terrorism. Moderate Muslims need to counsel against this provocation. I am in favor, however, of the site being moved to Brooklyn, where many of NYC's muslims live, by the way.

POSTED BY: MICHAEL_COREY | AUGUST 19, 2010 11:27 AM
REPORT OFFENSIVE COMMENT

_______________

Everything depends on how the Mosque is built. The original name Cordoba House, was troublesome for reasons that have to do with history and a recent provocative event in Cordoba. The group sponsoring the project can, of course, be named whatever it is named, but the building's name should not reflect Al Andalus jidahism. The builders, who talked with others about this, wisely chose to change the name to the Park51 Mosque. This Mosque will show American Muslims oppose terrorism. There will likely be plaques honoring the victims of the bombings and the fire and police departments that saved so many lives. By heavens, I have known dozens of Muslims in my professional work. I cannot imagine any of them blowing themselves up, although I would not be surprised to find out one of them is sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff for big time fraud.

Córdoba was the capital of the Spanish Muslim dynasty of the Ummayads (756-1031). The Great Mosque of Córdoba (La Mezquita) was founded 785 CE. It was added to and expanded over the next two hundred years to make it the third largest structure in the Islamic world.

The prayer hall (23,400 square meters) is filled with almost 500 hundred slender columns and superimposed striped arches; a forest sprouting from the marble floor.

Previously the site had been occupied by a Christian church dedicated to Saint Vincent that had been built by the Visigoths around 500 CE. Before that, when Córdoba was a provincial capital in the Roman Empire, the site was occupied by a temple dedicated to Janus, the double-headed god of doorways and gates.

When Córdoba was captured by the Christian Spanish king of Castile, Ferdinand III, in the 13th century, the mosque reverted to a Christian sanctuary. Then in 1523, the local clergy, with the support of Emperor Charles V, built a cathedral in the middle of the mosque.

Thanks for the personal insult.

NOW nothing.

It has always been a monument to hate and intolerance.... they called it "cordoba house" you morons.

Some of us had it straight from the get-go.

By the logic of some of the posters here, Virginia Tech should close down the Korean Student Association because the VA Tech shooter was Korean.

The Constitution protects the rights of the minority from the majority's opinion. The Park51 group has all of their permits in order. It's even going to be a "green building", which is sorely needed in New York's canyons. Therefore, they should be allowed to build their building whereever they please. Remember that about 300 Moslems died on 9/11. Some were first responders.

If "they hate us for our freedoms", then it's the ultimate expression of freedom to put an Islamic Center (along with a 9/11 Memorial) near the WTC site.

As for the "no churches in Saudi Arabia" meme, since when did people want America to become a theocracy like Saudi Arabia is? We're better than that.

This has little to do with religious freedom. Nobody is arguing that muslims should be able to build mosques, this is the USA, they bought and paid for the property, jumped all the legal hurdles. The problem is that they say they want interfaith dialogue, not. By building at this sight they are doing more to shelve interfaith dialogue then help it along. They really don't want dialogue, they want their way, which is islam.

Just last week, I was at the World Trade Center site in New York City. Except for a few signs, you would not even know what you were looking at. It is a major construction site. When it is finished, the memorial park--which will span the entire footprint of towers 1 and 2-- will be compelling and moving and will dwarf everything else around it, including the new tower, just to the east. I highly doubt that an Islamic Community Center two blocks away will impinge in any way, since no one appears to object to a mosque that already exists nearby. Nor have I heard any similar objections to the Islamic prayer site located in the Pentagon. It's a non issue being raised mostly be people who do not live in New York City. Let New York take care of New York.

Building a monument to the most hateful religion in the world is hateful to most Americans. That is a fact.

Would the same apologists allow a monument to Naziism to be built in their city??

Let's be fair about this now.

Let's be tolerant.

I remember the outrage a few decades ago when the Catholic Church first proposed build a church next to Auschwitz, given its complicity in and failure to denounce the Holocaust. As recently as 1998, another attempt was made to place crosses on the site. Those Christians had the gall to say they wanted to honor the victims and promote understanding between faiths, just as the Muslims are doing here. A plague on both their houses.

Beneath all the chatter, the basic objection to the Islamic Center seems to be that:
1. It will distrub the friends and families of many victims of the Sept. 11 attack;
2. it will somehow signify a Muslim victory over the United States in the minds of at least some Muslims.

The first of these is certainly true but of limited relevance. At some point, a line has to be drawn as to how far from the WTC site we are going to let the feelings of the victims families dictate development patterns. Two blocks may be within that zone, but where does it end?

The second of these objections is tangential. Assuming Osama would have a party to celebrate the opening of this center, are we really less safe as a result? Those proposing the center could do a lot to address this issue by incorporating a firm rejection of the jihadist ideology into the structure of the center.

Even most of those opposed to the center concede that the owners have the right to build it there. They ask that the owners chose not to do so as a sign of respect for the "feelings" of a majority of Americans. We need to be very careful about indulging the "feelings" of the majority of Americans when they impinge on the freedoms of minorities. We have a long history of ethnic and racial suspicion and oppression in this country that does not speak well for the "feelings" of the majority. In the 1920s, for example, my Jewish mother once went to company picnic at a public beach only to be greeted by a sign saying, "No Dogs or Jews Allowed." No doubt the local town council was reflecting the feelings of a majority of its citizens by erecting that sign.

The solution, as propsed by many opponents of the Islamic Center in its planned location, is to relocate it further from the WTC site. Personally, I think moving the center to another site would be a nice gesture. Not essential, but wise.

Yet I have not heard one opponent indicate a willingness to collect the funds needed to purchase a comparable site in Manhattan for the center or to compensate the owners for the trouble involved in moving to a new site. This suggests that rather than coming from a spirit of good faith, the opposition to the center has a certain ugliness at its core. It is rather like those who insist they are not racially prejudiced but are much more concerned with discrimination against whites than with discrimination against those non-white groups that have historically suffered from bigotry.

In other words, the opponents of the center are not making the concrete gestures of good will that would mark them as well meaning and show their respect for American Muslims. In that context, it is difficult to respect their views.

rohit57 - Must tell you that I enjoy all your posts ! Thanks.

There is a kind of delicious irony here.

A lot of people are against the mosque because they hate Obama and they hate the Constitution (except the Second Amendment, of course). And they hate them because these Huckabees and Donohue Catholics find the strict Constitutionalists and the idea of civil laws trumping Papal edicts too progressive.

After weeks of listening to the ignorant rant and rave I hope they build the mosque inspite of all the screeds and protests. If anyone had said the hate filled and ignorant things that have been said about this mosque and the people buidling it to me or any organization I belonged to I would conclude that these people would only become more emboldened to further hate and possibly even violence if I were to appease them. Appeasment only leads to more and more demands and eventually violence. The only way to show these people they are wrong is to build the center, live a constructive peacefull life and continue to support and defend our country. Only time can show them the truth of their hurtfull ignorance. Just one NY'ers opinion.
BTW if your not from NY, no longer interested in your opinion on what we do in our city, Unless of course you want to hear what I think you should do in yours. I won't hold my breath on the later.

