Well, at least no one’s talking about amending the Constitution again. In this particular instance, that annoying First Amendment which mentions freedom of religion.
The guy who we watched take an oath to defend it a couple years ago commented on the move to build a mosque in lower Manhattan within distance of Ground Zero. To be specific, President Obama said: “As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”
That doesn’t even begin to take into account that the guy spearheading the drive is the exact sort of moderate Muslim who is as disgusted by the actions of terrorists as, well, any moderate Christian would be by the activities of the KKK.
Yet Republican Peter King declared that Obama “is wrong.” I’m fascinated by the notion. What part, exactly, was he wrong about? That he’s a citizen? (Not that again.) That he’s the president? (Well, if he’s not a citizen, then…) Or is King suggesting that Muslims don’t have the right to build a place of worship in accordance with local laws and ordinances?
I mean, if you’re going to object, then be willing to take it all the way. Muslims should be able to block the building of churches in their neighborhoods because they’re still steamed about the Crusades. And Christians should make sure to prevent synagogues going up because, despite Vatican II, they’re still blaming the Jews for the Crucifixion.
This country was founded on a foundation of religious tolerance…or, more correctly, escaping religious intolerance. Do I see the symbolism that some people find upsetting with the idea of a mosque within a few blocks of Ground Zero? Of course. I’m not stupid; I get it. But it’s always easy to support the First Amendment when people aren’t saying or doing something you find upsetting.
If we truly want the U.S. to be a beacon of hope, we can’t snuff out the torch when we find it too hard to keep it lit.
PAD
• 
I’m with the president on this one. They have every right to build there, as does anyone.
.
Of course, if the purpose is to foster better relations with the non-Muslim public, they may wish to reconsider. I think the Carmelite nuns had every right to have a convent near Auschwitz but it was wise of the Pope to get rid of it in the face of the hurt feelings it was causing.
I sometimes revisit (and in this instance) extract and slightly change a quote by the fictional president Andrew Shepard (played by Michael Douglas) “America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say “You want freedom of religion? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose dogma makes your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.”
Can I just point out for like, the zillionth time that A) it’s not a mosque and B) it’s not actually at Ground Zero?
.
Once again the far right Republican wing has proven what a gang of opportunist hypocrites they are. They purport to be strict Constitutionalists and yet they want to change their precious document to stamp out the scourge of so-called ‘anchor babies’ (i.e. people that are different from us). They refuse to pass any legislation that is not paid for such as unemployment extension, but they want to maintain tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, a move that is most definitely not paid for. And they continue to espouse the cause of Christianity under the guise of freedom of religion (thanks to that pesky aforementioned Constitution) but they refuse to acknowledge the religion freedom of a billion or so Muslims (i.e. people that are different from us). The only silver lining in this conservative cloud is that the Republican party will eventually end up imploding and splitting into two groups: one the ultra-right wing grizzly mama party who swear by the Constitution but have never read it; and the more reasonable moderates who seem to be hiding under a rock at the moment until the lunatic storm blows over.
Well, Joe, it actually IS a mosque since a mosque is simply a Muslim place of worship. A minaret is a typical feature there, but not–from what I understand–required. And I didn’t say it was AT Ground Zero, I said it was “within distance” and “within a few blocks.” So I’m not sure who you think you’re correcting on this, but it ain’t me.
.
PAD
Well, PAD, it actually ISN’T a mosque since it’s really a community center. Think something akin to a YM_M_A.
Second, which people seem to be overlooking, there already IS a mosque right near Ground Zero; has been for some time.
Other than those minor quibbles, I’m wholly with you on this one.
As I said in part of my response to a friend’s journal post:
“We are a nation of greatness. We are a nation of freedoms. To make us a country of ‘Freedom, BUT…’ is a repudiation of all we are supposed to stand for.
de Tocqueville said that America ‘is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.’
Taking away the notion of freedom in America is sure as hëll not good. And if we as Americans embrace that thought, we will no longer be great. And this will no longer be America.”
The cultural center is TO INCLUDE a mosque.
Well, PAD, it actually ISN’T a mosque since it’s really a community center. Think something akin to a YM_M_A.
.
I’m figuring we read the same article, Alex, since the reference to the community center and comparing it to a “Y” were both in there. It also mentioned a mosque being put in. So I’m not entirely sure why you’re nitpicking on this.
.
