Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The "responsible" argument against the Ground Zero mosque

Let's label it the "responsible" argument against the Ground Zero mosque.

As you know, the Anti-Defamation League says it's adamantly opposed to bigotry against Muslims. But it's opposing the construction of the Islamic center near the site of the attacks on the grounds that it will cause pain to relatives of 9/11 victims, undermining the center's stated goal of promoting reconciliation.

Chris Caldwell, a senior editor for the Weekly Standard, adds his voice to this argument, denouncing those who label the project's foes bigots while insisting that the project is wrong because the 9/11 victimes "were killed in Islam's name." Andrew Sullivan responds to Caldwell here, skewering Caldwell's "guilt by association."

Let's take stock of the "responsible" argument against the Islamic center. It goes something like this:

Those who are opposing the mosque as part of an effort to conflate all Islam with the 9/11 attacks are bigoted and wrong. But there are vague associations between Islam and the attacks -- Osama said he carried the attacks out in Islam's name, and the attackers were Islamic -- and this is hurtful to 9/11 families. Proceeding with the center will only undermine efforts to achieve the reconciliation the center is designed to achieve. Therefore, all legal niceties aside, it must be opposed.

Here's the problem with this argument: It doesn't reckon with the question of whether it's legitimate to see the construction of an Islamic center near Ground Zero as an inherently provocative act. Either it's legit to see the building of the center as provocative, or it isn't.

The only way to see this as a provocative act is to buy into the notion that the building of a center devoted to Islamic heritage is, by accident or by design, tantamount to rubbing the victims' noses into what happened on 9/11 -- that it is inescapably a "victory mosque." To believe this is to legitimize -- wittingly or not -- the world view of the center's bigoted foes.

In fact, it is not legitimate to see the building of a center devoted to the study of Islam near Ground Zero as an inherently provocative act. You can't endorse the idea that it's provocative to study the heritage of Islam in the vicinity of Ground Zero while simultaneously arguing that the bigots are wrong to conflate the 9/11 attacks with Islam as a whole. Period. It's not a coherent or sustainable argument.

People need to choose sides. Either it's justifiable to see the act of building an Islamic center near Ground Zero as provocation, intentional or not, or it isn't. If you endorse the former, you are in effect supporting the view that it's defensible to vaguely associate Islam as a whole with the attacks. If people want to endorse that view, fine: Just say so. No fudging here. It's one or the other.

By Greg Sargent  |  August 9, 2010; 12:13 PM ET
Categories:  Foreign policy and national security  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: GOP leader admits Republicans have "credibility problem" on deficits
Next: Big mo? Two more Senators call on Obama to appoint Elizabeth Warren

Comments

Its not a "Ground Zero Mosque" any more than the Affordable Care Act is "ObamaCare". Journalists set the tone for how peple will stage a debate. If enough actually used the correct name of this project "Cordoba Center" maybe JUST MAYBE it would be a little harder to fear monger against.

Just a thought.

Posted by: sgwhiteinfla | August 9, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Come on Greg, the wingnuts don't want to own their own demonization of Islam and conflation of some terrorists who unsuccessfully tried to use Muslim theology to justify their amoral killing and the religion of 1/5 of the world's population.

Isn't this the same fatally flawed reasoning that Catholics and Protestants used to justify killing each other for centuries? Our God says that we should kill _____ because....well just because...

==================
Well the Protestants hate the Catholics
and the Catholics hate the Protestants
and the Hindus hate the Muslims
and everybody hates the Jews!

But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
It's National Everyone-Smile-At-
One-Another-hood Week
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you
It's only for a week, so have no fear
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!
--Tom Lehrer

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Once the WTC office tower is built, should companies that provide a space for Muslim employees to pray not be allowed to occupy the space? Should they be forced to fire their muslim employees? Just where does the provocation argument end.

Posted by: mikebny | August 9, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Just so we're all on the same page, is there similar agreement that forcing the Carmelite nuns to move from their convent outside Auschwitz was likewise improper?

Posted by: tomtildrum | August 9, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

"Either it's justifiable to see the act of building an Islamic center near Ground Zero as provocation, intentional or not, or it isn't. If you endorse the former, you are in effect supporting the view that it's defensible to vaguely associate Islam as a whole with the attacks."

Can you say it doesn't seem like a legitimate effort to "reach out"?

And can I see it as intentionally provocative, and perhaps "mischief making" (ala the "flying imams"), while not being opposed to its construction, because such opposition is clearly illegitimate, no matter what the intent (general mischief or good vibrations)?

"You can't endorse the idea that it's legitimately provocative to study the heritage of Islam in the vicinity of Ground Zero while simultaneously arguing that the bigots are wrong to conflate the 9/11 attacks with Islam as a whole. Period. It's not a coherent or sustainable argument."

Perhaps not, but is it wrong to conflate the 9/11 attacks with Radical Islam or Militant Islam? And is it entirely incoherent to see much more moderate Muslims or Muslim organizations as apologists for radical Islam, or essentially front groups? Even if that assumption is inaccurate, it is then not logically inconsistent to associate 9/11 with radical Islam, and be opposed to organizations you see as apologists or front groups for radical Isam.

It may be incorrect to see the Ground Zero Muslim Community Center as mischief making by a front group or pot-stirring by an apologist for radical Islam, but to say that, in context, such positions are not coherent or sustainable is not entirely accurate.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 9, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

@sgw: Didn't you know that Cordoba House is named for the city in spain where Muslims killed Christians? More evil Muslim symbology. Be very afraid. The brown skinned mooselims are coming for you...

Of course it was 8 centuries ago, and the Christians did their level best to kill as many Muslims (and Jews, btw) as they could or "convert" them by the sword when the city was retaken. Guaranteeing that no pesky non-believers were present in "Christian" lands set the wheels of the Inquisition in motion and we all know the humanitarian deeds that were done under its banner.

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

sg -- fair point. henceforth I'll use either Cordoba House or put Ground Zero mosque in quotes...

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 9, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

The best argument I've heard against is as follows:
The supposed goal of those building the center is to bring people together. Clearly this goal is not being achieved. So why continue?

Furthermore, the "hellbent" idea of building this center gives some evidence that perhaps that is, in fact, not their goal after all.

Posted by: jav1231 | August 9, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Why is it okay to offend the families of our 9/11 dead and everyone else against a Muslim mosque overlooking the Twin Towers site?

Tolerance should work both ways, right?

Posted by: clandestinetomcat | August 9, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

@tomtildrum: "Just so we're all on the same page, is there similar agreement that forcing the Carmelite nuns to move from their convent outside Auschwitz was likewise improper?"

Tom, there are always exceptions. Didn't you ever read Animal Farm?

That being said, I imagine there were legal grounds that allowed such a forced relocation to happen, where as in America, there are no grounds to prevent a Muslim-only Community Center from being built next to Ground Zero, no matter how many nearby Muslim Community Centers and Mosques there already are in the neighborhood.

They have every right to build, and special exceptions because we're *really* suspicious of them ought not be made. Bad precedent.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 9, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

A rational group of Muslims, concerned with helping people study and understand Islam, would use a less-controversial place to build their mosque than so close to the 9/11 attacks.
This building plan is not so much a provocative act as it is a propaganda coup for Islam, the political system. To the Islamic world, that this mosque gets built over the strong objections of so many Americans will be a sign of Islam's strength and America's weakness.

Posted by: dminnich312 | August 9, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

BTW, re: Cordoba House. All right thinking people know that it is, in fact, to be named in honor of the song "Cordoba", off the Brian Eno/John Cale collaboration, Wrong Way Up.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/recsradio/radio/B000A3MHWG/ref=pd_krex_dp_001_005?ie=UTF8&track=005&disc=001

Which is an awesome album. So, kudos all around with that one.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 9, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Lets face it.The progressive Dems have destroyed NY.First they celebrate communist china by lighting the Chinese colors on the empire st building, now their letting Muslims build a victory mosque(make no mistake,thats what it is) at ground zero.NY is a disgrace,and ya only have your leaders like Shumer,winer,bloomberg,cuomo and Hillary to blame.They have allowed your city to turn into the almost bankrupt third world piece of liberal dung that it is!!!

Posted by: votingrevolution | August 9, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Hmm.. does everyone notice this is the first time in memory that the liberal press fought FOR building a religious structure? Seems liberals are okay with religion as long as it's associated with anti-Western thought and tradition.

Posted by: dminnich312 | August 9, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

I suppose since the leftist and Muslims are so tolerant these days that we will see gay marriages performed in the new Mosque as soon as it's finished.

I also suppose there will be a special wing honoring the Muslim killers of the 10 aid workers in Pakistan because someone thought they might have been promoting christianity.

You leftist sure tie yourself up in knots.

Posted by: robtr | August 9, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Oh, so this guy can tell me whose opinion is legit based on his criteria.

No.

Cordoba house....
Why some Spanish town?

Legitimate?!? like having a synagogue in mecca?

What would you call the response to that?... standing over it's ashes and the bodies of those that tried to build it?

legitimate?

this man thinks it's ok to determine whether - how we "see" things - is legitimate or now.

how outrageous.

Posted by: docwhocuts | August 9, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Would it not raise an eyebrow or two if someone opened, to great fanfare, a German Appreciation Center next to a Holocaust museum? It would be just as legal as this mosque plan, and, imo, just as insensitive.

Look, it may be legal to build the mosque, but just because it can be done doesn't mean it should be, or that it's in particularly good taste. Is there some bigotry involved in opposing the plan? I guess you can look at it that way, but I think the Muslims can show a little respect for what happened that day and walk a few extra blocks to go to a mosque.

What if instead of Muslims building a mosque at Ground Zero, we were discussing an American building a church in Iraq at that site where an airstrike killed all those people at a wedding a few years ago? All the arguments would be the same..."It wasn't Christians that did it," "America is not a Christian nation and does not represent Christianity," etc. But you know what? It'd be just as tasteless and disrespectful.

Posted by: Pike4 | August 9, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

NY is a disgrace,and ya only have your leaders like Shumer,winer,bloomberg,cuomo and Hillary to blame.They have allowed your city to turn into the almost bankrupt third world piece of liberal dung that it is!!!

Posted by: votingrevolution | August 9, 2010 12:48 PM
============================

There you have it, a perfectly honest rendering of the real sentiment behind the opposition to Cordoba House.

Votingrevolution does not give a rat's behind about NYC or the victims of 9/11, any more than his right-winger leaders who are cynically stirring the bigotry pot.

P.S. http://mediamatters.org/blog/200902170023
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | August 9, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

@kw:Can you say it doesn't seem like a legitimate effort to "reach out"?

You are welcome to your own opinion, but that doesn't make that opinion fact. And it is facts that determine whether a building the owner want's built on that owner's land, not groundless (or even grounded but unproven) suspicions.

"Even if that assumption is inaccurate, it is then not logically inconsistent to associate 9/11 with radical Islam, and be opposed to organizations you see as apologists or front groups for radical Islam."

It is not logically consistent to use guilt by association. By your logic, its is logically consistent to suspect every Christian of being an anti-abortion terrorist, since every doctor murdering, clinic bombing, nut case also happens to be a "Christian" claiming to be doing "God's work." Is this a good basis for the formulation of public policy?

I think that Greg's formulation is correct: Either we accept that Islam, as practiced by the overwhelming majority of Muslims, is a mainstream religion deserving of respect or we regard Islam is a demonic cult bent on destroying Christiandom and all Muslims are a part of this global "jihad" and should be treated as potential terrorists and have their property rights and first amendment rights (building a religious community center) abridged because....they are EEEvil....Which side are you on, boys, which side are you on...

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

"Hmm.. does everyone notice this is the first time in memory that the liberal press fought FOR building a religious structure?"

Hmmm.....can you name one instance when the liberal press fought AGAINST building a religious structure somewhere here in the US?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 9, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

@dminnich312 :To the Islamic world, that this mosque gets built over the strong objections of so many Americans will be a sign of Islam's strength and America's weakness.

You are doing Bin Laden's work for him. It is his contention that Americans, while professing freedom of religion, is prejudiced against Islam. You are living proof of his point. Hopefully, the sane will prevail and Bin Laden will be proven wrong, but your thinking is right in line with Bin Laden's propoganda message about the "west".

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

So we'll be forbidding Catholic Churches from being built "overlooking" (in fact, not overlooking, but several blocks away) schools, right?

Right?

Because a Catholic Church is clearly a monument to sexually molesting children, and to have one so near a school would be rubbing the victims of pedophilia's noses in it.

Right?

Of course not. The outcry against the Cordoba center is bigotry, plain and simple.

And what cases are there of liberals fighting against building other (e.g. Christian) religious structures that are not on government land or government-endorsed?

Posted by: hitpoints | August 9, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Pike4: "Would it not raise an eyebrow or two if someone opened, to great fanfare, a German Appreciation Center next to a Holocaust museum? It would be just as legal as this mosque plan, and, imo, just as insensitive."

Did it raise any eyebrows when the Simon Wiesenthal Center opened a Museum of Tolerance in Jerusalem that was built on a Muslim cemetery and historic burial grounds that required disinterring 4 layers of graves?

The answer is,"Yes, it did," but it went ahead anyway, and is currently under construction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Tolerance

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 9, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I view the dive bar right next door to the proposed mosque site, as well as the strip joints even closer to Ground Zero, as a much greater "provocation" and far more offensive than a house of worship to the memory of 9/11.

Of course, I am also not bothered by the fact that there's a Catholic Church right near the corner of Ground Zero, an Episcopal church literally across the street, and a Jewish temple right down the block. I guess, unlike some people, I'm not offended by the idea that others are praying.

Posted by: theorajones1 | August 9, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

How many actual survivors and family members of victims of 9/11 have weighed in on the mosque? It seems to me that most of the opposition comes from non-New Yorkers and the overwhelming response of New Yorkers was exemplified by Jon Stewart--don't tell us what we can or can't do with our City; the Islamic Center is ok with us. There are a few cowards like Weiner, but I haven't really heard a lot of oppositoin from actual New Yorkers.

