Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The absurdity of the anti-mosque camp

I'm not sure you could ask for a clearer illustration of the absurdity of the anti-mosque camp's antics than this.

A group leading the charge against the Islamic center near Ground Zero has been granted the right to run ads on New York buses opposing the center -- and is claiming this as a free speech victory for the Constitution.

That would be the same Constitution that guarantees religious freedom, of course.

Right wing blogger Pamela Geller, who heads the anti-mosque American Freedom Defense Initiative, has been trying to run an ad on buses that is a truly nasty piece of work. You can look at it right here. It shows the World Trade Center, with flames bursting from one tower and a plane moments away from striking the other.

Directly across from that picture is a rendering of what the ad calls the "September 11, 2011 WTC Mega Mosque." The ad asks: "Why there?"

The New York Transit Authority initially tried to nix the ad, but the group argued that its free speech rights had been infringed, and the authority allowed the ad to run.

Here's what the group's lawyer had to say about this victory:

A lawyer representing Ms. Geller's group, Robert J. Muise, said the New York case was a victory for the Constitution. "It's a problem when the government picks and chooses which messages they think are suitable," Mr. Muise said.

Speaks for itself. By the way, the "WTC Mega Mosque" is not "there" at Ground Zero, as the ad proclaims. Its location is depicted by the red star, more than two full city blocks away from Ground Zero, which is the empty space at the bottom left:

mosquemap.JPG

By Greg Sargent  |  August 12, 2010; 1:55 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: Liz Cheney breaks with Bushies over Imam behind "Ground Zero mosque"
Next: Kristol group's game plan: Make it politically toxic for Dems to criticize Israel

Comments

That bus' oil comes from...

Posted by: Papagnello | August 12, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

greg, here's a post i did with a better map of the Park51 location and the Twin Towers sites, as well as the existing Masjid mosque already right nearby.

http://milowent.blogspot.com/2010/08/truth-about-burlington-coat-factory.html

Posted by: Milo_A_Wendt | August 12, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

I know that partisan hacks want to hang the opposition to this mosque on conservatives, but does nobody at the Post care about telling the truth once in a while.

68% of Americans oppose this mosque and 61% of New Yorkers do too. Are they all "right-wingers"?

For the record, I don't agree with those who oppose the mosque, but I don't live there so it is none of my business.

Posted by: bobmoses | August 12, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for that, Milo. That really drives it home.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 12, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

More from the party of "American Values":

"Every single mosque is a potential terror training center or recruitment center for jihad" so "you cannot claim first amendment protections if your religious organization is engaged in subversive activities."

Fischer, the "Director of Issues Analysis" for the American Family Association, is hardly a fringe figure on the right. He's scheduled to speak at the Value Voters Summit in September alongside Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Mitch McConnell -- and the AFA is a sponsor of the event.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/top_social_conservative_defends_his_no_more_mosque.php

Thank God American families have a defender of our rights* like these Republicans.

* = As long as you're not Muslim (or Hispanic, or African-American)!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Btw, Greg,

As a follow-up, can you ask Palin, Bachmann, Romney, and McConnell if they agree that:

"Every single mosque is a potential terror training center"

And if they do not, then why is he a featured speaker and/or sponsor of an event where they are appearing?

I'd really like to know their thoughts since they are scheduled to appear at the "Value Voters" event with the nutjob who made those comments.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

bobmoses: here's a clue for ya...voters do not have the authority to override other people's constitutional rights.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 12, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Turns out there is already a mosque just 4 blocks away.

The left uses this as evidence that it's no big deal.

Funny, I view it as another reason why there couldn't be any reasonable, legitimate reason for another so close.

Four blocks, already there.... and the left uses this to support their mis-guided argument?

Posted by: docwhocuts | August 12, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

There they go again! The Left is usually on the wrong side of history and this is no exception. Listen very carefully: Judeo/Christians do not want to help propagate foreign religions! There, I've said it! We are a Judeo/Christian country and we don't want mosques at ground zero or anywhere else in the US! There, I've said it again! We don't want to persecute anyone, but also don't want to help moslems build an empire in the US-- There, I've said it again! How politcally incorrect can one person be? This is exactly how the Saudi's would be treating us if we wanted to build a cathedral in their country. I, for one, am not interested in "building bridges", "reaching out", "being inclusive". My real goal is to convert all the moslems to Christianity! Can you imagine such an awful and repulsive person I must be? taoiseach@starpower.net

Posted by: rprieto | August 12, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

As far as the ADFI's ad on the buses, I think the best way to fight this kind of thing is to run counter ads, and try to get them placed adjacently. Rather like the anti-Fred Phelps protesters have taken his people on directly.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 12, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

How did Mr Sargent get this job of his? Based on this blog entry it certainly wasn't based on his penetrating analysis of the facts as they stand.