. I am uneasy with allowing sizable importation of a population that may be culturally undigestable.

Posted by: edbyronadams

Who decides what is "culturally undigestable" (sic)?

Would you let me decide it obviously includes Catholics like Donohue, Mormons like Elder Beck and white-supremacist evangelicals like Soap Opera Sarah? I don't think so.

Would you let me deny them their First Amendment rights as well?

I'm surprised that so many conservatives want a big government to stop other people from doing what they want on their own property.

Either you believe in your conservative principles, or you don't.

Freedom is not just the ability to do what you want on your own land, it's letting other people do the same on theirs. It's no good crying for more freedom for yourself, when you deny it to others. Everyone loses then.

I suggest that other religions combine to make that area an ecumenical and interfaith center without any of them dominating.

I have lived in Islamic sharia law country that is intolerant of others prayer meetings - yet this has sometimes been ignored for access to petroleum - our choice.

I would like my interfaith suggestion moved more than 2 blocks away from 9/11 site.

Where are the other faiths with huge financial resources - buy up land and make your faith center. Not only Muslims live or work in south Manhattan. Are we going to give Friday off now for these Muslims to congregate and pray? Are we going to let them off for each call to prayer? So why not have Friday and Saturday and Sunday off? We have to make a lot of decisions about religious tolerance. Will we allow Muslim Communities to establish sharia courts in deference to their religion? What about Jewish religious law? Is there a Christian religious law or Canon law?

We have to make decisions. I find the headline seems to lean toward one side in this discussion.

The mosque construction is a substitute for a real analysis of how the Muslim religion fits with American culture and American democracy. Frankly, I don't know. I am uneasy with allowing sizable importation of a population that may be culturally undigestable.

There is a kind of delicious irony here.

A lot of people support the mosque becaue they hate Republicans and they hate the Catholic church. And they hate them because these liberal suporters find the Repubicans and the church too conservative.

The irony is in the fact that Islamic countries are the most conservative countries in the world, and Islam is currently the most conservative religion.

So the extreme liberals and the extreme conservatives are in an alliance against moderate conservatives, i.e., the Republicans and the Catholic church.

Isn't there a cartoonist who will take on the project of lampooning this situation??

MOVSKI ~ Regarding your statement that : "The mosque and Islamic Center are not being proposed on Ground Zero itself."

Turns out this particular site has a building on it that had a major part to play in Ground Zero ~ it was the final resting place of Mohammad Atta's hijacked airplane. He flew it to this spot.

(Also, the blood and gore of dozens of people swept along by the plane as it flew through the WTC ended up here)

You quite literally have the high holy of all Islamofascist battlesites at stake.

I don't think we have to put up with these people building their memorials in our country.

So, cut out the Bull. You knew what this building was about.

It's about time Muslims became a little more skeptical about Allah, who nobody has ever actually seen. To build a mosque to celebrate another invisible deity who probably never existed is extremely foolish in this scientific age. There are no gods. It's all fiction.

Let them build the mosque. How long are we going to be held hostage by the relatives of those who died on Sep 11? I lived in NYC through Sep 11; its time to move on.
Posted by: bruce18
------------------------
Are 68% of Americans (the number opposing the mosque) ALL relatives of those who died on Sep 11?

This is bone-headed commentary. Though aware that some would deny mosques throughout the country, the gist of the opposition's argument is in reference only to this one being within 'call to prayer' of Ground Zero. Apparently, a couple of years ago, the local authorities denied a similar application right across from the Ground Zero site. In that, they demonstrate they understood and agreed with the principle concerning insensitivity to the traumatic experiences of the victims themselves and Americans in general. The issue ought to be the balance between liberty of religion in principle and a people's sensitivities in an isolated incident. This article demonstrates its lowliness of thought by ignoring even these rather unsubtle subtleties.

Let them build the mosque. How long are we going to be held hostage by the relatives of those who died on Sep 11? I lived in NYC through Sep 11; its time to move on.

The idea of a mosque so close to a site representing extreme religious carnage and destruction is provocative. Some in the Islamic world will view the center as a shrine to Islamic terrorism. Moderate Muslims need to counsel against this provocation. I am in favor, however, of the site being moved to Brooklyn, where many of NYC's muslims live, by the way.
Posted by: michael_corey
----------------------------
What is an intelligent posting doing here? It should have been banned! :)

The idea of a mosque so close to a site representing extreme religious carnage and destruction is provocative. Some in the Islamic world will view the center as a shrine to Islamic terrorism. Moderate Muslims need to counsel against this provocation. I am in favor, however, of the site being moved to Brooklyn, where many of NYC's muslims live, by the way.

The opposition is not out of concern that the proposed use will create a health or safety hazard, which are permissible considerations.
Those who oppose the mosque and Islamic Center are religious bigots, plain and simple. Sadly, these people fail to understand that the First Amendment was adopted to ensure freedom of religion for adherants of all faiths, not just their faith.

Posted by: Miovski
---------------------------------
About your first paragraph, given the hostility to the mosque at THIS site, there could well be security problems.

As for your second paragraph, you are simply wrong. I myself feel that the current location of the mosque is not wise and should be changed. And I have excellent relations with Muslims, I have helped them on occasion and they have helped me on occasion.

But I must say that liberals and Muslims make strange bedfellows. Muslims are not obsessed with constitutional law - for them the will of God is supreme. Most liberals do not even believe in God.

Also, remember that in 2000, 80% of Arab Americans voted for Bush. When Bush Sr wanted to push Saddam out of Kuwait, a lot of Muslim nations helped him.

The world is more complex than your simplistic theories.

How clever of the article to pit "reason" (author's view) against "emotion." (Notice that Arroyo invokes emotion by labeling the mosque a "cultural center" in the first sentence). The problem with the intellectualism Arroyo advocates is that it can't accommodate nuance and balance. I for one don't think the issue is so simple even though I strongly believe in freedom of religion. If freedom of religion were the dispositive principle, we'd have to "tolerate" a center advocating Islamic Jihad against the West at Ground Zero. Mosques are not (always) merely places of worship; they are sometimes symbols of dominance over Western thought -- why was the so-called Blue Mosque in Istanbul built right by the Hagia Sophia?

Freedom of religion is one of the most important principles of the First Amendment and of the United States Constitution as a whole. And the principles of our Constitution are the very foundation of our country.

These principles are what make us American. It is for these principles that our soldiers fight. And it is to fight against these principles that terrorists target us.

A mosque and Islamic Center has been proposed a few blocks from New York's Ground Zero, where 3,000+ innocents were killed by terrorists who mischaracterized their own faith to do evil.