Posted by: Mimikatz | August 9, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

@srw3
Your analogy betweeen Islam and Christianity is incorrect. There is nowhere in the Gospels that command Christians to kill in the name of Christianity; on the contrary, a Christian is suppose to submit to civil authority, and only resist in acts of self-defense. Thus, the abortion bombers are stepping outside of Christianity when they do their evil deeds.
By contrast, the Koran is filled with commands to go forth and convert or kill, so as to spread the rule of Islamic law (Sharia). The 9/11 crew was simply following the commands of their religion.
Yes, moderate Muslims choose to interpret Islam to reject such commands, but they could just as well interpret Islam to follow such commands. This is not the case with Christianity.

Posted by: dminnich312 | August 9, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

P.S. This reminds me of the Sestak job offer nontroversy: a huge bunch of squawking about something that is completely besides the point of the upcoming elections.

Typical GOOPer distraction from the real issues. The Cordoba House is NYC's business, and NYC has decided the issue.

David Sirota has a very good piece out regarding tomorrow's Senate primary in Colorado, and how the results will be covered in the national press:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/co-sen-what-dc-will-say-v_b_675320.html
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | August 9, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

"Furthermore, the "hellbent" idea of building this center gives some evidence that perhaps that is, in fact, not their goal after all."

Yeah.....how dare they not give into the bullying and instead fight for their 1st Amendment Rights!!!!

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 9, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

@ srw3 wrote
"You are doing Bin Laden's work for him. It is his contention that Americans, while professing freedom of religion, is prejudiced against Islam."

Whatever we do, Bin Laden will spin it to his benefit. Build a mosque near ground zero, he will spin it as a triumph against America. Don't build it, and he will point to this as America's prejudice and phoniness. Either way, we lose at his propaganda game. Your argument is irrelevant.

Posted by: dminnich312 | August 9, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse


If the mosque helps to remind people that all the attackers on 9/11 were all Muslims from the middle east, then I'm all for it.

We have freedom of religion in this country the last time I looked. The anti-defamation league is throwing its weight around on this one. How about being just a tad bit more conciliatory? Isn't demonizing Islam one of the causes for Muslim radicalization in the first place.

And I know you're sick of me saying it, but don't forget -- NONE of the attackers were from Mexico. Not a one.

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | August 9, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

dear theorajones.

Which dive bar is that?

Oh, you're just a liar.

I live at the intersection of nassau and wall st.

No shame, you sick liar.

Posted by: docwhocuts | August 9, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

The Pentagon has a Mosque (or prayer room) for Muslims on-site. Weren't they victims of 9-11 too? Where's the outrage?

Posted by: mwamp | August 9, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Obviously building so close to ground zero will not "bring people together" but be a source of continued conflict and strife. Exactly the opposite of the Islamic community's intentions. Best to move the site to a more neutral location and then work to meet your stated goal. Show us with your own tolerance of our needs that the Islamic community understands and practices tolerance as well. The families of those who lost loved ones on 9/11 are the ones who should have the priority in this discussion.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | August 9, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

I've been to Cordoba. It is a city in Spain where for a couple of centuries Muslims, Catholics and Jews lived in relative harmony. It was the home of Maimonides, whose statue in front of his former house is a tourist site today, as are Cordoba's two remaining synagogues. Cordoba in fact officially celebrates its (albeit brief) history as a place of tolerance in a couple of exhibits. Cordoba is also a place where the Catholic Church converted one of the largest mosques in Europe (probably the largest) into a Catholic Church but left the outer framework and sultan's prayer nook intact (or at least at some point restored it).

Cordoba is also a place where Christians slaughtered both Jews and Muslims, but it is also, more than any place in Europe, a symbol that it is possible for diverse peoples to live in harmony if their religious and political leaders will give them the chance and not keep stirring up division. I assume that is why the name was chosen, though I don't really know it for a fact.

Posted by: Mimikatz | August 9, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I'm all for Muslims being able to build mosques anywhere in America they want to (and that's legally zoned for religious buildings), and for the most part, I don't see a problem with this structure (especially since it's not actually *at* Ground Zero, it's two blocks away). But I can't get past the irony of an Islamic studies center with intentions of reaching out and strengthening bonds, etc., when it clearly has so many people upset and offended by the notion. To me, this is a case where, while the Muslims have every right to build, backing down and building elsewhere would go a long way toward fulfilling the stated purpose of the center.

Posted by: DWC67 | August 9, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

suekzoo - I'm not sure I understand the connection you're trying to make...that they should build that center over the graveyard or shouldn't? I'm missing the connection to the current situation as well. I'm sure we can go point for point for years with wiki links, examples that defeat examples, etc. though. I guess i just don't really understand how some people simply can't see why many Americans find this, at the very least, an odd location where a mosque HAS to be built.

Posted by: Pike4 | August 9, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

@mwamp
"The Pentagon has a Mosque (or prayer room) for Muslims on-site."

They had the prayer room before the attack; they're not building a big new one down the hall from where the plane struck.

Posted by: dminnich312 | August 9, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

"Your analogy betweeen Islam and Christianity is incorrect. There is nowhere in the Gospels that command Christians to kill in the name of Christianity; on the contrary, a Christian is suppose to submit to civil authority, and only resist in acts of self-defense."

Interesting sleight of hand you played there. You know full well that many Christians denominations do not just follow the "Gospels" - it's pretty intellectually dishonest of you to leave out the uglier side of the Old Testament. Nice.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 9, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Would this be a great opportunity to compromise?

instead some quack decides that he is in charge of determining the "legitimacy" of the way you "see" things.

You don't have to compromise, if you can simply demonize.

It is reasonable to not want a mosque overseeing a sacred burial ground of thousands killed by people that yelled "allah akbar" while they carried out their mass murder.

On its surface, it is a reasonable point of view.

PERIOD.

Posted by: docwhocuts | August 9, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

@Mimikatz

The Christians and Jews of Cordoba did not co-exist with Muslims; they suffered under a strict, inferior level of citizenship (dhimmitude), lacking most of the rights we consider basic.

Posted by: dminnich312 | August 9, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

"It is reasonable to not want a mosque OVERSEEING a sacred burial ground of thousands killed by people that yelled "allah akbar" while they carried out their mass murder."

Too bad the "mosque" is not "overseeing" Ground Zero at all.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 9, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Yo, everyone. It is NOT a mosque. It is a community center that will house, among other things, a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants - and a prayer room. Just like the prayer room at the Pentagon (which is also not a mosque). A prayer room is no more a mosque than a hospital chapel is a church.

Posted by: vklip | August 9, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

If Islam, as a whole, can be associated with, and on some level, blamed for 9/11, then Christianity, as a whole, can be associated with, and on some level, blamed for the bombings of abortion clinics and the killings of doctors who perform abortions. Just as a minority of Muslims can find a justification for murder in the Koran, a minority of Christians can find a justification for murder in the Bible. There is no essential difference. Thinking men and women, however, understand the illogic and the inherent evil of letting the actions of a few justify prejudice and discrimination against the many. Strange that many of the frauds who bray the loudest about respecting our Constitution, are happy to ignore that same Constitution when it serves their bigoted purposes.

Posted by: sonny2 | August 9, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Greg, your take on this issue is way too simplistic. Let's see what is missing from your argument. Private property rights, religious freedom and tolerance, freedom of speech, local government zoning, and America's global reputation for fair play and justice to name just a few. Take all the fears out of the debate as there are irrational ones on both sides of the issue. All Muslims aren't fanatical jihadists and all Americans who oppose the location of this complex aren't bigots. Some subset of both of these camps are. Many families of WTC attacks oppose this building, many families support it. But the bottom line is there are fundamental constitutional issues at play here that trump any of the passionate arguments. In the end, Americans must be willing to put the passion aside and remain true to our governing documents as that is what separates us from most, if not all of the other countries on this good earth.

Posted by: army164 | August 9, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Greg, your take on this issue is way too simplistic. Let's see what is missing from your argument. Private property rights, religious freedom and tolerance, freedom of speech, local government zoning, and America's global reputation for fair play and justice to name just a few. Take all the fears out of the debate as there are irrational ones on both sides of the issue. All Muslims aren't fanatical jihadists and all Americans who oppose the location of this complex aren't bigots. Some subset of both of these camps are. Many families of WTC attacks oppose this building, many families support it. But the bottom line is there are fundamental constitutional issues at play here that trump any of the passionate arguments. In the end, Americans must be willing to put the passion aside and remain true to our governing documents as that is what separates us from most, if not all of the other countries on this good earth.

Posted by: army164 | August 9, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

@ schrodingerscat

No sleight of hand, except on your part. The violence in the Old Testament is historical, not prescriptive. The New Testament did away with the civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament. This is what is written.
By contrast, the civil and ceremonial laws of Islam are written for now. The commands to spread Islam via violence are also for now, and not merely historical.

Posted by: dminnich312 | August 9, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

This is not that complicated.

Either stand with prejudice or pluralism.

Posted by: PorkBelly | August 9, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

dear seargant:

I live at the intersection of wall st and nassau.

google it.

It is overseeing ground zero, not the best view ever, but I think it would be considered a ground zero view in the rental market.

It's too close.

A strong opportunity to compromise.

Posted by: docwhocuts | August 9, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

So maybe I'm wrong. Some people seem to see the "Cordoba Initiative" as an attempt to restore the Caliphate of Cordoba in New York, and therefore a provocative act. I'm still unclear on the proponents' motives.

I have to say, however, that having been to Spain both during the Franco years and in 2000, and knowing its history pretty well, there was certainly enough religiously motivated killing during its history to fill the most bloodthirsty. Spain was under Muslim rule in various parts for hundreds of years, and there was a wide diversity of attitude among the Muslim rulers. As the only Western European country controlled by Muslims during medieval times, it was of course also home of the Reconquista, and as such Spain was also the home of the Spanish Inquisition, forced conversion and expulsion of both Jews and Muslims and Christian heretics. When I was last there I had the sense that it was the paroxysm of religious fervor that led the Spanish not only to push the last of the Muslims out of Spain but just keep pushing on to the New World to find more heathen to convert.

Islam is/was undeniably an expansionist religion, but so was Christianity, and anyone who pretends that Christians didn't slaughter millions over religion (many of them adherents of "unapproved" forms of Christianity) doesn't really know much history.

Posted by: Mimikatz | August 9, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

The same leftists telling Americans how intolerant they are in opposing the mosque are also first to bash Israel for allowing a Jew outside of pre-1967 Israel and have no problem accepting the intolerance of places like Saudi Arabia. To them, only the moslems have pure motives and have feelings that must be respected. You leftists are pathetic!

Posted by: MrRealistic | August 9, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

@ sonny2
Repeat of my prior post, which you missed...
Your analogy betweeen Islam and Christianity is incorrect. There is nowhere in the Gospels that command Christians to kill in the name of Christianity; on the contrary, a Christian is suppose to submit to civil authority, and only resist in acts of self-defense. Thus, the abortion bombers are stepping outside of Christianity when they do their evil deeds.
By contrast, the Koran is filled with commands to go forth and convert or kill, so as to spread the rule of Islamic law (Sharia). The 9/11 crew was simply following the commands of their religion.
Yes, moderate Muslims choose to interpret Islam to reject such commands, but they could just as well interpret Islam to follow such commands. This is not the case with Christianity.

Posted by: dminnich312 | August 9, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

dminnich312,

As has been pointed out, you have ignored the Hebrew scriptures, which are part of the canon accepted by Catholic and Protestant Christians. Moreover, someone who is looking for justification for violence in the Gospels can certainly find it. Matthew 10:34-36,

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."

Posted by: bearclaw1 | August 9, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

dminnich312: As I said, I've been to Cordoba, and my source for the Christians, Jews and Muslims living in peavce for a brief time comes from what the City of Cordoba represents in several exhibits. I have since read that this was true.

Certainly during the Reconquista the Muslims of Spain had no citizenship at all--they were forcibly expelled or converted to Christianity (like the Jews at the same time).

Posted by: Mimikatz | August 9, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

@swr3: "You are welcome to your own opinion, but that doesn't make that opinion fact. And it is facts that determine whether a building the owner want's built on that owner's land, not groundless (or even grounded but unproven) suspicions."

I'm pretty much sure that's what I said.

"It is not logically consistent to use guilt by association. By your logic, its is logically consistent to suspect every Christian of being an anti-abortion terrorist, since every doctor murdering, clinic bombing, nut case also happens to be a 'Christian'"

Actually, by my logic, it would be reasonable to say that certain radical fringe 'Christians' are generally responsible for the bombing of abortion clinics. It might also to be willing to say that some ostensibly non-violent Christian churches or organization are too glib, or too quick to gloss over, the moral repugnancy of bombing abortion clinics or murder in the name of fighting for a right-to-life.

"Is this a good basis for the formulation of public policy?"

All I said, very explicitly, was that the arguments were not entirely inconsistent, or unsustainable. I in no way suggested that such arguments would be a good basis for public policy. Indeed, in this case, they are entirely irrelevant. There is no reasonable basis for discriminating against a religious community center.

"Either we accept that Islam, as practiced by the overwhelming majority of Muslims, is a mainstream religion deserving of respect or we regard Islam is a demonic cult bent on destroying Christiandom and all Muslims are a part of this global 'jihad' and should be treated as potential terrorists and have their property rights and first amendment rights (building a religious community center) abridged"

This is (a) a completely false choice (there are many more options than just those two) and (b) utterly devoid of nuance, or shades of gray. I think the truth is that there are going to be a variety of folks that make up any group, and multiple strata. There might be bad guys, folks who ignore the bad guys, guys who front for the bad guys, useful idiots, good guys who want to stay out of trouble, good guys willing to get in trouble, good guys called to other tasks that reformation of the larger group, etc.

Irrespective, I'm not suggesting that trying to prevent the construction of the "mosque" is appropriate, and certainly the government should have no role in preventing the construction of the community center.

BTW, to those who point out it's a community center (which of course, it is), would it make a difference if it was exclusively a mosque? If it was just a house of worship, then the objections to it make more sense?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 9, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Both sides sound like bigots. The Christians blaming the Muslims for their bad religion, and the Muslims doing the same to Christians. Should Christians follow a religiomn they believe is not equal? Christians point out Islam as being violkent. I rmember the Christian Wars were held up mas positive for Christians but not for the Ottoman Empire. hmm. History repeats itslelf over and over.

maybe the US might try being the bigger entity and shgow others what equality looks like, since we did form America based on religious tolerance and religious freedoms. it saeems the GOIP does not embrace equality along with the ADL. making excuses for bein bigoted is just that ewxcuses for being bigoted.

