Our landlord, BLACKSTONE, can't handle Stuy Town and Peter Cooper Village. There is a lack of enforcement of certain "rules," and no amount of notice to this alleviates the problems. We are continually being told half-truths and fabrications. And we have no viable Tenants organization, despite our TA asking for dues all the time. So far, the politicians have proven to be basically useless. A typical New York story.
Friday, July 16, 2010
No Mosque at Ground Zero
73 comments:
Anonymous
said...
HEAR HEAR!!
Couldn't have said it better. As someone who worked on the 105 th floor of 2 WTC until a year before the 93 bombings, who lost business associates in 2001 and who walked past the smoldering ruins of the WTC Towers for months, the building of this mosque is an desecration of the memories of those who were killed by the Islamic terrorists (yes, I, unlike our AG , Holder, or our Homeland "Security" Secretary, Napolitano , will use that term)on Sept 11.Do the "do-gooder" liberals realize that in Moslem countries like Saudi Arabia there is not a single church or synagogue? Do they not realize that if the Islamists took over the U.S. , the first ones they would kill (after the Jews) are precisely those liberals among us because the things liberals believe in , like abortion and gay marriage, are capital offenses under Sharia law. And the Islamists won't give you habeas corpus and other rights before they kill you . And we all should vote against politicians who support this desecration, especially, Scott Stringer
From here on any politician who solicits my vote has to tell me how they stand on this issue. If they are in favor of it, they can forget about getting my vote. I am not particularly surprised at our corrupt little twerp of a "Mayor" being in favor of this gob in the face to 9/11 victims and survivors because this POS would sell his daughters to snuff movies if it would further his politician and egotistical aspirations. This weak apology for a man does not represent New Yorkers in any way shape or form and the sooner he is gone the better. People like Scott Stringer are just jellyfish who follow the power hungry and have nothing to offer themselves. How he was ever elected is beyond me, but fortunately Borough President is a nothing job. Cuomo and Bloomberg are power-hungry jerks who we do NOT need in New York.
I'm sure that not all Muslims are terrorists; however, I am equally sure that in today's world, all terrorists are Muslims. If the Muslims really cared a hoot about good relations they would pick a different spot than Ground Zero to build a Mosque. Surely they can't be that arrogant and insensitive? Well, it seems they can.
And the do-gooder liberals like Scott Stringer who has voiced strong support for this Mosque, continue to believe that kowtowing to Muslims will "convince" them to be "nice" to us. Again, under Sharia law , such do gooders will be among the first to be eliminated . People who don't learn from history are truly doomed
Let's just make sure that the do-gooder liberals are doomed, as in doomed to be NOT elected. That jerk who wants to build the mosque pretends to be so dumb that he didn't realize how people feel about muslims and he refuses to acknowledge that Hamas are terrorists! He should be put in a home for his own good.
It is the business of all Americans and an afront to New Yorkers, especially those who lost loved ones on 9/11. You don't think this isn't a calculated insult on the part of the muslims? It certainly is.
It's what's known as a Trojan Horse. This slimy Iman knows exactly what he's doing. Too bad our PC before all else mayor and pols are too stupid to see this.
racist bigots. Let me guess, 45-65 years old, white, fat, balding, drains on American society? This pathetic attempt at a blog is a disgusting piece of filth, and clearly demonstrates that you have nothing better to do with your time than to spie on your neighbors, and whine about every little thing that doesn't go your way. Get a life.
There will never be support or a reasonable comment from a person like the 8/16 9am selfish fool. That person forgets that he has parents in the age group he hates. People in that age group are just as entitled as anyone else. No one should forget why this place was built. It was never designed to be a dorm. What it's become is a tragedy and that's because of a greedy, unfit landlord and selfish, hostile, transient, partying tenants like that commenter.
"If the Muslims really cared a hoot about good relations they would pick a different spot than Ground Zero to build a Mosque. Surely they can't be that arrogant and insensitive?"
I guess they are just like those insensitive and arrogant Catholics who continue to allow their churches to exist right next to children's playgrounds.
After all, we should all be held eternally responsible for our religion's biggest assholes, shouldn't we? We should all govern ourselves to make up for their mistakes, shouldn't we?
BTW, where are the Catholic churches being built these days in Manhattan? And how many Catholics have gone into skyscrapers in planes? Or put on suicide vests to kill women and children? Or severed the heads of non-believers while filming this act for the world? Or have engaged in "honor" killings of their daughters?
What religion other than Islam is still cutting off people's hands as a punishment for theft; stoning people to death for adultery and contemplating surgically paralyzing a man as punishment because he paralyzed another man in a fight (not that I'm condoning the outcome of the fight)? Islam is a backwards, regressive evil religion that belongs to the dark ages. All mind-controlling organized religions are "bunk" in my opinion, but most of them have evolved to the point where they don't commit such barbaric, savage acts in the name of their fucking god! If the catholics were still burning people at the stake I think we would have a right to object to them building churches and schools, but they stopped that shit a few centuries ago! The muslims are still where the catholics were hundreds of years ago. The muslims want to build this mosque as a symbol of their victory on 9/11. This Iman asshole even said that the US brought the attack on themselves; that we deserved it. This mosque should not and must not be built. They don't want to build it anywhere else because they won't be able to rub our noses in it which is exactly what they want to do.
The thing is that while radical Islam and the governments of Islamic countries are total savages, the average muslim American is no better or worse than the average catholic, protestant or jewish American and shouldn't have to bear the stigma of the mindless morons that prevail in the middle east and in a few crackpot mosques over here.
Actually Stuytown Reporter, I am not anti-Catholic or a bigot. Not that it is even relevant to my point, but I was raised and am Catholic.
My point is merely that you cannot accurately judge a religion by it's extremists or sinners. We cannot accurately consider all Catholic priests in America to be molesters just like we cannot accurately consider all Muslims in America to be terrorists.
I must say, with all due respect, Stuy town reporter, I find it interesting that you would consider me to be a "bigot" here in response to my challenge that we hold ALL Catholics responsible for the evil acts committed by SOME priests. Just pretend I had actually meant that comment seriously - was it my judging a whole group based on the action of a few of its members, or suggesting that those people's right to practice their religion be taken away that made you consider me a bigot? Just curious as to how you define "bigot". In my experience, people who stereotype and express their distaste for Muslims and Mexicans existing(rightfully and legally) in their city are usually bigots.
On a final note, I went to war for this country and fought to defend the principles of freedom on which our forefathers founded America. The freedom of religion is one of those founding principles. Americans have the right to worship as they choose as long as they are in compliance with local laws and ordinances. It disturbs and greatly saddens me that there are people like you out there who claim to be patriotic Americans, but are so determined to destabilize a founding principle of freedom that young men such as me risk our lives to defend. -s
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't believe one of the freedoms we have as Americans is to overthrow our democracy, which is basically what Islam does, as that religion is not just a religion but a political structure, too. (Though I don't see the real danger of this happening in American now or in the near or relative future.) Christianity has, technically, an understanding of the separation of Church and State (render unto Caesar, etc.), Islam does not.
The Islamic "cultural institute" near Ground Zero (named at first after Cordoba, a city in Spain that the Muslims overtook!) has a legal right to be where it will be built. No one, I think, is arguing that. The argument is whether this is a good idea and whether some other site, away from the tragedy of 9/11, would be more "sensitive" to the majority of New Yorkers and Americans. Why the provocation?
There's also a matter of national pride, which has nothing to do with freedom, of course. It's a significant joke on us and a humiliation that such a cultural institute/mosque would be built so near a place of devastation carried out by warriors of Islam. And, yes, they were warriors of Islam, just as Mohammed himself was a warrior.
As I curiosity (nothing to do with the topic), I'm wondering which war you fought in.
Islam is not a theocracy, it is a religion. A country run by Muslim clerics is a theocracy. Being a Muslim does not conflict with American ideals, in fact speaking out in favor of a theocracy is in line with American ideals, i.e. a little thing called free speech.
-Owner of the dog that just took a dump on your front stoop
Should Readers of this Blog assume that you do not have a responce to the question regarding Christians and their tendancy to blow up abortion clinics?
Stuy Town Reporter - I'm completely disappointed with your anti-American view points here. Freedom of religion is a basic principle of our country. I would not be here if not for that freedom. Open your mind and your heart. Oh, and do some research on the backers of this Mosque. The links will be much closer to home than you might feel comfortable with, as the Muslim hater you are.
In my almost 64 years on this earth I have met and worked with many, many muslims of all degrees of devotion to their religion and in many different parts of the world. I have NEVER met one who supports terrorism or jihad. It is a tragic mistake and injustice to tar all muslims with the same brush because of the loonies and fanatics. It's like saying that all Germans are Nazis. My personal experience of muslims as friends, co-workers, neighbors and at one time an employer, is that they are kind, generous and peace-loving people. Let's get past this nonsense about the proposed mosque. It's not even at Ground Zero, it's near it, but not AT it.