The victory for the constitution rests on the fact that the MTA is a government agency. Perhaps liberals don't recall this but the constitution plays a large role in determining the behavior of government agencies.

next, the people who are opposing the mosque are doing so as private citizens. ARe they using the levers of the government? certainly, so would any liberal advocacy group that was focused on achieving a goal. Are they asking the government to prohibit the worship of Allah. No, of course not.

Honestly this blog entry is very childish.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 12, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Good lord Greg, please tell me this doesn't surprise you.

One more time: The anti-mosque dust up is race baiting. It has nothing to do with policy, it is just the Southern Strategy.

Posted by: nisleib | August 12, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

9/11 Sept 11 1857 is Mountain Meadow Massacre Day for the Mormon Judeo-Christian race. 9/11 Sept 11 1940 is groundbreaking day for the Pentagon and the Military-Industrial Complex.

Posted by: Uoughtano | August 12, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

"I don't agree with those who oppose the mosque, but I don't live there so it is none of my business."

It's everyone's business when a group of citizens are at risk of being denied their basic constitutional rights.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 12, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Maybe we should of allowed the church of England to put one at bunker hill two ?And isn't it awful funny that this new building looks like one of the twin towers ?And the liberals wonder why most americans cant stand them and their backwards ways.

Posted by: votingrevolution | August 12, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

nisleib, I think the points you've been making about that are very interesting. I just thought the hypocrisy here was stunning.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 12, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

While legally I agree the legal case is weak .. . in terms of respect and honor for the victiums I would think the mosque principals would understand some poeple are offended and they would respect their wishes and choose a different location.

Posted by: sarno | August 12, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I seem to remember a few years ago some know-nothing rightwing doofus telling us that Al Quada, "Hated us for our freedoms."

That turns out to have been projection. It is looking more and more like it is America's rightwing that hates America for its freedoms.

Posted by: nisleib | August 12, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

maybe we should of let the church of England build a church at Bunker hill too ?Hey Sargent,do you always stand by and answer all of these comments ?

Posted by: votingrevolution | August 12, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

So Pat Condell is a racist Republican?

How can that be?

He's not even an American...

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/pat-condell-on-ground-zero-mosque-is-it-possible-to-be-astonished-but-not-surprised.html

Posted by: PauvrePapillon | August 12, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Cantor:

"Everybody knows America's built on the rights of free expression, the rights to practice your faith, but COME ON."

Yeah.

Freedom of Religion.

Bill of Rights.

But, COME ON!

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/cantor-opposes-ground-zero-mosque-america-is-built-on-freedom-of-religion-but-come-on-video.php

Lost. Just lost. These Republicans are simply LOST.

Their disdain for America and the Constitution is palpable.

Who would support such grievous nonsense?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Huh, something like 70% of New Yorkers think its in bad taste. Guess they must all be racists or something. Come on Sargent, ever since the demise of JournOlist, your talking points have been a bit off.

Posted by: luca_20009 | August 12, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

"That turns out to have been projection. It is looking more and more like it is America's rightwing that hates America for its freedoms."

Ding ding ding!

We have a Winner of the Afternoon.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Some background information on the leaders of the "American Freedom Defense Initiative."

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36930_Meet_the_Leaders_of_the_Anti-Mosque_Movement

Posted by: Lizardoid | August 12, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

And when are the believers in that "peaceful" religion of Islam going to permit Christian Churches to be established and function safely in Saudi Arabia and other majority Islamic nations? When will they no longer threaten those who convert from Islam to Christianity with death?

The refusal of Islam to practice what it expects others to practice is what is truly the height of absurdity!

Posted by: suenjim | August 12, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"in terms of respect and honor for the victiums I would think the mosque principals would understand some poeple are offended"

Dude, this proposed center is literally right next door to a dive bar and around the block from a strip joint.

I'm sorry, but it's not "ground zero," it's not hallowed ground no matter how much Liz Cheney lies to you about it. The people who are offended either don't know the facts of where this place is, or they just hate muslims. Ignorance and prejudice are not things we should violate the Constitution in order to indulge.

Oh, and this? "Maybe we should of allowed the church of England to put one at bunker hill"

Um, WE DID. St. John's Episcopal Church is three blocks away from Bunker Hill. Not to mention there's a Protestant Church literally across the street from the site of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Why did we allow this? Because there's a long and proud history in America of not blaming people for things they didn't do!!!