Posted by: patmatthews | August 9, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

@ bearclaw1

Just because they are accepted as canon does not mean the historical elements are prescriptive. Matthew 10:34-36 may sound like a prescription for violence, but you must read the gospel as a whole to understand the context.

Posted by: dminnich312 | August 9, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

@dminnich312: The New Testament did away with the civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament.

Sure. All Christians believe the laws of the Old Testament are invalid. You just keep telling yourself that. Better yet, why don't you go tell Fred Phelps, Eric Rudolph, Roy Moore, and those who love to quote Leviticus when condemning homosexuals?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 9, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

I'm remembering more here. The ancient Greek texts were all collected at the House of Wisdom in Baghdad and translated into Arabic. Much of the old learning came to Spain with the Muslim conquest. Many of the Jews in Spain knew Arabic and Latin. Interfaith teams of scholars translated the Arabic versions of the texts into Latin, and then they spread up to France. That's how Arabic numerals (actually developed farther east but brought to Europe by the Arabs), the algorithms for arithmetic and Algebra all came to the West in time to make math easy for everyone and thus ushering in the commercial revolution and the Renaissance.

Someone here is tampering with history.

Posted by: Mimikatz | August 9, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

@ Mimikatz

Your historical education is slight on this subject of dhimmi, despite having been physically present in Cordoba about 800-1200 years after the fact.

Posted by: dminnich312 | August 9, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Growing up, my parents' generation fought WWII. As a child, I heard a lot of resentment for the very existence of the Japanese-American community here. The connection between Japanese-Americans and the Empire of Japan was a lot stronger than the connection between Islam and a SELF-APPOINTED SPOKESMODEL for Jihad, yet I think today, most folks understand that Japanese-Americans did not bomb Pearl Harbor, and that the internments were morally wrong. Perhaps some survivors of that generation still don't like the Japanese very much, and never will; I am saddened by that, but I understand.

I agree with the elected government of the City of New York; this cultural center is legitimate, and Mayor Bloomberg defended the principles involved as well as I can.

I may not expect the survivors and relatives of the WTC attack to support this project, but they are just people too, not angels. The City is a lot bigger than they are, and not all of them agree. So, whose opinion is more relevant, the relative/survivor who condemns the project, or the relative/survivor who supports it?

A cultural center that includes a mosque, and is located more than 2 blocks from the WTC site, IS NOT a "Ground Zero Mosque"; that is inflammatory rhetoric designed with political purpose, NOT TRUTH.

We need to remember that Wahabbism is not even a majority group in context with the 1/6 of the world's population that is Islamic.

Posted by: OldUncleTom | August 9, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

@ schrodingerscat

The moral laws are still intact, which includes sex outside of marriage. Of course, no one can possible obey all of these moral laws; it's hopeless for man to save himself. That's why there's the concept of divine forgiveness in Christianity. And frankly, though I don't have to so as to support my argument, I still would put up with a Fred Phelps over a Bin Laden any day.

Posted by: dminnich312 | August 9, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

dminnich312"
"If thy right offend thee, pluck it out."-Matthew 5:29. That phrase is in the Bible, and is only one of many that has been used by a minority of Christians to justify violence. So, with all due respect, while I understand your argument, but I don't buy it.

For example, there are numerous (the majority?) Islamic scholars who insist that interpreting the word "jihad" to mean war and killing is incorrect. They will tell you that "jihad" more accurately means to struggle or to strive. Of course, those who want to kill, and who want to use the Koran to justify their killing, insist on the violent interpretation. The same can be said of Christianity. How many Christians have been killed, or have killed, over the years, with the Bible serving as the justification? I see no essential difference.

Further, Bin Laden fought, and wanted to kill, fellow Islamics, such as the Saudi Royal family, because he saw them as not respecting the Koran. Killers have always killed, and then sought to justify their actions by reliance on one religious teaching or another. This circumstance is hardly limited to Islam.

Posted by: sonny2 | August 9, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse


The Constitution says Government can't prohibit or promote the practice of religion. So, Government should be neutral in this matter.

Everyone else has a right to their opinions.

Mine is that no good can come from a project this divisive. It's likely to lead to violence. I'd feel about as safe living next door to it as living next to an ammunition dump.

The building already has a target on its back. Whether it is being built for the purpose of provoking a violent attack is impossible to say, but its not speculation to foresee this building becoming a target anytime a Muslim kills someone after yelling Allah is Great.

That may not be fair to a majority of Muslims, but its also not fair to Muslims to put blinders on and pretend the world is kinder and gentler place than it really is. Revenge is a powerful force that has been part of human nature for thousands of years. It's not going to disappear in the next decade as much as we wish it would.

This building is likely to be a magnet for revenge for decades. Those who support the building should weigh that reality against the merits of the project. If its built, I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see a happy ending for this project.

Posted by: jfv123 | August 9, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

The only reason that this Mosque is being built is to spite America. For god's sake it's being called Cordoba House. Cordoba was captured by the Muslims in 711. This is an intentional act by these muslim scumbags to show their victory on 9/11. If our President actually had a set, he would put an end to this. Never under Bush would this even be talked about.

Posted by: Jsuf | August 9, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Just so we're all on the same page, is there similar agreement that forcing the Carmelite nuns to move from their convent outside Auschwitz was likewise improper?

Posted by: tomtildrum | August 9, 2010 12:31 PM |

=================================

Just so we're all on the same page, Auschwitz is in Europe, not the US. In many parts of Europe, it is ILLEGAL to be a Nazi (for which I cannot blame them).

In the US, we tolerate the existence of professed Naziism, as well as any number of equally noxious philosophies.

The current discussion is of American Values, not European. They have a different way than we do.

Posted by: OldUncleTom | August 9, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

@ sonny2

Clearly Jesus was speaking figuratively - no one ever thought he actually meant for people to physically pluck out their eye (what good would that have done, spiritually or practically)? There certainly is no historical record of this happening except perhaps amongst the mentally ill.
By contrast, jihad had a fairly specific meaning with an extensive historical record of application by Muslims. The Islamic scholars of today must take quite a stretch to get the warfare out of Islam.
Finally, the only reason the Bible was misused as justification for warfare was that most people couldn't read it; the copies were few and in Latin, and most people couldn't read the common language anyway. Therefore, they believed what the government-sponsored church was telling them, which was apostasy.
Once the general population could access a Bible that they could read, the jig was up, and the misuse of the Bible declined quickly.

Posted by: dminnich312 | August 9, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

As mentioned by others, the supposed conciliatory and outreach functions of the proposed mosque would be admirably demonstrated by agreeing to build it somewhere else. Insisting on the proposed location causes nothing but divisiveness and strife and is counterproductive. If, on the other hand, the mosque is intended as a finger in the eye to the majority of Americans, then the proposed location is perfect. The tone-deafness of the mosque's proponents is astounding.

Posted by: 7891 | August 9, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Gotta go - will see you all later!

Posted by: dminnich312 | August 9, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I just saw today that in Hamburg, Germany they closed a mosque where the 9/11 terrorists are alledged to have been recruited. Somehow it makes perfect sense, but America wants to see how far we can stretch the issue of religious rights which doesn't make any sense.

Posted by: bigisle | August 9, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I find it fascinating that this has become a cause celebre of the Left.

Posted by: sold2u | August 9, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

The issue is one of intent, and intent can be determined my examining those behind the mosque, including the imam, and the funding of mosque.

If a Christian pastor who supported the resurrection of the KKK wanted to build a 20 story church in Harlem, how would that go over? What about a preacher who supported neo-Nazis? What about just a regular old evangelical Christian televangelist like Falwell or Pat Robertson? Something tells me Bloomberg & Co would have no problem stopping these projects.

Posted by: jhimmi | August 9, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

@dminnich312

You just don't seem to get it, do you? It has nothing to do with what YOU believe....it has to do with what OTHERS believe.

It's great that you can dismiss calls for violence in the Old Testament or call for "context" for quotes from the New Testament - why can't you seem to understand that there are others who passionately believe you are wrong?

To smugly sit back and assert that Christianity has no blood on it's hands, is unbelievably naive and ignorant.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 9, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Sargent is a little too cute by far in narrowing the scope of the issue-

Where are the VOICES of the Muslim leaders, the Ayatollahs, the immams, the scolars in a religion of over 1.2 billion adherents-
condemming the terrorists or "kidnapping the Muslim religion- why aren't the newspapers and news media all over the world
overwhelmed by the sound of Muslim religious leaders condemming Al Queda rallying the faithfull to report terrorist supporters to local authorities -preaching in their mosques to
drive out the false Muslims who have betrayed their religion--

the silence is deafening- and the focus on the Cordoba Mosque is an irrelevancy

Posted by: 27anon72 | August 9, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: jfv123

"Mine is that no good can come from a project this divisive. "
=======================

Heck, the Viet Nam War Memorial in D.C. was considered very divisive at the time. Even the Statue of Liberty was very controversial in its day.

The fact is, the divisiveness in this case is largely fed by politicans in an election year. As soon as the election goes by, so will the controversy.

Posted by: tunkefer | August 9, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

All, two key Senators come out for Elizabeth Warren:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/two_more_senators_come_out_for.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 9, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

in a sense, it's admirabel what sargent is trying to do. it's his intellectual effort of squaring the reactions to the mosque with his idealistic view of the world in which there is no prejudice. but the same way that he psychoanalyzes us who oppose the mosque (even though i'm arab and my family is muslim) i wanted to offer my view of him. i feel mr sargent doesn't hurt enough for the victims of 9/11. he sounds like an elitist idealouge saying tsk, tsk, tsk at the less knwoing natives who were directly hit by the tragedy. he wants to submerge us in his his idealistic world view ignorning our real pain. he does'nt feel our pain only his political world view. that's what i think of sargent

Posted by: harbinger317 | August 9, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

its easy to forgive someone elses offenses when sargaent wasn't hit face on. it's true the victims are better to forgive than to hold grudges but its not for an uninvolved idealouge to be rebuking us from his ivory tower

Posted by: harbinger317 | August 9, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

What I love about America is that you CAN build the muslim center next to Ground Zero. That it's legal and that's enough to get the thing built, even over the emotional objections that such a topic stirs up for us. The rule of law. That's what our country was built on wasn't it?

The people getting so bent out of shape over this are missing an opportunity to demonstrate to radical muslims that they haven't won, they haven't changed America from being the free and truly democratic country it has always been. So get your heads out of your a$$e$ and God bless America!

Posted by: rosefarm1 | August 9, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

dminnich312:

I agree that Jesus was speaking figuratively. But you don't have to travel far to find those who argue that the entire Bible is literal. For example, a majority of those who reject evolution have, as one of their core arguments, a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Further, I doubt that any religion can lay claim to more acts of violence committed in the name of religion, than can Christianity. From the Crusades, to the Inquisition, to more recent examples such as Northern Ireland, the examples of violence justified by Biblical teachings are as numerous as with any other religion, including Islam.

Posted by: sonny2 | August 9, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I don't want to water down our right to freedom of religion or freedom from religion. There is a difference between toleration and accomodation. I tolerate all religions. I don't want to accomodate any---example separate pool hours for Muslim women. (has already been debated)

Posted by: julielynndonnellyjjjj | August 9, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

army164:

"But the bottom line is there are fundamental constitutional issues at play here that trump any of the passionate arguments."

No, that is not the bottom line. Retaining the constitutional right to do something does not make that something immune to objection. The Washington Post has a constitutional right to employ people like Greg to write the drivel that he writes, but that does not mean that thinking people ought not object to the WaPo doing so. Greg has the constitutional right to, say, ban people from posting comments to this blog at his whim and in a blatantly partisan fashion. But that does not mean that objections to him doing so are unjustified.

Likewise, the owners of the land who want to build the mosque/whatever may have a constitutional right to do so, but that does not mean that objections to it being built are somehow betraying the founding document of this nation. The constitution tells us (or was designed to tell us) what government is allowed to do. It does not tell us what individual citizens ought (or ought not) to object to.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 9, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how long it takes until someone opens a bar next door called Gitmo. It IS New York, after all.

Posted by: sold2u | August 9, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

They can build it anywhere. It just shouldn't be near ground zero, because it is rubbing the noses of the victims in it.

They can build it anywhere. Just not in Sheepshead Bay, because it will cause too much traffic. And they will pray outside because it will be so crowded inside.

They can build it anywhere. Just not in Staten Island, because the building used to be a Catholic convent.

They can build it anywhere. Just not in Murfreesboro Tennessee, because Islam is not a religion. Then tell me what you're proposing? Does it have something to do with the repeal of the first amendment?

Posted by: scottilla | August 9, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

"Just so we're all on the same page, is there similar agreement that forcing the Carmelite nuns to move from their convent outside Auschwitz was likewise improper?"

I wasn't aware that either the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or the New York municipal zoning code were in force at Auschwitz.

Posted by: zimbar | August 9, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

@h317:but the same way that he psychoanalyzes us who oppose the mosque (even though i'm arab and my family is muslim)

I didn't see any psychoanalysis. The point was pretty simple. Is Islam mostly a religion of peace, perverted by a few fanatical terrorists, who btw kill far more Muslims than Americans, or Is Islam mostly a religion of 13th century conquest and domination, with no room for peace loving people. Can one be a peace loving Muslim, not bent on a world Caliphate? I say yes.

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Never under Bush would this even be talked about.

Posted by: Jsuf | August 9, 2010 2:04 PM |

First, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 -- the federal law prohibiting local governments from discriminating against the siting of religious institutions -- was passed by a Republican Congress.

Second, try what Bush actually said:

"I have assured His Majesty that our war is against evil, not against Islam. There are thousands of Muslims who proudly call themselves Americans, and they know what I know -- that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion. The exact opposite of the teachings of the al Qaeda organization, which is based upon evil and hate and destruction."