The mosque and Islamic Center are not being proposed on Ground Zero itself. And they are not being proposed as a political statement. Their purpose is not to insult the victims of terrorism or to glorify the terrorists. Their purpose is to practice a religion, to worship God - the one Deity and Deity of all.

The opposition to the mosque and Islamic Center is based solely on the fact that the religion to be practiced there is Islam. There would be no opposition if the religion to be practiced there was Christianity.

The opposition is not out of concern that the proposed use will create a health or safety hazard, which are permissible considerations.

Those who oppose the mosque and Islamic Center are religious bigots, plain and simple. Sadly, these people fail to understand that the First Amendment was adopted to ensure freedom of religion for adherants of all faiths, not just their faith.

How typical of those who wail about Saudi Arabian financing of the mosque while they suckle Saudi teats for their oil addiction and obstruct alternative energy at every turn for fear of its impact on big oil profits.

None of us care about what you Catholics think. The disgraceful actions by this church over the last 50 years is sickening. Catholics at the highest level were complict in making sure your rapist Priests were transfered to other Parrish's instead of turning them into to the Authorities including the POPE. The Catholic Church spent millions upon millios of dollar to pay off the victims and it continues today. And the fact you write for the Washington Compost....Please.

Amen to this: I could not agree more. Suppressing religious freedom means the terrorists win. Muslims were killed that day also: we must remember that.

I wonder if readers who are opposed to this would also oppose the building of Christian centers within two blocks of the Oklahoma city bombing site.

Promoting and living the ideals of our constitution is hard work. But it is who we are.

"But you should not use the bill of rights on every single occasion when no one is being oppressed and you are merely using the bill of rights as a way of flouting democracy."
Who decides on which occasion it is OK to use the Bill of Rights and which it is not?
US Bishops?
The Pope?
Sarah Palin?
Newt Gringrinch?
Posted by: areyousaying
-------------------------------
The American people. They have spoken, but are you listening?

The American people are not bigots who want to put Muslims in concentration camps. They are only asking for respect for their own feelings of grief.

Next question please!

The same pompousasses who wail at all priests being stereotyped as being perverts stereotype all Muslims as terrorists.

Just ask yourself a simple question. If Republicans say that the will of the people counts and Democrats say that the will of the people ultimately does NOT count, which party are people going to vote for?

Bloomberg has handed a hot potato to Democrats and a perfect argument to Republicans.

And Democrats do not even see that they are driving down a dead end street. If they are warned, they only step harder on the gas.

Really a pity. They can only rescue themselves if they allow themselves to see that this is not an issue of the Bill of Rights but an issue of pragmatism.

If NYC can block a Greek church from being rebuilt, they could surely have used zoning arguments or parking or whatever to see, "Not here please."

They did not and now the Democrats are in big political trouble. Pointless to blame the Republicans - no politician ever looks a gift horse in the mouth. Why should the Republicans reject a gift which they were given?

"But you should not use the bill of rights on every single occasion when no one is being oppressed and you are merely using the bill of rights as a way of flouting democracy."

Who decides on which occasion it is OK to use the Bill of Rights and which it is not?

US Bishops?

The Pope?

Sarah Palin?

Newt Gringrinch?

I would like hear the opinion of the many men and women who leaped from the twin towers and fell to their deaths on 9/11, what they think of the mosque.
I wonder if they would be thought of as intolerant if they chose not to support the mosque.

Or if they instead would ask, in the name of compassion and respect, that it be built built elsewhere.

The question here is not of intolerance, but sensitivity.

The question is about salt.
And an unhealed wound.

When the subject is freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of rights quite simply what a majority of Americans want or believe on the subject is completely irrelevant. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect minorities from the worst tyranny of all as identified by Thomas Jefferson, i.e., the tyranny of the majority.
Posted by: Caliguy55
-------------------------------
You can use the bill of rights to protect some group from actual oppression. But you should not use the bill of rights on every single occasion when no one is being oppressed and you are merely using the bill of rights as a way of flouting democracy.

Ultimately everything depends on the consent of the governed. If you lose that consent because of your obsession with legal issues, then goodbye democracy. We might as well be living in Iran, where the will of the people counts but only after the Mullahs have had their say.

Thank you, Dr. Stevens-Arroyo, for exemplifying both the Christian and Constitutionally American response to this issue, and I say that as a faithful Christian. The experience of Catholics (particularly immigrant Catholics) in America is instructive. My family is from Savannah, Georgia, a colony founded by James Oglethorpe with the then radical notion that anyone could live there--Anglican, Presbyterian, Catholic, Jew, and (gasp) Lutheran.

Just as Eric Rudolph, Tim McVeigh, and Scott Roeder do not exemplify Christianity ("all Christians are not terrorists who murder abortion doctors, but all terrorists who murder abortion doctors are Christian"), neither do the Wahabbist psychopaths who carried out the attacks of 9/11 exemplify Islam. Fundamentalists of ANY religion are dangerous. To say Muslims didn't condemn the 9/11 attacks is ridiculous--even the Iranians came to America's defense. Imam Rauf himself--a native-born American, not "an immigrant"--was one of the loudest voices. How soon we forget.

Imam Rauf is the kind of Muslim that non-Muslim Americans should embrace. This part of downtown Manhattan is dilapidated and run down, and a community center based on the 92nd Steet YMCA is exactly what it needs. When my parents lived in Manhattan, it was across the street from the largest mosque in the Tri-state area. They couldn't have asked for better neighbors.

Encouraging moderate Muslims such as Imam Rauf is exactly what we need to do in the "War on Terror", since it shows to the world that yes, America is not at war with Islam and in fact proudly claims American Muslims as her own. Saying that Muslim citizens should find "more appropriate" neighborhoods to live and worship in is just as offensive as telling Jews to do the same in another time and place. Or Blacks. Or Asians. Or Hispanics. Or gays and lesbians. Or Catholics. Or Protestants.

Whither the Constitutionalists? This is PRECISELY why the protections of the First Amendment exists: for when it's emotionally difficult.

Whither the "Bible-believing" Christians for that matter? Why work so hard to prevent someone from loving his neighbor? Why blaspheme the name Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews use for God?

All people who oppose the Ground Zero Mosque have been asking is to for Muslims to exercise self-restraint in exercising their rights by choosing another location.

Note the difference in approach compared to when liberals get upset with something.

The first thing liberals do is organize a boycott, even when the people they are boycotting are exercising constitutionally protected rights. It happens over and over. The State of Arizona is currenty the biggest target, but liberals routinely utilize this weapon to express their displeasure with people who have different political/social/religious views. One would reasonably conclude then by ther behavior that liberals view economic boycotts as a reasonable way to express their political/social/religious views.