Bad analogy, I'm afraid. There once was a small political party in Germany that did take over the entire country, even though their numbers were not in the majority. Yes, those Nazis you mention. So, a minority can influence history.
Again, a few people here are missing the point. The argument is not that the cultural institute/mosque has no right being built in the Ground Zero area, but that it is insensitive and provocative for it to be there. It should be moved--by the people who are going to build it.
I oppose the ground zero mosque . I believe Muslims have the legal right to build it but I think it is morally repugnant to build it so close to ground zero. we are always reminded that we need to be tolerant of Muslims by jerks like Lord Mayor Bloomberg and Scott Stringer but the same people reject calls for considering the wishes of the vast majority of Americans and families of WTC victims that this mosque be moved. why is that? while I realize that most Muslims are not terrorists it is a fact, not opinion, that all of the perpetrators of the attacks of 9/11 were Muslims, that those behind them are all Muslims and that virtually all terrorist attacks around the world in the last decade have been perpetuated by Muslims. It is time for Muslims to be tolerant of our feelings!
The Bloods is a violent mostly black gang that commits atrocious crimes against all kinds of people, but mostly black people. If The Bloods blew up The World Trade Center, would it then be wrong for the NAACP to build an educational center near Ground Zero? Would you be making the arguement that the NAACP would be insensitive to build an educational center near Ground Zero?
I am so heart-broken that intelligent people who otherwise are not biased, are making the leap from the fact that because a group of violent Muslims who commit atrocious crimes against Americans and many other people, but mostly against other Muslims blew up The World Trade Center, that it is wrong or even insensitive for peaceful, law-abiding people to build an educational center near Ground Zero because those people are of the same religion.
REPLY TO ANONYMOUS POST OF AUGUST First of all , this group is buildimng a mosque not just a "educational center". Second to equate the Imam who will be running this mosque to the NAACP is absurd. The imam supports(i) the extension of sharia law (with its strict rules against women doing anything but being wives and mothers and with its obscene belief that gays should be killed, among its many abhorrant characteristics) be implemented in the US, (ii) that the US has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Quada and (iii)that the US is partially to blame for 9/11. These are hardly the type of policies and statements that emanate from the NAACP. The most apt comparison to the mosque situation is the convent that nuns wanted to build just outside Aushwitz.The nuns had the legal right to build the convent and in their view were offering a Catholic venue for worship near Aushwitz. Nevertheless, due to outcry about the moral insensitivety of the location of the convent, the pope persuaded the nuns to move it. We are merely saying that Muslims should show the same sensitivety as the pope and move the mosque.
so I was down at Ground Zero today and watched the beginning of the pro Mosque rally on Broadway near City Hall. what a group of crackpots who love to hate America and all its greatness. I left when the speeches began (can't stand screeching people spouting that America is composed of a bunch of racists and Islamaphobes)
I have a friend who is a nurse in a hospital in the UK. Although she is not a religious person, even if she were, she is not allowed to wear a cross on a chain around her neck (as so many women do, whether religious or not). However, the Muslim scarf isn't banned. Now is that fair? Actually, I am glad of religious freedom here, even if it means some asshole Iman can build a mosque at Ground Zero, because freedom of religion is very important whereas political correctness tends to be biased in favor of "minorities" and that is what is happening in Europe where the majority population are bending over and taking it up the ass from these demanding Muslims.
How sad to hear the expressions of fear and hate in so many of these posts. Why are you so willing to forgo American values under the name of "sensitivity" (those who were killed at Ground Zero) and "equality" (there are no churches in Saudi Arabia).
Among those killed at Ground Zero were many Muslims. There was a Muslim prayer room in the Twin Towers. Among the first responders, some of whom are now seriously ill, were many Muslims - firefighters, police, volunteers. Are their lives and sacrifices less important than all the others who suffered on that terrible day?
And must we adopt the laws of Saudi Arabia or insist that they change their laws before we honor our own American laws?
Furthermore, Imam Feisal is a Sufi Muslim, not a Shiite nor even a Sunni. There are no reports of any Sufi being involved in terrorist activity.
Lastly, please consider this. The proposed Islamic Community Center has been modeled on the Young Men’s Hebrew Association - the 92nd Street "Y". I was taking a class at the YMHA recently (by the way, I happen to be Christian) and noticed a sign announcing the then upcoming Rosh Hashanah services to be held there. It occurred to me that no one ever refers to the "Y" as a synagogue. Why then is everyone referring to this Islamic Center as a "mosque"? It is a center that will offer classes, lectures, concerts and other programs to all people (just as the "Y" does) and that will have a space to accommodate Muslim worship (just as the "Y" accommodates Jewish worship). It also will have an inter-denominational Board of Directors. And, incidentally, it will not have a minaret or dome and any other “mosque” identifying architecture – it’s just another New York City building and it is located neither at nor next to Ground Zero.
If by "American values," you include freedom of religion, please be aware that when a religion contradicts American law, there is no freedom. You may want to read up on Mormonism, and such things as the "Utah War," and the federal laws enacted against polygamy specifically aimed at Mormons.
Shariah law contradicts American law (and values), so one may ask the "moderate" Muslims here if they believe in Shariah law over American law. One may also ask where are the protest marches against radical Islam and Islamic-inspired terrorism by "moderate" Muslims? Have you seen one in New York--ever?
As for fear, with all the terrorist acts committed around the world by radical Muslims, and either carried out or attempted here in the States, don't you think that some amount of fear, or at least caution, is justifiable?
All this is, perhaps, interesting as a discussion, but certainly the Islamic "cultural center" near Ground Zero has a legal right to be there. But whether it should be there, based on sensitivity and prudence, is another question.
the bottom line is that when the pope asked nuns who were planning to build a convent outside the gates of Aushwitz to not do so, they agreed. The nuns had a legal right to do so but the pope (in response to worldwide outcry) convinced them to do what was morally right. I fail to understand why the Imam cannot do what is morally right and move the mosque , even though he has the legal right to do so. I guess I can also ask why cartoons of Mohammad lead to mass riots and many deaths , yet when a cross in urine was exhibited in a NYC museum during the Guiliani administration, Catholics who peacefully objected , were ridiculed because this was "art" The double standard is palpable
“You may want to read up on Mormonism, and such things as the "Utah War," and the federal laws enacted against polygamy specifically aimed at Mormons.”
First, I know quite a bit about Mormonism since one of my closest colleagues and his wife were very close friends of mine. As to the “Utah War,” that 1857-58 confrontation (prior to Utah statehood) resulted in negotiations between the United States and the Latter-day Saints, resulting in a full pardon for the Mormons.
“If by "American values," you include freedom of religion, please be aware that when a religion contradicts American law, there is no freedom.”
I suppose that would mean that the Judaism should not be allowed to be practiced freely in America because many commandments of the Halakhah, or Jewish law, contradict American law. But today, Jews by and large enjoy religious freedom in our country, even though some adhere to and practice laws antithetical to American laws.
Some Seventh Day Adventists beat their children (relying on the Biblical commandment to “spare the rod and spoil the child”). I have witnessed a trial and conviction of one such mother for beating her children. She was issued an injunction and was asked if, at the end of the injunction, she would resume beating her children. She answered. “Yes, because the Bible says I must.” Yet we do not withhold freedom of religion from Seventh Day Adventists. We do prosecute them when they are found to have violated an American law.
I notice that Mormonism is not banned in America. What Mormons are prohibited from doing is practicing polygamy and that only because a law has been enacted. I know of no law that prohibits any aspect of Shariah. You cannot ban an entire set of religious laws because you do not agree with some aspects – but you can enact bans on those aspects that not only contradict American values but also are practiced in this country. Until that happens, Muslims in this country are free to practice such aspects of Shariah as they find to be fundamental to their beliefs.
You are aware, no doubt, that many aspects of Shariah are totally consonant with Christian values. I do not know of instances where aspects that are inconsistent with American values, such as stoning, amputation or flogging, are practiced by American Muslims. My guess is that, if any American Muslim were to suffer any of these at the hands of other American Muslims, there would be prompt legal action to prosecute such practices.
Also, there are four main schools of Shariah. What applies in one school does not necessarily apply in the others. Are you against all four or only one or two?
It seems that I must post my response to your comments in several pieces. Part One You said:
“You may want to read up on Mormonism, and such things as the "Utah War," and the federal laws enacted against polygamy specifically aimed at Mormons.”
First, I know quite a bit about Mormonism since one of my closest colleagues and his wife were very close friends of mine. As to the “Utah War,” that 1857-58 confrontation (prior to Utah statehood) resulted in negotiations between the United States and the Latter-day Saints, resulting in a full pardon for the Mormons.
“If by "American values," you include freedom of religion, please be aware that when a religion contradicts American law, there is no freedom.”
I suppose that would mean that the Judaism should not be allowed to be practiced freely in America because many commandments of the Halakhah, or Jewish law, contradict American law. But today, Jews by and large enjoy religious freedom in our country, even though some adhere to and practice laws antithetical to American laws.