Remarks by President George W. Bush and His Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan, The Oval Office, Washington, D.C. September 28, 2001

Posted by: bearclaw1 | August 9, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

sold2u:
People want the government to intervene and stop the building of the Islamic Center/whatever it is. That's where the Constitution comes into play. The question is not whether people can object to it. The question is, can the government keep it from being built?

Posted by: sonny2 | August 9, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Is it wrong to tolerate mild bigotry from folks who gained that bigotry from legitimately suffering grievous harm through no fault of their own?

Personally, I'm in favor of the mosque. I think peace-loving performances of every religion should live in Manhattan's shadow. I think it sends exactly the right message: that terrorists, not muslims, are our enemy.

But I don't think folks who've suffered should be belittled for holding irrational opinions as a result of the suffering and sometimes mercy calls for kid gloves.

Posted by: Bill64738 | August 9, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

@rosefarm1: "What I love about America is that you CAN build the muslim center next to Ground Zero. That it's legal and that's enough to get the thing built, even over the emotional objections that such a topic stirs up for us. The rule of law. That's what our country was built on wasn't it?"

Absolutely. I gotta concur with that, 100%.

"The people getting so bent out of shape over this are missing an opportunity to demonstrate to radical Muslims that they haven't won"

There is nothing that will demonstrate to radical Muslims that they haven't won. Because they cannot lose, by definition. Eventually, the entire world will be a caliphate, and the 12 Imam will return. Tehre is no "not winning" regarding radical Islam.

Which is not an argument that we should prevent the construction of the Cordoba House, only that we shouldn't be doing anything with the expectation that "that'll show those radical Muslims". Because that's not going to happen.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 9, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

I am in agreement with anyone who questions the choice of the name "Cordoba" as it relates to the Muslim conquest of the Spanish City, promptly converting their large Christian cathedral into a mosque. (much like they did with Haghia Sofia).

If the center is to remind people of tolerance, how about we name it "The Rushdie Theo Center?" Parties on all sides need to be reminded of tolerance, not just one.

Posted by: joanct | August 9, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

@sonny. I just find it interesting that the uber-secular Left is interested in fighting for a religion that is diametrically opposed to most of what they stand for.

Anyway, the easy part is done. Getting past the NYC Zoning Board, who actually cares what Frank Rich of the NYT says, is a piece of cake, because they all think like Sargent.

Now comes the fun part - dealing the people who don't think like Sargent - the mob-run crane operators, mob-run steamfitters union, building inspectors, etc etc. Think some Catholic mafia boss is interested in seeing these guys build a victory mosque at Ground Zero? Now they have to deal with a bunch of people who consider political correctness to be an annoying nicety which is easily dispensed with. These guys are going to have to bribe everyone is sight to get this actually built, and that might not even be enough. The mob has to be licking their chops on this one - a building client who has unlimited money, doesn't care about the commercial aspects of the transaction, and wants it built to make a point. The mob is going to make a fortune off these guys.

I can also think of a few billionaire hedge fund managers who would love nothing more than to throw up as many legal roadblocks as possible. Or even ex-Cantor guys. Of course they won't win, but they'll do it out of general principles and string this out for another decade.

God help them if anyone goes on strike, because I don't think a lot of NYC cops are going to care too much about protecting anyone who crosses the picket line. Or, if there is a fire, I can't imagine any of the local firehouses who lost guys in 9/11 are going to break an arm rushing to the scene.

Anyway, the easy part is done.

Posted by: sold2u | August 9, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

@ rosefarm1 :The people getting so bent out of shape over this are missing an opportunity to demonstrate to radical muslims that they haven't won, they haven't changed America from being the free and truly democratic country it has always been. So get your heads out of your a$$e$ and God bless America!

Word.

I don't understand how the Muslim bashers can ignore the fact that they embody Bin Laden's twisted and false description of the "west". I think the country can survive and in fact thrive with an Islamic community center with a Mosque or prayer space for Muslims, 2 blocks from ground zero or most anywhere else. I personally think that many sky wizard worshipping people are deluded by the self-appointed prophets that say they speak for the sky wizard, but that's just me... If people want to believe this stuff, fine. Just keep their religious edicts out of secular law and we are all good.

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

@sold2u : Mobbed up unions to the rescue. What can't be done legally, should be achieved through extra legal means...The respect sold2u has for the constitution and the rule of law is truly touching.

The irony is that sold2u will probably be on the side of the bosses in any labor dispute not involving building a Muslim Y 2 blocks from the WTC site. I am ready for sold2u's full throated advocacy for EFCA, ending tax cuts for the top2%, enforcement of labor laws, etc. because he is really on the side of the workers.../snark

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse


The ADL's Foxman and his lackys thinks
immigration to the US shut down on after the Jews arrived? And keep coming?

As for going wherer you like, perhaps the ADL should remember the covenants prohibiting selling houses to Jews in many, many upscale neighborhoods...

tho now illegal...still exist in essence in many, many places, still. Does he love that?

And who is more American...

a second generation Muslim

or a second generation Jew who is a dual loyalist? Like Congreesman Jane Harmon

(whose father was aGerman immigrant, by the way)
Who was taped by the FBI working to get two
American jews off their indictments
of spying for Israel?

She succeeded. The story mysteriously disappeared. And now she and her husband own another major media outlet, Newsweek.

Posted by: whistling | August 9, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Let them build the mosque. Make it of the finest, most expensive materials available.

It will be great fun to burn it down once Civil War 2 gets rolling...

Posted by: pmendez | August 9, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

My only hope:

Bloomberg is actually a genius, and is going to ensure that every square inch of that place is bugged to the highest level of technology/redundancy ever observed in history.

Posted by: docwhocuts | August 9, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

sold2u

I can't speak for the uber-secular Left, but I suspect that they would tell you that they are not fighting for religion, but rather, for reason and for the Constitution. You remember the Constitution, that document that the uber-religious (in name only) Right is always touting?

Posted by: sonny2 | August 9, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

@kw: Which is not an argument that we should prevent the construction of the Cordoba House, only that we shouldn't be doing anything with the expectation that "that'll show those radical Muslims". Because that's not going to happen.

No, but there is the vast majority of Muslims that could be convinced that we live by the principles of religious tolerance we espouse by allowing the Muslim Y to be built on that site. The terrorists are not going to be convinced, but by staying true to our constitutional principles, the vast majority of Muslims will see that the Islamophobes and haters in our society are a very small minority, just like the terrorists are a very small minority of Muslims and we don't give in to the haters just as they shouldn't (and in large part don't) give into the terrorists and their warped ideology.

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

@srw3

Just telling you how it is, brother. You have to get past the mob to do anything in NYC, and this one is going to be a little harder than normal.

Look, the builders of this are asking for it, building at Ground Zero. They would have been hopelessly naive not to expect it.

I think the fact that they are building this in spite of the costs they are going to incur demonstrates that this is more about teaching Americans "tolerance" than anything else.

I would be fascinated to see their response if someone decided to open up a gay bar next door. Wanna bet they're still talking about "tolerance?"

Posted by: sold2u | August 9, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

@sold2u:

I like the way you think!

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all."

Mario Savio, 1964

Posted by: pmendez | August 9, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse


Has it occurred to the fetid, nasty ADL
miscreants

that the great, great majority of those who died in the Towers

were NOT JEWS?
Who do they think they are?

And who is more AMERICAN...

a second generation Muslim

or a second generation Jew...who's also
a Dual Loyalist.

Posted by: whistling | August 9, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Just had to weigh in on this discussion!I say no to the building of the mosque near ground zero!!! Have people completely lost their minds! I'm a liberal not a fool ! What an insult to the tragedy of 9/11!
This country was founded on religious liberty..true. However in this matter I prefer that anything having to do with the Islamic religion should be on their own soil,and country. In every country which they have established a solid foothold they have turned the country into one of fear and intolerance persecuting other religions, especially Christianity!Ten years down the rode, if this tolerant trend continues..America too will have religious persecution. Blood shed like you've never have experienced!Read About this religion and research what has taken place in Turkey !

Posted by: bahminj | August 9, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

"he sounds like an elitist idealouge saying tsk, tsk, tsk"

It's as I've always suspected: an elitist is somebody who knows how to spell words properly.

In August, the Republican's fancy turns to politically meaningless issues that can be used to mobilize the base. What the heck the JDL is doing in this is beyond me, but I expect that they and AIPAC are getting a mite desperate now that Israel is slouching toward full honors as the new South Africa. You'd think the last thing they'd want would be to be caught re-handed defaming another religious group. So much for moral superiority; easy come, easy go.

Posted by: fzdybel | August 9, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Pike4, as a 4th generation nominally German American, if I wanted to build a German cultural center (or a Canadian or Botswanan one), I'd put it wherever the heck I wanted, and it would never even occur to me to consider whether there were Jewish synagogues, gay bars or knitting clubs nearby whose members' or patrons' feelings I ought to consult before doing so.

And why should I? What have I ever done to any of those people, and how would I even know which over-sensitive groups I needed to defer to?

And why should the Cordoba people have to worry about it, either?

Posted by: Itzajob | August 9, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

We are at war with a small Islamist extremist movement that believes we are at war with Islam itself. Discriminating against Muslims who are NOT part of this extremist movement only reinforces the delusional belief that we are at war with all of Islam. If this incorrect belief spreads, we will only create more terrorist recruits, and increase the chance of being attacked again.

For our own safety, we must accept and encourage the building of the Cordoba Center to show good will towards peaceful Muslims. This will strike a blow at the heart of Islamist extremist groups by taking away the fear based justification for their existence.

If you want to be safe, treat your Muslim friends like friends, not like enemies.

Posted by: divtune | August 9, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Back to Cordoba, diminnich and joanct. Yes, the Muslims conquered Cordoba, but THE SPANISH TOOK IT BACK during the Reconquista and turned the Mosque back into a church. And they expelled all the Muslims and Jews or made them endure forced conversions. And they killed a whole lot during the expulsion.

How is the treatment of the Muslims (and Jews) by the Christians somehow better than the diminished citizenship you say the Muslims gave the Spanish Christians?

I suppose your idea is that conquest is bad but reconquest of what you lost is ok? Does this apply to the Mexicans who ceded our Southwest after the Mexican War? That was a whole lot more recent, after all.

Posted by: Mimikatz | August 9, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

You would think they were building this in the footprint of one of the Twin Towers. Its BLOCKS away people! You're argument is essentially saying, "Nothing related to Muslims can be built in Lower Manhattan." You can have XXX video stores and corrupt financial firms, but not a place of education and worship? Sounds like nothing more than old-school bigotry to me.

As a 9/11 survivor who is still putting up with the horrors of that day, I plan to be there cheering when the Cordoba House first opens its doors. Finally, something sensible and constructive will have come from the event.

Posted by: youba | August 9, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Funny thing the title "responsible"

not an argument about law. legally, a mosque can be built.

not an argument about religion.

An argument about responsbility.

Before and during their murders, the muderers of 9/11 praised their muslim god. On their martyrdom tapes, they praise their muslim god.

The most vocal spokesperson for their religion is a muderer.

Is it responsible to build the mosque overseeing the site... certainly within straight line of site of the future building there?

Maybe, maybe not.

You cannot dismiss the discussion as illegitimate. How demeaning it might appear, how condescending? I am insulted, personally.

Posted by: docwhocuts | August 9, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

I think a more important question is should islam have a tax exempt status?

Does islam teach woman are second class citizens?

Does islam want to replace our laws with sharia "law"?

Would islam if it gained power require others to convert or pay a tax?

If the answer is yes to any of these questions, then I would not grant islam or a mosque tax exempt status.

The KKK is not granted a tax exempted status and islam looks to me to be pretty similar.

Posted by: davemercer27 | August 9, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I don't know how many times I need to repeat the message before it sinks into Leftist thick skulls-- but my patience is spent with these Leftist idiotarians.

This has NOTHING to do with removing mosques (contrary to Greg's silly strawman) and everything to do with the Islamo-supremacism of Cordoba House, in particular. Somehow, I think Greg (and his Leftist ilk) wouldn't support neo-pagans' "right" to erect eternal Crann Tara monuments next to MLK memorials.

But when patriotic Americans object to stealth jihadists-- and (yes) that accurately describes the Cordoba House cabal-- opening a 9/11 snuff porn vendor emporium (and jihadi recruitment center) on the hallowed graves of Ground Zero-- Leftist hypocrits shriek with indignation!

American Muslims may be the very soul of moderation. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Americans to ask for more from (allegedly) “peaceful” Cordoba House jihadists than insincere bromides and disingenuous whitewashing of uncomfortable elements of Islamic sharia law, as practiced by the Cordoba House cabal and their financial sponsors.

A genuine tiny minority of anti-jihadist Muslims may be found @
http://secularislam.org/blog/post/SI_Blog/21/The-St-Petersburg-Declaration

Americans remain breathless in anticipation of the sharia law vendors of Cordoba House supporting this genuinely tiny minority of their co-religionists-- but don’t hold your breath.

When will areligious Leftists support Secular Islam advocates' right to live free from the sharia law intimidation of Cordoba House Islamo-supremacists?

Be advised these sharia-fascists have their eyes on your throat, too.

"Ye blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!" [Matthew 23:24]

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Just do the google maps.

go to the corner of park place and greenwich in NYC.

You have the technology.

Put it to rest.

Go to the street level cam, and look due south.

Can you see ground zero or not?

Yes, you can. Is it the short side of two blocks away, yes it is.... How far is two blocks? By google maps, about 315ft.

Too close, yes TOO CLOSE.

Posted by: docwhocuts | August 9, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"Hmm.. does everyone notice this is the first time in memory that the liberal press fought FOR building a religious structure? Seems liberals are okay with religion as long as it's associated with anti-Western thought and tradition."
-----------------
Good point.

Posted by: shewholives | August 9, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

NYC agencies don't hesitate to obstruct construction of houses of worship -- at least non-Islamic ones.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/nine-years-later-church-at-ground-zero-still-not-rebuilt-but-mad-rush-to-build-islamic-supremacist-m.html

These Leftist reprobates would sell your Catholic mother's grave to support a scatologists right to squat and plop a steaming pile of free expression.

