The New Mosque

[Gaspar]

Interesting. . .
Now let me preface again.  I think this group should have a right to build their mosque on their property. 

But this is interesting none the less.
The Imam leading this charge Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf is well known for his book:

What's right with Islam IS What's Right with America

He travels the world on behalf of our own State Department promoting Islamic/American relations.

This same book is also published in Aribic. . .under the name:

The Call From the WTC Rubble
Islamic Da'wah From The Heart of America Post-9/11

BTW, Da'wah means to issue a summons or to invite.  So for him to say that the choice of site had nothing to do with 9/11 is a bit of a stretch.

[Townsend]

How far away is far enough?

How close is too close?

There will always be issues.

People will say "in the name of (insert their religion here)"...but only their interpretation of it.

If the funding comes through and it is built, it will be just a building with a religious leader standing in it.  There's no magical powers for people to worry about.  Their loved ones killed in the attack on 9/11 will not be disturbed by this.

[rwarn17588]

So for him to say that the choice of site had nothing to do with 9/11 is a bit of a stretch.

Again, you're overthinking this.

I've read there are two older mosques closer to or equidistant to the old World Trade Center site. They've regularly had to turn people away because there's no more room.

The Cordoba site was built, it's apparent, because there was a demand for it. Of course location is a consideration -- especially when a lot of people in that area want those services. Duh.

[Conan71]

One voice curiously silent through all this is that of 9/11 victim's families and survivors.  I'd like to hear what they think before I press too harsh of a judgement on the issue.  The tinfoil hatter in me says we need not look at this on face value as another peaceful mosque since Islam has a history of building mosques on the site of great victories.  The symbolism it could represent would be repugnant to a lot of people who chose to take that view of it. 

The claims are that Imam Feisal thinks American law should more closely resemble Shariah law.

The radio was ablaze with this this morning, well it has been for weeks, but since POTUS Obama finally spoke up, it's more newsworthy today.

I've seen scant accounts of the Imam through the MSM, so it's left pretty much to individual bloggers to investigate what he's all about, here's one take:

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/everything-you-need-to-know-about-imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-ground-zero-mosque-imam/

[guido911]

One voice curiously silent through all this is that of 9/11 victim's families and survivors.  I'd like to hear what they think before I press too harsh of a judgement on the issue.

This group is none too happy:

9/11 Families Stunned by Presidents Support of Mosque at Ground Zero

New York, NY, Aug. 14 — Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see. Since that dark day, Americans have been asked to bear the burden of defending those values, again and again and again. Now this president declares that the victims of 9/11 and their families must bear another burden. We must stand silent at the last place in America where 9/11 is still remembered with reverence or risk being called religious bigots.

http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/?p=4829

Edited to add:  The location can't be all bad, after all Hamas supports it.

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

[Ed W]

Our country has not had a stellar record when it comes to religious freedom.  Catholic churches were relegated to the outskirts of town in some rural communities.  Synagogues have been burned and bombed.  Jehovah's Witnesses were barred from going door to door and were prosecuted for refusing to repeat the pledge of allegiance.  Mormons were pretty much run out of the country.  And let's not forget Massachusetts throwing out all those radical Quakers back in the colonial period. 

But when you cut through all the crap and all the political posturing and exploitation of this for political ends, you're confronted with two questions.  First, do you truly believe in religious freedom?  If your answer is 'yes' then it means you believe that even those with beliefs wildly contradictory to your own enjoy the same freedom that you have.  There is no "yes, but...."  Second, do you believe that local governments can decide local issues in ways that are open and fair?  Admittedly, this one is the tougher question, because local governments have done things that were decidedly underhanded, unfair, and under the table. 

Rights aren't about the majority views.  They're about the right of an individual to worship, speak, or assemble with others as he chooses, not as the majority dictates.  All the smoke screens in this story are meant to obscure that simple fact.   

[rwarn17588]

Our country has not had a stellar record when it comes to religious freedom.  Catholic churches were relegated to the outskirts of town in some rural communities.  Synagogues have been burned and bombed.  Jehovah's Witnesses were barred from going door to door and were prosecuted for refusing to repeat the pledge of allegiance.  Mormons were pretty much run out of the country.  And let's not forget Massachusetts throwing out all those radical Quakers back in the colonial period. 

But when you cut through all the crap and all the political posturing and exploitation of this for political ends, you're confronted with two questions.  First, do you truly believe in religious freedom?  If your answer is 'yes' then it means you believe that even those with beliefs wildly contradictory to your own enjoy the same freedom that you have.  There is no "yes, but...."  Second, do you believe that local governments can decide local issues in ways that are open and fair?  Admittedly, this one is the tougher question, because local governments have done things that were decidedly underhanded, unfair, and under the table. 

