Obama supports mosque... SURPRISE

[LDB]

Supporters are saying it's a community center not a church (mosque). I am taking them at their word and based on their designation as a community center it has no special protections. For that matter, even a building intended to be used as a church is just a building, nothing more. The people are the church, not the building. Saying no to any specific building in any specific location isn't restricting religion.

 

[layoutshooter]

Yes, the American-Italians made an extreme effort to show their patriotism to the USA during WWII by volunteering for the toughest combat we faced. They renounced Mussolini and the fascists in the strongest terms possible and many died on battlefields in service to our country. They have a proud and distinguished history of serving America.

BTW, if you don't believe in group guilt, will you volunteer to make apologies in person to the cities of Dresden, Germany... Hiroshima or Nagasaki, Japan?

So have many fine Arabs I know. No different in my eyes. I know several who spends months at a time, serving our military in Iraq, subtracting "bad guys" from the gene pool I have a feeling if you met some of those guys you would really like them.

No, I don't believe in group guilt. Therefor I feel no need to apologize for something that I had no input to or part of. I was not even born. I have NO guilt.

Had we NOT bombed Japan as we did I most likely would not have even been born.(I know many would have liked that) My Dad was with the Mars Task Force in the CBI. He was a radio/radar/LRP guy. Not long before the end of the war he, and other communications guys, were pulled out of China and moved to French Indo-China to start training for the invasion of Japan.

I do NOT take history out of context. That was that war, this is this one.

Now, the Dumb-O-Crats, who are REALLY big into this group guilt stuff really need to apologize to those American citizens of Japanese decent who were rounded up and put in prison camps by that great racist FDR. In spite of the fact that they were treated like criminals for NO REASON many still served our nation with honor and many gave there lives for a country that kicked them in the teeth.

 

[aristotle]

That's kind of a straw man argument, tho. If the murderers themselves wanted to move in next door to me, then I wouldn't like it one bit, and there are legal ways to prevent that. But I'm not aware that anyone having anything to do with the 9/11 attacks are the ones trying to develop the mosque. They merely have the same religion is all.

But let's put it on a micro level that is more analogous. Let's say the murderers themselves were black people. Should I be upset with all black people now? Should I somehow deny them the right to move in simply because they're black, even if they didn't have anything whatsoever to do with the murders, but I think they did because they're black?

What if the murderers were white people? What then?

Or is it only certain groups, like religious groups that count? What if the murderers were, God forbid, Charles Manson, et al, who was a Scientologist? Should I then try and prevent Greta van Susteren and her husband from moving in next door? And further, prevent Greta's evil compatriots Jenna Elfman and Catherine Bell and Leah Remini from visiting next door?

PSST... we are in a religious war, but no one's allowed to say it. We are at war with Fundamentalist Islam. When a proper and dispassionate history is written, say 50 or 100 years from now, historians will place this conflagration of civilizations in a context of religious warfare. In a nutshell... it is the Judeo-Christian West versus Islam. Trouble with Iran is at our doorstep now.

 

[Turtle]

Supporters are saying it's a community center not a church (mosque). I am taking them at their word and based on their designation as a community center it has no special protections. For that matter, even a building intended to be used as a church is just a building, nothing more. The people are the church, not the building.

According the their stated plans, a performing arts auditorium would be in the building, also food would be cooked and served there, both of which would prevent if from being a mosque according to Sharia law and the Qur'an, actually. At most, the top couple of floors would provide prayer space, which isn't the same as a mosque.

Saying no to any specific building in any specific location isn't restricting religion.

Whatever the reason for saying no to allowing them to build what they want on their own property, it's got to have a legal foundation.

The funny thing is, Con-Edison still owns the other half of the building. They can say no to selling it, just because they don't want to sell it, and for no other reason. The smart money is on those who strongly petition the electric company into not selling. That will cut the building in half, prevent them from adding to the number of floors, and strictly limit the number of people who can be in the building.