But when patriotic Americans object to jihadists opening a 9/11 snuff porn vendor emporium (and recruitment center) on the hallowed graves of Ground Zero-- Leftists shriek with indignation!

"Ye blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!" [Matthew 23:24]

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

On comparison made between islam and Christianity. Yes, Christianity was much like islam about 600 YEARS AGO. But Christianity has evolved.

We have to deal in the here and now, which really seems to be difficult for muslims, who tend to talk about things many hundreds of years ago, like it was yesterday.

And Christianity evolved in a time when battles were still fought with swords not nukes.

We really should curtail muslim immigration to the USA until they evolve, if they ever do, into a civilized religion. Presently, I view islam as a political system, that wants to replace western civilization.

Posted by: davemercer27 | August 9, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

"Hmm.. does everyone notice this is the first time in memory that the liberal press fought FOR building a religious structure? Seems liberals are okay with religion as long as it's associated with anti-Western thought and tradition."
-----------------
Good point.
____________________________________________

bingo.

Posted by: sold2u | August 9, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

@ bahminj:This country was founded on religious liberty..true. However in this matter I prefer that anything having to do with the Islamic religion should be on their own soil,and country.

Religious tolerance is a founding principle of this nation but let's waive it in this case because we are talking about scary mooselims.

"Ten years down the rode [sic], if this tolerant trend continues..America too will have religious persecution."

Actually you are suggesting we skip the 10 year time frame and start religious persecution right now on the dirty brown skinned mooselims. No danger of religious tolerance as long as people embrace your prejudiced views.

@sold2u: Look, the builders of this are asking for it, building at Ground Zero. They would have been hopelessly naive not to expect it.

Just like women who are asking to be raped by wearing "suggestive" clothes...

"I think the fact that they are building this in spite of the costs they are going to incur demonstrates that this is more about teaching Americans "tolerance" than anything else."

Huh? Apparently, you missed the lesson...

"I would be fascinated to see their response if someone decided to open up a gay bar next door. Wanna bet they're still talking about "tolerance?""

Here's the difference between people that want to follow the constitution and those that do not. Most of the community center defenders would be on the side of the gay bar, while the christianist right would be railing against it night and day.

I personally don't really like Islam as a religion, mostly because of its restrictions on women. But they are no worse than the "barefoot and pregnant" christians in this respect. I just don't think we should shred the constitution because someone, somewhere, is going to have their feelings hurt. I wasn't a fan of the Nazi party marching in Skokie, but if they got the proper permits, I defend their right to march.

You know, columbus day parades are deeply offensive to native americans (those that escaped the genocide), but somehow celebrating the start of the conquest of turtle island and the genocide of native peoples doesn't fall under the rubric of not doing something because some folks might be reminded of a painful episode in history. Just sayin'

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Ten foreign workers only trying to do GOOD were just systematically SLAUGHTERED by these kind of people just because they THOUGHT that they were trying to promote Christianity! And WE'RE going to bend over backwards to please them? What the HELL is the world coming to???

Posted by: slamming | August 9, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

The motives and actions of Leftist “progressive” apologists for Cordoba House are sinister, and ought to be so recognized by people of good faith. Their reasoning sounds insane because it is-- and they are.

For a more scholarly discussion of the phenomenon, read “Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left” @
http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Alliance-Radical-Islam-American/dp/089526076X

Don't be a Quisling for Islamo-supremacism your whole life, Greg.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

srw3 spat: "dirty brown skinned mooselims"

Remind folks again, what's the origin of this Leftist-approved (and repeated ad nauseum) skin color test for Islam?

I'm not familiar. Please cite your authoritative fatwa.

/q.e.d.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

@srw:

I personally don't really like Islam as a religion, mostly because of its restrictions on women. But they are no worse than the "barefoot and pregnant" christians in this respect.
___________________________________________

look, I am completely non-religious, so I don't have a dog in that fight. But, I have yet to hear of Lutherans or Baptists blowing up skyscrapers, bars, or subway trains in the name of their religion.

To be honest, the person above nailed it. I think the Left loves this mosque because people like Newt Gingrich and Pat Buchanan hate it. It has nothing to do with the constitution. Just remember, the enemy of your enemy isn't necessarily your friend.

Posted by: sold2u | August 9, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

@dm27:We really should curtail muslim immigration to the USA until they evolve, if they ever do, into a civilized religion. Presently, I view islam as a political system, that wants to replace western civilization.

Hey, does this mean we can kick all those Amish out of the US because they are not sufficiently evolved? In fact, all of the Christians who insist on a literal reading of the Bible are living in a long gone past. Can we get rid of them too? And all those Jews that hearken for a greater Israel as described in the Bible are living even farther in the past than the scary mooselims! Let's get rid of them too. Hey this only modern religions are allowed stuff is fun! /snark

BTW, can a political system replace an entire civilization? Isn't politics just a small subset of civilization? Just askin...

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Islam is a good religion for those who think that human slavery has never gotten the chance it deserves.

Posted by: ThisIsReality | August 9, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

So, after reading a bit at the Cordoba Initiative site, it appearts they are invoking the spirit of coexistence that marked Cordoba in the 1200s. And the Cordoba Initiative has a whole program on women's empowerment and leadership training for Muslim women to bring change to their societies. And they already have a mosque 12 blocks from Ground Zero and, yes, Cordoba House is not a mosque it is a community center.

So 12 blocks away is ok for a mosque but the community center can't be 2 blocks away? These people really don't seem that nefarious, and our gov't at least under Obama has a pretty good record of ferreting out plots. The opposition is coming from people outside New York and from people seemingly unrelated to the 9/11 victims.

It seems that many people who are objecting (especially from a distance) don't have much faith in either their religion or their government if they think this community center and these folks are going to undermine our whole way of life and bring down our government.

Personally, I think we have more to fear from Wall Street, and that is equally close.

Posted by: Mimikatz | August 9, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

@s2u:But, I have yet to hear of Lutherans or Baptists blowing up skyscrapers, bars, or subway trains in the name of their religion.

I seem to remember a Christian named Rudolph blowing up the stands at the Olympics, not to mention the various doctor murders and clinic bombings done "in the name of Christ." I believe that Scott Roeder certainly cited and professed his Christian beliefs in his defense of murdering George Tiller (a decorated veteran). Violence in the name of religion is practiced by the big 3 religions. Get over it.

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Why is it okay to offend the families of our 9/11 dead and everyone else against a Muslim mosque overlooking the Twin Towers site?

Tolerance should work both ways, right?

Posted by: clandestinetomcat

=====================================

I think Greg and many others have given their answer.

Posted by: bbface21 | August 9, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Moderate Moslems only want to kill Jews while radical Moslems want to kill all non Moslems (as well as many Moslems considered heretics).

Posted by: bnichols6 | August 9, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone imagine srw3 (and his Leftist ilk) would support neo-pagans' "right" to erect eternal Crann Tara monuments next to MLK memorials?

They would shriek with indignation (as would the rest of us) at firey cross desecrations of civil rights shrines.

Similarly, we're not going to sacrifice our children's safety on the altar of Leftists high-minded commitment to the Constitution by allowing pedophilia believers to open NAMBLA chapters next to day care centers.

I'm sorry, but we don't prove our commitment to the Constitution by cheerleading for Cordoba House jihadists who work to destroy our Constitutional and replace it with sharia law.

These Leftist-fascist constitutional laments are absurdity on stilts.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Here we go again: The only way to prove we're not terrified of communists is to support Marxist demands to build statues of Stalin next to the Lincoln Memorial.

This Leftist submissiveness to Imam Rauf's demands sends the message that Leftists are Quislings and cowards.

Are Leftist idiotarians prepared to let Cordoba House intellectually bully into accepting the false assertion that Imam Rauf's sharia law advocacy is (somehow) representative of all Muslims?

/absurdity on stilts

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

[srw3 sneered: "Violence in the name of religion is practiced by the big 3 religions."]

As opposed to (say) the 20th century’s bloodiest mass murderers— Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Honneker, Mussolini, Caeucescu, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi, il Sung, Mugabe, Mengistu, Castro, Che, PFLP, PKK, FMLN, FARC, IRA, ETA, Red Army faction, Shining Path, Rachel Carson, etc., ad nauseum-- all inspired by atheistic Marxism.

That’s one big steaming pile your dogs left in history’s living room. 100 million corpses don’t lie. Show some intellectual honesty and own it.

Don’t be a Leftist apologist for Islamo-supremacism your whole life, srw3.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Come on now, you're deciding how everyone else can determine what's right/wrong by drawing a line in the sand. OK Here is my answer - Until we can tell the "good" muslims from the "bad" muslims we should associate islam with 9-11, killing innocent doctors in Afghanastan, honor killings, suicide bombers, terrorist attacks, Ft. Hood massacre, etc. etc.

Posted by: MJM52 | August 9, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

@ThisIsReality : Yes Christians have such a great history of opposing slavery in the confederate south along with Jim Crow apartheid, debt peonage, lynching, etc. in the post civil war south (and areas in the north, BTW). I know that these fine people were Christians (or at least believed they were) in good standing. Oh but that was all in the past right? I think it was way back in 1964 that blacks finally didn't have to go to the back of the bus. Ancient history. And let's just ignore defacto segregation of housing and schools. Not a problem. Heck, it only took 300 years to get rid of slavery, dejure segregation and subjugation. We're all good now.

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Imagine if we didn't have Islamist centers/Mosques or Christan Centers/Churches or Jewish Centers etc. -
"Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too"
Maybe someday, when Humans grow up, but I won't hold my breath.

Posted by: sux123 | August 9, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

srw3 chases a Jim Crow wildgoose with his red herring bus around a segregation strawman.

Of course, none of those cited sins were sanctioned by Christianity-- indeed, all were sins of Democrats-- and all were overcome by Christianity. srw3 slanders the legacy of Christian Reverend MLK.

srw3 flings those feces Christianophobic slander (without a hint of irony!) in full-throated defense of apartheid Islamo-supremacism.

Hypocrisy on stilts.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

@kdaffy: Too bad you missed the thread. My point was that none of the big 3 religions have clean hands when it comes to killing evil heathens. It wasn't comparing religious killings to other killings as you suggest.

"Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Honneker, Mussolini, Caeucescu, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi, il Sung, Mugabe, Mengistu, Castro, Che, PFLP, PKK, FMLN, FARC, IRA, ETA, Red Army faction, Shining Path, Rachel Carson, etc., ad nauseum-- all inspired by atheistic Marxism."

Godwin alert!!!!

Marxism=Mussolini and Rachel Carson???? Really???

I am going to resist responding to the rest of your transparent redbaiting. Those 2 were just so stupid as to be funny.

They are all Marxists the same way Rudolph and Roeder are christians...Saying that Christ (or Marx) inspired you doesn't make you a Christian (or a Marxist). I have no need to defend Marxism or Christianity, but I wanted to point out the total stupidity of your comments.

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

[sux123 crooned: "Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too"]

Maoists didn't merely imagine it-- they guaranteed freedom FROM religion!

Didn't work out so well for Tibetan Buddhists and their Dalai Lama.

Now, imagine all the 20th century’s bloodiest mass murderers— Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Honneker, Mussolini, Caeucescu, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi, il Sung, Mugabe, Mengistu, Castro, Che, PFLP, PKK, FMLN, FARC, IRA, ETA, Red Army faction, Shining Path, Rachel Carson, etc., ad nauseum-- all inspired by atheistic Marxism.

That’s one big steaming pile your dogs left in history’s living room. 100 million corpses don’t lie. Show some intellectual honesty and own it, comrade.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

@k (really) daffy: Of course, none of those cited sins were sanctioned by Christianity.

Read your history, daffy. In fact, slavery was justified in the south by citing the old testament references to slaves in ancient times. There were plenty of segregationist pastors and churches in the south (there probably are a few today.) "Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together." was the justification for separate but equal. Both church and state were in the slavery and segregation business in the south.

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

What happened to American exceptionalism? I guess that's just a phrase that gets trotted out when it's politically expedient. It doesn't really mean anything. Just because we say we're different, doesn't mean that we really HAVE to be different, now does it? "We hate them! And these are the reasons why. Oh, and by the way, they started it!"

Look, on 9/11, I lived about two minutes away from the Pentagon. I could smell the smoke from the burning Pentagon in my condo. Like everyone else, I watched the towers fall. In the days and weeks after 9/11, I wanted the U.S. to go into Afghanistan after Al-Queda and the Taliban with a no-holds barred fury. We were in hot pursuit, and I didn't care if we returned that whole nation to the stone age as long as we came up with the 9/11 perpetrators. I don't think Bush really did that, and then, he started talking about Iraq. We all know what happened after that.

I don't agree with Islam, I don't agree with their treatment of women, and I could go on and on. But, at some point, if words mean something, and if you're really different than those you portray as the enemy, then you have to act differently than they do. At some point, you have to try and move past the hatred and the angry memories, or you end up like the Middle East, where hatred and wars last forever.

Posted by: sonny2 | August 9, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

KaddafiDelendaEst blathered "Now, imagine all the 20th century’s bloodiest mass murderers..Rachel Carson.."

-----------------
So, how many people did rachel murder again? Must of missed that little nugget of history

Posted by: sux123 | August 9, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

[srw3: "I wanted to point out the total stupidity of your comments."]

Well allow me to retort. REALLY???

There. Now I've equally gratuitously dismissed your arguments.

Must be great to live in the make believe land where winning only takes typing: "Really???"

Mussolini started out as a Marxist but eventually devised Fascism as a "third way" (sound familiar?).

"Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato"
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/musso.html

I have no need to further support my historically accurate assertions; but I wanted to point out the total stupidity of your historically ignorant retort.

Grade: F- (miserable failure)

/dismissed

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

srw3 chases a Jim Crow wildgoose with his red herring bus around a segregation strawman.

Of course, none of those cited sins were sanctioned by Christianity-- indeed, all were sins of Democrats-- and all were overcome by Christianity. srw3 slanders the legacy of Christian Reverend MLK....
===
Nice bit of making everyone you ever heard of who was bad out to be democrats while everything that was done to them was due to Christians. As a Christian I think you had better show a bit less pride.

By the way, MLK was a socialist.

