New York City mosque

[sarge87]

The First Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to build a place of worship anywhere they choose. Cities have zoning laws. However, a city cannot change zoning laws just to prevent the building of a religious institution, otherwise they will be in violation of RLUIPA laws, which would put them at odds with the 1st and 14th Amendments.

 

A close relative of mine, who happens to be a developer says you can't get a hotdog stand cleared and built in less than 2 years in a major city. So how did this building get fastracked through the process when Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which was destroyed on 9/11 by the collapse of the Twin Towers, has spent nine years trying to get building permits to no avail? I'm not saying there's any impropriety going on but it does raise the question.

 

Should they build the Mosque? It's there right to do so since they have been green lighted for construction. I guess that's entirely up to them, but don't expect much fanfare from the local unions who support the NYPD and the NYFD.

 

My prediction is, it won't get built.

[Ponderosa]

Al Qaeda will see it was a victory hence "victory mosque".

 

I didn't know we let Al Qaeda's preferences dictate our opinions now...

 

At any rate, what Al Qaeda really sees as a victory is this backlash against Muslims. If we were open and accepting and treated this the same way as any church, it'd be a lot harder to try to stir up radicalism in youth. As it is, the "Americans hates your brother muslisms" card is a lot easier for them to play.

 

So if you will, all this backlash is an Al-Qaeda "recruiting victory."

 

Exactly. Al-Qaeda wins if this "war on terror" changes into a war between the US and Islam. That is simply a war without end . . . and one that we cannot and will not win.

 

Bin Laden (if he is still alive) LOVES this backlash against the proposed mosque. This is exactly what he wants. Beck/Limbaugh/Fox/Republican Party are more than willing to give Bin Laden what he wants (division between Islam and the US) if it makes Obama/Democratic Party look bad. It's sickening.

To use your own words: Any factual basis for the bold? That sounds entirely fabricated.

 

What sickens is that this is what passes for civil discourse.

People disagree with you are and they are bigots, collaborators or worse.

Surely. Just give me time to find an article about some Republican lawmaker repeating BS talking points about the mosque and a parallel story about Bin Laden saying that he wants the war to be defined as "US vs. Islam."

 

I'll edit this as soon as I get to it.

 

here you go

 

Mediamatters?

The first quote is from a guest on MSNBC - big woof.

 

How are either of those sources any more valid than a Limbaugh or Fox (both of which you preemptively dismiss)?

--

Anyway, we can play the quote game all day - I can give you the director of Al-Arabiya TV, Harry Reid, 50% Dems in a national poll oppose it, etc.

And you'll return fire.

 

So, I will stipulate that several or even many Republicans have said inappropriate things. OK there. But so what?

How do the opinions of a few condemn the "Republican Party"?

 

The GOP ranges from Arnold to Newt to Graham to Paul, etc.

You seem all too comfortable blasting those who disagree with you on a policy position.

--

As for making Pres. Obama look bad - it seems to me the President has received very strong support for his

Iraq and Afghanistan policies from most Republicans (except the Paulista wing). This is a separate issue.

Besides, they aren't the ones talking about cutting funding.

--

Finally, the easy counter argument to American intolerance - there are already mosques here.

One within four blocks of the former WTC. It has been there for 40 years.

 

But somehow if this new one doesn't get built Bin Laden wins! Or loses! [depending on POV]

Can we have a little more hyperbole? Cripes.

[carlfense]

If you'd prefer I can probably find the Bin Laden video itself and the transcript of Gingrich's speeches . . . ?

 

(And yes, I do consider Gingrich and the GOP nearly indistinguishable. More so than the GOP chairman anyways.)

 

And yes. There are already mosques. That's even more reason why it should not be a big deal if they want to build a civic center that includes a mosque . . . that road has already been taken. What's the difference now?

 

Also, I never said that victory in the war on terror balances on whether this mosque is built or not built. I said that if the war on terror becomes a war on Islam it is lost. That is not hyperbole.