 

[layoutshooter]

PSST... we are in a religious war, but no one's allowed to say it. We are at war with Fundamentalist Islam. When a proper and dispassionate history is written, say 50 or 100 years from now, historians will place this conflagration of civilizations in a context of religious warfare. In a nutshell... it is the Judeo-Christian West versus Islam. Trouble with Iran is at our doorstep now.

This war is this war. It is not as "clean" as some to say that least. That, for better or worse, does not mean that I will not, at least try, to look at the individual. Iran? OH man, don't get me started on that mess!!! I knew too much about that during Carter's time.

 

[Pilgrim]

I've changed my mind. In light of the following article/announcement, let the muslims build the mosque or community center or whatever since they claim they're attempting to reach out in the spirit of peace and harmony to the entire population of lower Manhatten.

Greg Gutfeld To Open A Gay Bar Next To Ground Zero Mosque To Cater To “Islamic Gay Men”


by Jon Bershad | 8:23 pm, August 9th, 2010

No, this is not a joke. In fact, it is instead one of the most brilliant pieces of provocations in recent years. Greg Gutfeld from Fox News’ Red Eye announced today via his blog that he is actively speaking to investors and plans on opening a gay bar next to the controversial mosque being built near Ground Zero in New York. To make matters worse (better?) the bar will be specifically designed to cater to homosexuals of the Islamic faith. God, this is going to be an exciting block.
Here’s Gutfeld’s entire post which he will expand upon during tonight’s Red Eye:

“So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it’s all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world.
As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque – after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law – who can stop them?
Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I’ve decided to do the same thing.
I’m announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.
This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.
As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.
The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps – but still want to dance.
Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.
My place, however, will have better music.”
​

Hot Air contacted Andy Levy who reiterated that Gutfeld is serious. And, on his blog, Gutfeld points to the lack of humor in the post as further proof of his intentions (although, I think he’s under estimating himself. That last line about the music is hilarious).
I, personally, think it’s a brilliant idea. I absolutely abhor all of this anti-mosque nonsense currently going on in this country. It’s disgusting bigotry plain and simple. However, just because I support Muslim Americans in their fight against anti-Islam prejudice, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get a few dings for their religion’s own prejudice against homosexuals. If you want to be treated fairly, you should treat others fairly as well. Still though, the only thing that would make this plan perfect would be if Gutfeld created a chain of gay bars and plopped them down next to churches and synagogues since it’s not like those religions have been super open-minded.
Insomniacs around the country already know that Red Eye is underrated genius. If Gutfeld goes through with his plan, hopefully it will be enough to finally thrust them into the satirical limelight with Stewart and Colbert like they deserve.
UPDATE: Gutfeld outlined his plans on Red Eye last night. Check out the segment here.

 

[aristotle]

I've changed my mind. In light of the following article/announcement, let the muslims build the mosque or community center or whatever since they claim they're attempting to reach out in the spirit of peace and harmony to the entire population of lower Manhatten.

Muslims kill homosexuals in their midst. Gutfeld won't have any customers. Besides that, he probably just got a fatwah placed against his life for the mere suggestion of opening said bar. No joke, Gutfeld has placed himself in league with the Danish cartoonist. He should be more careful.

 

[Pilgrim]

I may be wrong, but the minute said Fatwah is issued against Gutfeld the muslims will have violated all kinds of constitutional rights and jeopardized their right to build anything there. For that matter, if they openly discriminated against homosexuals that wanted to go to the mosque or community center wouldn't that be grounds for the Port Authority to deny their right to build there? What about women - if they're denied the right to attend services at the mosque wouldn't this be considered sexual discrimination? Suppose someone wanted to open a KKK bar next to the gay bar and deny service to Blacks and Jews - would they get a permit? You're right about the possible reaction from the muslims - let's see what happens in the next few days.

On another note, about the same time Gutman was announcing his plans, the co-founder of the hamas terrorists - Mahmoud al-Zahar - announced his support for the Ground Zero mosque:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/hamas_nod_for_gz_mosque_cSohH9eha8sNZMTDz0VVPI

 

[dieseldiva]

That story about Greg Gutfield has been out there for over a week, I would have expected some chatter on it by now if it were really going to upset anyone.