Posted by: theorajones1 | August 12, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Lizardoid - Holy cow!

So one of the guys behind American Freedom Defense Initiative is a guy named Yerushalmi who, "wrote a now-infamous article titled 'On Race: A Tentative Discussion, Part II,' in which he advocated a return to a pre-Bill of Rights Constitution, and the restriction of voting rights to white male land-owners. Again … yes, really."

I'm so surprised.

Posted by: nisleib | August 12, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

If all people interested in building the Muslim Mosque at Ground Zero are Muslim American citizens and other American citizens then the Mosque should not be much of a problem but if any non citizens are involved in the Mosque building then there is a major problem,especially if the non citizens are providing funds to build the Mosque then the problem becomes more major.I do not think that that Americans are behind the Mosque but mostly the Imam and foreigners from the Middle East.This is an opinion but when you have a gut feeling and usually the gut means something. Have you ever heard the adage follow the gut.

Posted by: joecarrsr | August 12, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Objection to the mosque seems to be based on the erroneous notion that it was somehow "Islam" that attacked the WTC.

We aren't at war with Islam, hyperbole by either extreme aside: We're at war with the twisted freaks who hide behind Islam to commit their crimes.

I would rather we welcome the mosque as a symbol of the nation's strength and tolerance and the ability to move forward.

Posted by: MidwaySailor76 | August 12, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Turns out there is already a mosque just 4 blocks away.

The left uses this as evidence that it's no big deal.

Funny, I view it as another reason why there couldn't be any reasonable, legitimate reason for another so close.

Four blocks, already there.... and the left uses this to support their mis-guided argument?

Posted by: docwhocuts | August 12, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse
_____________________
so, you get to decide when a religion has enough places of worship? and where they should be? Bush enacted a law limiting the right of state and local governments to limit where any religion can build a religious building. talk to him. and then of course there's the freedom of religion clause.

There they go again! The Left is usually on the wrong side of history and this is no exception. Listen very carefully: Judeo/Christians do not want to help propagate foreign religions! There, I've said it! We are a Judeo/Christian country and we don't want mosques at ground zero or anywhere else in the US! There, I've said it again! We don't want to persecute anyone, but also don't want to help moslems build an empire in the US-- There, I've said it again! How politcally incorrect can one person be? This is exactly how the Saudi's would be treating us if we wanted to build a cathedral in their country. I, for one, am not interested in "building bridges", "reaching out", "being inclusive". My real goal is to convert all the moslems to Christianity! Can you imagine such an awful and repulsive person I must be? taoiseach@starpower.net
____________________
I must have missed the part in the Constitution that says only Judeo-Christian religions are protected and that the government can bar private landowners from renting to private groups on the basis of religion, except for Christians.

the only thing goofier than the ad claim is the effort by Pat Robertson's group to overturn the decision that the building isn't historic on the ground that it was arbitrary. they argue that the building had 9/11 debris on the roof (which hardly makes it historic because dozens of buildings new and old did too) and because the commission made the decision based on the religious use (which of course is exactly what they didn't do - but which Robertson wants them to do)

Posted by: JoeT1 | August 12, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

"And when are the believers in that "peaceful" religion of Islam going to permit Christian Churches to be established and function safely in Saudi Arabia and other majority Islamic nations?"

FALSE EQUIVALENCE! We are living in the United States. If you want to go protest how the ruling family operates in Saudi Arabia, please feel free to go.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 12, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

all we need is love

Posted by: dcox82 | August 12, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

The mosque absolutely should not be built at ground zero. This is not a religous issue. It is a zoning issue. There is not a Japanese shrine at Pearl Harbor (and there never will be). Strip clubs have been upheld as expressions of free speech but we don't build them next to churches or elementary schools. The loony left just wants this mosque at ground zero as another FU to America.

Posted by: oldno7 | August 12, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

The mosque absolutely should not be built at ground zero. This is not a religous issue. It is a zoning issue. There is not a Japanese shrine at Pearl Harbor (and there never will be). Strip clubs have been upheld as expressions of free speech but we don't build them next to churches or elementary schools. The loony left just wants this mosque at ground zero as another FU to America.

Posted by: oldno7
===========================
Once again, for those who have not been listening - mosque is not at Ground Zero.

Posted by: MidwaySailor76 | August 12, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

"Huh, something like 70% of New Yorkers think its in bad taste."

Wrong. "The Quinnipiac University poll, released Thursday morning, found that 46 percent of Manhattanites support the 13-story mosque and community center, called Cordoba House. Thirty-six percent of Manhattan voters oppose the proposal and 18 percent are undecided."