PAD
The President is obviously right. Freedom of religion includes the freedom to practice a religion you don’t approve of, in ways you don’t approve of.
.
But I would be happier about it if the Muslim dudes weren’t so over-sensitive themselves. I propose the following deal: they get to build their mosque, but we get to see that South Park episode, this time uncensored, plus a new one mocking the building of this mosque.
.
Living in a free society involves a great deal of compromise.
There isn’t just one set of “Muslim dudes.” The people who want to build this cultural center are not the ones who had a problem with the South Park episode.
.
There’s no compromise to be had when we’re talking about two different groups of people with different goals.
So lemme see if I understand this…
.
A group wants to build a mosque near the site where the World Trade Center once stood. Another group opposes the idea. The dispute, if I remember correctly, gets settled and the first group is permitted to build their mosque. The second group won’t let it go. The U.S. President gives a speech about the building of the mosque. A member of the opposing party says the President is wrong.
.
Sounds like standard operating procedure to me and, on that basis, I refuse to be surprised.
.
I agree with PAD in that it’s a First Amendment issue, though I don’t think of it in the religious context. What bothers me is why any American wants to effectively forbid other Americans the right to “peaceably assemble.” Sounds like more “Free Speech Zone” bûllšhìŧ to me. Has that been done away with yet? I don’t seem to hear much about it since President Bush left office.
.
What I don’t understand is why President Obama feels the need to inject himself into what amounts to a debate over a construction project. Really, why does any U.S. President get involved in these matters when a system is already in place to mediate such disputes? If it’s about upholding the U.S. Constitution, as described in the Oath of Office, I can see that. But, as PAD said above (I’m sure I’m taking it out of context here), take it all the way.
I think it’s become ridiculous that people have this idea that only they themselves should have the Constitutional Rights and that anyone else should have the same rights on a case-by-case basis that just boils down to that person’s opinion of the other person and if person b is “agreeable” to person a.
Ok, for a little insight into the OTHER side…
Lets say that, for instance, prior Muslim practice has been to build mosques on certain sites as monuments to memorialize Muslim victories…
And that, the name proposed for this mosque happens to be related (if not the same) as one of these ‘victory memorial’ locations
And, that certain Muslim spokesmen, in the past (and not necessarily those actually organizing the construction of this mosque) have put forward this particular location as a good location for a ‘victory memorial.’
THEN you see why some have a certain amount of resistance to this particular mosque at this particular time.
However, on purely legal and constitutional grounds, there is no reason to stop them, as the president correctly has stated. If, after it is constructed, they do treat this particular mosque as a ‘victory memorial’ I suspect that it will be a very popular focus for protests on both sides…
Charlie
http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html
Just found that article discussing elements of the whole ‘victory memorial’ part of the debate. I think it’s very interesting.
(In a nutshell, The ‘victory’ the naming of the centre relates to seems to have been over other Muslims rather than Christians, so calling it a ‘Muslim victory’ is rather false rhetoric – and that’s a charge being laid against Newt Gingrich rather than you, Charlie. Anyway, please read it, it’s really rather fascinating.)
.
Let’s be clear – I’m a Brit, and therefore a total outsider regarding this whole issue. I wouldn’t be so presumptious as to judge how the American people should be feeling about this issue, but I will say the whole thing has gotten me very nervous.
.
Is it true that 70% of the American people oppose this Muslim community centre (which happens to include a Mosque) being built? Wow, that’s an extraordinarily high level of fear, mistrust and outrage, whether warranted or otherwise. If nothing else, I applaud the President for expressing an opinion so seemingly at odds with the national mood.
.
From doing a cursory examination of news-sites talking about this subject, it appears the proposed community centre is in fact centrally placed between 2 existing Mosques, both established since the 80’s and one of them a mere 4 blocks away from ground zero no less. The new centre appears to be sorely needed to act as an overspill. Not putting it in the proposed location would seem to take it out of the very community it’s supposed to serve.
.
There is a CNN poll to that effect, david. Of course, my immediate reaction was, “Well, most of those people don’t live in NYC or know anyone who died in the attacks, so it’s really none of their dámņ business.”
“Is it true that 70% of the American people oppose this Muslim community centre (which happens to include a Mosque) being built?”
.
Not really.
.