Some Seventh Day Adventists beat their children (relying on the Biblical commandment to “spare the rod and spoil the child”). I have witnessed a trial and conviction of one such mother for beating her children. She was issued an injunction and was asked if, at the end of the injunction, she would resume beating her children. She answered. “Yes, because the Bible says I must.” Yet we do not withhold freedom of religion from Seventh Day Adventists. We do prosecute them when they are found to have violated an American law.
I notice that Mormonism is not banned in America. What Mormons are prohibited from doing is practicing polygamy and that only because a law has been enacted. I know of no law that prohibits any aspect of Shariah. You cannot ban an entire set of religious laws because you do not agree with some aspects – but you can enact bans on those aspects that not only contradict American values but also are practiced in this country. Until that happens, Muslims in this country are free to practice such aspects of Shariah as they find to be fundamental to their beliefs.
You are aware, no doubt, that many aspects of Shariah are totally consonant with Christian values. I do not know of instances where aspects that are inconsistent with American values, such as stoning, amputation or flogging, are practiced by American Muslims. My guess is that, if any American Muslim were to suffer any of these at the hands of other American Muslims, there would be prompt legal action to prosecute such practices.
Also, there are four main schools of Shariah. What applies in one school does not necessarily apply in the others. Are you against all four or only one or two?
“As for fear, with all the terrorist acts committed around the world by radical Muslims, and either carried out or attempted here in the States, don't you think that some amount of fear, or at least caution, is justifiable?”
You qualify your response by saying fear of “radical” Muslims – of course, we all fear that and we are all on our guard against future attacks. But what is to be feared from Sufis, the most peaceful and spiritual faction of Islam? What is there to be feared about the Islamic Community Center? As I said before, no Sufi has ever been shown to be involved in acts of terror, either here or abroad, either against Americans or other Muslims.
1. “Among those killed at Ground Zero were many Muslims. There was a Muslim prayer room in the Twin Towers. Among the first responders, some of whom are now seriously ill, were many Muslims - firefighters, police, volunteers. Are their lives and sacrifices less important than all the others who suffered on that terrible day?”
Do you have a response?
May I add, among all those who oppose the so-called Ground Zero Mosque (which is neither at Ground Zero nor a Mosque), not one has a kind word to say about the many American or foreign Muslims killed that day, about those who responded, about those who serve bravely in American armed forces and who have died in the service of THEIR country – America.
I am saddened that any loyal American Muslim suffers at the words or hands of other Americans.
Are radicals being recruited in this country? Undoubtedly. With the increasing furor and hatred occurring in our country, including recent threats of burning the Quran, such recruitment is probably even easier. Must we suspect all Muslims because of the acts of radicals? I thought we learned our lesson after we forcefully sent all Japanese Americans to internment camps after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Or feared that all German Americans were spies. Do we suspect all Christians because radical Christians blow up courthouses and kill women and children or murder doctors who perform abortions or plot and train to kill police? Or do we know that Christian radicals do not represent all Christians?
Do I wish that more moderate Muslims would speak up? Yes, I do. Some have but not loudly enough. On the other hand, did Christians have to speak up in defense of Christianity when terrorist acts were committed by other Christians? Of course not. Everyone understands that radicals do not represent the majority. At least when it applies to Christianity.
2. “And must we adopt the laws of Saudi Arabia or insist that they change their laws before we honor our own American laws [as many seem to imply]?”
I am saddened that so many are willing to relinquish our own supposedly cherished values and prefer to copy the practices of another country. Do you have a response?
There are religious laws in religious books that are not adhered to anymore, or if they are, they don't bump up against American law. But religious law cannot take precedence over American law. I don't care what religion.
Sharia law is not just a law of morals and eating and prayer habits; it also encompasses the political and economic spheres. Sharia law institutionalized is repression. Not happening here in the States and should never happen.
But, again, all this is beside the point, or points, and frankly a diversionary tactic. The question is not whether the cultural center has a constitutional right to be two blocks away from Ground Zero. It has that right. The question is whether it's a good idea or more of a provocation than a building of bridges.
As to Islam, would you not agree that worldwide it now holds the number one position of being the most dangerous and repressive religion, in terms of scale and violence and threats to Western nations? Or perhaps do you think the Irish Catholics or Hassids in Brooklyn hold that honor?
BTW, you never answered my question about demonstrations held in NYC by "moderate" Muslims against radical Islam and its violent tactics and accomplishments.
To respond to your last post, which came up after the others....
No one should fear the Sufis; it's not the Sufis that are in the headlines. As to what should be "feared" from the Islamic Cultural Center--nothing (provisionally, as we've learn that plots can be hatched from people belonging to the same mosque or "cultural center")--but also nothing was to have been feared from the nuns residing near Auschwitz. Do you still not understand that point about sensitives and prudence? No one is banning Islam here or stating that the cultural center does not have a legal right to be near Ground Zero.
2. “And must we adopt the laws of Saudi Arabia or insist that they change their laws before we honor our own American laws [as many seem to imply]?”
I am saddened that so many are willing to relinquish our own supposedly cherished values and prefer to copy the practices of another country. Do you have a response?
Yes, as I've already stated several times the cultural center has a right to be near Ground Zero.
Regarding lives lost in Ground Zero, sure, there were Muslims there, and I would have no problem (and would expect and hope) that they as others who lost their lives that day will be honored once Freedom Tower is finished.
But, face facts, the destruction that day was caused by a religious element of Islam, done in the name of Allah. It was not done by Christians in the name of Jesus Christ or Jews in the name of Jehovah. Yes, a radical element of Islam, but still of Islam. To build an Islamic center (initially named after a Spanish city conquered by Muslims!) nearby can strike one as being a bit insensitive. The wounds from 9/11 are still raw. Give them some time to heal.
A correction - Stuy Town Reporter said... BTW, you never answered my question about demonstrations held in NYC by "moderate" Muslims against radical Islam and its violent tactics and accomplishments."
I did answer your question. I said, “Do I wish that more moderate Muslims would speak up? Yes, I do. Some have but not loudly enough. On the other hand, did Christians have to speak up in defense of Christianity when terrorist acts were committed by other Christians? Of course not. Everyone understands that radicals do not represent the majority. At least when it applies to Christianity.” (Previously I had referred to, among other incidents, the murder in the name of Jesus of doctors who perform abortions.)
It is obvious that neither of us will convince the other. We could prolong this conversation indefinitely, interesting as each of us may find it. When one of us posts something that the other considers missed the point, the other wants to respond – (for instance, the convent proposed outside of Auschwitz or the use of quotation marks around the word moderate referring to Muslims).
But let's just agree to disagree and call it quits. We each believe sincerely that our own view is the correct one.
I repeat again, just like the nuns moved the convent from outside Aushwitz because it was the morally correct thing to do, so should the mosque be moved by the Imam, rather than him threatening Americans with possible attach from jihadis if he movesd the mosque. Until someone can explain the difference between the 2 situations, that for me and many others is the end of the debate. And that is why , in today's world, the mindset of Christians and Jews is fundamentally different from Muslims
Well. Apparently there are those who do not want to agree to disagree and let this rest. Let me explain the difference between an Islamic Community Center and a Catholic convent. The Islamic Community Center will be open to - duh - the community - not just to Muslims. Its intent is to reach out to all denominations.
The Carmelite convent at Auschwitz (please note the correct spelling of Auschwitz) was a strictly religious place, not open to non-Catholics, nor to most Catholics. In addition, the convent was placed in a building that had been used during the war to store Zyklon B poison gas used in the crematoria. The building was in full view of all visitors who entered Auschwitz whereas the Islamic Community Center would not be visible from Ground Zero.
Since you don’t want to drop this debate - Stuy Town Reporter said... “There are religious laws in religious books that are not adhered to anymore, or if they are, they don't bump up against American law. But religious law cannot take precedence over American law. I don't care what religion. . . . Sharia law is not just a law of morals and eating and prayer habits . . .”
The above is also true of Jewish law. Please take a closer look at the Halakhah commandments. Here is one example, the get or “bill of divorce.” No Jewish woman married under Jewish law can obtain a divorce – her husband must initiate the action of obtaining the get. Without a get, a Jewish woman remains married despite obtaining a civil American divorce. A woman who wants a divorce cannot force her husband to obtain a get . A legal American divorce decree does not take precedence.
Furthermore, if a man dies without clear evidence of his death (for example, in the World Trade Center tragedy), his wife remains married and is “agunah.” She cannot legally remarry and any children she may have from such a union are illegitimate. None of this sounds much like American law taking precedence.
The Imam’s comments about possible reactions around the world are not threats. They are predictions and are remarkably similar to what General David Petraeus said about the Quran burning?
Lastly, and most importantly, the mindset of Muslims is not fundamentally different from that of Christians and Jews – there have been radicals from all three religions who have committed atrocious acts in the name of religion. It is the mindset of radicals that is fundamentally different from Christians, Jews and Muslims. Perhaps if the Center is built and you bother to take advantage of its offerings you might discover that fact.