Hypocrisy on stilts about sums it up.

Posted by: hansenthered | August 9, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

[sux123: "how many people did rachel murder again?"]

See "Rachel Carson's Genocide"
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=15009&news_iv_ctrl=2457

Own it, Marxist eco-fascists.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

@kdaffy: srw3 slanders the legacy of Christian Reverend MLK.

Funny, I would do that since I had the privilege of marching with him as a young child.

The Dr King and southern segregationist pastors as closely related as the overwhelming majority of Muslims and the terrorists who call what they do following their religion.

I guess this is too subtle for k daffy.

"srw3 flings those feces Christianophobic slander (without a hint of irony!) in full-throated defense of apartheid Islamo-supremacism."

The Afrikaners in South Africa also believed that they were Christians living a moral Christian life, since you bring up apartheid....

I am equally dismissive of all religions. I don't defend any of them from the very legitimate criticisms they all deserve. All of them have their misogynous, ethnocentric, superstitious, violent subcults. I would personally eliminate all of their tax exemptions for these reasons alone. But one sky wizard worshipping cult doesn't deserve any more or less consideration in where they want to build their sky wizard worshipping houses than any of the others.

Your rhetoric is sounding more and more like Bin Laden with every post.

Apocalyptic warfare between Islam and the west is a fact and we want our side to win... This is both your and Bin Ladin's world view. Nice company you keep.

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

[hansenthered whined: "Nice bit of making everyone you ever heard of who was bad out to be democrats"]

Look, don't blame me for swr3 citing really bad examples to demonize Americans.

I find those 'tu quoque' smears as silly and illogical as you. But if the shoe fits-- hey, who am I to stop Leftists from self-flagelating over their sordid past?

Own it. Maybe the Islamo-supremacists will eat you last?

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

KaddafiDelendaEst:

Oh, no, not Ayn Rand!

This is too funny - you just can make this stuff up.

She defending DDT for christ's sake.

Posted by: sux123 | August 9, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

KaddafiDelendaEst:

BTW, Ayn Rand was an atheist.

Posted by: sux123 | August 9, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

sux123: AnnRand.org merely published the article "Rachel Carson's Genocide." The evidence (you're too scared to read) has been published elsewhere; but I figured I'd really annoy you with that hyperlink.

/mission accomplished

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

The only reason that this Mosque is being built is to spite America. For god's sake it's being called Cordoba House. Cordoba was captured by the Muslims in 711. This is an intentional act by these muslim scumbags to show their victory on 9/11. If our President actually had a set, he would put an end to this. Never under Bush would this even be talked about.
_________________________
someone else noted the irony of Republicans passing the law making it difficult to stop the construction of religious buildings. I would only add a couple thoughts. One, how, exactly, would Bush stop this? pass a law suspending the Constitution? Have the federal government pass a law superseding NY law? (that wouldn't get by the state's rights crowd, would it?)

Obama didn't have any power to stop it, and had nothing to do with promoting it.

The only decision made so far is that the building isn't historic. The argument that it was is absurd (they argued that it had 9/11 debris on the roof) as the building was of no architectural significance whatever and anything but unique. Guess who is challenging that unassailable conclusion? Pat Robertson.

Posted by: JoeT1 | August 9, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse


KaddafiDelendaEst:
sux123: AnnRand.org merely published the article "Rachel Carson's Genocide." The evidence (you're too scared to read) has been published elsewhere; but I figured I'd really annoy you with that hyperlink.

/mission accomplished
---------------
I wasn't annoyed - simply ammused

Posted by: sux123 | August 9, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

@k daffy: Mussolini started out as a Marxist but eventually devised Fascism as a "third way"

Doesn't this mean that he stopped being a Marxist? After all, actual Marxists (as opposed to those who claim Marx's legacy without actually, you know, implementing his vision) are transnationalists, who believe that national borders are just artificial constructs to keep the workers of the world from uniting, while Fascists are hyper nationalists. Just sayin'

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

I'm a dirty brown skinned Hindu and I despise this constant abuse of the race-card by the leftist hacks in the media.

I'm tired of Muslim immigrants complaining about minor problems upon immigrating to this country- when the way Muslims treat minorities in their countries is abysmal and cruel. I should know, given the hideous treatment of Hindus in Bangladesh. I'm tired of leftists making apologies for this crap and bending over backwards here while Pakistanis are free to slaughter Ahmadis, Indonesians have a free hand in destroying churches and you can't build a Hindu temple anywhere in Saudi Arabia.

Thousands of temples in India were destroyed and many had mosques built over them. This is typical triumphalist Islam. Why build a mosque at all? Why not have an interfaith initiative, or a house of secularism, or a monument to the victims?

The 50 million dead Hindus and the extensive raping and pillaging of India by the Islamic invaders is inconvenient to the left, so they love to sweep it under the rug and pretend it never existed. Then we get to hear about "Islamic golden age of tolerance".

Its not even the slaughter that bothers me. Its the sheer unrepentant triumphalism. Even today Aurangzeb the butcher is held up as a great Islamic ruler. etc. Of course the left knows nothing of any of this and is content to wallow in its blindfolded, limited view of history where the greatest crime in the world is the Crusades (despite Islamic invasions into Europe over the past 300 years).

At least the Christians have done a good job reforming and coming to grips with their imperial legacy.

Posted by: UnzLagoonz | August 9, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

KaddafiDelendaEst writes:

"For a more scholarly discussion of the phenomenon, read “Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left” "
---------------------------------------------------
Yawn. Don't forget to also read "Unholy Alliance: KKK and the American Left", and the follow-on "Unholy Alliance: Other Groups That People Don't Generally Like and the American Left".

Then look up the words "tolerate" and "support" in the dictionary and see if you can see the difference between them (since you are a Latin fan, be especially careful to try and use Modus Ponens bi-directionally).

Posted by: iamweaver | August 9, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

[srw3 mocked: "Funny, I would do that since I had the privilege of marching with him as a young child."]

Funny? That's hilarious! And now you've grown into a full-throated Christianophobe. The good Rev. would be so proud.

[swr3 crowed: "This is both your and Bin Ladin's world view."]

No, that would be the view of apologists (like you) for apartheid Islamo-supremacists of Cordoba House; who's very name echoes al-Qaeda's al-Andalus fatwas.
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3558

Don't be a useful idiot for Osama your whole life, swr3.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

I am ashamed of the GOP for it's election year fear mongering.


Standing on the bodies of the 9/11 victims for political advantage, AKA, Rove's 'permanent majority' was wrong then and it is wrong now. You should be ashamed, but are actually proud of your behavior.

Some of you people are actually claiming Islam is NOT a religion so you can remove Constitutional protections. How twisted do you have to be to claim to defend the Constitution on one hand and wanting to destroy it on the other?

Posted by: aartmann112004 | August 9, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

If you would take time to really examine the facts surrounding 9/11 — http://www.twf.org/News/News911.html, Islam would stop being an issue.

Enver Masud
Founder, The Wisdom Fund
http://www.twf.org

Posted by: twforg | August 9, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

[swr3 puzzled: "Doesn't this mean that he stopped being a Marxist?']

Leftists need to examine the evidence and learn to accept the fact that fascism is Leftist.

For those who wish to explore the subject in greater depth, a useful recent resource would be a book by an expert on Italian Fascism: “The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the 20th Century”, by A. James Gregor.
http://www.amazon.com/Faces-Janus-Marxism-Fascism-Twentieth/dp/0300106025

Gregor exhaustively demonstrates that Fascism and Nazism modelled their methods on the atheistic Marxism of Lenin and Stalin; and that the Fascist idea of adding nationalism to socialism was later taken up by Stalin and Mao— so that (in the end) Fascism and Communism were merely twin atheistic Marxist sects. Thus, during the era of their big confrontation, Soviet Russia and Maoist China were perfectly correct in accusing one-another of being “fascists.”

Don’t be a Leftist-fascist apologist for Islamo-supremacism your whole life, swrf3.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

[iamweaver stammered: "look up the words 'tolerate' and 'support' in the dictionary"]

No thanks. Playing dictionary Pokemon games doesn't address the scholarly evidence presented by Professor Horowitz in “Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left” @
http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Alliance-Radical-Islam-American/dp/089526076X

Don't be a stuttering Quisling for Islamo-supremacism your whole life, iamweaver.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

I'm from NYC and I have no problem with this mosque being built here. Most of the voices I hear against this are weak kneed conservatives from out of state who are frightened Islam is out to get them. What stereotypical brainless nonsense. I have yet to see one argument against this mosque is that is even logicaly constructed. All of the arguments equate Islam with a small group of psychopaths who think they are acting in the name if Islam. Why you would give credence to anything a group of psychotics had to think is beyond rational. That Al Qeada does not speak for Islam is obvious to any reasonable person. Just look at how difficult it is for al qeada to establish themselves in any country that isn't a failed state.

I am offended that so many outsiders who know nothing of the people of this city equate the builders of this mosque with Arabs or terrorist. They are Americans and deserve your respect whether you have any to give or not. Unless you have proof of a real crime here, keep your disrespectful mouths shut.

Posted by: kchses1 | August 9, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

[aartmann112004 spat: "Standing on the bodies of the 9/11 victims for political advantage... You should be ashamed, but are actually proud of your behavior."]

Explain again, why 9/11 victims families should be ashamed for defending Ground Zero from desecration by a monument to Islamo-supremacist triumphalism on their loved ones' graves?

I must've missed that part of your sniveling. Oh wait, here it is!

"A Muslim victim of 9/11: 'Build your mosque somewhere else,'"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080603006.html

"I do not like harboring resentment or anger, but I do not want the death of my mother -- my best friend, my hero, my strength, my love -- to become even more politicized than it already is. To the supporters of this new Islamic cultural center, I must ask: Build your ideological monument somewhere else, far from my mother's grave, and let her rest."

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

[kchses1 whined: "I'm from NYC and I have no problem with this mosque being built here. Most of the voices I hear against this are weak kneed conservatives from out of state"]

To listen to Leftist idiotarians, you'd think that opposition to Cordoba House is the hobgoblin of a few small minds on the right. Racists, fascists, Islamophobes, xenophobes, Neanderthals-- the whole Star Wars cantina of boogeymen and cranks stand opposed to poor, innocent Imam Rauf.

Abscent from this fairly naked effort to demonize the vast majority of Americans is the simple fact that Cordoba House support has tanked in the polls for weeks.

The latest poll? By a margin of 61 to 26 percent, New Yorkers oppose the proposal to build the Cordoba House.
http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/community_page/sri/independent_research/Imm0710%20Release.pdf

“Large majorities of all New Yorkers, every party, region and age give a thumbs-down to the Cordoba House Mosque being built near the Ground Zero site,” said Dr. Don Levy, the institute’s director, in a press release.

This ObaMedia demonization campaign should be accepted for what it is-- silly, delusional and disconnected.

Support the will of the people, Mayor Bloomberg.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Hey A S S H O L E S! It's NOT a "ground zero," Mosque. You farking imbeciles could stick to the truth if your lives depended on it.

Posted by: AIPACiswar | August 9, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

kchses1 shrieked: "What stereotypical brainless nonsense... keep your disrespectful mouths shut."]

Quislings don’t confront real evil; and hate those who do. You can see this on almost any school playground. The kid who confronts the school bully is often resented more than the bully. Whether out of guilt over their own cowardice or out of fear that the one who confronted the bully will provoke the bully to lash out more, those who refuse to confront the bully often resent the one who does.

Today, Leftist-Quislings express that cowardly contempt for those of us who take a hard line with Cordoba House. It’s ever our fault (you see) for provoking these bully. Better to remain supine while the sharia law advocates satisfy themselves raising money for terrorists; tormenting American widows and orphans at Ground Zero; erecting their monument to Islamo-triumphalism.

The Quisling answer: Just attack patriotic Americans as "brainless" (ad hominem) and hope the crocs eat them last.

There’s a word for that, kchses1: Cowardice.

Own it, Quisling.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Greg, perhaps you should read the koran before you spout off your line of moral equivalence.

So many people comment under the belief that islam is some benign movement based on love, peace and tolerance.

To those people I say 'read the koran' and then coment.

Posted by: xandrewbrown | August 9, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

[swr3 puzzled: "Doesn't this mean that he stopped being a Marxist?']

Leftists need to examine the evidence and learn to accept the fact that fascism is Leftist.

For those who wish to explore the subject in greater depth, a useful recent resource would be a book by an expert on Italian Fascism: “The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the 20th Century”, by A. James Gregor.
http://www.amazon.com/Faces-Janus-Marxism-Fascism-Twentieth/dp/0300106025

Gregor exhaustively demonstrates that Fascism and Nazism modelled their methods on the atheistic Marxism of Lenin and Stalin; and that the Fascist idea of adding nationalism to socialism was later taken up by Stalin and Mao— so that (in the end) Fascism and Communism were merely twin atheistic Marxist sects. Thus, during the era of their big confrontation, Soviet Russia and Maoist China were perfectly correct in accusing one-another of being “fascists.”

Don’t be a Leftist-fascist apologist for Islamo-supremacism your whole life, swrf3.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 6:00 PM
___________________________________________

I haven't read the book but off hand I doubt it's worth the effort for various reasons but mostly below.
There are three charactoristics to a socialist state.
1. Elimination of private property
2. Command and control economy
3. State organized religion
Since neither Germany, Italy or Spain eliminated private propery, or seized control of industry and only Germany could be argued to have had a state run religion (their racial theories meet the quasi definition as well as communism meets the definition of a religion) I cannot image how he equated socialism with fascism. Off hand I would speculate he has misconstrued the similarities all authortarian dictatorships have with each other. If you can give me a hint how he squared that circle I might read it.

P.S. How did that equate even remotly with Islam? Again I would speculate you are misconstruing cause and effect of the cultures of tribal based non-modernized societies who are predominitly Islamic. In other words you have the cart in front of the horse. It isn't Islam that is driving the structure and behaviour of Arab nations but their tribal based society. As evidence I would say look at how muslims integrate into American society. They lose their tribal identity and most of the affectations we associate with Islam that are so aborhint to us are also lost.