I personally don't like boycotts and I hope we can avoid boycotts against American Muslims by convincing the proponents of the Ground Zero Mosque of the wisdom of self-restraint by choosing another location.

It would be a shame if Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries that finance building the Ground Zero Mosque cause further religious division by setting off boycotts of the businesses of American Muslims and their sponsors, but that would be only one of the inevitable results of the Ground Zero Mosque.

Read the warning signs instead of speeding down a highway to nowhere with this project.

The big danger to America is the legalism where every sneeze becomes a reason for a visit to the Emergency room and every little issue is called "a violation of constitutional rights."

Liberals have appointed themselves "Guardians of the Constitution" and are constantly flouting the public will, pretending that this or that group is being "oppressed" and the constitution and liberals are going to help that group.

This liberal habit is paralyzing all decision making. Far too little attention is paid to what the majority wants, and far too little to what is best. Instead some minor legal point is made into "The Bill of Rights" and all other considerations are simply trumped.

If America does not get its democracy back from the legalistic hands of liberals, then there is little hope for us.

Look people, asking someone to move a mosque a few blocks away is NOT tyranny. When a woman is stoned to death, that IS tyranny. When someone is held in Guantanamo without trial, that IS tyranny.

But moving a mosque a few blocks is not, is not, tyranny!!

Unlike Christians, Muslims have an agenda to ultimately conquer every society they sneak into; it's on their minds day and night. It's why they have more children than they can afford, gaming the welfare systems in first world countries, and suddenly go off on bizarre jihad rampages, like the Ft Hood killer or the Time Square bomber. Sometimes, intolerance is a good thing. Like being intolerant of large numbers of illegal Mexicans in your community who bring disease, crime, litter, and poverty while crowding hospitals, public schools, and parks which they didn't build and don't pay taxes to maintain.

"Don't convert Ground Zero to a monument to intolerance".
That is within the realm of individual choice and faith. But national interests should not be guided by individual choices of faith but by the interests of the majority and of the nation as a whole.
Religious tolerance is like free speech. It is respected and supported within the parameters of the interest of the majority and the balance between the right to exercise it and the harm it may cause.
The Mosque choice draws a negative balance between the good of the state and the good of the individual.
"The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" draws the right balance between taking it seriously and exposing those that are using the issue, a little bit of political satire at http://www.robbingamerica.com

When the subject is freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of rights quite simply what a majority of Americans want or believe on the subject is completely irrelevant. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect minorities from the worst tyranny of all as identified by Thomas Jefferson, i.e., the tyranny of the majority.
Posted by: Caliguy55 |
------------------------------
No doubt. But saying to someone, "Please build your mosque a few blocks further away from the WTC site", that is only tyranny in the eyes of those who have lost all sense of perspective.

When the subject is freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of rights quite simply what a majority of Americans want or believe on the subject is completely irrelevant. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect minorities from the worst tyranny of all as identified by Thomas Jefferson, i.e., the tyranny of the majority.

Non-Muslims living in Muslim countries are treated as second-class citizens in EVERY Muslim country - not just Malaysia.
Posted by: shovandas
=============================
There is a counter argument - "We can't be like them. We can't take a page from the book of Saudi Arabia or Malaysia." This is the way of Jesus. "They slapped us? We offer the other cheek."

But when the US piles up nuclear weapons, turns a blind eye to Israel's expropriation of Muslim land, uses drones to kill civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan, then it is obvious that the US is far from being a Christian country. Jesus is not much more than a mascot.

I would say, for heaven's sake, show some common sense, build the mosque elsewhere, but make your actual policy towards other nations, both Muslim and non-Muslim, less imperialistic and more humane.

The US gives less foreign aid than Japan, but gives much more military aid, and drops bombs here, there and everywhere.

THAT is the reason why Muslims and the rest of the world dislike the US, and it has NOT CHANGED WITH OBAMA. And building a mosque or allowing it to be built will not change that either.

POSTED BY: ROHIT57 | AUGUST 19, 2010 8:55 AM
======================
I can understand your point of view but can you define " humane " ?
USA is the first nation that is at the forefront of any natural disaster that occurs - world-wide. India has offered aid and " much more " to Pakistan and that offer was spurned. I am not going into a debate about Israeli - Palestinian affairs here.
Just an after thought - have'nt some of the hatred, murder and mayhem come after the vitriolic sermons in mosques ?
I have absolutely no complaints about a mosque at GZ but will it really be an inter-faith institute ?

Screw tolerance. Screw muslims. They are a bunch of sub-human, blood thirsty, goat-fukking, aszholes. And I am an atheist so religion is not a factor here. It's a matter of breeding. Muslims, and arabs in particular are genetically predisposed to cause trouble. I say we incinerate them all. Hitler had the right idea. He just went after the wrong people.

Whats so great about tolerance ? By its very definition it means we a tolerating something In this case we would be tolerating at the very least insensitivity and at the worst a religion that promulgates violence and discrimination. I think we in the U.S. tolerate entirely too much ! There are certain things I simply will not tolerate, and I think it would be in the best interest of our great country if we decided that there are certain things that we will not tolerate.

A poster remarks:
"IT IS IMPORTANT THAT SOME MUSLIMS WILL SEE THIS AS A VICTORY MOSQUE

IT IS OF PRIME NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERN that this country does not allow that perception to take hold in any part of Islam, radical or moderate."

It is also important that some Americans will see preventing the building (no minaret, no muezzin, not a mosque, by the way) as proof that a hostile majority can suppress legal actions by a minority of whom they disapprove by sufficient rabble rousing.

It is a prime concern of the continued liberty of this country not to allow that perception to take hold in any section of the United States.

I too am a Catholic and do not agree with the Mosque at ground zero - because it is so insensitive to the USA sensitivities. For a religion so determined that we be sensitive to their beliefs and positions, they certainly do not respond in kind. Where are the Christian churches and Jewish Synagogues in any mid-east Muslim country? Where are the Muslims defending the rights of non-Muslims? It is time we realize our culture is being used against us to eventually remove our culture. Trying to argue that not having a Mosque at ground zero is a sign of intolerance is an attempt to distract from the lack of Muslim sensitivity to the 9-11 event. Finally where is all this money coming from? Seems as if this has become a conduit for Muslim propaganda and hate mongering.

23 Muslims were killed in the 9/11 attacks, about 3/4 of one percent of the total victims. The Pew Muslim American study estimated that Muslims constituted 0.6 percent of the American adult population. So the percentage of 9/11 victims who were Muslims is very similar to the percentage of Americans who are Muslims.

Using game theory, one could analyze the contest of spiritual ideas in which one camp protects its base, allowing no proselytizing, while the other is open to it. That is a losing proposition. Tolerance only works when it is mutual and, demonstrably, nations with Muslim majority nations are not.