Your examples of "get" and "agunah"--do these take precedence over American law? In other words, if an orthodox Jewish woman wishes to marry after a husband's death, in which there is no clear evidence of his death (a body), does American law consider her marriage false and any children from that "false marriage" illegitimate?
The Imam’s comments about possible reactions around the world are not threats. They are predictions and are remarkably similar to what General David Petraeus said about the Quran burning?
If they are not threats, they are predictions with the juice of intimidation and fear in them. Come on, should we change our behavior because of the reaction of fanatics across the globe?
Lastly, and most importantly, the mindset of Muslims is not fundamentally different from that of Christians and Jews – there have been radicals from all three religions who have committed atrocious acts in the name of religion.
Oh, please. There is no comparison these days between the terrorist acts of Muslims around the world, acts in which Allah is honored by the perpetrators, and what "radical" Christians or Jews have done in the past ten years.
The Cordoba Center( its original name before someone gave the Imam some PR advice) will be as much like the 92nd Street Y as a church or an Orthodox synagogue. This sudden "conversion" to an alleged community center open to all just happened to occur around the time the Cordoba House changed its name.A sudden "conversion" to a more ecumenical center and innocuous name is only designed to mute some of the criticisms and is not to be believed. And as for the building- the landing gear of one of the planes that was flown into the WTC landed in this building and the building has never been searched for body parts even though body parts have been found at a greater distance from Ground Zero than this building. Thus to imply that this building had no connection to 9/11 is false. And don't ever lecture me on how to spell Aushwitz, where millions of my fellow Jews were exterminated by extremists hell bent on killing inoncents just like the jihadis of 9/11 and thousands of other attacks around the world over the past 2 decades.!!
I hereby apologize to Muslims for the wave of bigotry and simple nuttiness that has lately been directed at you. The venom on the airwaves, equating Muslims with terrorists, should embarrass us more than you. Muslims are one of the last minorities in the United States that it is still possible to demean openly, and I apologize for the slurs.
Many Americans honestly believe that Muslims are prone to violence, but humans are too complicated and diverse to lump into groups that we form invidious conclusions about. We’ve mostly learned that about blacks, Jews and other groups that suffered historic discrimination, but it’s still O.K. to make sweeping statements about “Muslims” as an undifferentiated mass.
In my travels, I’ve seen some of the worst of Islam: theocratic mullahs oppressing people in Iran; girls kept out of school in Afghanistan in the name of religion; girls subjected to genital mutilation in Africa in the name of Islam; warlords in Yemen and Sudan who wield AK-47s and claim to be doing God’s bidding.
But I’ve also seen the exact opposite: Muslim aid workers in Afghanistan who risk their lives to educate girls; a Pakistani imam who shelters rape victims; Muslim leaders who campaign against female genital mutilation and note that it is not really an Islamic practice; Pakistani Muslims who stand up for oppressed Christians and Hindus; and above all, the innumerable Muslim aid workers in Congo, Darfur, Bangladesh and so many other parts of the world who are inspired by the Koran to risk their lives to help others. Those Muslims have helped keep me alive, and they set a standard of compassion, peacefulness and altruism that we should all emulate.
I’m sickened when I hear such gentle souls lumped in with Qaeda terrorists, and when I hear the faith they hold sacred excoriated and mocked. To them and to others smeared, I apologize.
The above, btw, is an extract of an opinion piece from Nicholas Kristof that appeared in the New York Times a couple of days ago, so I don't know if there is any sense debating someone who is not here.
But, I would ask: Is not Islam the most dangerous religion in the world at this time? From its roots and religious texts arise the hot fanaticism we see, the terrorist acts across the globe, actualized or plotted, the violence against men, women and children? Why would we not be especially diligent? Why would we not be on guard? Or should we be like those politically correct who allowed U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan, of the Fort Hood massacre, a free pass when all the the warning signs were there--a free pass because we do not want to trouble those of the "religion of peace"?
For information on the Cordoba Initiative and the Islamic Community Center, of which Cordoba House remains a part, please see http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/frequently-asked-questions You may choose not to believe what is posted there but first hand sources are generally the best starting point. Please note that one of the supporting organizations is the September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51. The article presents a wealth of information both pro and con in the kind of comprehensive, unbiased and documented report for which Wikipedia is known.
Hi Stuy Town Reporter - Even though we obviously differ in our views, I want to thank you for posting the excerpt from Kristof's blog that I pasted (had to cut content/explanation due to space restriction). I am appreciative of your diligence and the opportunity to sharpen my own thoughts on these issues.
To be "fair" to this discussion, I wanted to provide a response article to Kristof's which was published in the WSJ. I thought it was eye-opening. I typically share Kristof's expressed political views, and I think my definition/concept of what it means to be American, and to defend true American principles whether they make us uncomfortable or not (as I said in an earlier comment, I joined the army based on this conviction) is aligned with that of Kristof. The WSJ article, however, to my surprise, had me considering that it may be unfair to qualify people who are offended by the planned location of the mosque, afraid of Islam, etc., as "bigots". I'll leave it at that.
It remains a FUNDAMENTAL AMERICAN PRINCIPLE to respect the freedom of religion in our country. Whether you're uncomfortable with it or not, Muslim American citizens are as American as you are and it is illegal and not in the slightest bit patriotic to attempt to oppress or alienate them.
Please consider if your Christian friends or neighbors should also be/have been held to the same standards of scrutiny that you insist that Muslims currently deserve. Consider that from Christianity's roots rose the Holocaust, for example, or that the Roman Catholic Church admittedly did not oppose the genocide in Rwanda or that members of its hierarchy were known participants. should we generalize the whole religion of Christianity as "Dangerous" for the same potential all religions have to breed crazy extremist terrorist sects? It was Christian ideology and fanaticism, after all, that Hitler manipulated to result in terrorist acts across Europe, violence against men, women and children, mass murder and destruction. Why should my nice Muslim neighbor from Jersey be considered of a "dangerous" persuasion, when my parents, Catholic in the 1940s, (just like most of the Nazi leadership)were not, and never endured even close to the same amount of stigma attached to them that Muslims do today. The actual people responsible for the crimes you blame the entire religion for aren't going to be affected by your protesting the location of a Muslim mosque, but those terrorists ARE the ones triumphing and succeeding in dividing our country as we begin turning on American principles and citizens out of fear.
I have personal experience of many wonderful, genuinely good and decent Muslims. Sadly, they have to suffer at the hands of and because of the lunatics who debase Islam and use it as a "religion" of violence and oppression. I don't believe the imam at the proposed mosque is a terrorist, but he is a shady sleazy character and maybe the wrong person to be representative of Muslims building bridges. He does them a disservice because he is patently not a decent person. He's a slumlord, hooker john and many other unsavory things. He should step aside.
This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanya, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.
A German's View on Islam
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'
We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts--the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious , is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.
I am consistently amazed at liberals (particularly women) who espouse the virtues of Islam. These same people excoriate anyone engaged in any activity deemed to be a slight toward American women ,but ignore the obscene behavior of many Muslims toward women. And what all these liberals fail to further understand is that if Sharia law ever became the law of the U.S. (a goal that has been stated publicly by the head of that "moderate" American Islamic group , CAIR)these same liberals would be among the first to be imprisoned and given the choice of conforming to Sharia law or death. Love to see some of those liberal women is burquas (actually for Rosie O'Donnell that would be a major plus for all of us!).
". . . if Sharia law ever became the law of the U.S. (a goal that has been stated publicly by the head of that "moderate" American Islamic group , CAIR). . ."
Please provide a backup info for the statement that the head of CAIR stated that a goal of that group is to establish Shari'a law as the law of the United States. Where was the statement made, when was it made, is it written somewhere, etc?
In the San Ramon Valley Herald the Chairman of CAIR, Omar Ahmed , was quoted as telling a group of California Muslims in July 1998 "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.The Koran should be the highest authority in America and Islam the only accepted religion on earth". I am told there are other examples to be found but this says it all.
73 comments:
HEAR HEAR!!
Couldn't have said it better. As someone who worked on the 105 th floor of 2 WTC until a year before the 93 bombings, who lost business associates in 2001 and who walked past the smoldering ruins of the WTC Towers for months, the building of this mosque is an desecration of the memories of those who were killed by the Islamic terrorists (yes, I, unlike our AG , Holder, or our Homeland "Security" Secretary, Napolitano , will use that term)on Sept 11.Do the "do-gooder" liberals realize that in Moslem countries like Saudi Arabia there is not a single church or synagogue? Do they not realize that if the Islamists took over the U.S. , the first ones they would kill (after the Jews) are precisely those liberals among us because the things liberals believe in , like abortion and gay marriage, are capital offenses under Sharia law. And the Islamists won't give you habeas corpus and other rights before they kill you .