 

[chefdennis]

dieseldiva wrote:

That story about Greg Gutfield has been out there for over a week, I would have expected some chatter on it by now if it were really going to upset anyone.

Post #92:

http://www.expeditersonline.com/forum/soapbox/42787-tolerence-intolerence-3.html

 

[aristotle]

That story about Greg Gutfield has been out there for over a week, I would have expected some chatter on it by now if it were really going to upset anyone.

Depends if the story has legs. If Gutfeld continues to speak out publicly, and introduces sexual innuendo inflammatory to Islam, he's gonna find himself uninsurable.

 

[greg334]

My God with all of this cackling, no one has yet come up with a valid reason why it should not be built.

The thing many of you miss is this, we have desecrated our hallowed grounds before. We have forgotten the people who died on lands that were battlefields and more important to us as a country than the two blocks away from the event site.

I can't sit here and listen to this and not think of the strip malls and housing developments that have been built on battlefields across our country where brother fought brother - literally - and died for the cause they believed in. It wasn't like it happened somewhere else, it happened here and it wasn't something that we could or more importantly should forget but we have. I never read how the US government stepped in and paid people who lost loved ones or how they forgave income taxes. We didn't become a nation of frickn' wimps but a nation who actually was healing after the war. Again back then during the reconstruction, the few ruined it for the many, as it is now.

9/11 hallowed ground is the WTC complex, it was the target not two blocks away. It was where the people died, not two blocks away. It has been defined and redefined not because of any need to rectify some injustice but because of money. The cheapening of 9/11 came when people saw it as a money grab and everyone tried to cash in and this still goes on today.

I don't see the entire Muslim population supporting this, but we as a country are frickn' quick to blame all of the them as we did for 9/11. Many don't want the attention, they are like a lot of us who want to just live our lives freely, worship freely and not worry about the BS that is happening in other countries. They, like I, know that if we continue to go down a path of ignoring our freedoms and worrying about trivial placement of buildings, it will not stop with one Mosque or one cultural center but grow because we are too stupid to stop it.

What our enemies want is exactly what's going on, two factions fighting over one religion within another religion - how dumb does that sound? It's unfortunately true and we look equally dumb as a country. We are playing into their hands, the ignorant and enlighten alike and this is why I keep saying we forgot the lessons we learned on 9/11.

I listened to Rush today, not much of a choice so don't blame me. BUT he made some of the stupidest comments I have yet to hear from him. He was talking about this situation and said that why not let the Hindu build a Hindu temple at Pearl Harbor. I can't figure out what he was talking about, a Hindu temple?

The last time I checked a lot of Japanese follow the Shinto religion, not the Hindu religion.

 

[aristotle]

greg334.... what say we dig up Ol' Jefferson Davis and rebury him on the National Mall in Washington,DC? After all, he meant so much to millions of Americans. Sure, some northerners will protest, but southerners have rights, too. Let's erect a monument for Davis right along side of Abraham Lincoln. Sensitivity must be shown, right? We can't be showing favoritism.

 

[Pilgrim]

Actually, there have been several valid reasons stated for the mosque to be build elsewhere - the most important of which is the majority of the people of NYC don't want it there. This isn't the first time a population of a city or town has protested building something they don't want in a particular place for any number of reasons - be it a WalMart or a shopping center, a NASCAR track, or a manufacturing plant. In lots of cases there are developers who have the legal right to build something in a certain location - but there are sometimes extenuating circumstances that make a building project inappropriate, and that's the case with this mosque / cultural center.

The main reason it's inappropriate is because we're still at war with the islamic radicals that killed over 3000 people right there in lower Manhatten. The city fathers of NYC have done such a lousy job of dealing with that area the wound hasn't healed but instead is an open sore, a bare area that continues to remind people of what was there and was destroyed. If they had just simply rebuilt the WTC and demonstrated our resolve and defiance of this barbarian enemy things would be back to a reasonable level of normalcy for Lower Manhatten. Instead, they're still squabbling nine years later unable to even rebuild the little Greek Orthodox church that stood opposite Tower 2.