Most of the polls on this are worded vaguely enough to make it look that way. They just ask whether people think the Community Center should be there. However one poll separated it out into two questions. When asked whether the Center was appropriate, 30% said yes and 64% said it was wrong. However, when asked if if these people have the *right* to build it, 61% said yes while 34% said no.
.
So the majority of people in America think it is at least a bad idea, but the majority is not seriously opposed to it.
This has got me wondering: are there any Shinto shrines in the vicinity of Pearl Harbor?
For that matter, are there any Christian churches to be found in Hiroshima?
Well, Pearl Harbor is an active military base. Whatever houses of worship that are there are probably in keeping with whatever the military policy is.
.
As for Christian churches in Hiroshima, it’s as irrelevant as any other similar comments about churches or synagogues in other countries. They don’t have something akin to the First Amendment. Nor do they have a concept of separation between church and state.
.
The simple fact is that the government has no legal right upon which to prevent building of a house of worship on private property. Does anyone want to GIVE the government that right?
.
PAD
Woah, I wasn’t saying Shinto shrines near Pearl Harbor was a bad thing. I was just curious because my shaky knowledge of Hawaii includes the fact there’s a good sized Japanese population. If there were, I would point out the hypocrisy of these people complaining about the mosque ignoring said shrines for all this time.
Woah, I wasn’t saying Shinto shrines near Pearl Harbor was a bad thing.
.
No worries; I didn’t say you were.
.
If I sounded annoyed in the last graf–and I was–it wasn’t with you. It was with the various right wingers who are making proclamations that, because there are certain restrictions in other countries, why, as a quid pro quo, we should have them here, too.
.
Curiously this logic is never applied to gun control laws.
.
PAD
Not sure how exact of a vicinity it is, but there is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izumo_Taishakyo_Mission_of_Hawaii
.
Wikipedia also says there are half a dozen other Shinto shrines in Hawaii, although it does not have articles on any of them. Google maps shows a place called the Hawaiian Plantation Village that contains a Shinto shrine a couple of miles from Pearl Harbor.
.
Although, Pearl Harbor is a unique situation due to the fact that Hickam AFB is right there, so it’s not like you could build within a few blocks.
Madness, it all is.
.
One the one manipulative member, we need to respect ‘their’ feelings (remember the flap on a few years back about those cartoons of the Prophet?) but, on the other, they don’t need to respect ‘ours’ when building that ‘mosque’ – or is it a ‘community center’? Bingo Hall, perhaps? It would help if the media got their stories straight – and now people are all a twitter about the President doing his job correctly.
.
It’s times such as this one is sorely tempted to despair of the sanity of society.
I’m an agnostic (so I don’t really advocate any places of worship), but on legal grounds I’m in favor of letting them build the mosque there. This is a distinction that many people should make: Advocating for someone’s right to do something isn’t the same as advocating those beliefs; kinda like supporting someone’s right to free speech without supporting what they’re saying.
What surprises and dismays me is how much this issue has had people equating the Muslim religion with terrorism. There are plenty of folks saying that this is somehow a victory for the terrorists, as if Al Quaeda (the group that *did* attack the Twin Towers) is writing the checks and opening a training camp. Just because the terrorists were Muslims (ones that skipped the part about killing others) doesn’t mean that all Muslims are terrorists. How many murderers are Christians; and how many people would block building Christian places of worship as a result?
And since that often-pesky separation of church and state is still on the books, as long as the group building this Mosque/religious center have met the legal requirements (which is not in dispute), they can. Protesters can still protest (first amendment, don’tcha know) but they don’t get to ignore or change the law just because they don’t like it.
Never mind that Muslims were killed in the WTC towers as well on 9/11. Apparently they never existed according to these morons.
.
And yes, they’re fûçkìņg morons for opposing this. They want religious freedom for themselves, but for nobody else. THEY are the ones insulting this country and our Constitution, not this group trying to build this center and mosque.
“Never mind that Muslims were killed in the WTC towers as well on 9/11.”
.
True that. I can name 19 of them.
.
Forget the Pearl Harbor analogy. How about the Catholic nuns who set up their abbey either in or right next to Auschwitz? That caused a hëll of an uproar, and finally the Pope told ’em to move it.
.
Yes, they have the legal right to build their mosque — I’m sorry, “community center that coincidentally contains a mosque dedicated to the same Allah in whose name the towers were destroyed, right around the corner from the site, named after a mosque built atop a Christian church in Muslim-conquered Europe, in a building damaged by airplane debris on 9/11, scheduled to open on September 11, 2011, and founded by a guy who said, and I quote, ‘I do not believe in religious dialogue’ and ‘I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened’ (about 9/11).”