And we all should vote against politicians who support this desecration, especially, Scott Stringer
Excellent post. I will not vote for any politician who supports this travesty even if it means crossing party lines. This is a total outrage.
From here on any politician who solicits my vote has to tell me how they stand on this issue. If they are in favor of it, they can forget about getting my vote. I am not particularly surprised at our corrupt little twerp of a "Mayor" being in favor of this gob in the face to 9/11 victims and survivors because this POS would sell his daughters to snuff movies if it would further his politician and egotistical aspirations. This weak apology for a man does not represent New Yorkers in any way shape or form and the sooner he is gone the better. People like Scott Stringer are just jellyfish who follow the power hungry and have nothing to offer themselves. How he was ever elected is beyond me, but fortunately Borough President is a nothing job. Cuomo and Bloomberg are power-hungry jerks who we do NOT need in New York.
I'm sure that not all Muslims are terrorists; however, I am equally sure that in today's world, all terrorists are Muslims. If the Muslims really cared a hoot about good relations they would pick a different spot than Ground Zero to build a Mosque. Surely they can't be that arrogant and insensitive? Well, it seems they can.
And the do-gooder liberals like Scott Stringer who has voiced strong support for this Mosque, continue to believe that kowtowing to Muslims will "convince" them to be "nice" to us. Again, under Sharia law , such do gooders will be among the first to be eliminated .
People who don't learn from history are truly doomed
Let's just make sure that the do-gooder liberals are doomed, as in doomed to be NOT elected. That jerk who wants to build the mosque pretends to be so dumb that he didn't realize how people feel about muslims and he refuses to acknowledge that Hamas are terrorists! He should be put in a home for his own good.
So, you left Stuy Town and moved to CB-1?
If not, ain't none of your (or Rush, Glenn, or Sean's) business, is it?
Do FiDI residents tell us what to do up here in CB-6?
Have you been drinking again?
It is the business of all Americans and an afront to New Yorkers, especially those who lost loved ones on 9/11. You don't think this isn't a calculated insult on the part of the muslims? It certainly is.
The very fact that it's called "Cordoba House" should tell you what this building, and its symbolism, is about.
It's what's known as a Trojan Horse. This slimy Iman knows exactly what he's doing. Too bad our PC before all else mayor and pols are too stupid to see this.
racist bigots. Let me guess, 45-65 years old, white, fat, balding, drains on American society?
This pathetic attempt at a blog is a disgusting piece of filth, and clearly demonstrates that you have nothing better to do with your time than to spie on your neighbors, and whine about every little thing that doesn't go your way. Get a life.
There will never be support or a reasonable comment from a person like the 8/16 9am selfish fool. That person forgets that he has parents in the age group he hates. People in that age group are just as entitled as anyone else. No one should forget why this place was built. It was never designed to be a dorm. What it's become is a tragedy and that's because of a greedy, unfit landlord and selfish, hostile, transient, partying tenants like that commenter.
I think the last two posters were losing the plot. This thread is about the victory mosque at Ground Zero, not the dorm called Stuyvesant Town.
"If the Muslims really cared a hoot about good relations they would pick a different spot than Ground Zero to build a Mosque. Surely they can't be that arrogant and insensitive?"
I guess they are just like those insensitive and arrogant Catholics who continue to allow their churches to exist right next to children's playgrounds.
After all, we should all be held eternally responsible for our religion's biggest assholes, shouldn't we? We should all govern ourselves to make up for their mistakes, shouldn't we?
Oh, we have an anti-Catholic bigot in our midst. Or a bad joke teller.
BTW, where are the Catholic churches being built these days in Manhattan? And how many Catholics have gone into skyscrapers in planes? Or put on suicide vests to kill women and children? Or severed the heads of non-believers while filming this act for the world? Or have engaged in "honor" killings of their daughters?
What religion other than Islam is still cutting off people's hands as a punishment for theft; stoning people to death for adultery and contemplating surgically paralyzing a man as punishment because he paralyzed another man in a fight (not that I'm condoning the outcome of the fight)? Islam is a backwards, regressive evil religion that belongs to the dark ages. All mind-controlling organized religions are "bunk" in my opinion, but most of them have evolved to the point where they don't commit such barbaric, savage acts in the name of their fucking god! If the catholics were still burning people at the stake I think we would have a right to object to them building churches and schools, but they stopped that shit a few centuries ago! The muslims are still where the catholics were hundreds of years ago. The muslims want to build this mosque as a symbol of their victory on 9/11. This Iman asshole even said that the US brought the attack on themselves; that we deserved it. This mosque should not and must not be built. They don't want to build it anywhere else because they won't be able to rub our noses in it which is exactly what they want to do.
The thing is that while radical Islam and the governments of Islamic countries are total savages, the average muslim American is no better or worse than the average catholic, protestant or jewish American and shouldn't have to bear the stigma of the mindless morons that prevail in the middle east and in a few crackpot mosques over here.
Actually Stuytown Reporter, I am not anti-Catholic or a bigot. Not that it is even relevant to my point, but I was raised and am Catholic.
My point is merely that you cannot accurately judge a religion by it's extremists or sinners. We cannot accurately consider all Catholic priests in America to be molesters just like we cannot accurately consider all Muslims in America to be terrorists.
I must say, with all due respect, Stuy town reporter, I find it interesting that you would consider me to be a "bigot" here in response to my challenge that we hold ALL Catholics responsible for the evil acts committed by SOME priests. Just pretend I had actually meant that comment seriously - was it my judging a whole group based on the action of a few of its members, or suggesting that those people's right to practice their religion be taken away that made you consider me a bigot? Just curious as to how you define "bigot". In my experience, people who stereotype and express their distaste for Muslims and Mexicans existing(rightfully and legally) in their city are usually bigots.
On a final note, I went to war for this country and fought to defend the principles of freedom on which our forefathers founded America. The freedom of religion is one of those founding principles. Americans have the right to worship as they choose as long as they are in compliance with local laws and ordinances. It disturbs and greatly saddens me that there are people like you out there who claim to be patriotic Americans, but are so determined to destabilize a founding principle of freedom that young men such as me risk our lives to defend.
-s
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't believe one of the freedoms we have as Americans is to overthrow our democracy, which is basically what Islam does, as that religion is not just a religion but a political structure, too. (Though I don't see the real danger of this happening in American now or in the near or relative future.) Christianity has, technically, an understanding of the separation of Church and State (render unto Caesar, etc.), Islam does not.
The Islamic "cultural institute" near Ground Zero (named at first after Cordoba, a city in Spain that the Muslims overtook!) has a legal right to be where it will be built. No one, I think, is arguing that. The argument is whether this is a good idea and whether some other site, away from the tragedy of 9/11, would be more "sensitive" to the majority of New Yorkers and Americans. Why the provocation?
There's also a matter of national pride, which has nothing to do with freedom, of course. It's a significant joke on us and a humiliation that such a cultural institute/mosque would be built so near a place of devastation carried out by warriors of Islam. And, yes, they were warriors of Islam, just as Mohammed himself was a warrior.
As I curiosity (nothing to do with the topic), I'm wondering which war you fought in.
Stuytown Reporter, just want to call your attention to a document you may not be familar with, its' called the U.S. Constitution.
Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Seems to me that your opinions conflict with this fairly important document. I thought you said you were patriotic, what gives?
-Constitutional Scholar
If Muslims are the only terrorists, how do you classify fanatical Christians that blow up abortion clinics?
Again, Islam is not just a religion, it is ultimately a form of government incompatible with our democracy.
Islam is a theocracy. Freedom of religion is compatible with American ideals, but a theocracy is not.
Islam is not a theocracy, it is a religion. A country run by Muslim clerics is a theocracy. Being a Muslim does not conflict with American ideals, in fact speaking out in favor of a theocracy is in line with American ideals, i.e. a little thing called free speech.
-Owner of the dog that just took a dump on your front stoop
Should Readers of this Blog assume that you do not have a responce to the question regarding Christians and their tendancy to blow up abortion clinics?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/25/cab-driver-attacked-stabbed-new-york-muslim_n_694091.html
a result of anti Islam sentiment.
I see you've raised the bar of the discussion with the dog comment.
How many abortion clinics have been blown up in the United States? In NYC particularly? You are suggesting an equation between a pin and an atom bomb.
Stuy Town Reporter - I'm completely disappointed with your anti-American view points here. Freedom of religion is a basic principle of our country. I would not be here if not for that freedom. Open your mind and your heart. Oh, and do some research on the backers of this Mosque. The links will be much closer to home than you might feel comfortable with, as the Muslim hater you are.
In my almost 64 years on this earth I have met and worked with many, many muslims of all degrees of devotion to their religion and in many different parts of the world. I have NEVER met one who supports terrorism or jihad. It is a tragic mistake and injustice to tar all muslims with the same brush because of the loonies and fanatics. It's like saying that all Germans are Nazis. My personal experience of muslims as friends, co-workers, neighbors and at one time an employer, is that they are kind, generous and peace-loving people. Let's get past this nonsense about the proposed mosque. It's not even at Ground Zero, it's near it, but not AT it.