As stated earlier, the muslims should be aware of this situation and be willing to compromise in the name of community harmony and goodwill. Instead they insist on having everything their way, and it reinforces the perception that they're building a monument to the attack their radical brethren carried out in 2001. Real estate deals change locations all the time; the muslim developers need to work out a deal and move the project to a more acceptable location - there's nothing unreasonable about that.

 

[RLENT]

greg334.... what say we dig up Ol' Jefferson Davis and rebury him on the National Mall in Washington,DC? After all, he meant so much to millions of Americans. Sure, some northerners will protest, but southerners have rights, too. Let's erect a monument for Davis right along side of Abraham Lincoln. Sensitivity must be shown, right? We can't be showing favoritism.

Would work just fine for me ......

Although Davis argued as a Senator against secession prior to the fact of it, he agreed (with others) that each state was sovereign and had an unquestionable right to secede from the Union.

I believe he was right in the matter, from a moral and ethical standpoint.

The right of association with one's fellows is not something that should ever be enforced - one should be free to choose who one associates with, and with whom one doesn't.

 

[witness23]

Turtle... let's put this on a micro level: if, God forbid, someone or some group murdered your family... how would you feel about them moving in next door to you? Allah Akbar, right?

Your analogy isn't quite correct in terms with the community center and Ground Zero. You are basically saying since a small group of radical muslims committed murder then all muslims should be condemned.

Try this one, God forbid your family was murdered by....let's say a yellow person. Then 10 years later a yellow family wanted to move in next to you. Would you be outraged?

 

[witness23]

Oops, kinda repeated what Turtle said earlier, I didn't see your reply and couldn't pass up commenting on such a ridiculous analogy.

 

[greg334]

greg334.... what say we dig up Ol' Jefferson Davis and rebury him on the National Mall in Washington,DC?

Actually RLENT made the correct case; Although Davis argued as a Senator against secession prior to the fact of it, he agreed (with others) that each state was sovereign and had an unquestionable right to secede from the Union.

I believe he was right in the matter, from a moral and ethical standpoint.

I agree with this 100% and because he and other Southerners along with a great amount of Northerners felt that the union preserved under any and all conditions can not stand as it was intended but must revert back to something that the founding fathers wanted to avoid, it all mattered that the states had their right to chart their own destiny. Lincoln was not the best president, no matter how he is made out to be, he is the start of our serious problems that we have today, like Federal expansion into our lives.

IF we can build a monument for a religious leader who was a man of God first within Washington Mall, then Jeff Davis monument isn't far fetched. Why are we building monuments to religious leaders in the first place?

Isn't this a direct endorsement of a religion?

Actually, there have been several valid reasons stated for the mosque to be build elsewhere - the most important of which is the majority of the people of NYC don't want it there. This isn't the first time a population of a city or town has protested building something they don't want in a particular place for any number of reasons - be it a WalMart or a shopping center, a NASCAR track, or a manufacturing plant. In lots of cases there are developers who have the legal right to build something in a certain location - but there are sometimes extenuating circumstances that make a building project inappropriate, and that's the case with this mosque / cultural center.

Sorry don't buy it.

I don't want to pay for stadiums that benefit billionaires or pay for a corrupt city and county through my taxes but I have no choice. What's the difference?

It is not the place of one community or another to tell a religion that they can't build something on their property - period.

We are not talking about a race track, or a walmart - we are talking about a constitutionally protected right to worship, like it or not.

I want to remind you that during several periods of our history, we were very anti-semtic and anti-black. We didn't stop synagogues from being built because the community didn't want them or prevent black churches from being built. Did we?

Whether or not it is a proper from anyone's point of view is questionable but not the subject of the issues - it has to do with rights of the individual who views themselves as victims verses the constitution.

This has been a root cause on other issues, but its foundation is simply that we have cheapened the meaning of the tragedy by throwing money at everyone who claims a loss while ignored the lessons to become what our enemies have said we are.

The people of NYC also think they are special because the event happened there. A lot of them claim it was a NYC event ONLY, not a national tragedy, they want to control the victimization that has to do with it.