.
Yes, it is their legal right to build there. But it’s others’ legal right to recognize that this is an in-your-face move to the United States, to those who still remember that the towers weren’t brought down by people yelling “Praise Jesus!” or “Holy Moses!” or “For Buddha!” This is not an attempt to “reconcile” Muslims and Americans or help Muslims integrate into our society or anything like that. It is a declaration of victory and supremacy.
.
To use their own words, where is the “understanding” and “compassion” and “respect” here? Their insistence on building this structure, so close to that hallowed ground and nowhere else, causes great pain to a lot of people who saw their loved ones and a lot of fellow Americans (as well as guests in our nations) slaughtered in the name of Allah. Basic decency and respect and compassion would require most people to reconsider their plans.
.
Tolerance and respect, however, in cases like this, is a one-way street. The people behind this project demand it — but refuse to show it.
.
As is their legal right.
.
But under absolutely no circumstances should we go along with their fiction about its true nature.
.
Greg Gutfeld, by the way, is raising money to open a Muslim-friendly gay bar next door. He’s having a contest to name it. My favorite contenders are “Turban Cowboy,” “Infidel-icious,” Ji-Hot” or “Ji-Hard,” and “I-Slam.”
.
Again, every legal right to do so. Grossly insensitive to the sensibilities of the neighbors, but legal in every way. I’m tempted to throw him a few bucks.
.
J.
Grossly insensitive to the sensibilities of the neighbors, but legal in every way
.
Well, I’d say that opposing this mosque in the name of Christianity or Judaism is pretty dámņ insensitive as well.
.
We shouldn’t allow another mosque simply because it’s a mosque? Well, then I hope we stop allowing Christian churches to stop being built in New York City, because I’m pretty sure a lot more death and destruction was caused from an order by a supposedly good Christian man in George W. Bush than ever occurred on 9/11.
.
It’s only insensitive to people who feel the need to be insulted because Muslims dare continue to show their face in NYC. Who don’t leave because they’re supposed to be guilty over 9/11, as if each and every one of them were personally responsible.
.
And no, there is no tolerance here from Christian groups and those like the Anti-Defamation League who have come out opposed to this. They should be questioned as to why they want to deny the religious freedom to others that they so enjoy. And the location should have nothing to do with it.
.
Yes, it’s all fine legally. Morally? These groups are nothing but hypocrites.
yeah they have no right to disagree
.
“Never mind that Muslims were killed in the WTC towers as well on 9/11.”
.
Jay Tea: “True that. I can name 19 of them.”
.
You know what, I stopped reading that post right there. With that as an opening line it’s a pretty good bet that the rest of the post was at least as bigoted and stupid as that opening line was flat out asinine.
.
Thank you James, for pointing out something I meant to say before, which is that people who oppose this community center have the constitutional right to stand outside it and protest 24/7 if they want. They could probably put that time and energy to much better use, such as volunteering at one of the local soup kitchens for example, but if they want to stand out there, that is there right too.
.
By the way, and this is only tangentially related to the above, but there is an excellent profile of Newt Gingrich on the Esquire website at the moment. Since it looks as though Newt is positioning himself to run as the next Republican presidential candidate in 2012, you all owe it to yourselves to remember what this particular politican’s glass house looks like.
I thought this article put it well – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081204996.html
He would have a better point if the proposed center was closer to Ground Zero. However, I do think the observation that while legally they have the right to build the mosque/cultural center there (and Obama is correct in his statements), it may not be the most sensitive/culturally aware thing to do, is valid.
However, I do think the observation that while legally they have the right to build the mosque/cultural center there (and Obama is correct in his statements), it may not be the most sensitive/culturally aware thing to do, is valid.
Personally, I don’t think being sensitive to the feelings of morons and bigots is the correct thing to do.
One, it’s a moderate Muslim group that repudiates the aim of al Qaeda.
Two, it’s just not that close.
Three, there were Muslim victims of 9/11.
Morally, ethically and legally, they should build.
Here is the opinion of two Muslim writers who disagree with you:
.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html#ixzz0wcZNOGAS
.
(The last two paragraphs are excellent.)