Posted by: kchses1 | August 9, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

All, Rand Paul's campaign is threatening legal action against GQ magazine for its report that Rand allegedly kidnapped a woman and forced her to do bong hits

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/happy_hour_roundup_68.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 9, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

The site of the 911 tragedy does not need a mosque, a church, a temple, a synagogue, or any other kind of religious symbol. There are alternatives to fundamentalist religions of all types, which have not brought mankind peace. The wars and the suffering of people in poverty rage on. I want peace, enlightenment, LOVE, and HEALING at ground zero.

I want a monument at ground zero with the words and music to this song.

"Heal the World":
In this place you'll feel
There's no hurt or sorrow.
There are ways to get there
If you care enough for the living
Make a little space, make a better place.

Chorus:
Heal the world
Make it a better place
For you and for me and the entire human race
There are people dying
If you care enough for the living
Make a better place for
You and for me.

Michael Jackson sings it better than I can write it.
Please click on the video link below (or copy and paste in into your address bar)
and read, listen, and pray to our creator for “Healing”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WJrtms8EoQ&f eature=related

Thank you, Michael Jackson.

Posted by: Cherubim | August 9, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

[kchses1: "P.S. How did that equate even remotly with Islam?"]

It didn't. It addressed the red herring arguments of swr3 who asserts religion (in general) is somehow uniquely evil-- contrary to the odious record of atheistic Marxism.

kchses1 : "It isn't Islam... but their tribal based society."

Oh yes, of course! That's why the leadership of global jihadism are predominantly wealthy, urbane and Western-educated-- and yet fanatically jihadist.

You see the same phenomenon among the tribal-based societies in the Aleutians, Micronesia and central Africa, to name just a few.

Absurdity on stilts.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

kchses1: "I cannot image how he equated socialism with fascism... If you can give me a hint how he squared that circle I might read it."]

Hint: Maoist China is now closer to Mussolini's authoritarian (fascist) model than Stalin's Soviet Marxism.

See also "MODERN LEFTISM AS RECYCLED FASCISM" by Dr. Jon J. Ray
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id8.html

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 9, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

kaddafi:
"When will areligious Leftists support Secular Islam advocates' right to live free from the sharia law intimidation of Cordoba House Islamo-supremacists?"

No telling, but I'd assume they'd have to be at least convinced that your assertion that Cordoba House will house terrorists had some factual basis. That, and some plausible reason that they were obliged to do so, rather than stick up for 1st Amendment rights.

Posted by: bitterblogger | August 9, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

@kdaffy:[swr3 crowed: "This is both your and Bin Ladin's world view."]

No, that would be the view of apologists (like you) for apartheid Islamo-supremacists of Cordoba House; who's very name echoes al-Qaeda's al-Andalus fatwas.

==========
I don't view Islam and the west in conflict (any more that the other sky wizard beliefs are in conflict with tenets of modernity like evolution, modern cosmology, etc), whereas you and Bin Laden do.

Do you think that Islam is in conflict with the west? My guess is yes and all of your posts, that are not merely childish, insulting, nonsensical screeds, indicate that you do see Islam in conflict with the "west".

Bin Laden also thinks that Islam (at least his tiny retrograde, perverted, offshoot of Islam which like all sky wizard worshiping people, he believes is the one true faith) is conflict with the west. That is certainly the message his tapes and other writings say.

I fail to see the differences between the two stances.

And this christianophobe drivel. Where do you get that? As far as I am concerned Religion helps people who are helped by that sort of thing. I don't harbor any more or less animus toward Christianity than I do towards other sky wizard worshipers. Of course all Christians that support and fight wars and support capital punishment are massive hypocrites (that whole price of peace, turn the other cheek, Vengeance is Mine, thing don't you know), but I try not to hold that against them, just as I try not to hold the enforced "modesty" of women against Islam. There is no one Islam any more than there is one Christianity. And as I said earlier, no major religion is bathed in glory for their actions toward non believers.

And Dr. King (a socialist, BTW) would definitely not be proud of you, because you spout hate and vitriol towards others, not love and acceptance which was his central message along with economic justice. I believe he opposed the Vietnam war as a war of imperialist aggression and supported a guaranteed income for all Americans, evil Commie that he was....

"Leftists need to examine the evidence and learn to accept the fact that fascism is Leftist."

Except that it's not. I noticed that you ignored the first of many differences between Marxism and Fascism: Fascists are ultranationalists while actual Marxism (as opposed to those who call themselves Marxists but don't actually follow Marxism's principles, such as they are) derides nationalism as a form of false consciousness.

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

@kdaffy:Maoist China is now closer to Mussolini's authoritarian (fascist) model than Stalin's Soviet Marxism.

"Maoist" China ended when Deng took control and made his famous statement "Red (communist) cat, white (capitalist) cat: It does not matter as long as it catches mice." Deng changed China from a country obsessed with mass political movements to a country focused on economic construction. --wikipedia

Somehow I don't think that Mussolini would go with that.

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Well, at first I was against it, for many of the reasons other people have stated.

Then I gave it some more thought after reading something unrelated elsewhere & my mind got changed entirely.

I can think of no better way to say 'screw you you're wrong' to radicals who cloth their hate & evil goals with religion than to have this happen. It's proof that America walks the walk of tolerance, proof that we are not a nation that writes exclusion into law, proof that the terrorists are wrong. I like the idea of rubbing -their- faces in that truth. In fact, I like it a whole lot.


Posted by: Nymous | August 9, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

To see the Mosque as legitimate, you must recognize Islam as a legitimate religion. I do not. Islam, to me is a military organization that lost it's general, Mohammed.

All the rituals that Islam practice look very familiar to a military student, if you observe closely. All designed to instill and enforce discipline. Mohammed built an army, not a religion.

Posted by: jack29 | August 9, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Someone wrote:

"A two-year study by a group of academics
on American Muslims and terrorism concluded
that contemporary mosques are actually a
deterrent to the spread of militant Islam and
terrorism. The study was conducted by
professors with Duke’s Sanford School of Public
Policy and the University of North Carolina. It
disclosed that many mosque leaders had put
significant effort into countering extremism by
building youth programs, sponsoring anti-
violence forums and scrutinizing teachers and
texts."

Nice sentiments, except for one small little detail
these Islamist apologiests people never seem to
want point out: Namely, that every last single
instance of radicalization has in every case without
any exception been centered around a mosque.

S D Rodrian
http://islamisbad.com


.

Posted by: sdr1 | August 9, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

The Cordoba House claims it will promote "Moderate" Islam.
But Muslims believe that the Koran is the final, perfect, word of Allah as revealed over many years to Muhammad through the Angel Gabriel. They believe that Sharia Law based on the Koran is superior to "man-made" law (ie: US Constitution) because it comes from a divine source, not man.

The next time you hear about the enigma, "Moderate" Islam, you must ask; What verses of the Koran are moderated in "Moderate Islam? The verses about the obligation of all Muslims to wage Jihad until Sharia Law reigns globally? The verses about the subjugation and discrimination against women? The verses about how Jews are evil and filthy and Muslims must not have non-Muslim friends? Death to homosexuals and adulterers?

Any attempts in the past to have the Koran modified has been met with charges of blasphemy and death...so I ask again...what part of the Koran is moderated under "Moderate" Islam?

The answer is NONE. Islam is Islam. There are moderate Muslims (who don't follow the tenets) but there is no Moderate Islam.

Posted by: AverageJoeBob | August 9, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

In the name of Tolerance Greg Gutfield has graciously announced that he will open a new Gay Bar next door to the Mosque.

He will also have a whole floor that does not serve alcohol that will cater to Muslim Homosexuals.

Tolerance Baby!

Posted by: robtr | August 9, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

if we can dispose of our principles and laws to accommodate what a person finds offensive, then why exactly did we object to Hitler's final solution to the Jewish question ???

I'm sure there were some Germans who found Jews to be offensive

so the NAZIs were perfectly justified in killing Jews

the ADL has already fallen down that slippery slope

Posted by: nada85484 | August 9, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

@nada85484 if we can dispose of our principles and laws to accommodate what a person finds offensive, then why exactly did we object to Hitler's final solution to the Jewish question ???

___________________________________________

If you can't tell the difference between the Holocaust and this issue, then there is no help for you.

Posted by: sold2u | August 9, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

@ AverageJoeBob :Thought experiment..... But Muslims[christians, mormoms] believe that the Koran[bible. book of mormon] is the final, perfect, word of Allah [God] as revealed over many years to Muhammad[Jesus, Joseph Smith] through the Angel Gabriel[the disciples(?), Angel Morone]. They believe that Sharia [Biblical, mormon] Law based on the Koran [bible, book of mormon] is superior to "man-made" law (ie: US Constitution) because it comes from a divine source, not man.

Exactly how is Islam so different from other religions? It all sounds like worshiping the sky wizard in their own special way. Every sky wizard dogma has its own bizarre, nonsensical, semi-demented quirks. Its hard to take any of them really seriously, except when the sky wizard people try to put their sky wizard interpretations on the rest of society.

I ain't 'fraid of your Jesus
I ain't 'fraid of your Allah
I ain't 'fraid of your Yaweh
I'm afraid of what you do in the name of your god...Holly Near

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

@jack29:I do not. Islam, to me is a military organization that lost it's general, Mohammed.

So what? I think that Catholicism is a group of pedophiles with a huge infrastructure to recruit victims and shield perpetrators. Evidence is on my side. I think that Mormons are basically a huge corporation.

Why is your opinion of Islam any more valid than my opinion of the sky wizard cults? People with opinions like yours is why the founders put the 1st amendment in the constitution.

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

@ AverageJoeBob : Any attempts in the past to have the Koran modified has been met with charges of blasphemy and death...so I ask again...what part of the Koran is moderated under "Moderate" Islam?

Literalist interpretations of the bible are no different from literalist interpretations of the Koran. What is moderate about the old testament? There's a lot of slavery, adultery, killing, wars and rampant ethnocentrism there. Fundamentalists would be calling for death for the blasphemy of wanting to change Christian holy texts.

Can't you see the similarities between fundamentalist religionists across cultures?

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

If you read the Quran you will see that so called radical Muslims are not radical at all. They are simply following the words of the Prophet. Yes, there are messages of peace in the Quran too, but you do not have to read between the lines of that book to see what made Osama bin Laden and the perpetrators of the 9/11 act the way they did. And really, how can they be faulted for following the word of Muhammad, who after all is delivering the message of God himself. To do otherwise is, in their minds, utterly immoral.
If your own holy text, whether it's the Quran,the Old or New testaments, the Vedas, the book of Mormon, whatever, tells you that it's words are the only true words of God then you have no choice but to accept them all.
The point here is that anyone of any religion who asserts that their own sacred text is truly the word of God is enabling those who commit murder in the name of God to do so without any remorse. If you believe in the truth of what is written in the bible then you are making a statement that clearly allows anyone else to make that same claim regarding their own book.
It boils down to this, all religions, every single one of them, even yours is poison. Religion not only allows but actually encourages irrational behavior. So, if you too are a believer, before you jump in and criticize the actions of "radical"Muslims, understand what "belief" really is. It's the ability to accept and act on things without proof. And if you can do it, so can anyone else.

Posted by: nfi5nf | August 9, 2010 11:28 PM | Report abuse

@nfi5nf: Overall I agree with your post, but:

" but you do not have to read between the lines of that book to see what made Osama bin Laden and the perpetrators of the 9/11 act the way they did."

Don't blame reading material for terrorism. I could interpret Mother Goose into a screed against someone. The Quran is not the reason that terrorists do things. They may justify their actions by referring to texts, but don't put the cart before the jihad. Terrorist acts have nothing to do with Islam any more than IRA or Protestant violence is a product of Christian texts.

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 11:50 PM | Report abuse

I am a reasonable person. I am deeply opposed to the building of a mosque at ground zero. The Muslims who attacked the trade centers on September 11, 2001 were NOT victims, but were murderers. Granted, this does not make all Muslims murderers. However, it makes building a mosque comparable to building a tribute to the nazis in Israel. Ground zero belongs to the citizens of the United States. It belongs to every person who lost a father, mother, sister, brother, son, daughter, or friend on that fateful day. Ground zero belongs to each and every one of us who cried for days, weeks, months after our country was so brutally assaulted ... by Muslims. I support the Constitution and freedom of religion, but let the Muslims build a mosque almost anywhere EXCEPT near ground zero. It is a sign of disrespect to us all to even consider such a proposal. Prejudiced? Maybe. With reason? Certainly. I don't advocate nor support violence against Muslims, but I expect them to respect our grieving and mourning, respect the burial ground of 3,000 Americans. If the mosque is built, it is inevitable that it will be destroyed within a short time, leading to further violence. This madness MUST be stopped.

Posted by: dennisonjill | August 10, 2010 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Good obfuscation & straw man argument. Regardless, primary argument against mosque is visceral obscenity of radical muslims from all around the world preying over the gravesite. This possibility is disrespectful. Whether by design or simply an accident. But certainly the Iman has been using both Ground Zero and the terrorist attack as a recruiting tool for Islam. Which also sounds disrespectful. Doesn't sound very moderate either. His book: "A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11 - 2004

Posted by: Typhon | August 10, 2010 12:16 AM | Report abuse

It is so funny watching you all wax self righteously about what Islam is and what Muslims are like. I would love for each of you to come and live with us among millions of Muslims in their lands and start talking about tolerance and how you think they are or should be. Then you would see how they talk to one another about you without any fronts. My Muslim friends think you all are hilarious and you don't have a clue about the actual fruits of Islam. They love how stupidly naive your ideologies have made you---yet you continue to gab like you know something they don't. Doesn't matter, they are all convinced you will soon be Muslim or dead.

Posted by: watchingfromasia | August 10, 2010 2:15 AM | Report abuse

America’s willful blindness and ignorance towards Islam is unbelievable. The driving force and money behind the expansion of Islam has repeatedly and openly stated their long term goals. A world where only Muslims and those subservient (Christians and Jews) to Muslims will exist. To observe previews of America’s near future, one only needs to look at the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Canada to name a few. Our Constitution was given to us by our Founding Fathers with one thing our Founding Fathers were unable to write down, common sense.

