If a mosque opens at Ground Zero on 9/11 next year,Obama can kiss the White House goodbye

[Mark B. Morrow]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_nyc_mosque_families

 

Different 9/11 families, different perspectives.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Overwhelming majority oppose mosque near Ground Zero

 

(CNN) - A proposed mosque to be built two blocks from the World Trade Center has little support nationwide, a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll suggests.

 

According to the new survey out Wednesday, nearly 70 percent of all Americans oppose the controversial plan to build the mosque just blocks away from the solemn site in lower Manhattan while just 29 percent favor the construction.

 

Broken down by party affiliation, 54 percent of Democrats oppose the plans while 82 percent of Republicans disapprove. Meanwhile, 70 percent of independents said they are against the proposal.

 

The poll also showed opposition did not vary widely by age.

 

Support for the controversial project is slightly higher among younger Americans than older Americans, but even among those under the age of 50, six in ten oppose the plan," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

 

Plans to build the $100 million, 13-story 'Cordoba House' three blocks from the site of the attacks on September 11, 2001 have sparked an emotional debate throughout the city. The developer, Sharif El-Gamal, describes the project as an "Islamic community center" that will include a 500-seat performing arts center, a lecture hall, an exhibition space, a swimming pool, a gym, a culinary school, a restaurant and a prayer space for Muslims.

 

LINK

 

 

Edited August 21, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[grbeck]

In their own perverted view of it, perhaps. there are plenty of instances of Christians, Jews and others doing insane things supposedly in the name of their religions.

 

The Stewart clip wasn't comparing the motive of the crime,but the complaint of insensitivity of the following act of having the convention and highlighted the response of the NRA to the criticism. You missed the message.

 

He missed "the message" because Stewart was making a flawed analogy. Stewart was attempting to make cheap political shots against an organization that he doesn't like and in favor of a failed, dumb policy - gun control.

 

If someone mows down people with a car - as has happened - should the local auto show be cancelled? Under Stewart's reasoning, it should be.

 

Please show me where the NRA has encouraged gun owners to commit massacres. Please show me where the Columbine killers did what they did in the name of the NRA or even for gun rights.

 

Next time, compare apples to apples, please.

[Mark B. Morrow]

He missed "the message" because Stewart was making a flawed analogy. Stewart was attempting to make cheap political shots against an organization that he doesn't like and in favor of a failed, dumb policy - gun control.

 

If someone mows down people with a car - as has happened - should the local auto show be cancelled? Under Stewart's reasoning, it should be.

 

Please show me where the NRA has encouraged gun owners to commit massacres. Please show me where the Columbine killers did what they did in the name of the NRA or even for gun rights.

 

Next time, compare apples to apples, please.

 

The NRA doesn't just oppose gun control, it opposes all gun regulation including mandatory backround checks at gun shows, like the gun show where the Colombine murderers' guns were purchased by a straw buyer.

 

Nothing in the Stewart clip compares the motives although the NRA should not be judged by the actions of the Columbine killers any more than all Muslims should not be judged by the acts of terrorism perpetrated by the 9/11 killers. The murder of 3 Pittsburgh Police officers last year by a man who claims he was defending gun rights should not be blamed on the NRA either. Despite his claims, he no more speaks for law abiding gun owners than the 9/11 terrorists speak for law abiding Muslims.

 

Stewart's point, as is obvious from the piece and his admission that Heston was correct, is that our rights under the Constitution (including the right to build a religious center on privately owned land) cannot be held hostage to the feelings of a majority.

[Mark B. Morrow]

No doubt Obama would be full of praise if British Muslims decided to build a new mosque next to the smoking hole of the Lockerbie Pan Am 747 bomb site as a tribute to Muslim culture in the area.

 

Obama no doubt would be pleased to do the opening ceremony at the Lockerbie site and cut the ribbon as a tribute to local Scottish Muslim culture in the area.

 

Citation to anything at all that Obama has said to support this nonsense?

 

Mosque built on the 911 doorstep is an absolute bloody disgrace it could have built elsewhere. Nobody wants to deny them a mosque but please build it is a place thats not so sensitive to Non Muslim Americans.

 

Muslims can't play the we hate them card, because nobody hates American Muslims including myself. l just want this mosque to be built elsewhere somewhere less provocative a location. If l was a decent good caring American Muslim the first thing l would say, 911's doorstep is very the last place in the US that a new mosque should be built, please build anywhere but there.

 

It is absolutely outrageous to even consider think about building a mosque on 911's door step it is an absolute disgrace of the highest order.