Actually, the last two paragraphs display the fundamental ignorance of the writers, unable to wrap themselves around the simple truth that one of the reasons Americans DON’T have to face religious tyranny is precisely because of the constitutionally protected right of religious freedom. This isn’t liberalism run amok. This is simply showing basic respect for, and understanding of, this country’s owner’s manual.
.
There are always, ALWAYS, what seem to be compelling personal reasons to curtail the First Amendment. Whether it’s building a mosque/center/whatever a few blocks from Ground Zero or holding a Neo-Nazi rally in Skokie in order to deliberately provoke Holocaust survivors, tolerance is one of the prices you pay in a free society.
.
PAD
The writers of that article are Muslims who are offering their perspective on the motives of those who are intending to erect this structure near Ground Zero.
Since they not advocating anything (in the article at least) that would violate the Constitutional rights of any group or individual, particularly the ones that are endeavoring to build this “community center,” what you saying makes absolutely no sense.
Tim, considering that the mosque isn’t being built at Ground Zero, the entire premise of that article seems to make no sense.
.
Forget the article’s notion of whether this will result in less tolerance of Muslims. Such tolerance doesn’t really exist in the first place. This is merely an excuse to target Islam openly (as if accusing the President of being a Muslim terrorist over the last 2+ years wasn’t enough).
.
Also forget the subject of funding, as the previous administration had the Saudis on speed-dial.
.
I could go on with ways to counter the rest of the article, but I need not waste the time.
The writers of that article are Muslims who are offering their perspective on the motives of those who are intending to erect this structure near Ground Zero.
.
Yes, Tim, I know, because I was able to read the little bio at the end, and thus knew where they were coming from.
.
And I’m saying that their “perspective” in which they strenuously argue that the mosque shouldn’t be built stems from a lack of ability to understand the core concept of religious tolerance on which this country is supposed to be built. They either don’t comprehend, or reject, the notion that it’s not my business to tell anyone where they should or should not build a house of worship.
.
And then there’s passive/aggressive bûllšhìŧ such as their penultimate graf:
.
As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.
.
No they don’t, because if they did, they would understand that they’re basically calling the framers of the Constitution teary-eyed, bleeding heart liberals, because all Bloomberg, the media and jerks like me are saying is that the intent of this country’s founders should be honored, no matter how much it may put some people’s noses out of joint. Allow me to respond to them in the same spirit: With all due respect, they’re áššhølëš.
.
PAD
Doesn’t surprise me – in our local paper, there’s been considerable debate over the recent decision in California re: Prop 8, and I’ve been called a “blind liberal” who wants to “destroy our country” because I dared to quote the exact wording of the United States Constitution (specifically, the 14th Amendment and Article IV, Section 1). Apparently, proper Conservatism means that you should be radical, not conservative, especially on matters of law.
.
I’m not sure when believing that the Constitution should be upheld became a “bleeding-heart fuzzy-headed liberal” position…
I’m not sure when believing that the Constitution should be upheld became a “bleeding-heart fuzzy-headed liberal” position…
About the time Newt became speaker of the house.
Given that the Cordoba Institute consulted extensively with the families of the victims of 9/11 (and, of course, that some of the victims of 9/11 were Muslim), I think you can say that rejecting this project is a slap in the face of the 9/11 victims.
Well, sure, Roger, but what do they know? They only have a personal stake in the matter. If there’s one thing that we’ve seen repeatedly, it’s that people who do NOT have a personal stake in an issue are oftentimes given the shortest shrift when it comes to a debate on the topic.
.
PAD
It’s always been my belief that the constitution is a very difficult document for the average American to understand. So when the average American starts to read the constitution, they replace it in their mind with text from the bible. And as you know, the bible is a book of interpretation and anyone can make it say anything they want it to say.
There. That should stir up some trouble.
Actually, Dave, in a supplement to my earlier point, I believe people actually do that
So when the average American starts to read the constitution, they replace it in their mind with text from the bible.
.
The average American is utterly unfamiliar with the Constitution. For instance, a study was done that showed only one person in a thousand was capable of naming all five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment. Few could name more than one. However almost everyone could name all five members of the Simpsons family.
.
PAD
I can even tell you off the top of my head what Marge’s gambling debts were last year.
.
$700.
Let’s see, Freedom of speech, Freedom of the press, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of assembly, what’s #5? , and I’m being serious people
D’oh!