The principle followed in this country has been the preservation of constitutional rights of unpopular groups trumps any offense their non-violent actions might cause for others. Newt Gingrich has a tenuous hold on history for a purported historian. His two examples given to support restricting the building of the Muslim center for emotional reasons are spurious. Firstly he implies that it would not be tolerated for Nazis to have a presence adjacent to a sacred Jewish site. He forgets about the court victory of the American National Socialists Party over the village of Skokie, IL (a municipality with a high percentage of holocaust survivors) attempt to forbid the group from marching through it. The Supreme Court struck down the local ordinance as being unconstitutional because it violated the Nazis First Amendment rights. Secondly he implies that no Japanese monument would be tolerated adjacent to Pearl Harbor. While not creating a court case, a Japanese Shinto religious site was constructed on the expressway leading to Pearl Harbor. This should be galling to Americans as Shintoism was the national religion of Japan and much of that nation’s militarism that led to war was based on the tenets of that religion. Unlike Europe, the United States has no laws forbidding hate speech, the display of Nazi symbols, etc. In this country we have members of a avowed Christian group demonstrating outside funerals for fallen veterans, we tolerate Holocaust denial, the KKK and other hate groups are allowed to hold public demonstrations, etc. All of this and more is defended, regardless of the grief and agony caused to the objects of the hate speech, as the protected right of all Americans to express their opinions. The opposition to the mosque is a red herring. If its building is to be prevented in order not to offend the majority, then any demonstration, writing, speech, etc. that is offensive to anyone should be banned, e.g., Holocaust denial should be a crime. It is time to reevaluate the First Amendment. If preventing the building of the mosque is not to be a discriminatory act, then the rational for blocking it needs to be applied universally.

Rejecting mosque means every thing Muslim has an element of guilt.This is how the people who reject mosque convey to the Muslims of America, and to all open minded people.
Their is no difference between a message,"Blacks and Jews not allowed",and a message ,"Mosque not allowed".
This kind of culture is a carry over from the same mind set.This only means we are still a long way from a true open society.
Posted by: mohammadakhan
---------------------------
Yes, there is a difference. It was not 19 blacks who destroyed the WTC. It was 19 Muslims.

You could say, "Don't hold it against ALL Muslims" and I would agree with you.

But PLEASE do not pretend that there is NO difference between Muslims and blacks.

Blacks were brought to America by force and lived in slavery for many years. Slavery was replaced by segregation and it took many many years before we now have a black president.

Blacks have EVERY RIGHT to claim victimhood.

YOU DON'T.

To some extent the proponents of the mosque posting here are motivated, not by any love of Islam, but by a convoluted legalism, "First amendment" etc, and also by a hatred of Republicans.

It is unfortunate that Gingrich fired one of the first shots, comparing Muslims to Nazis. This is hysteria and little else. But he by himself does not make up 68% of the US population.

There are lots of people who think, "This is not wise, it will hurt Americans, and it will hurt Muslims." Muslims looking for jobs may find themselves rejected without good reason (but with a plausible excuse which precludes a lawsuit).

If peace is your goal, then you do have to show respect to the people who oppose the mosque. If sticking a finger in their eye and using the constitution as a brickbat is your actual goal, fine, maybe you will win.

But let us not pretend that you wanted peace.

Yes they have the legal right to build that mosque, .
Posted by: lauratd |
----------------------------
Actually, this point should not be taken for granted. In the first place, a Greek church destroyed on 9-11 has had difficulty getting permission to rebuild. Aren't Greeks protected by the first amendment? Does it count against them that there were no Greeks among the 19 hijackers of 9-11?

Secondly, I understand that actually Con Edison owns part of that property. It is not wholly owned by the group seeking to build the mosque. Perhaps, if there is pressure from Bloomberg, then Con Edison might be forced to sell to the group who wants to build the mosque. Will Bloomberg exercise that pressure?

He is not mentioned much, but this whole debacle is created by him. The fact that everything went so smoothly at first has a lot to do with Imam Rauf and his wife Daisy's personal friendship with Bloomberg and his girl friend.

Nothing wrong with being influenced by friendship - politicians do it all the time. But if it is a matter of personal friendship, then it is NOT a matter of constitutional rights, is it?

I looked it up, the Burlington Coat Factory building (proposed center site) is approximately a tenth of a mile (about two minutes away, walking) from where the WTC stood. There are two city blocks and two big buildings between the sites.

When the new World Trade Center rises, you'll be able to see it from 45 Park Place, because it'll be by far the tallest thing around. The planned Cordoba House will be dwarfed. It certainly won't overlook or overshadow Ground Zero.

Non-Muslims living in Muslim countries are treated as second-class citizens in EVERY Muslim country - not just Malaysia.
Posted by: shovandas
=============================
There is a counter argument - "We can't be like them. We can't take a page from the book of Saudi Arabia or Malaysia." This is the way of Jesus. "They slapped us? We offer the other cheek."

But when the US piles up nuclear weapons, turns a blind eye to Israel's expropriation of Muslim land, uses drones to kill civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan, then it is obvious that the US is far from being a Christian country. Jesus is not much more than a mascot.

I would say, for heaven's sake, show some common sense, build the mosque elsewhere, but make your actual policy towards other nations, both Muslim and non-Muslim, less imperialistic and more humane.

The US gives less foreign aid than Japan, but gives much more military aid, and drops bombs here, there and everywhere.

THAT is the reason why Muslims and the rest of the world dislike the US, and it has NOT CHANGED WITH OBAMA. And building a mosque or allowing it to be built will not change that either.

Yes they have the legal right to build that mosque, but they are stupid if they do so. Ground Zero is a flash point for many Americans and their wanting to build a mosque near there is a direct slap in the face and they know it. Indeed it could be said that GZ is a burial ground as there is still human remains/ash embedded in the walls and sidewalks of buildings throughout the area. Tolerance should go both ways but the US has gone way too far for many years in showing tolerance. If an American goes to say Saudi Arabia they are required to follow their customs, such as no alcohol or women driving or on the streets alone after a specific time and our government goes blindly along with it. We put no such restrictions on them and allow them their customs here. Muslims need to learn tolerance for others. I think the plan to build the mosque there is part of a plan to deliberately slap America. Unfortunately what they are doing is going to cause a nasty backlash at all Muslims for their thoughtlessness. Stupid move.

Rejecting mosque means every thing Muslim has an element of guilt.This is how the people who reject mosque convey to the Muslims of America, and to all open minded people.

Their is no difference between a message,"Blacks and Jews not allowed",and a message ,"Mosque not allowed".

This kind of culture is a carry over from the same mind set.This only means we are still a long way from a true open society.

Scewjpb19: Those living in Manhattan support building the mosque, 46% - 36%. See http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1302.xml?ReleaseID=1473.

It's their 'hood. You ain't Ayatollah of Tribeca.

Are you serious?

First of all there are plenty of exceptions to the First Amendment - crying fire in a crowded moviehouse is the most famous example.