Rights aren't about the majority views.  They're about the right of an individual to worship, speak, or assemble with others as he chooses, not as the majority dictates.  All the smoke screens in this story are meant to obscure that simple fact.   

Good post.

Or, to summarize, are you for the First Amendment, or are you against it?

[guido911]

Our country has not had a stellar record when it comes to religious freedom.  Catholic churches were relegated to the outskirts of town in some rural communities.  Synagogues have been burned and bombed.  Jehovah's Witnesses were barred from going door to door and were prosecuted for refusing to repeat the pledge of allegiance.  Mormons were pretty much run out of the country.  And let's not forget Massachusetts throwing out all those radical Quakers back in the colonial period. 

But when you cut through all the crap and all the political posturing and exploitation of this for political ends, you're confronted with two questions.  First, do you truly believe in religious freedom?  If your answer is 'yes' then it means you believe that even those with beliefs wildly contradictory to your own enjoy the same freedom that you have.  There is no "yes, but...."  Second, do you believe that local governments can decide local issues in ways that are open and fair?  Admittedly, this one is the tougher question, because local governments have done things that were decidedly underhanded, unfair, and under the table. 

Crap? What "crap" would that be, that some people don't want a mosque built near the location where 3,000 innocent Americans were murdered by members of that faith will worship? 

Personally, I am not offended at all about the location of this mosque. It's just that people who lost loved ones at the hands of barbarians might, just might, be offended. They, in my opinion, have a right to be heard.

[Conan71]

Ed, that's as good a reasoning of the First Amendment as there is.

Consider this though: If this Mosque is a symbol of good will and a peaceful place of worship, wouldn't the Imam and his supporters listen to the sensitivity which is caused over the issue and consider locating the mosque elsewhere instead of causing unrest?  One would hope they would simply say: "You know, this is not a great idea, we will move it to a different place."

I have an odd feeling this mosque could be a target of frequent vandalism and therefore "hate crimes" and then the lawsuits will start.  Yeah, I know letting my head run away with it, but I have a tendency to try and consider all views and potential pitfalls.  I'm essentially a problem-solver by profession so it's first nature for me to ask "what if".

If they are not trying to incite anything with the location that just seems a bit naive to me.

[custosnox]

Ed, that's as good a reasoning of the First Amendment as there is.

Consider this though: If this Mosque is a symbol of good will and a peaceful place of worship, wouldn't the Imam and his supporters listen to the sensitivity which is caused over the issue and consider locating the mosque elsewhere instead of causing unrest?  One would hope they would simply say: "You know, this is not a great idea, we will move it to a different place."

I have an odd feeling this mosque could be a target of frequent vandalism and therefore "hate crimes" and then the lawsuits will start.  Yeah, I know letting my head run away with it, but I have a tendency to try and consider all views and potential pitfalls.  I'm essentially a problem-solver by profession so it's first nature for me to ask "what if".

If they are not trying to incite anything with the location that just seems a bit naive to me.

On the flip side of that, they may have decided the spot not only for the need in the area, but also with those who were muslim that were lost in the attack (and I don't mean the terrorists) in mind.  And now that the issue is being pushed, it comes down to a question of why should they have to give up their rights because others don't like it?  Sometimes gaining religous freedom comes down taking a stand against those who wish to reduce it.

[Hoss]

A little clarity on what is actually being built...

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/08/16/the-ground-zero-mosque-is-not-a-mosque-or-at-ground-zero

[custosnox]

A little clarity on what is actually being built...

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/08/16/the-ground-zero-mosque-is-not-a-mosque-or-at-ground-zero

There is that too.

[Hoss]

There is that too.

And the Mayor of New York's comments on it:

http://www.dnainfo.com/20100816/downtown/michael-bloomberg-says-defeat-of-mosque-would-be-sad-day-for-america

[swake]

Crap? What "crap" would that be, that some people don't want a mosque built near the location where 3,000 innocent Americans were murdered by members of that faith will worship? 

Personally, I am not offended at all about the location of this mosque. It's just that people who lost loved ones at the hands of barbarians might, just might, be offended. They, in my opinion, have a right to be heard.

Well, they do have a right to be head, but no where is there a right to not be offended (if there were you just might be voted off the island there yourself sparky) and there is a right of freedom of religion. So, long as no zoning laws are violated, I'm not really sure how this could be blocked in our "free" nation what with people's actual rights and all.

[rwarn17588]

Crap? What "crap" would that be, that some people don't want a mosque built near the location where 3,000 innocent Americans were murdered by members of that faith will worship?  

You are aware that among the 3,000 dead were several dozen Muslims, correct? (Added: These Muslims in the count had nothing to do with the attack, just to be clear.)

The 9-11 guys were equal-opportunity killers. That's what's been lost amid all the noise.