Bad analogy, I'm afraid. There once was a small political party in Germany that did take over the entire country, even though their numbers were not in the majority. Yes, those Nazis you mention. So, a minority can influence history.
Again, a few people here are missing the point. The argument is not that the cultural institute/mosque has no right being built in the Ground Zero area, but that it is insensitive and provocative for it to be there. It should be moved--by the people who are going to build it.
I oppose the ground zero mosque . I believe Muslims have the legal right to build it but I think it is morally repugnant to build it so close to ground zero. we are always reminded that we need to be tolerant of Muslims by jerks like Lord Mayor Bloomberg and Scott Stringer but the same people reject calls for considering the wishes of the vast majority of
Americans and families of WTC victims that this mosque be moved.
why is that? while I realize that most Muslims are not terrorists it is a fact, not opinion, that all of the perpetrators of the attacks of 9/11 were Muslims, that those behind them are all Muslims and that virtually all terrorist attacks around the world in the last decade have been perpetuated by Muslims.
It is time for Muslims to be tolerant of our feelings!
The Bloods is a violent mostly black gang that commits atrocious crimes against all kinds of people, but mostly black people. If The Bloods blew up The World Trade Center, would it then be wrong for the NAACP to build an educational center near Ground Zero? Would you be making the arguement that the NAACP would be insensitive to build an educational center near Ground Zero?
I am so heart-broken that intelligent people who otherwise are not biased, are making the leap from the fact that because a group of violent Muslims who commit atrocious crimes against Americans and many other people, but mostly against other Muslims blew up The World Trade Center, that it is wrong or even insensitive for peaceful, law-abiding people to build an educational center near Ground Zero because those people are of the same religion.
REPLY TO ANONYMOUS POST OF AUGUST
First of all , this group is buildimng a mosque not just a "educational center". Second to equate the Imam who will be running this mosque to the NAACP is absurd. The imam supports(i) the extension of sharia law (with its strict rules against women doing anything but being wives and mothers and with its obscene belief that gays should be killed, among its many abhorrant characteristics) be implemented in the US, (ii) that the US has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Quada and (iii)that the US is partially to blame for 9/11. These are hardly the type of policies and statements that emanate from the NAACP.
The most apt comparison to the mosque situation is the convent that nuns wanted to build just outside Aushwitz.The nuns had the legal right to build the convent and in their view were offering a Catholic venue for worship near Aushwitz. Nevertheless, due to outcry about the moral insensitivety of the location of the convent, the pope persuaded the nuns to move it.
We are merely saying that Muslims should show the same sensitivety as the pope and move the mosque.
so I was down at Ground Zero today and watched the beginning of the pro Mosque rally on Broadway near City Hall. what a group of crackpots who love to hate America and all its greatness. I left when the speeches began (can't stand screeching people spouting that America is composed of a bunch of racists and Islamaphobes)
I have a friend who is a nurse in a hospital in the UK. Although she is not a religious person, even if she were, she is not allowed to wear a cross on a chain around her neck (as so many women do, whether religious or not). However, the Muslim scarf isn't banned. Now is that fair? Actually, I am glad of religious freedom here, even if it means some asshole Iman can build a mosque at Ground Zero, because freedom of religion is very important whereas political correctness tends to be biased in favor of "minorities" and that is what is happening in Europe where the majority population are bending over and taking it up the ass from these demanding Muslims.
How sad to hear the expressions of fear and hate in so many of these posts. Why are you so willing to forgo American values under the name of "sensitivity" (those who were killed at Ground Zero) and "equality" (there are no churches in Saudi Arabia).
Among those killed at Ground Zero were many Muslims. There was a Muslim prayer room in the Twin Towers. Among the first responders, some of whom are now seriously ill, were many Muslims - firefighters, police, volunteers. Are their lives and sacrifices less important than all the others who suffered on that terrible day?
And must we adopt the laws of Saudi Arabia or insist that they change their laws before we honor our own American laws?
Furthermore, Imam Feisal is a Sufi Muslim, not a Shiite nor even a Sunni. There are no reports of any Sufi being involved in terrorist activity.
Lastly, please consider this. The proposed Islamic Community Center has been modeled on the Young Men’s Hebrew Association - the 92nd Street "Y". I was taking a class at the YMHA recently (by the way, I happen to be Christian) and noticed a sign announcing the then upcoming Rosh Hashanah services to be held there. It occurred to me that no one ever refers to the "Y" as a synagogue. Why then is everyone referring to this Islamic Center as a "mosque"? It is a center that will offer classes, lectures, concerts and other programs to all people (just as the "Y" does) and that will have a space to accommodate Muslim worship (just as the "Y" accommodates Jewish worship). It also will have an inter-denominational Board of Directors. And, incidentally, it will not have a minaret or dome and any other “mosque” identifying architecture – it’s just another New York City building and it is located neither at nor next to Ground Zero.
If by "American values," you include freedom of religion, please be aware that when a religion contradicts American law, there is no freedom. You may want to read up on Mormonism, and such things as the "Utah War," and the federal laws enacted against polygamy specifically aimed at Mormons.
Shariah law contradicts American law (and values), so one may ask the "moderate" Muslims here if they believe in Shariah law over American law. One may also ask where are the protest marches against radical Islam and Islamic-inspired terrorism by "moderate" Muslims? Have you seen one in New York--ever?
As for fear, with all the terrorist acts committed around the world by radical Muslims, and either carried out or attempted here in the States, don't you think that some amount of fear, or at least caution, is justifiable?
All this is, perhaps, interesting as a discussion, but certainly the Islamic "cultural center" near Ground Zero has a legal right to be there. But whether it should be there, based on sensitivity and prudence, is another question.
the bottom line is that when the pope asked nuns who were planning to build a convent outside the gates of Aushwitz to not do so, they agreed. The nuns had a legal right to do so but the pope (in response to worldwide outcry) convinced them to do what was morally right. I fail to understand why the Imam cannot do what is morally right and move the mosque , even though he has the legal right to do so. I guess I can also ask why cartoons of Mohammad lead to mass riots and many deaths , yet when a cross in urine was exhibited in a NYC museum during the Guiliani administration, Catholics who peacefully objected , were ridiculed because this was "art"
The double standard is palpable
Part One You said:
“You may want to read up on Mormonism, and such things as the "Utah War," and the federal laws enacted against polygamy specifically aimed at Mormons.”
First, I know quite a bit about Mormonism since one of my closest colleagues and his wife were very close friends of mine. As to the “Utah War,” that 1857-58 confrontation (prior to Utah statehood) resulted in negotiations between the United States and the Latter-day Saints, resulting in a full pardon for the Mormons.
“If by "American values," you include freedom of religion, please be aware that when a religion contradicts American law, there is no freedom.”
I suppose that would mean that the Judaism should not be allowed to be practiced freely in America because many commandments of the Halakhah, or Jewish law, contradict American law. But today, Jews by and large enjoy religious freedom in our country, even though some adhere to and practice laws antithetical to American laws.
Some Seventh Day Adventists beat their children (relying on the Biblical commandment to “spare the rod and spoil the child”). I have witnessed a trial and conviction of one such mother for beating her children. She was issued an injunction and was asked if, at the end of the injunction, she would resume beating her children. She answered. “Yes, because the Bible says I must.” Yet we do not withhold freedom of religion from Seventh Day Adventists. We do prosecute them when they are found to have violated an American law.
I notice that Mormonism is not banned in America. What Mormons are prohibited from doing is practicing polygamy and that only because a law has been enacted. I know of no law that prohibits any aspect of Shariah. You cannot ban an entire set of religious laws because you do not agree with some aspects – but you can enact bans on those aspects that not only contradict American values but also are practiced in this country. Until that happens, Muslims in this country are free to practice such aspects of Shariah as they find to be fundamental to their beliefs.
You are aware, no doubt, that many aspects of Shariah are totally consonant with Christian values. I do not know of instances where aspects that are inconsistent with American values, such as stoning, amputation or flogging, are practiced by American Muslims. My guess is that, if any American Muslim were to suffer any of these at the hands of other American Muslims, there would be prompt legal action to prosecute such practices.
Also, there are four main schools of Shariah. What applies in one school does not necessarily apply in the others. Are you against all four or only one or two?
It seems that I must post my response to your comments in several pieces. Part One You said:
“You may want to read up on Mormonism, and such things as the "Utah War," and the federal laws enacted against polygamy specifically aimed at Mormons.”
First, I know quite a bit about Mormonism since one of my closest colleagues and his wife were very close friends of mine. As to the “Utah War,” that 1857-58 confrontation (prior to Utah statehood) resulted in negotiations between the United States and the Latter-day Saints, resulting in a full pardon for the Mormons.
“If by "American values," you include freedom of religion, please be aware that when a religion contradicts American law, there is no freedom.”