 

Actually, there have been protests all over America in recent days to building Mosques in places like Temecula, California, Atlanta, Georgia and Murfreesboro, Tennesee, nowhere near Ground Zero. Some Conservatives, including Newt Gingrich, have stated that no Mosques should be built anywhere in the USA.

[Len_A]

Miss USA, Rima Fakih of Dearborn, a Muslim born in Lebanon, said she doesn't believe a mosque should be built near the site of the World Trade Center in New York City.

 

http://www.freep.com/article/20100821/ENT07/8210345/1322/Miss-USA-Dont-build-mosque

 

http://www.insideedition.com/news/4904/miss-usa-weighs-in-on-mosque-controversy.aspx

[RangerM]

.......Newt Gingrich, have stated that no Mosques should be built anywhere in the USA

Please provide a citation for this.

 

I did a Google search for "Newt Gingrich no mosques anywhere"

 

I could not find one quotation attributed to Newt Gingrich.

[suv_guy_19]

You're right, that's not what he said:

 

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

 

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/61144

[grbeck]

The NRA doesn't just oppose gun control, it opposes all gun regulation including mandatory backround checks at gun shows, like the gun show where the Colombine murderers' guns were purchased by a straw buyer.

 

This is incorrect. Gun sales by dealers at gun shows are subject to the same regulations - including background checks - as gun sales at shops.

 

There is no proof that mandatory background checks would have prevented the Columbine massacre. A background check would not have prevented someone from buying a gun and giving it to someone else, unless the purchaser was in some way forbidden to buy a gun, and there is no proof that this particular purchaser was under that restriction.

 

Nothing in the Stewart clip compares the motives although the NRA should not be judged by the actions of the Columbine killers any more than all Muslims should not be judged by the acts of terrorism perpetrated by the 9/11 killers.

 

Except that a branch of Islam does advocate the murder of infidels, and I have yet to see proof that the NRA, or any of its chapters, has advocated that its members commit massacres.

 

The murder of 3 Pittsburgh Police officers last year by a man who claims he was defending gun rights should not be blamed on the NRA either. Despite his claims, he no more speaks for law abiding gun owners than the 9/11 terrorists speak for law abiding Muslims.

 

Stewart's point, as is obvious from the piece and his admission that Heston was correct, is that our rights under the Constitution (including the right to build a religious center on privately owned land) cannot be held hostage to the feelings of a majority.

 

That was one man who was not part of an organized movement, and he didn't shot those officers in the name of the NRA. Are you going to say that Bin Laden's brand of Islam is not part of an organized movement? Have you paid attention to what has happened in Europe, Africa and Indonesia?

 

Stewart's point, as is obvious from the piece and his admission that Heston was correct, is that our rights under the Constitution (including the right to build a religious center on privately owned land) cannot be held hostage to the feelings of a majority.

 

Except that the examples are not comparable, except, apparently, to Mr. Stewart, who obviously needs a lesson in logic and reasoning before he attempts to tackle constitutional law.

[BlackHorse]

You forgot the most important point grbeck, that being that anyone who quotes or uses Jon Stewart as a source in a political debate has all the same credibility as Jon Stewart, which would be none. The man is a left wing commedian hack, and what he has to say about some political issue doesn't matter, nor does anyone foolish enough to quote him as though he should be taken seriously.

Edited August 22, 2010 by BlackHorse

[napfirst]

Is that supposed to be funny? Have you ever been to Pearl Harbor? Such disrespect is disgusting. Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Only so much stupidity can be excused by immaturity. Stand at that memorial, over the bodies of those brave men, and suggest this, but don't be surprised if some grizzled old Marine knocks your head off.

Good post...without a doubt the most disrespectful remark I read here in a very long time........maybe he'll get mad and swear off of the forum again...one can only hope.

[RangerM]

You forgot the most important point grbeck, that being that anyone who quotes or uses Jon Stewart as a source in a political debate has all the same credibility as Jon Stewart, which would be none. The man is a left wing commedian hack, and what he has to say about some political issue doesn't matter, nor does anyone foolish enough to quote him as though he should be taken seriously.

In fairness, even a "left wing commedian hack" can make a point (not that Steward did it this case), but citing a case where the NRA may have done something insensitive IN NO WAY detracts from the (perceived) offensive nature of putting an Islamic cultural center (mosque, gymnasium, etc).

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[suv_guy_19]

Good post...without a doubt the most disrespectful remark I read here in a very long time

 

I'm at a loss to understand what was so disrespectful. I said nothing against the site and I said nothing in support of the act. This seems to be as much a manufactured controversy as the mosque.