[74Hunter]

Yeah, I didn't say that very well, let me refine my thoughts:

 

We have given more money and more military aid to Muslims and Muslim countries than ANY other "non-Muslim" country has given to Muslims/Muslim countries.

 

Hope that clarifies it, sorry.

 

So you are saying the US is a "non-Muslim" country giving aid to Muslim countries? I can't agree. The US is a non-denominational country giving aid. We are simultaneously Muslim/Christian/Buddhist/Pastafarian/Etc. I think you're trying to draw a distinction that doesn't exist. We're the wealthiest country on earth so of course we give more aid to others than the less wealthy country.

You're splitting hairs. "Muslim" countries- i.e. Saudi, Lybia, Egypt, etc.

"Non-Muslim" (or "non-secular") countries-USA, England, Germany, etc.

 

I could throw in that the USA was founded on Judeo/Christian principals, but that would open up a whole can of worms that I don't want to get into.

 

Bottom line-we have helped Muslims and Muslim countries more than any other country has, and they still hate us. NOTHING we ever do will stop the hate that radical Islam has for the US. It's all excuses, and they will find an excuse to "support" their actions.

[Husker_x]

Yeah, I didn't say that very well, let me refine my thoughts:

 

We have given more money and more military aid to Muslims and Muslim countries than ANY other "non-Muslim" country has given to Muslims/Muslim countries.

 

Hope that clarifies it, sorry.

 

So you are saying the US is a "non-Muslim" country giving aid to Muslim countries? I can't agree. The US is a non-denominational country giving aid. We are simultaneously Muslim/Christian/Buddhist/Pastafarian/Etc. I think you're trying to draw a distinction that doesn't exist. We're the wealthiest country on earth so of course we give more aid to others than the less wealthy country.

You're splitting hairs. "Muslim" countries- i.e. Saudi, Lybia, Egypt, etc.

"Non-Muslim" (or "non-secular") countries-USA, England, Germany, etc.

 

I could throw in that the USA was founded on Judeo/Christian principals, but that would open up a whole can of worms that I don't want to get into.

 

Bottom line-we have helped Muslims and Muslim countries more than any other country has, and they still hate us. NOTHING we ever do will stop the hate that radical Islam has for the US. It's all excuses, and they will find an excuse to "support" their actions.

 

Well that's not entirely true.

 

A worldwide nuclear holocaust would pretty much put a stop to the playa hating. And everything else.

[knapplc]

'Ground Zero Mosque' Imam Helped FBI With Counterterrorism Efforts

 

In March 2003, federal officials were being criticized for disrespecting the rights of Arab-Americans in their efforts to crack down on domestic security threats in the post-9/11 environment. Hoping to calm the growing tempers, FBI officials in New York hosted a forum on ways to deal with Muslim and Arab-Americans without exacerbating social tensions. The bureau wanted to provide agents with "a clear picture," said Kevin Donovan, director of the FBI's New York office.

 

Brought in to speak that morning -- at the office building located just blocks from Ground Zero -- was one of the city's most respected Muslim voices: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The imam offered what was for him a familiar sermon to those in attendance. "Islamic extremism for the majority of Muslims is an oxymoron," he said. "It is a fundamental contradiction in terms."

 

It was, by contemporaneous news accounts, a successful lecture.

 

Flash forward six-and-a-half years, and Feisal Abdul Rauf occupies a far different place in the political consciousness. The imam behind a controversial proposal to build an Islamic cultural center near those same FBI offices has been called "a radical Muslim," a "militant Islamist" and, simply, the "enemy" by conservative critics. His Cordoba House project, meanwhile, has been framed as a conduit for Hamas to funnel money to domestic terrorist operations.

 

For those who actually know or have worked with the imam, the descriptions are frighteningly -- indeed, depressingly -- unhinged from reality. The Feisal Abdul Rauf they know, spent the past decade fighting against the very same cultural divisiveness and religious-based paranoia that currently surrounds him.