I suppose that would mean that the Judaism should not be allowed to be practiced freely in America because many commandments of the Halakhah, or Jewish law, contradict American law. But today, Jews by and large enjoy religious freedom in our country, even though some adhere to and practice laws antithetical to American laws.
Some Seventh Day Adventists beat their children (relying on the Biblical commandment to “spare the rod and spoil the child”). I have witnessed a trial and conviction of one such mother for beating her children. She was issued an injunction and was asked if, at the end of the injunction, she would resume beating her children. She answered. “Yes, because the Bible says I must.” Yet we do not withhold freedom of religion from Seventh Day Adventists. We do prosecute them when they are found to have violated an American law.
Part Two
I notice that Mormonism is not banned in America. What Mormons are prohibited from doing is practicing polygamy and that only because a law has been enacted. I know of no law that prohibits any aspect of Shariah. You cannot ban an entire set of religious laws because you do not agree with some aspects – but you can enact bans on those aspects that not only contradict American values but also are practiced in this country. Until that happens, Muslims in this country are free to practice such aspects of Shariah as they find to be fundamental to their beliefs.
You are aware, no doubt, that many aspects of Shariah are totally consonant with Christian values. I do not know of instances where aspects that are inconsistent with American values, such as stoning, amputation or flogging, are practiced by American Muslims. My guess is that, if any American Muslim were to suffer any of these at the hands of other American Muslims, there would be prompt legal action to prosecute such practices.
Also, there are four main schools of Shariah. What applies in one school does not necessarily apply in the others. Are you against all four or only one or two?
“As for fear, with all the terrorist acts committed around the world by radical Muslims, and either carried out or attempted here in the States, don't you think that some amount of fear, or at least caution, is justifiable?”
You qualify your response by saying fear of “radical” Muslims – of course, we all fear that and we are all on our guard against future attacks. But what is to be feared from Sufis, the most peaceful and spiritual faction of Islam? What is there to be feared about the Islamic Community Center? As I said before, no Sufi has ever been shown to be involved in acts of terror, either here or abroad, either against Americans or other Muslims.
Part 3
You did not respond to two of my questions:
1. “Among those killed at Ground Zero were many Muslims. There was a Muslim prayer room in the Twin Towers. Among the first responders, some of whom are now seriously ill, were many Muslims - firefighters, police, volunteers. Are their lives and sacrifices less important than all the others who suffered on that terrible day?”
Do you have a response?
May I add, among all those who oppose the so-called Ground Zero Mosque (which is neither at Ground Zero nor a Mosque), not one has a kind word to say about the many American or foreign Muslims killed that day, about those who responded, about those who serve bravely in American armed forces and who have died in the service of THEIR country – America.
I am saddened that any loyal American Muslim suffers at the words or hands of other Americans.
Are radicals being recruited in this country? Undoubtedly. With the increasing furor and hatred occurring in our country, including recent threats of burning the Quran, such recruitment is probably even easier. Must we suspect all Muslims because of the acts of radicals? I thought we learned our lesson after we forcefully sent all Japanese Americans to internment camps after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Or feared that all German Americans were spies. Do we suspect all Christians because radical Christians blow up courthouses and kill women and children or murder doctors who perform abortions or plot and train to kill police? Or do we know that Christian radicals do not represent all Christians?
Do I wish that more moderate Muslims would speak up? Yes, I do. Some have but not loudly enough. On the other hand, did Christians have to speak up in defense of Christianity when terrorist acts were committed by other Christians? Of course not. Everyone understands that radicals do not represent the majority. At least when it applies to Christianity.
2. “And must we adopt the laws of Saudi Arabia or insist that they change their laws before we honor our own American laws [as many seem to imply]?”
I am saddened that so many are willing to relinquish our own supposedly cherished values and prefer to copy the practices of another country. Do you have a response?
There are religious laws in religious books that are not adhered to anymore, or if they are, they don't bump up against American law. But religious law cannot take precedence over American law. I don't care what religion.
Sharia law is not just a law of morals and eating and prayer habits; it also encompasses the political and economic spheres. Sharia law institutionalized is repression. Not happening here in the States and should never happen.
But, again, all this is beside the point, or points, and frankly a diversionary tactic. The question is not whether the cultural center has a constitutional right to be two blocks away from Ground Zero. It has that right. The question is whether it's a good idea or more of a provocation than a building of bridges.
As to Islam, would you not agree that worldwide it now holds the number one position of being the most dangerous and repressive religion, in terms of scale and violence and threats to Western nations? Or perhaps do you think the Irish Catholics or Hassids in Brooklyn hold that honor?
BTW, you never answered my question about demonstrations held in NYC by "moderate" Muslims against radical Islam and its violent tactics and accomplishments.
To respond to your last post, which came up after the others....
No one should fear the Sufis; it's not the Sufis that are in the headlines. As to what should be "feared" from the Islamic Cultural Center--nothing (provisionally, as we've learn that plots can be hatched from people belonging to the same mosque or "cultural center")--but also nothing was to have been feared from the nuns residing near Auschwitz. Do you still not understand that point about sensitives and prudence? No one is banning Islam here or stating that the cultural center does not have a legal right to be near Ground Zero.
My last post was not a response to your Part 3, of course.
2. “And must we adopt the laws of Saudi Arabia or insist that they change their laws before we honor our own American laws [as many seem to imply]?”
I am saddened that so many are willing to relinquish our own supposedly cherished values and prefer to copy the practices of another country. Do you have a response?
Yes, as I've already stated several times the cultural center has a right to be near Ground Zero.
Regarding lives lost in Ground Zero, sure, there were Muslims there, and I would have no problem (and would expect and hope) that they as others who lost their lives that day will be honored once Freedom Tower is finished.
But, face facts, the destruction that day was caused by a religious element of Islam, done in the name of Allah. It was not done by Christians in the name of Jesus Christ or Jews in the name of Jehovah. Yes, a radical element of Islam, but still of Islam. To build an Islamic center (initially named after a Spanish city conquered by Muslims!) nearby can strike one as being a bit insensitive. The wounds from 9/11 are still raw. Give them some time to heal.
A correction - Stuy Town Reporter said... BTW, you never answered my question about demonstrations held in NYC by "moderate" Muslims against radical Islam and its violent tactics and accomplishments."
I did answer your question. I said, “Do I wish that more moderate Muslims would speak up? Yes, I do. Some have but not loudly enough. On the other hand, did Christians have to speak up in defense of Christianity when terrorist acts were committed by other Christians? Of course not. Everyone understands that radicals do not represent the majority. At least when it applies to Christianity.” (Previously I had referred to, among other incidents, the murder in the name of Jesus of doctors who perform abortions.)
It is obvious that neither of us will convince the other. We could prolong this conversation indefinitely, interesting as each of us may find it. When one of us posts something that the other considers missed the point, the other wants to respond – (for instance, the convent proposed outside of Auschwitz or the use of quotation marks around the word moderate referring to Muslims).
But let's just agree to disagree and call it quits. We each believe sincerely that our own view is the correct one.
I repeat again, just like the nuns moved the convent from outside Aushwitz because it was the morally correct thing to do, so should the mosque be moved by the Imam, rather than him threatening Americans with possible attach from jihadis if he movesd the mosque. Until someone can explain the difference between the 2 situations, that for me and many others is the end of the debate.
And that is why , in today's world, the mindset of Christians and Jews is fundamentally different from Muslims
Well said, last poster. The imam's threats are nothing short of blackmail!
Well. Apparently there are those who do not want to agree to disagree and let this rest. Let me explain the difference between an Islamic Community Center and a Catholic convent. The Islamic Community Center will be open to - duh - the community - not just to Muslims. Its intent is to reach out to all denominations.
The Carmelite convent at Auschwitz (please note the correct spelling of Auschwitz) was a strictly religious place, not open to non-Catholics, nor to most Catholics. In addition, the convent was placed in a building that had been used during the war to store Zyklon B poison gas used in the crematoria. The building was in full view of all visitors who entered Auschwitz whereas the Islamic Community Center would not be visible from Ground Zero.
Since you don’t want to drop this debate - Stuy Town Reporter said... “There are religious laws in religious books that are not adhered to anymore, or if they are, they don't bump up against American law. But religious law cannot take precedence over American law. I don't care what religion. . . . Sharia law is not just a law of morals and eating and prayer habits . . .”
The above is also true of Jewish law. Please take a closer look at the Halakhah commandments. Here is one example, the get or “bill of divorce.” No Jewish woman married under Jewish law can obtain a divorce – her husband must initiate the action of obtaining the get. Without a get, a Jewish woman remains married despite obtaining a civil American divorce. A woman who wants a divorce cannot force her husband to obtain a get . A legal American divorce decree does not take precedence.
Furthermore, if a man dies without clear evidence of his death (for example, in the World Trade Center tragedy), his wife remains married and is “agunah.” She cannot legally remarry and any children she may have from such a union are illegitimate.
None of this sounds much like American law taking precedence.
The Imam’s comments about possible reactions around the world are not threats. They are predictions and are remarkably similar to what General David Petraeus said about the Quran burning?