[suv_guy_19]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

There is no wrong here, though.

[Imawhosure]

let us think------->when 2 countries go to war, such as USA versus Germany.......what we have is 2 distinct areas fighting for control of whatever.

 

On the other hand; when we are talking about 9/11, we are describing the start of a war that the participants are the USA, and a religion.

 

Now then-------->when we were in WWII, who was trying to put the the Nazis under that tried to convert any part of this country? Ohhhhhhhhh, you mean our federal government, lol. And if you look at the archives, you will see it is so. Same to treatment to the communists, the blackshirts of Italy, etc, etc.

 

So, we are now for all intensive purposes, are fighting a religion. No border to invade, no coast to attack, they are everywhere.

 

What conservatives and liberals together can not understant is this-------->they can't be defeated through politics. They as a religion, are growing exponentially throughout Europe, and the USA. In fact, Europe will within 15yrs, have more Muslim inhabitants then any other religion. What would you people suggest we do then?

 

I really do not want to be the harbinger of bad news, but the reality is quite simple------>either fix it now, or have the whole European Continent under the control of Muslims directed by the Mullahs of the radical Middle East by our own freedom of the vote in most of our lifetimes. Or, stop the problem now!!!!

 

You can believe what I am saying, or you can check it out and listen to what our posters are saying here from abroad. If you doubt what we are collectively saying, by the time you become convinced that it is not some dream we came up with, it will be to late.

 

If you liberls/conservatives think that debating the issue of abortion or right to life is the most moral religious problem we will have to face in our lifetimes, you have your head in the Middle East sand, and by the time you pull it out, everyone will be facing Mecca and bowing.

[RangerM]

There is no wrong here, though.

Depends on whether or not you believe the placement of this facility is being insensitive (in light of the imam's assertion that America is partially culpable in 9/11) .

[suv_guy_19]

Depends on whether or not you believe the placement of this facility is being insensitive (in light of the imam's assertion that America is partially culpable in 9/11) .

 

The Imam isn't the only one to have said that. It's the opinion of much of the world, and not an insignificant portion of America. Whether or not the placement of the facility is seen by some as insensitive is irrelevant. They can do it, they want to do it, and they seem to want to do it for positive reasons. What's really happened is the manufacture of a controversy not all that far from an election.

[RangerM]

The Imam isn't the only one to have said that. It's the opinion of much of the world, and not an insignificant portion of America. Whether or not the placement of the facility is seen by some as insensitive is irrelevant. They can do it, they want to do it, and they seem to want to do it for positive reasons. What's really happened is the manufacture of a controversy not all that far from an election.

Not very P-C of you, SUV.

 

But, if it is somehow easily assumed to be a "manufacture(d) of a controversy not all that far from an election", how is it that Obama stuck his nose right in the middle of it?

 

If it is so easily dismissed as a manufactured controversy, why wouldn't the "One" know enough to stay away from it......or is it possible there's more to it than the artificial?

 

BTW, I've never said the can't do it.

Edited August 23, 2010 by RangerM

[suv_guy_19]

Not very P-C of you, SUV.

 

I thought it was rather PC....but that's not why I said it.

 

But, if it is somehow easily assumed to be a "manufacture(d) of a controversy not all that far from an election", how is it that Obama stuck his nose right in the middle of it?

 

It became evident it was after the reaction to what he said. Really though, he said exactly what he should have when he first spoke. He shouldn't have added to it later.

 

BTW, I've never said the can't do it.

 

Everyone keeps saying that (we have a 105 page thread on another site). If that's the case, then this shouldn't be an issue. Either people believe in lawful freedom of religion, or they don't. Either people believe all muslims should take the blame for 9/11, or they don't. If all muslims are not to blame, then these muslims are not to blame (they had nothing to do with 9/11), and these muslims should feel no guilt and should go ahead with their plan.

[RangerM]

It became evident it was after the reaction to what he said. Really though, he said exactly what he should have when he first spoke. He shouldn't have added to it later.

But he did. And he did say he wouldn't comment on the "wisdom" of placing it there. But, his problem isn't that he took a position, it's that he didn't.

 

His professorial thoughts don't fly in the real world, where real things happen, and people have real feelings regarding them. Keeping things intellectual, isn't. It's not wise at all, and pretty much proves (to me anyway) that he didn't think before speaking.

Everyone keeps saying that (we have a 105 page thread on another site). If that's the case, then this shouldn't be an issue. Either people believe in lawful freedom of religion, or they don't. Either people believe all muslims should take the blame for 9/11, or they don't. If all muslims are not to blame, then these muslims are not to blame (they had nothing to do with 9/11), and these muslims should feel no guilt and should go ahead with their plan.