 

"Imam Feisal has participated at the Aspen Institute in Muslim-Christian-Jewish working groups looking at ways to promote greater religious tolerance," Walter Isaacson, head of The Aspen Institute told the Huffington Post. "He has consistently denounced radical Islam and terrorism, and promoted a moderate and tolerant Islam. Some of this work was done under the auspices of his own group, the Cordoba Initiative. I liked his book, and I participated in some of the meetings in 2004 or so. This is why I find it a shame that his good work is being undermined by this inflamed dispute. He is the type of leader we should be celebrating in America, not undermining."

 

A longtime Muslim presence in New York City, Feisal Abdul Rauf has been a participant in the geopolitical debate about Islamic-Western relations well before 9/11. In 1997, he founded the American Society for Muslim Advancement to promote a more positive integration of Muslims into American society. His efforts and profile rose dramatically after the attacks when, in need of a calm voice to explain why greater Islam was not a force bent on terrorism, he became a go-to quote for journalists on the beat.

 

"We have to be very much more vocal about protecting human rights and planting the seeds of democratic regimes throughout the Arab and Muslim world," he told Katie Couric, then with NBC, during an interview in October 2001.

 

Along the way, he rubbed elbows with or was embraced by a host of mainstream political figures, including several in the Republican Party. John Bennett, the man who preceded Isaacson as president of the Aspen Institute, was impressed enough by the imam's message that he became a co-founder of his Cordoba Initiative, which seeks to promote cross-cultural engagement through a variety of initiatives including, most recently, the center in downtown Manhattan.

 

In November 2004, Feisal Abdul Rauf participated in a lengthy discussion on religion and government with, among others, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In May 2006, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright placed the imam among a host of luminaries who inspired her book, "The Mighty and the Almighty." As the New York Times reported at the time:

 

She mentioned Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, the two Democratic presidents in whose administrations she served; King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah II of Jordan; Vaclav Havel and Tony Blair. She organized discussions with Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, a conservative Catholic.

''The epitome of this,'' she said, was ''a totally fascinating, interesting discussion'' with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a New York Sufi leader and author; Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; and Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention.

 

Albright eventually collaborated with Feisal Abdul Rauf and others on more substantive political projects. In September 2008, the two, along with a number of other foreign policy heavyweights (including Richard Armitage and Dennis Ross) signed a report claiming that the war on terror had been inadequate in actually improving U.S. security. No less a figure than Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, embraced the findings.

 

"The Project's report offers a thoughtful analysis of the current state of America's relations with the Muslim world and constructive recommendations on how we can approach this pressing concern in a bipartisan framework," said the senator.

 

Not that the imam has been without controversy. The most famous quote circulated by critics came when he talked to the Australian press in March 2004.

 

"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians," he said. "But it was Christians in World War II who bombed innocent civilians in Dresden and dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."

 

Then there is the interview he gave to CBS's "60 Minutes" shortly after the 9/11 attacks occurred. "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened," he said by way of explaining the attacks. "But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

 

More often than not, he's pushed his audience to grapple with uncomfortable analogies in his efforts to contextualize Islamic radicalism, such as when he argued that the Ku Klux Klan was, likewise, drawn from a form of extreme religiosity.

 

Those statements, in the end, were not enough to convince the Bush administration that he was a militant. Feisal Abdul Rauf was dispatched on speaking tours by the past State Department on multiple occasions to help promote tolerance and religious diversity in the Arab and Muslim world. In 2007, he went to Morocco, the UAE, Qatar and Egypt on such missions, a State Department official confirmed to the Huffington Post.

 

In February 2006, meanwhile, he took part in a U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar with Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes, a close adviser to President Bush. Months later, Feisal Abdul Rauf wrote favorably about his meeting with Hughes, noting that he wanted to further the discussion with other members of the administration.