Posted by: amex1 | August 10, 2010 5:31 AM | Report abuse

am a reasonable person. I am deeply opposed to the building of a mosque at ground zero. The Muslims who attacked the trade centers on September 11, 2001 were NOT victims, but were murderers. Granted, this does not make all Muslims murderers. However, it makes building a mosque comparable to building a tribute to the nazis in Israel. Ground zero belongs to the citizens of the United States. It belongs to every person who lost a father, mother, sister, brother, son, daughter, or friend on that fateful day. Ground zero belongs to each and every one of us who cried for days, weeks, months after our country was so brutally assaulted ... by Muslims. I support the Constitution and freedom of religion, but let the Muslims build a mosque almost anywhere EXCEPT near ground zero. It is a sign of disrespect to us all to even consider such a proposal. Prejudiced? Maybe. With reason? Certainly. I don't advocate nor support violence against Muslims, but I expect them to respect our grieving and mourning, respect the burial ground of 3,000 Americans. If the mosque is built, it is inevitable that it will be destroyed within a short time, leading to further violence. This madness MUST be stopped.

Posted by: dennisonjill | August 10, 2010 12:07 AM | Report abuse

______________________________________________________________

I see reasonable people think nazism = islam? I would have said uneducated. But I guess nowadays a banana is a peach as long as enough people think it and say it.

BTW Cato, you still haven't produced a logical argument why the mosque shouldn't be built. I suspect you cannot therefore opposition to it is rationally invalid. Thereby leading to the conclusion opposition to it is irrational. Based on the reasons for opposition shown here that would appear to a logical conclusion.

Posted by: kchses1 | August 10, 2010 6:49 AM | Report abuse

[kchses demanded: "a logical argument why the mosque shouldn't be built."]

Here you go... hot off the presses @
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38468

"Does the freedom of religion really allow any group to build anything anywhere? As a recent parody had it, would the KKK be allowed to build a “shrine of reconciliation” on the site of the black Baptist church bombed by racists in the early Sixties? Would Michael Bloomberg really have no problem with that? Would he stand up as stoutly for the KKK’s religious freedom as he has for Ground Zero mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his gang of Islamic supremacist deceivers?

"And deceivers they are. Besides being an open advocate for sharia and restrictions on the freedom of speech in his book What’s Right with Islam, Rauf has refused to denounce Hamas.

"He has lied about his commitment to religious dialogue. He has lied about whether the Islamic center planned for the Ground Zero site will contain a mosque or not. And he has lied about whether or not the project is getting foreign funding. He is involved with a group that helped fund the jihad flotilla against Israel.

"What’s more, Bloomberg’s insistence that this is a simple religious freedom issue ignores the historical significance of the site. The Landmarks Commission considered the site for landmark status based solely on its architectural significance. The commission never bothered to consider calls to landmark the Burlington Coat Factory building based on its historical importance: into it crashed the landing gear from one of the 9/11 planes. It ignored appeals to do this despite the fact that buildings of far lesser historical significance, like the Triangle Shirtwaist Company and the Stonewall Inn, have been designated as landmarks in New York.

"But a 9/11 war memorial? No way— it is more important that the gods of multiculturalism be appeased by the construction of this mega-mosque."

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 10, 2010 8:00 AM | Report abuse

[bitterblogger lied: "your assertion that Cordoba House will house terrorists"]

I never asserted that. The fact is, however, that Imam Rauf works with groups that raise funds for Hamas.

Do Americans have any 1st Amendment right to give terrorist groups advice on how to conduct business, even when the subject is (allegedly) educational activity? Anti-terrorism laws made that kind of assistance illegal, calling it “material support” for terrorism itself. This morning, the Supreme Court upheld the law in a 6-3 decision that stopped an aid organization from consulting with the PKK:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_anti_terror_law

=
The Supreme Court has upheld a federal law that bars “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations, rejecting a free speech challenge from humanitarian aid groups.

The court ruled 6-3 Monday that the government may prohibit all forms of aid to designated terrorist groups, even if the support consists of training and advice about entirely peaceful and legal activities.

Material support intended even for benign purposes can help a terrorist group in other ways, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion.

“Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends,” Roberts said.
=

Hamas would be one such example. It has conducted terrorist attacks in Israel with one part of its organization while running (allegedly) charitable endeavors with another.

Fundraising for Hamas to support its outreach programs would allow Hamas to use the money elsewhere, or even if the specific money was applied to the charitable work, it would allow EZLN to not have to dip into the charity funds for its terrorist activities.

So, a big thank you to all the Cordoba House for making it easier for Obama’s NSA to track their activities and Holder’s Justice Department to prosecute their material support propaganda campaign. Great job, traitors.

Is the odious game of playing footsie with terrorists is finally coming to a close?

======
BREAKING: Former Congressman Pleads Guilty to Obstructing Justice, Acting as Unregistered Foreign Agent
http://kansascity.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/kc070710.htm

"A former congressman and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations pleaded guilty in federal court today to obstruction of justice and to acting as an unregistered foreign agent related to his work for an Islamic charity with ties to international terrorism, announced Beth Phillips, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri…"

[Those puckering sounds you hear are the tightening sphincters of Cordoba House Hamas-huggers.]

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 10, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

[srw3 whined: "I fail to see the differences"]

What srw3 (and his Leftist ilk) "fail to see" could fill many libraries. There is cure for willful blindness.

Good luck with that.

/dismissed

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 10, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

[srw3 spat: "Exactly how is Islam so different from other religions?"]

What srw3 indulges (above) is a logical fallacy known as “tu quoque.” Of course, even if indictments of all other religions held true, that silly strawman argument does not speak to the substance of the issue-- which is whether (as Islamo-supremacists of Cordoba House claim) Muhammad was the most upright man, worthy of being emulated by devout jihadists?

Try stepping outside the cozy, sheltered Leftist bubble and put away the orthodox anti-religion libels that hope to whitewash genocidal, apartheid Islamo-fascism. Jihadism has nothing in common with other peaceful faiths.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Myths-of-Islam.htm

Islam’s texts are saturated with verses of violence and hatred toward those outside the faith. In sharp contrast to the Bible (which generally moves from relatively violent episodes to far more peaceful mandates), the Qur’an travels the exact opposite path (violence is first forbidden, then permitted, then mandatory). The handful of earlier verses that speak of tolerance are overwhelmed (indeed abrogated) by an avalanche of later ones that carry a much different message. While Old Testament verses of blood and guts are generally bound by historical context within the text itself, Qur’anic imperatives to violence usually appear open-ended and subject to personal interpretation.

By any objective measure, the “Religion of Submission” has been the harshest, bloodiest religion the world has ever known (making them a close 2nd behind atheistic Marxism).

+15,000 Global, Deadly Islamo-fascist attacks since 9/11 don’t lie.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Don't be a whitewashing apologist for apartheid Islamo-supremacism your whole life, srw3.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 10, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

@kdaffy: Shorter kdaffy--I can't explain how my view of Islam vs the west is substantively different from Bin Ladin's view, (Islam is in conflict with the west and we [Bin Laden and/or Kdaffy and his ilk] are fighting to win) so instead I will make a gratuitous insult and hope nobody notices my massive lack of integrity, self knowledge, and the facts...

pwned

Posted by: srw3 | August 10, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

[kchses1 sneered: "I see reasonable people think nazism = islam?"]

No. They do, however, recognize evidence of the “Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left” @
http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Alliance-Radical-Islam-American/dp/089526076X

Don't be a Quisling for Islamo-supremacism your whole life, kchses1.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 10, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

[kchses1 sneered: "I see reasonable people think nazism = islam?"]

"...the Qur’an is the Mein Kampf of this movement. The Qur’an demands the annihilation or subjugation of the other, and wants to substitute totalitarianism for democracy. Read it over, that Mein Kampf. In whatever version, you will find that all the evil that the sons of Allah commit against themselves and against others is in it."
--Orianna Fallaci--

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 10, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

@kdaffy: Abstract arguments about how one group's interpretations of sky wizardry are better or worse than another are as irrelevant as they are inane. Meaning is in the minds of the sky wizard worshippers. One could interpret peter and the wolf as a militant manifesto calling the faithful to go out and kill Rastafarians, because it is the interpretation of the follower that determines actions. Religion is mostly a mirror of human perceptions, intentions, and desires not a creator of those conditions. I know that absolutists like Kdaffy are too wrapped up in their own prejudice and paranoia to consider this, but that doesn't make them right. It makes them small, deluded, and bigoted.

Posted by: srw3 | August 10, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

[srw3 mocked: "I can't explain how my view of Islam vs the west is substantively different from Bin Ladin's view"]

Apologists for apartheid Islamo-supremacists (like srw3) defend Cordoba House jihadists (who's very name echoes al-Qaeda's al-Andalus fatwas!)-- and then have the temerity to climb up on their hindlegs and pretend they jihadi advocacy is actually against bin Laden?

You, sir, are a demonstrable tool and a fool.

Don't be a Quisling for apartheid Islamo-supremacism your whole life, srw3.

own it

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 10, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

I don't know how many times I need to repeat the message before it sinks into Leftist thick skulls-- but my patience is spent with these Leftist Quislings.

This has NOTHING to do with "wizardry" and everything to do with the Islamo-supremacism of Cordoba House, in particular. Somehow, I think srw3 (and his Leftist ilk) wouldn't support neo-pagan Grand Wizards' "right" to erect eternal Crann Tara monuments next to MLK memorials.

But when patriotic Americans object to stealth jihadists-- and (yes) that accurately describes the Cordoba House cabal-- opening a 9/11 snuff porn vendor emporium (and jihadi recruitment center) on the hallowed graves of Ground Zero-- Leftist hypocrits shriek with indignation!

American Muslims may be the very soul of moderation. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Americans to ask for more from (allegedly) “peaceful” Cordoba House jihadists than insincere bromides and disingenuous whitewashing of uncomfortable elements of Islamic sharia law, as practiced by the Cordoba House cabal and their financial sponsors.

Alleged "absolutists" (in srw3 parlance) may find a genuine tiny minority of anti-jihadist Muslims @
http://secularislam.org/blog/post/SI_Blog/21/The-St-Petersburg-Declaration

Americans remain breathless in anticipation of the sharia law vendors of Cordoba House supporting this genuinely tiny minority of their co-religionists-- but don’t hold your breath.

When will areligious Leftists support Secular Islam advocates' right to live free from the sharia law intimidation of Cordoba House Islamo-supremacists?

Be advised these sharia-fascists have their eyes on your throat, too.

"Ye blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!" [Matthew 23:24]

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 10, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

BREAKING: "Undocumented Imam's Refusal to Perform Interracial Gay Handicapped Wedding Leads to Charges of Racism"
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2010/08/wedgeapalooza.html

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 10, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

@kdaffy: The vocabulary checklist for those who reside in the far reaches of farrightwingnutistan:
-Leftist Quislings...check
-Islamo-supremacists...check
-Apologists for Islamofascism...check
-sharia-fascists...check
-Cordoba House jihadists...check
-stealth jihadists...check
-Islamic sharia law...check

Manners checklist for those who reside in the far reaches of farrightwingnutistan:

-Gratuitous baseless insults "You, sir, are a demonstrable tool and a fool."...check
-not addressing substantive points "Kdaffy and Bin Laden share the view that Islam and the "west" are in some kind of monumental struggle for world domination"...check
-irrelevant references to Marxism (something Kdaffy apparently knows nothing about)...check
-Comparing "atheistic Marxism" (is there any other kind?) to Islamofascism “Religion of Submission” has been the harshest, bloodiest religion the world has ever known (making them a close 2nd behind atheistic Marxism)."...check
-singling out Islam as the sky wizard cult that is somehow intrinsically evil and warlike...check
-Selective, unrepresentative quoting of the Quran...check
-Repeatedly stating the obvious falsehood that the Muslim Y is being built at ground zero...check
-continually quoting other denizens of rightwingnutistan to support his false arguments...check
-Making a complete and utter fool of himself with every post...check

I deem kdaffy a full citizen of farrightwingnutistan! Congratulations Sir!

Posted by: srw3 | August 10, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Intellectual inability to address cited evidence? Check.

Toadying support of Greg's slanders of patriotic Americans as "bigots"... then whining when gratuitous (ad hominem) assertions are equally gratuitously rejoinded? Check.

Evidence clearly demonstrates that srw3 is a Leftist idiotarian tool.

/dismissed

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 10, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

By seeking a groundbreaking on 9-11, it is a deliberately provocative act. If not for this, it's at least debatable as to whether or not it's a "victory dance" for Islam. By claiming this date, the debate is gone and the intentions are clear.

Posted by: fernandopoo | August 11, 2010 2:33 AM | Report abuse

Salaam

Muslim community through out Europe and Americas needs Mosques with minarets and state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models. There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.

The so-called civilised Westerners must learn to tolerate and respect those who are different. Islamophobia is a fear of Islam. Europeans are afraid that Muslim migrants will take over Europe and this is the biggest cause of Islamophobia.

Western Children are being taught unintentionally to fear Islam, and in some cases, HATE Muslims. It is not a sin to Muslims to kill non-Muslims. There are other negative things the children are learning. Prophet of Islam is being called a Raider of the Desert, a pedophile and an illiterate.

In 1974, Beligium recognised Islam as a state-supported religion. Today the country is considered one of the most xenophobic in western Europe.
Iftikhar Ahmad
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk


Posted by: info20 | August 11, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

@Iftikhar Ahmad: The word "Islamophobia" is a misnomer. A phobia describes an irrational fear, and it is axiomatic that fearing the effects of radical Islam is not irrational, but on the contrary very well-founded indeed.

Salman Rushdie was one of 12 writers who signed a statement regarding Islamophobia; "We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", a wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatisation of those who believe in it."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4764730.stm

+15,000 Deadly Islamo-supremacist attacks since 9/11 don't lie
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Own it, Iftikhar.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 11, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"devoted to Islamic heritage" oh sure, "heritage" including a refusal to condemn Hamas terrorism. Nice friends you have Greg.

Why don't you stick to gushers about "GREATEST MOMENTS OF A PRESIDENCY", maybe the next one wont have to be retrospectively edited.

Posted by: pn27 | August 15, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company