The test is whether there is a "compelling interest"

The idea that the muslims CARE that we have Freedom of Religion here is ridiculous - they do not care at all about what we do and what we dont - they still hate us.

The idea that our own actions - if only we did things right - will end this war is ridiculous.

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT SOME MUSLIMS WILL SEE THIS AS A VICTORY MOSQUE

IT IS OF PRIME NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERN that this country does not allow that perception to take hold in any part of Islam, radical or moderate.

.

RMITCH1 ~ if the Ground Zero Mosque project were going to be designed, managed and financed by American citizens that would be something else wouldn't it.

The designers, prospective managers and financial backers are primarily NOT American citizens. In fact, to a very substantial degree those folks are representing little more than the interests of a single Saudi Arabian government agency.

I think this project should be handled the same way we handle every building the Saudi government proposes building in this country, and that is through the already established treaty that governs such matters.

The presence of any Saudi government influence TRIGGERS the treaty. This is hardly a NYC zoning problem.

Build, the mosque....sure. But I wonder, Mr. Stevens-Arroyo, if I bought a billboard across the street from this "cultural center" and placed an image of Mohammed on it whether you or the Muslims next door would respect my right of free speech. I respect the right of freedom of religion, but I have little sympathy for a group who did not strongly condemn the attacks on 9/11 or show an ounce of religious tolerance to other groups. We asked to accepted their religion but give no sympathy for the beliefs or rights of others.

By the same intolerant argument, Catholics who looked the other way for centuries at their clergy's sexual atrocities against little boys should not be allowed to build churches near middle schools. The number
of lives destroyed far exceed 3,000.

But no worry about the victims feelings here.
Your leader Donohue calls them "gold diggers"

"the center is not "on hallowed ground" but blocks away, behind other buildings and out of sight from the memorials."
[snip]
"the Islamic Center will have a pool, basketball court, and culinary school, all of which would be open to the community, even non-Muslims. The area for prayer (strictly speaking NOT a mosque) will be on the top floors."

Pentagon opens 9-11 Memorial Chapel
By Staff Sgt. Nate Orme
ArmyLINK News
http://www.militaryinfo.com/news_story.cfm?textnewsid=75

September 18, 2002 - WASHINGTON, September 18, 2002 -- The Pentagon now has a place dedicated for peace and solace to sooth the spiritual inclinations of its thousands of military and civilian employees -- its own chapel.
(snip)
"This is the first large chapel at the Pentagon," Benson said. " It is the first time we've had a place large enough to conduct services, which will include Jewish, Christian and Islamic."
(snip)
Inside the chapel room, a stained glass window hangs near the chapel podium. In the shape of a pentagon, inside it are two crimson rings, made of 184 pieces representing lives lost. The rings encircle a bald eagle -- symbol of our nation, an olive branch representing our desire for peace, an American flag, and the Pentagon, representing the nation's defense. The words "United in Memory, September 11, 2001" memorialize the day the Pentagon was attacked.

1. The proposed construction is NOT a mosque, it is a cultural center that happens to include a prayer area.

2. The proposed construction is NOT at 'ground zero' and the old Twin Towers site cannot even been seen from the construction location.

3. Religious freedom in our representative form of democracy is not subject to popular opinion (thank God, Allah, your generic higher power, or whatever). Freedom of religion is established law.

4. Let's get real. This tempest in a teapot is not really about the merits of Islam, 9-11 or "being sensitive". It is about partisan politics, fear-mongering for political gain, and socio-religious bigotry.

5. Those of us who value our own personal freedoms had best be the first in line to defend those same freedoms for others. Bigotry and discrimination can turn around and bite ya.

6. Christians, Jews and others of various traditions, should take a long look (minus rose colored glasses) at their own histories and what has been done in the name of their faith. Glass houses are not a good "location" from which to throw stones.

----It's not just tolerance we lack. We lack clear thinking. You can't put every Muslim in the same category, any more than you can stuff every Black person into the same box.
----Nonetheless, one word describes both: Citizen.....

Thank you, Dr. Stevens-Arroyo, for your eloquent and spot-on analysis of the Islamic center issue. You would think that the member of any minority group, especially a non-Christian one, would see the threat to themselves that lies at the heart of the anti-Islamic center movement. African-Americans, Jews, Japanese-Americans, women--all were or could have been the targets of discrimination under the reasoning of the anti-center crowd.

It's particularly appalling that one group that just doesn't get it is the Anti-Defamation League, which opposes the center. If you accept the League's argument about the special sensitivity of the families of 9/11 victims, the following logically follows: Some Christians are firm in their belief that the Jews killed Christ. All Jews for all times bear that guilt. The feelings of these Christians would be hurt if Jews built a synagogue near any spot revered by Christians. Given those hurt Christian feelings, government authorities should prevent the construction of any synagogue that Christians oppose.

All the arguments against building the Islamic center rest on the implied premise that all Muslims were responsible for 9/11. That is not just illogical reasoning. It is a lie. The Muslims who want to build the center are no more linked to 9/11 than Japanese Americans were linked to Pearl Harbor.

Personally I have no problem saying not only No but hell No to the construction of a very visible Mosque near to Ground Zero. For the families of those who lost loved ones during the 9-11 attack, its a slap in the face; an atrocity.The religion of this land is Christianity. Our forefathers were devoted Christians and did not have any problem stating this fact. Today many of our elected officials run away from conversations concerning Christianity. Muslims worship another god-Allah. Allah is not the God of Abraham. He is not the the Father of Jesus Christ. He is not a god of love. If a building does go up at the location where the Mosque is proposed, it should be the tallest Christian church in the country surpassing the tallest building in New York City.

Please read excerpts of an article in TOI today
=====================================
WASHINGTON: The Obama administration has urged Pakistan to accept India's aid offer even as hardline elements in the flood-ravaged country have begun a vicious campaign to blame India, the United States, and Afghanistan for the calamity, a charge Washington has simply dismissed.

Amid mounting international attention and concern for Pakistan's future in the face of the tragedy, US officials on Wednesday called on Islamabad to abjure politics and accept India's help, including an initial $ 5 million offer it has sat on saying it is under consideration, even as it is begging for international aid.

"I think the priority is to use offers of assistance to help the Pakistani people, so we would encourage Government of Pakistan to accept that (Indian) offer," Frank Ruggiero, Deputy Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan said on Wednesday. Separately, state department spokesman P J Crowley said, "In terms of responding to a disaster, politics should play no role. You have a country (India) that's willing to help (Pakistan), and...we expect that Pakistan will accept."

Their remarks came amid a rash of reports in the Pakistani media blaming India, principally, for the massive floods, purportedly because New Delhi had deliberately diverted waters from dams in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, and from the ones it "controlled in Afghanistan”. Some reports also charged that US was manipulating weather patterns over Pakistan. US officials dismissed the idea with incredulity.