 

The Huffington Post reached out to both Albright and Hughes for comment. Perhaps reflecting the political sensitivities of the situation, neither responded. Hughes' aide explained that the former Bush aide was "tied up with client travel and unable to give interviews at this time."

[Ponderosa]

You are very selective. You have a habit of not addressing many parts of a reply/post but then parsing the crap out of certain words elsewhere.

 

I already pointed out that most Republicans have supported the President in Iraq & Afghanistan which you ignored. They aren't going after him - no matter the cost.

The President made his position known, people reacted. It isn't gotcha politics - people have an honest difference of opinion.

 

And as others have pointed out - who care's what Bin Laden says?

He's not an honest player. The Dems have had policy agreements with him as well, so what?

 

If you'd prefer I can probably find the Bin Laden video itself and the transcript of Gingrich's speeches . . . ?

 

(And yes, I do consider Gingrich and the GOP nearly indistinguishable. More so than the GOP chairman anyways.)

How do you figure? Because he is your favorite punching bag? You like to paint with a broad brush?

 

Newt has not held office for over a decade and isn't likely to win the 2012 nomination. McCain was the nominee in '08.

It is proably just frustrating that there isn't just one person to go after.

So you pick one out of a hat and do the collective guilt thing.

 

And yes. There are already mosques. That's even more reason why it should not be a big deal if they want to build a civic center that includes a mosque . . . that road has already been taken. What's the difference now?

Not really. As I said, the converse is true as well.

 

Also, I never said that victory in the war on terror balances on whether this mosque is built or not built. I said that if the war on terror becomes a war on Islam it is lost. That is not hyperbole.

That is merely a truism. Everybody gets that.

Despite guffawing from the left - that is why it is called the WoT.

 

How to do it is the issue.

[Ponderosa]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday said she supports an investigation

into groups opposing the building of a mosque near ground zero in New York.

 

Pelosi told San Francisco's KCBS radio that "there is no question there is a

concerted effort to make this a political issue by some."

 

"I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the

mosque being funded," she said. "How is this being ginned up?"

 

Link

[knapplc]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday said she supports an investigation

into groups opposing the building of a mosque near ground zero in New York.

 

Pelosi told San Francisco's KCBS radio that "there is no question there is a

concerted effort to make this a political issue by some."

 

"I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the

mosque being funded," she said. "How is this being ginned up?"

 

Link

Good for Pelosi. Discrimination should not go unpunished. If it turns out this isn't discriminatory all the better. But this is the job we're paying congress to do.

[sarge87]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday said she supports an investigation

into groups opposing the building of a mosque near ground zero in New York.

 

Pelosi told San Francisco's KCBS radio that "there is no question there is a

concerted effort to make this a political issue by some."

 

"I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the

mosque being funded," she said. "How is this being ginned up?"

 

Link

Good for Pelosi. Discrimination should not go unpunished. If it turns out this isn't discriminatory all the better. But this is the job we're paying congress to do.

So Pelosi got a couple questions she didn't like at a news conference, now the government needs to intimidate investigate groups opposing the Mosque. I would think this was a silly joke unless I was living in Havana or Caracas. Maybe she can dig up ole Che. I hear he wasn't to big on political discourse and was one hell of a crack shot....or is that crack pot. I get confused sometimes.

 

What better way to defend the First Amendment freedom of religion than to have the Speaker of the House ask the federal government to intimidate investigate those exercising their First Amendment right to free speech?

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.....and that includes funding of political speech, no matter how popular or unpopular that speech is.

 

Public discourse and debate is a cornerstone of our democracy and our Constitution ensures the right of individuals to engage in these conversations without being exposed to unnecessary risks of harassment or embarrassment.

[knapplc]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Wednesday morning called for “transparency” in the funding behind a planned Islamic community center and mosque being built blocks from ground zero. But she also said there should be similar openness about the money behind conservative attacks aimed at thwarting the project.