I had to look it up, Charles. Freedom of Religion is in two parts, freedom to exercise and freedom to establish a religion.
Actually, the fifth is the right to petition for redress of grievances.
.
PAD
However almost everyone could name all five members of the Simpsons family.
.
Saw a comedian a few years ago who pretended to stumble over recalling the name of the black girl on the long-off-the-air Facts of Life TV show prompting about half the audience to call out “Tootie!”
.
“Uh, huh. Right. Tootie,” he noted. “And who’s the Secretary of the Treasury?”
.
Silence.
I just wish I could afford to build a Pork food restaurant right next door 😉
I’m quite familiar with the Constitution, thank you. And I’m amazed at how many people can’t understand that the 2nd Amendment refers to an individual right to keep and bear arms.
.
The reason I bring that up is that I would speculate there is a considerable overlap between those who are trying to say that we who oppose the mosque are trying to re-write the Constitution, and those who don’t see the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.
.
I would also be intrigued to see just where in the Constitution things like abortion and same-sex marriage are included. I happen to be squishily pro-choice and staunchly pro gay marriage, but neither is even remotely addressed in that document.
.
J.
And I’m amazed at how many people can’t understand that the 2nd Amendment refers to an individual right to keep and bear arms.
.
For the purpose of keeping a well-armed militia. People always leave that part off because it’s inconvenient. So the simple solution is to have every gun owner forced to enlist in the armed forces. I’d be okay with that.
.
PAD
That’s why I despise the 2nd Amendment as written. The “militia” clause can be read as either a limiting clause, or an exhortatory one.
.
What sways me is that nowhere else in the Constitution is the phrase “the people” used to describe a collective right, but an individual (meaning that it is only exercisable through a body, not by the person).
.
The “collective right” argument has never made any sense to me whatsoever.
.
J.
Hiya PAD,
This being your “house,” so to speak, I’m not going to go on about the Second Amendment in this topic for two reasons. First, out of respect for you and the topic you chose for this thread. Second, because the First Amendment is just as important to me as the Second Amendment and this thread is concerned more where the First Amendment applies.
.
Having said that all that, there are points I would like to bring up, I just don’t want to derail this discussion to do so without your permission or unless you decide to start another discussion at some point in the future.
.
Salutations
Jay Tea: I’m amazed at how many people can’t understand that the 2nd Amendment refers to an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Jay Tea less than 90 minutes later: I despise the 2nd Amendment as written. The “militia” clause can be read as either a limiting clause, or an exhortatory one.
Is its meaning clearly understandable or open to interpretation?
Have any of the media Talking Heads mentioned that several hundred Muslims died in the attacks? Here is a partial list: http://islam.about.com/blvictims.htm
who disputes this?
Luigi, the list published there has 58 names (59, if you count the unnamed fetus of the seven-months-pregnant woman). The “hundreds” seems to refer to the families of those killed.
I know it’s incomplete, though. It doesn’t include 19 other Muslims who died in the 9/11 attacks:
Mohamed Atta, Waleed al-Shehri, Wail al-Shehri, Abdulaziz al-Omari, Satam al-Suqami, Marwan al-Shehhi, Fayez Banihammad, Mohand al-Shehri, Hamza al-Ghamdi, Ahmed al-Ghamdi, Hani Hanjour, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazm, Ziad Jarrah, Ahmed al-Haznawi, Ahmed al-Nami, Saeed al-Ghamdi.
.
J.
Jay, your attempts to associate the criminals with their victims is abhorrent.
.
Would you condemn the victims of sex abuse because they were Catholics, just like the pedophile priests who abused them?
It genuinely depresses me to see, every single day, just how stupid the average American has become.
They regularly lump regular Muslims in with the radicals. They rant about birth certs for the Prez even AFTER one is provided. They make Sarah Palin important (the woman has the I.Q. of boiled cabbage).
If they stopped and thought about the situation for a few seconds, they’d see just how idiotic they’re being. There’s already one a few blocks away, and it certainly hasn’t led to the fall of the city.
Not agreeing with someone’s religion doesn’t give ANYONE the right to deny them the right to live wherever they want and to practice whatever they want.
Living in fear and ignorance can only lead to hate and self-destruction.
Or Fox News.
I’m not sure which is worse.
…I’ll go with Fox. Definitely worse.
Now you’ve gone too far! Palin isn’t anywhere near as smart as boiled cabbage.