The main reason it's inappropriate is because we're still at war with the islamic radicals that killed over 3000 people right there in lower Manhatten. The city fathers of NYC have done such a lousy job of dealing with that area the wound hasn't healed but instead is an open sore, a bare area that continues to remind people of what was there and was destroyed. If they had just simply rebuilt the WTC and demonstrated our resolve and defiance of this barbarian enemy things would be back to a reasonable level of normalcy for Lower Manhatten. Instead, they're still squabbling nine years later unable to even rebuild the little Greek Orthodox church that stood opposite Tower 2.

First that is not a reason, it's an excuse. We need to step back and rethink that... we are at war with individuals who feel we are attacking them and their way of life. We are viewed the same exact way the Vietnamese viewed the French before WW2 - that we are out to destroy or control them. These enemies have used the propaganda that we are not a free society, we control religion and we hate Muslims and this is proving it.

What I see with the debacle to heal wounds is money, and you are right, there is a lot of squabbling going on but that is caused by greed and a selfish attitude (building a super church to replace the old one is just that). We use money as a healing vehicle, we demand punitive damages from those who done us wrong within the whole of society but this concept has failed us right from the start. Maybe this is our problem, we allowed the greed and selfishness to propagate, to try to compensate people for their losses instead of as a nation saying to the world "we will rebuild and become better" and taking the high ground not to stoop to a level where money solves everything.

Should out enemies not use this against us?

As stated earlier, the muslims should be aware of this situation and be willing to compromise in the name of community harmony and goodwill. Instead they insist on having everything their way, and it reinforces the perception that they're building a monument to the attack their radical brethren carried out in 2001. Real estate deals change locations all the time; the muslim developers need to work out a deal and move the project to a more acceptable location - there's nothing unreasonable about that.

I don't see the entire Muslim population making demands or seeing this as a needed thing. I see a small group of people, who are Muslims, trying to either make a statement or test our resolve to stick to the foundation of our country.

Nevertheless, the world is watching, some in horror while others are using this as more propaganda. Some of the former group now wonder about us as a nation, they see a mis-trust of strangers and hatred of a religion forming as it has on other countries. Those of the latter group have say 'look the US doesn't like Muslims, they hate Islam and they are our enemy'. The kid in Lebanon or in Iraq sees this and hears the Narrative and believes it to be absolutely true. They then can't be convinced otherwise because they see the bickering and the crying that proves everything they are told and see it as a victory if it is built. IF it was something we are not making a national issue about, then the use of it as a weapon does not exist.

 

[Pilgrim]

The problem for New Yorkers is that the passage of time hasn't healed their wounds; the war with radical islam continues, and NYC is still their primary target. How many of us have already forgotten that only three months ago one of these jihadists tried to detonate a car bomb in Times Square? Fortunately, this "soldier" wasn't the sharpest scimitar in the drawer and his crude device failed. However, if he had been successful the damage would have been considerable and the deaths / injuries could have been in the hundreds. If this had been the case one can't help but wonder how warm and fuzzy Mayor Bloomberg and the other local bleeding heart politicians would be toward this particular mosque?

Another thing to keep in mind is that although Imam Rauf promotes himself as a peaceful moderate, he refuses to denounce the hamas organization as terrorists and has been less than forthcoming about the sources of funding for his project. As pointed out in today's WSJ, it wasn't too long ago that another "moderate" Imam was being praised for his outreach activities:

The New York Times, Oct. 19, 2001: "Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, spiritual leader at the Dar al-Hijra mosque in Virginia, one of the nation's largest. . . . is held up as a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West."

Bret Stephens: Our 'Moderate Muslim' Problem - WSJ.com

Of course we all know who Imam Al-Awlaki is and why he currently preaches his version of "moderate" islam from Yemen.

Once again, the point is that the Ground Zero location is deemed by most New Yorkers as inappropriate for a mosque. It's a larger issue than one of the muslims' legal rights.

 

[LDB]

Why are we building monuments to religious leaders in the first place?

Isn't this a direct endorsement of a religion?

No, it isn't unless one misinterprets the Constitution OR the government dictates that it is the new officially accepted religion. The existence alone isn't an endorsement or a violation of the Constitution.