Lastly, and most importantly, the mindset of Muslims is not fundamentally different from that of Christians and Jews – there have been radicals from all three religions who have committed atrocious acts in the name of religion. It is the mindset of radicals that is fundamentally different from Christians, Jews and Muslims. Perhaps if the Center is built and you bother to take advantage of its offerings you might discover that fact.
Well, I guess it's not over yet.
Your examples of "get" and "agunah"--do these take precedence over American law? In other words, if an orthodox Jewish woman wishes to marry after a husband's death, in which there is no clear evidence of his death (a body), does American law consider her marriage false and any children from that "false marriage" illegitimate?
The Imam’s comments about possible reactions around the world are not threats. They are predictions and are remarkably similar to what General David Petraeus said about the Quran burning?
If they are not threats, they are predictions with the juice of intimidation and fear in them. Come on, should we change our behavior because of the reaction of fanatics across the globe?
Lastly, and most importantly, the mindset of Muslims is not fundamentally different from that of Christians and Jews – there have been radicals from all three religions who have committed atrocious acts in the name of religion.
Oh, please. There is no comparison these days between the terrorist acts of Muslims around the world, acts in which Allah is honored by the perpetrators, and what "radical" Christians or Jews have done in the past ten years.
The Cordoba Center( its original name before someone gave the Imam some PR advice) will be as much like the 92nd Street Y as a church or an Orthodox synagogue. This sudden "conversion" to an alleged community center open to all just happened to occur around the time the Cordoba House changed its name.A sudden "conversion" to a more ecumenical center and innocuous name is only designed to mute some of the criticisms and is not to be believed.
And as for the building- the landing gear of one of the planes that was flown into the WTC landed in this building and the building has never been searched for body parts even though body parts have been found at a greater distance from Ground Zero than this building. Thus to imply that this building had no connection to 9/11 is false.
And don't ever lecture me on how to spell Aushwitz, where millions of my fellow Jews were exterminated by extremists hell bent on killing inoncents just like the jihadis of 9/11 and thousands of other attacks around the world over the past 2 decades.!!
I hereby apologize to Muslims for the wave of bigotry and simple nuttiness that has lately been directed at you. The venom on the airwaves, equating Muslims with terrorists, should embarrass us more than you. Muslims are one of the last minorities in the United States that it is still possible to demean openly, and I apologize for the slurs.
Many Americans honestly believe that Muslims are prone to violence, but humans are too complicated and diverse to lump into groups that we form invidious conclusions about. We’ve mostly learned that about blacks, Jews and other groups that suffered historic discrimination, but it’s still O.K. to make sweeping statements about “Muslims” as an undifferentiated mass.
In my travels, I’ve seen some of the worst of Islam: theocratic mullahs oppressing people in Iran; girls kept out of school in Afghanistan in the name of religion; girls subjected to genital mutilation in Africa in the name of Islam; warlords in Yemen and Sudan who wield AK-47s and claim to be doing God’s bidding.
But I’ve also seen the exact opposite: Muslim aid workers in Afghanistan who risk their lives to educate girls; a Pakistani imam who shelters rape victims; Muslim leaders who campaign against female genital mutilation and note that it is not really an Islamic practice; Pakistani Muslims who stand up for oppressed Christians and Hindus; and above all, the innumerable Muslim aid workers in Congo, Darfur, Bangladesh and so many other parts of the world who are inspired by the Koran to risk their lives to help others. Those Muslims have helped keep me alive, and they set a standard of compassion, peacefulness and altruism that we should all emulate.
I’m sickened when I hear such gentle souls lumped in with Qaeda terrorists, and when I hear the faith they hold sacred excoriated and mocked. To them and to others smeared, I apologize.
The above, btw, is an extract of an opinion piece from Nicholas Kristof that appeared in the New York Times a couple of days ago, so I don't know if there is any sense debating someone who is not here.
But, I would ask: Is not Islam the most dangerous religion in the world at this time? From its roots and religious texts arise the hot fanaticism we see, the terrorist acts across the globe, actualized or plotted, the violence against men, women and children? Why would we not be especially diligent? Why would we not be on guard? Or should we be like those politically correct who allowed U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan, of the Fort Hood massacre, a free pass when all the the warning signs were there--a free pass because we do not want to trouble those of the "religion of peace"?
Who are Nick K's wonderful, gentle Muslim souls who are helping and protecting people helping and protecting those people from? MUSLIMS!
LOL. You're right!
Do you really think that’s funny? How sad.
For information on the Cordoba Initiative and the Islamic Community Center, of which Cordoba House remains a part, please see http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/frequently-asked-questions
You may choose not to believe what is posted there but first hand sources are generally the best starting point. Please note that one of the supporting organizations is the September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51. The article presents a wealth of information both pro and con in the kind of comprehensive, unbiased and documented report for which Wikipedia is known.
Hi Stuy Town Reporter - Even though we obviously differ in our views, I want to thank you for posting the excerpt from Kristof's blog that I pasted (had to cut content/explanation due to space restriction). I am appreciative of your diligence and the opportunity to sharpen my own thoughts on these issues.
To be "fair" to this discussion, I wanted to provide a response article to Kristof's which was published in the WSJ. I thought it was eye-opening. I typically share Kristof's expressed political views, and I think my definition/concept of what it means to be American, and to defend true American principles whether they make us uncomfortable or not (as I said in an earlier comment, I joined the army based on this conviction) is aligned with that of Kristof. The WSJ article, however, to my surprise, had me considering that it may be unfair to qualify people who are offended by the planned location of the mosque, afraid of Islam, etc., as "bigots". I'll leave it at that.
It remains a FUNDAMENTAL AMERICAN PRINCIPLE to respect the freedom of religion in our country.
Whether you're uncomfortable with it or not, Muslim American citizens are as American as you are and it is illegal and not in the slightest bit patriotic to attempt to oppress or alienate them.
Please consider if your Christian friends or neighbors should also be/have been held to the same standards of scrutiny that you insist that Muslims currently deserve. Consider that from Christianity's roots rose the Holocaust, for example, or that the Roman Catholic Church admittedly did not oppose the genocide in Rwanda or that members of its hierarchy were known participants. should we generalize the whole religion of Christianity as "Dangerous" for the same potential all religions have to breed crazy extremist terrorist sects? It was Christian ideology and fanaticism, after all, that Hitler manipulated to result in terrorist acts across Europe, violence against men, women and children, mass murder and destruction. Why should my nice Muslim neighbor from Jersey be considered of a "dangerous" persuasion, when my parents, Catholic in the 1940s, (just like most of the Nazi leadership)were not, and never endured even close to the same amount of stigma attached to them that Muslims do today.
The actual people responsible for the crimes you blame the entire religion for aren't going to be affected by your protesting the location of a Muslim mosque, but those terrorists ARE the ones triumphing and succeeding in dividing our country as we begin turning on American principles and citizens out of fear.
Wiki is not a reliable source.
I have personal experience of many wonderful, genuinely good and decent Muslims. Sadly, they have to suffer at the hands of and because of the lunatics who debase Islam and use it as a "religion" of violence and oppression. I don't believe the imam at the proposed mosque is a terrorist, but he is a shady sleazy character and maybe the wrong person to be representative of Muslims building bridges. He does them a disservice because he is patently not a decent person. He's a slumlord, hooker john and many other unsavory things. He should step aside.
German View of Islam
This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanya, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.
A German's View on Islam
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'
We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts--the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious , is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.
Personally, I fear Newt Gingrich more than I fear Osama bin Laden. What a psycho in a good suit!
Yeah, you are so right. I hear Newt is planning on blowing up Manhattan soon.
Here's a nice article about fair treatment of women in a Muslim nation.
I am consistently amazed at liberals (particularly women) who espouse the virtues of Islam. These same people excoriate anyone engaged in any activity deemed to be a slight toward American women ,but ignore the obscene behavior of many Muslims toward women.
And what all these liberals fail to further understand is that if Sharia law ever became the law of the U.S. (a goal that has been stated publicly by the head of that "moderate" American Islamic group , CAIR)these same liberals would be among the first to be imprisoned and given the choice of conforming to Sharia law or death. Love to see some of those liberal women is burquas (actually for Rosie O'Donnell that would be a major plus for all of us!).
Christine O'Donnell too.
". . . if Sharia law ever became the law of the U.S. (a goal that has been stated publicly by the head of that "moderate" American Islamic group , CAIR). . ."
Please provide a backup info for the statement that the head of CAIR stated that a goal of that group is to establish Shari'a law as the law of the United States. Where was the statement made, when was it made, is it written somewhere, etc?
In the San Ramon Valley Herald the Chairman of CAIR, Omar Ahmed , was quoted as telling a group of California Muslims in July 1998 "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.The Koran should be the highest authority in America and Islam the only accepted religion on earth".
I am told there are other examples to be found but this says it all.
Thank you for providing the source.
Post a Comment