"So it was the United States and India that conspired to have the monsoons come to Pakistan? I don't find that credible," Crowley said in response to a question about such reports in sections of the Pakistani media considered close to hard-line elements in its intelligence agencies and jihadists.

The inflammatory reports in a country that's been dubbed "Paranoidistan" surfaced even as Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, in an interview to ABC, endorsed a purported ISI report last week that home-grown extremism and not India constituted a primary security threat to the country.

===============================
Now tell me how do you win the hearts, minds and the soul of "Islamic Pakistan "?

As a non Muslim who was born and lived in predominantly Muslim Malaysia for the first 3 decades, I wish the government there takes notice how fair minded Obama and other politicans are in the USA. In Malaysia non Muslims are treated like second class citizens, Americans are so fortunate. But American Muslims should realize that a mosque so near Ground Zero is definitely a foolish move. The radical Muslims may take adavantage of it one day. Wish the governments in Muslim countries are just as fair to their non Muslim citizens.

POSTED BY: JKSY | AUGUST 19, 2010 1:08 AM
-----------------------
Non-Muslims living in Muslim countries are treated as second-class citizens in EVERY Muslim country - not just Malaysia.

Put me down as a Catholic in favor of reason rather than feeling. I would rather align myself with the constitution than with the inevitable comparison to the Nazis by perennial candidate, Newt Gingrich, or the volatile Mrs. Palin's shrill call to "refudiate" the mosque as might William Shakespeare.
-----------------------------
Why is it shrill? Her appeal to peaceful Muslims is a civilized appeal. The shrillness is in your uncalled for attack on her.

Do not lump Palin and Gingrich together. Gingrich has spoken in an incendiary way. Palin has spoken in a civilized way.

The attack on Palin is a knee jerk attack which a lot of people have learned to make as a kind of reflex action.

There is no justification for it except your prejudice against her.

The people defending the mosque use the false argument that it represents tolerance. From the polls, looks like we are being forced to tolerate them. All this tolerance hooplah for a group that can't even tolerate a cartoon. Are you PC or 1st amendment mouthers aware that muslims rioted, stormed an embassy, and killed each other over some cartoons. The Bill of Rights says nothing about importing every sicko religion on the planet and its adherents. We have to wait shoeless in lines at airports because they can't tolerate modern civilization. Decades ago, who would figure underwear bombers on Christmas day jet flights? It's an insult to common sense, a mockery of reason, and insanity to even consider importing more muslims period, let alone building more mosques. What are they teaching in school these days? A quick look at Cordoba would show that was the beginning of the Muslim worlds attempt at conquering western Europe. Choosing this name for this center is no coincidence and anyone with half a brain would see that they are telling their friends who danced in the streets the world over on 9/11 that they have won.

It is not a monument to intolerance. But it is a monument to insensitivity and it is a monument to the excessive legalism which has overtaken the nation so that important decisions are not made by the people any more.

Moreover, instead of showing respect for those who are hurt by the choice of site for the mosque, pro-mosque people have repeated insulted them, calling them bigots and worse.

To be sure, some anti-mosque people, like Gingrich, have been incendiary. But this is not the case with most of the 68% who are opposed to the present site of the mosque.

The pro-mosque people have shown absolutely no desire to be understanding, no respect, no willingness to compromise. Insults have been their consistent language. And THIS was the mistake.

You cannot run a nation on legalisms. You need respect.

"Even on July 4, 1776, tolerant and Quaker colonial Philadelphia limited us to a single Catholic Church."

"Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo is Professor of Puerto Rican and Latino Studies at Brooklyn College " From the college website.

Stevens-Arroyo is not part of Founding Stock America. He is Professor of Latino Supremacy and is against the Founding Stock Americans who were Catholic as well as Protestant.

Professor Stevens-Arroyo sees Founding Stock Americans, Catholic and Protestant as his main enemy. So Professor Stevens-Arroyo sides with Muslims against his main enemy. So Professor Stevens-Arroyo celebrates 9/11 as a victory over Founding Stock America just like Lecturer in Chief Barack Hussein Obama does.

This is why both support Cordoba House as a symbol of immigrant victory over their main enemy, Founding Stock America.

If our freedom of speech and expression demands that we tolerate a totalitarian ideology in our midst then arguments favoring the building of this mosque or any other mosque would be valid. Yet mosques, especially built by Wahabis, are not innocent places of worship but an indoctrination centers for an ideology that is anathema to our civilization as well as terrorist recruiting cells.

To GARRAFA10:
You are wrong about my faith, so just FYI, I am of the religion of Nietzche: I have no time for the "question" of "God".
As for the rest of your comment, I think it proves my point: the crimes perpetrated by the "Europeans" (and the "West" in general) are not the crimes of Christianity, but of criminals that so happen to be "Christian" of culture (deny it or not), and no one would in his right mind accuse the religion of Christ of them; only people like you are simple-minded in their reasoning: you accuse the religion of Islam of the crimes of "Muslims" (crimes by the way which as I said in my comment, and as you could not ever refute of course, are not and will never be of the same scale (not even 1/1000000th) as those committed by the "more civilized West" which you glorify). And the only reason you do that is because you irrationally have hate for the people who are from that religion (because your TV convinced you they are the villains and you are the victim, hahahaha, how so amazingly stupid and naive! America the victim, Africa/Middle-East the imperialist villain! Poor you! And they are so strong and rich, and you are so weak and poor, it is not fair!????!!!! Idiot, and double idiot!)

"To those speaking about intolerance, hatred, and murder in Islam, I ask you: who commited the Holocaust you damn fools? A little beggar with a bunch of accolytes and box cutters? No, you fools, but an organised country inhabited by mostly Christian people like you pretend to be. You are beyond belief: the Holocaust, do you know what it was?...Count only the last two great wars, you idiots! How did "your Christian" faith help Africa from the XVth to the XXth centuries? How many limbs were cut from children who were not bringing enough rubber at night? You idiots don't know! How many slaves slaughtered like dogs on the beaches because they were weak to make it to your f****** great country! How Christian of your country to support the Red Khmers in Cambodgia! I stop here the listing. Idiots, criminals, this is who you are! And then you complain the world hates you! MARTIALCANTEREL"

You are a mongoloid. You do understand that both National Socialism and Marxism-Leninism were two openly avowed anti-Christian movements? Why is it that precious Muslims like yourself are currently at war with Christians; Jews; Hindus; Sikhs; Jains; Buddhists; Animists; and even communists? Why does Islam continue to tolerate slavery in Mauritania and Sudan? Sooner or later we will speak to you in the only language you understand.