I just found out that Ramadan ends on September 11 this year. I’m already fearing the footage they’ll show on FOX(or maybe even some of the more mainstream news) of Muslims around the world ‘celebrating the anniversary of the attack’.
I just found out that Ramadan ends on September 11 this year.
.
Unless I’ve missed something since I read an article about this a few days ago, but Ramadan *could* end on September 11, but it could end as early as the 8th.
.
The article talked about how Muslim religious leaders in the US are very aware of this, but the article didn’t really say how the decision is made on when Ramadan ends.
Traditionally, Ramadan ends as soon as the New Moon can be seen. In many areas, the celebrations don’t start until a respected local person actually spots the Moon. So sometimes it can end on different days in different places. But the position of the Moon is pretty easy to figure out in advance, and moderate Muslims at least are usually perfectly willing to go with whatever day the almanac says.
I just read about this year’s date in one article, though, and the 11th was the only date mentioned, so I can’t say for sure it will be the most likely day.
I apologize for my diversion into the 2nd Amendment. It’s part of a related concern of mine, but not overly germane here.
.
But I stand by what I said: while the legal argument for the construction of this structure is sound, I still believe that it is not being done with good intentions and is motivated by sentiments that are antithetical to American culture and society. And I am not calling for any kind of action to resist it, merely noting it as a declaration of intent and hostility by the backers.
.
It’s often said that “Islam means ‘peace.'” It does not. It means submission. And Islam is more than a faith, it is also a political, social, and legal system that is, in many ways, utterly incompatible with Western society. I have no problems with the faith; it is the rest of its baggage that is inextricably tied in with it that causes the problems. And it is that that I denounce.
.
J.
“utterly incompatible”… do you realize the differences between versions of Islam are often much more drastic than the ones between christian churches?
.
I mean, I would agree with you if wahabbism (wich is the kind of islam western media usually focus on) was the norm, but it isnt. There are plenty of examples of devout muslim individuals and communities that perfectly integrate within western societies. And integrate doesnt mean to start acting, dressing and eating like you do but to follow the laws of the land and participate in its civil mechanisms. The case of France, often used in some american media outlets as an example of the perverse effects of muslim inmigration is actually the opposite; the sore spots are a dramatic minority and the overall influence has been very positive to France in cultural and economic terms.
.
A lie doesnt become true because you repeat it very often.
A lie doesnt become true because you repeat it very often.
.
That’s correct. However if people treat it as if it is the truth, there ceases to be a difference.
.
PAD
Jay, just how many good Christians SUBMIT themselves (quite willingly, I might add) to their God and their Savior? Islam, like ALL Semitic-based words (Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, what have you), derives from a consonant-only framework, usually of three letters. In the case of “Islam,” the root is S-L-M which is also seen in the Arabic greeting word “salaam” (which is a cognate of the Hebrew “shalom”). No one has ever denied that Islam literally means “submission” but the full meaning is that Islam refers to the “peace that one receives from submitting one’s self to Allah (aka God).” How many people have died for refusing to submit to the “word of God” (the CHRISTIAN one, that is)?
“And Islam is more than a faith, it is also a political, social, and legal system that is, in many ways, utterly incompatible with Western society.”
.
So, Islam is like Catholicism?
.
Catholics have thier own political leader. Their own recognized country. Their own laws that often superscede local governmental laws. Their own social mores that often superscede local mores. I assume it, too, is utterly incompatible with Western society?
.
I’m just saying, I haven’t seen anyone argue that a Church can’t be within a few blocks of a school.
.
Theno
The reaction to the mosque is not surprising but still disappointing, as it represents how far this country has to go to actually living up to its ideals.
PAD gave some analogies above but a more recent one would be: Muslim extremists killed Americans on 9/11. People are taking issue with Muslims *in general* worshiping *near* Ground Zero.
So, white extremists killed black girls in a church. A white extremist killed Martin Luther King Jr outside a hotel. Should no white person *in general* build a church on the site of the bombed church or open another hotel where King was shot?
As to why Obama should get involved, I think PAD made the very valid point that Obama’s job is to uphold the Constitution. He should also lead, to set an example and perhaps say “We are better than this.”
It’s unfortunate that our elected officials don’t really do that all that often. They make no statement without political gain.
With that in mind, no matter what happens next, Obama at least attempted to lead. There was certainly no political gain for him to speak on the subject.