People do believe in lawful freedom of religion, but they also know that Islam carries with it some baggage; specifically, 7% of it's followers believe in this........

 

Do NOT click on this link if you are faint of heart.

 

That's 80 million people, btw.

[BlackHorse]

In fairness, even a "left wing commedian hack" can make a point (not that Steward did it this case), but citing a case where the NRA may have done something insensitive IN NO WAY detracts from the (perceived) offensive nature of putting an Islamic cultural center (mosque, gymnasium, etc).

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Jon Stewart has never made a good point. He's a liberal talking point hack. The most disturbing thing about his show is that people actually watch it to get their news. You might as well quote Big Bird and Cookie Monster as a source if you're going to quote Jon Stewart.

[suv_guy_19]

But he did. And he did say he wouldn't comment on the "wisdom" of placing it there. But, his problem isn't that he took a position, it's that he didn't.

 

He has no business taking a position on such an issue. It's not a federal issue.

[RangerM]

He has no business taking a position on such an issue. It's not a federal issue.

He made it an issue when he opened his mouth. What he said (initially) could have been said by a lackey.

[BlackHorse]

In point of fact SUV you are entirely wrong, both in your analogy and with respect to the topic at hand. First of all, yes Japanesse was a religon of sorts. Keep in mind that back in 1941 Japan was ruled by an Emporer. The Emporer was considered a living god and everything in Japanesse society centered around service to the Emporer and the Bushido code. There entire culture was, in essence and in practice, a religon. Sound familiar?

 

Now with respect to this ground zero Mosque. I have personally thus far kept my opinon to myself on it because religon is a very personal issue, at least to me. I happen to be in the camp that thinks it is, at the least, in very bad taste to erect a Mosque so close to ground zero, and at most, an outright intentional insult to this country that is no doubt viewed by Muslims as a Christian country (because it is). I absolutely support the right of Muslims to worship freely here. In fact they are able to worship with greater freedom here in the US than they are in many Muslim countries. Despite what the left wing media will try and tell you, this is not about a bunch of right wing bigots trying to oppress Muslims. By the way many liberals including plenty of elected democrats are opposed to the cordoba mosque as well.

 

Now today the wife of this Imam said that they will meet with all of the stakeholders and discuss the possibility of moving the Mosque to another location. But she also added this.

 

"We have the Muslim community around the nation that we have to be concerned about, and we have to worry about the extremists as well, because they are seizing this moment. And so we have to be very careful and deliberate in when we make any major decision like this," she said.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/22/imams-wife-talks-mosque-stakeholders-meet/

 

Is the muslim community around the nation going to attend this Mosque? No. Do we have to worry about the Christian community around the nation with respect to rebuilding the Chruch that was near ground zero? No. This is whitewash stalling and she made it clear that for now the project will go forward at the proposed site near ground zero. Personally I think that this mosque is not about reaching out to the community. I think this just an "in your face" move on the part of this Imam to the people of America with respect to the attack at the WTC and it should be opposed. Let them build their mosque somewhere else.

[suv_guy_19]

In point of fact SUV you are entirely wrong, both in your analogy and with respect to the topic at hand. First of all, yes Japanesse was a religon of sorts. Keep in mind that back in 1941 Japan was ruled by an Emporer. The Emporer was considered a living god and everything in Japanesse society centered around service to the Emporer and the Bushido code. There entire culture was, in essence and in practice, a religon. Sound familiar?

 

Ummm, Japan is still ruled by an emperor. The emperor is royal, just as the Queen is here. They aren't gods.

 

Now with respect to this ground zero Mosque. I have personally thus far kept my opinon to myself on it because religon is a very personal issue, at least to me. I happen to be in the camp that thinks it is, at the least, in very bad taste to erect a Mosque so close to ground zero, and at most, an outright intentional insult to this country that is no doubt viewed by Muslims as a Christian country (because it is).

 

The United States is very much not a Christian country, and the founders never intended it to be. There are a vast majority of American Muslims, I'm sure, that would not share your view. As to the mosque - the people building it had nothing to do with 9/11. They have nothing to feel guilty for and there is no reason to see it as a slap in the face.

 

Personally I think that this mosque is not about reaching out to the community. I think this just an "in your face" move on the part of this Imam to the people of America with respect to the attack at the WTC and it should be opposed. Let them build their mosque somewhere else.

 

This looks very much like what you say it isn't. Apparently, religious freedom has zones where some think it shouldn't be allowed.....not even on ground zero.