 

The California Democrat, in a statement provided to POLITICO, adopted the split position of the Interfaith Alliance, a nonpartisan group dedicated to religious tolerance and separation of church and state. Although it blasted the Anti-Defamation League for strongly opposing the Park51 project, the Interfaith Alliance also agreed with the ADL’s argument that the public should know where the money for the center is coming from.

 

“I support the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance, that ‘We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center,’” according to Pelosi’s statement, quoting the Alliance’s position. “’At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.’”

 

Pelosi’s view seems parallel with President Barack Obama, who said that the construction of a mosque is a constitutionally protected expression of religion, but said he would not comment on the “wisdom” of building one so close to where the World Trade Center towers fell during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Pelosi’s counterpart, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, opposes the Park51 plan.

 

It’s not the first time Pelosi has weighed in on the controversial Islamic center, which would include a recreation center as well as a place of worship.

 

On Tuesday, she said the mosque’s location is a zoning issue that New Yorkers should work out among themselves, but she also noted that she believes most people respect the “right of people in our country to express their religious beliefs on their property.” She reiterated that position in her statement Wednesday.

 

“The freedom of religion is a constitutional right,” Pelosi said. “Where a place of worship is located is a local decision.”

 

Earlier Wednesday, Pelosi told San Francisco’s KCBS radio that “there is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some.”

 

“I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” she said. “How is this being ginned up?”

 

Republicans have signaled that they will try to turn the mosque into a campaign issue, and nearly all of the leading national Republicans have weighed in against the mosque's construction.

 

On Tuesday, the speaker blasted those making “concerted effort to make this a political issue.” Yet on Wednesday, she seemed to do just that, taking a shot at opponents of a bill that bolstered health care for Sept. 11 responders. She urged those who are now expressing their concern for Sept. 11 attacks to reverse their opposition to the bill when Congress returns in September.

LINK

 

This is the whole text. I don't see where she got a couple of questions she didn't like at a presser. She wants transparency on both sides of this - who's funding the mosque and who's funding opposition to the mosque.

 

What's the problem?

 

Please don't put me in a position of defending Nancy Pelosi. Much as I hate to admit it, I think she's right on this instance. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while, but that does NOT mean I'm a supporter of Pelosi. Far from it.

[Husker_x]

What business is it of Nancy Pelosi who's funding the Mosque or opposition to the mosque? Is it her city, her district? Is she in charge of who gets to oppose or support mosque building?

[knapplc]

So members of Congress should only make comments on issues directly pertaining to their district? That's news to me. When did we pass that law?

[zoogs]

[quote name='74Hunter' date='18 August 2010 - 08:27 AM' timestamp='1282138032'

I could throw in that the USA was founded on Judeo/Christian principals, but that would open up a whole can of worms that I don't want to get into.

 

I mean, that's true. But you're right, it's another discussion. We are not, however, a Christian nation.

 

Bottom line-we have helped Muslims and Muslim countries more than any other country has, and they still hate us. NOTHING we ever do will stop the hate that radical Islam has for the US. It's all excuses, and they will find an excuse to "support" their actions.

 

Well, that's not entirely true.

 

What we COULD do is stay out of their business completely. The US could opt to not help them, hurt them, or be involved in their affairs at all. There's plenty of hurt in this world that we could be addressing elsewhere (and which we do). But our focus on the Middle East is because of Israel, and oil.

 

Basically, we have an interest and a stake that they don't appreciate and would probably prefer to just be left alone. They probably don't want our "help," and we wouldn't give it if not for the oil that's there. But, I'm not saying we shouldn't have a stake, because oil is important. But it's a reason that the hate exists, isn't it? I don't get the "They ought to feel grateful to us" mentality.

[Husker_x]

That wasn't a comment. It was support for an investigation. As if some congresswoman from California needs to be heard on matters that concern New York.