To those speaking about intolerance, hatred, and murder in Islam, I ask you: who commited the Holocaust you damn fools? A little beggar with a bunch of accolytes and box cutters? No, you fools, but an organised country inhabited by mostly Christian people like you pretend to be. You are beyond belief: the Holocaust, do you know what it was? Do you know how it was meticulously prepared? Do you know how many were burned, shot, tortured, gassed? You idiots should shut up, dig a hole and bury your ugly faces in it! Do you know the history of the "pogroms" against the Jews in Europe? Who do you think committed them you idiots? Palestinian refugees???! You have no clue, right! Oh, those were more people of your lovely civilized faith. You whine about the tragic murder of three thousand innocent people on the hands of a dozen criminals of Islamic faith (from dictatorship countries your country vehemently supports by the way), but you forget the organised crimes of millions on the hands of hundreds of thousands of people pretending to be Christians like you do! sorry and lame excuse of human beings, this is what you are, you are not of Christ! Do you know how many were slaughtered in European wars in the last 200 years? Count only the last two great wars, you idiots! How did "your Christian" faith help Africa from the XVth to the XXth centuries? How many limbs were cut from children who were not bringing enough rubber at night? You idiots don't know! How many slaves slaughtered like dogs on the beaches because they were weak to make it to your f****** great country! How Christian of your country to support the Red Khmers in Cambodgia! I stop here the listing. Idiots, criminals, this is who you are! And then you complain the world hates you! What is there to love in the wars, rape, destruction, annihilation you spread far away from your land so that you can enjoy gadgets, and cars, and food up your ears! What a sorry state we are in, you, representing the meanest and basest of nations, believing you are the greatest! Here is a quote for you lost souls: "Few people think, yet all would have opinions" (Berkeley).

As a non Muslim who was born and lived in predominantly Muslim Malaysia for the first 3 decades, I wish the government there takes notice how fair minded Obama and other politicans are in the USA. In Malaysia non Muslims are treated like second class citizens, Americans are so fortunate. But American Muslims should realize that a mosque so near Ground Zero is definitely a foolish move. The radical Muslims may take adavantage of it one day. Wish the governments in Muslim countries are just as fair to their non Muslim citizens.

The Mosque is a monument to those who attacked this country on 9/11 and no leftist in religion, Obama, or the Democrats are going to change that. Muslim history proves this to be true and until Obama and the Democrats get around to changing Muslim history the building of the mosque remains the same. A monument to those who attack this country and a recruiting tool for the terrorist.

Well put, thank you, this ex-catholic is proud of you.

As an a-religious person, I see these religious groups fighting over the world and wonder how we can get past it.

Religious tolerance is the way to go, but what do we do with religious groups that would take over countries and their governments? There are many who pray and work for this country to be governed as a Christian nation. In that respect, they are as distressing as those who would impose an Islamic state. To my mind, you can all can have your religions, but don't try to force them on me, whether with legislation or terror.

Islam is a religion of intolerance. Islam recognizes two types of people: believers, and infidels. If Muslims can not convert an infidel into a believer, the Koran instructs them to kill them.

Islam does not recognize any laws other than Sharia. It does not recognize national borders, or governments. It only recognizes Sharia.

The Koran instructs Muslims to lie, cheat, intentionally make miss-statements, do anything they believe is necessary to make Sharia the law of the world. Muslims believe that people who show kindness, or tolerance are fools and tools to help Muslims convert the word to Sharia law.

The people who are arguing that permitting the construction of the NYC mosque is an act of tolerance, are nothing more than naive, ignorant, dangerous fools.

Thank you for a wise reminder that as children of a loving creator, we should at least respect, even if we are not strong enough to love, one another. The issue is whether the owners of property, having secured the appropriate civic approval, should be allowed to build a cultural center that includes a place of worship in the vicinity of (not ON) "ground zero" The outcry is against the building of a mosque. Let's substitute the word "church" or "chapel" or "synagogue" or "temple" for "mosque." Having obtained the proper civic authorization, the owners have every right to build on their own property.

Aside from this simple, logical, and consititutional right to worship on their own land, no one else has the right to ask them to go build their center someplace else. Why the hysteria?

A true religion of peace would never allow its intentions or beliefs becoming a lightning rod within the community it resides. A religion that also believes God only hears prayers when uttered from bricks and mortar buildings, built by the hand of man, is one poor in spirit and one blind to a greater understanding.

? Tolerant Quaker Philadelphia?

We have a clause in the Constitution of 1790 to the effect that "there shall be no religious test...."

Most people imagine that just popped out of the blue in some spurt of "hey, let's all be tolerant eh"

No, it didn't just pop up ~ it directly targeted PENNSYLVANIA's laws that PROHIBITED anyone from a Quaker running for public office.

That clause is an ANTI QUAKER CLAUSE!

BTW, the date of the Pennsylvania problem with intolerance began about 1700 when Penn began bringing in large numbers of Quakers from England and the Continent.

The earlier residents of New Sweden (mostly Sa'ami) were forced to bring in special Lutheran ministers to literally FIGHT armed Quaker missionaries who were attempting to convert them.

In the end New Sweden was relocated to the area of York County PA ~ with 5 Sa'ami settlements nearby.

Monument to intolerance? Sure. When Catholic, Baptist and Jewish temples are in Saudi Arabia, more mosques can be here. Christians and Jews are slaughtered the world over by Islam, but the intolerance to this stupid mosque at ground zero is the symbol that the U.S. is intolerant. You liberals are just insane.

No one questions the absolute right of Muslim groups to build a mosque or cultural center on privately owned land in accordance with local zoning rules and restrictions. It is also correct and proper to challenge the wisdom of the location choice of such groups. One wonders if our President would be willing to invite members of, say the NRA, to a White House dinner and announce their right to erect a “2nd Amendment Education and Shooting Sports Recreation Center” two blocks from Columbine High School or Virginia Tech... After all, both are sights of mass murder, planned and carried out by sick individuals, representatives of no group or ideology beyond their own demented selves.

I think Americans are beginning to look at our country and see the very great good in it. I also think they are beginning to look at Islam and wonder if that can ever be made good. In any case, holding on to our culture and way of life is hardly a bad idea, and for New Yorkers, it would see there is a lot of good in the idea.

Intolerance? I don't think so. I do think way to many people are quick to call American Xenophobes when we don't accept foreign culture and ways. We are doing fine.. but that isn't hot news is it.

..

Why, yes, Arroyo! You're just a good ol' country Constitutionalist, born n' bred, aren't you?
And you aren't a "media talking head, inside the beltway' type" sitting there writing for the Washington Post, are you?
The chronic defense of everything Obama and everything Islamist gets funnier and funnier every day.

Christianity = 2,000 years of intolerance, hatred and ignorance

Islam = only 1,400 years of intolerance, hatred and ignorance

That's nice, and Mexico was converted to Catholicism at the point of a sword.

64 percent of New Yorkers oppose the mosque project.

But did Catholics kill civilians every day like Muslims do? I know that they molest lots of kids, but....