For the ignorant, Manhattan is New York County, it's the only borough where you send mail to: "New York, NY," and its southern tip (we call it "downtown") is where the World Trade Center was located.

Posted by: theorajones1 | August 12, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

The Daily Show and John Stewart had the best take on this. http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-august-10-2010-jason-bateman.

It's devastating.

rprieto wrote: "Judeo/Christians do not want to help propagate foreign religions!"

Hate to break this to you, but Islam Christianity, and Judaism all came from the same neck of the woods.

Unless we secretly annexed Palestine sometime.

rprieto wrote: "My real goal is to convert all the moslems to Christianity! Can you imagine such an awful and repulsive person I must be?"

You would have done fine in the Spanish Inquisition.

Posted by: Garak | August 12, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

It is always entertaining to watch one group of Americans abusing their First Amendment Rights to take away the First Amendment Rights of another group of Americans.

That they need to resort to lies, hyperbole, and other distortions to even make an invalid argument just adds to the entertainment value.

I can't believe anyone takes them seriously.

Posted by: OldUncleTom | August 12, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

We should note the bus ad not only calls the Cordoba House a "mega-mosque" but its images make it look as big as the WTC. The new 1 WTC will be over a hundred stories tall and will reach this height by the end of this year. The Cordoba House will just be getting started at that time and reach its "mega" 13 stories one day in the distant future. Right-wing hysteria over the center is predicated by a terribly false notion that the Cordoba House will be a grand structure to rival either the WTC or the 1WTC. Here's a somewhat graphical take on this issue (by me): http://bit.ly/9IcQuz

Posted by: eskew1 | August 12, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

Give it a rest. Are you not burned out on this issue? You and the left got your mosque approved. Your a journalist. Do you not realize no matter how many opinions you publish your not going to change anyones mind. I personally hate the mosque but ive moved on. I am looking forward to seeing the leftists Obama admin booted out begining in NOV and in 2012.

Posted by: gpl2032 | August 12, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

"My real goal is to convert all the moslems to Christianity! Can you imagine such an awful and repulsive person I must be?"

That's perfectly fine. There's a bunch of Jehovah's witnesses who come to my house every couple of weeks to try and convert me to their religion, there's Mormons who do the same. I don't see why you're repulsive and they're not, (unless you ONLY want to convert muslims, which suggests to me that you don't so much love your own faith as hate this other one, which is pretty repulsive.)

But, uh, while you're out there spreading the Word, people have a legal, Constitutional right to NOT be converted. And to build and attend whatever kind of house of worship they want.

This is how it works in America.

Posted by: theorajones1 | August 12, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

I doubt the anti mosque crusaders have ever been to New York. The notion that a mosque must not be located within a couple of blocks of Ground Zero is laughable. Do they have any idea how many other miscellaneous things are located within two blocks of Ground Zero? How many blocks away would the mosque have to go? Is there any place on the entire island of Manhattan that would be O.K.?

Posted by: rjoff | August 12, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

sshhhhhhh, the Bush administration built a mosque INSIDE THE PENTAGON, right after 911.

Don't tell Gingrich, his head will explode.

Posted by: OldUncleTom | August 12, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

I love the fact that their is a move afoot to convert the property right next to the proposed victory mosque into a gay bar. May I suggest a pork butcher shop or petting zoo for the property on the other side. Let's see just how tolerant THEY are.

Posted by: BadNews | August 12, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Rpietro....How many times do we have to educate you historically illiterate Christianists? Your arrogance is stunning!

"Listen very carefully: Judeo/Christians do not want to help propagate foreign religions! There, I've said it! We are a Judeo/Christian country and we don't want mosques at ground zero or anywhere else in the US!"

YOU ARE SIMPLY INCORRECT!!!!!!

Perhaps you'd like to explain away famous treaty of Tripoli or the attitudes as expressed by these founding fathers...
Give it a wack rpietro or do you consider yourself some form of religious aytollah or pope who simply hands down your opinion and expects the rest of us to crap on the Constitution because of your FACTUALLY INCORRECT OPINION!

Can you read English rpietro? Here you go you arrogant blind bigot.

“Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”

The Treaty of Tripoli
Signed By John Adams
Ratified UNANIMOUSLY by Congress


All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." ~ Thomas Paine 1793

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." -Benjamin Franklin

"What has been [Christianity's] fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison


Posted by: rukidding7 | August 12, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Those who based their opinion on the fact Christian churches are not allowed to build freely in Saudi Arabia - find a room, lock yourself in and throw away the key.

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy not a democracy. WE have a constitution that guarantees freedom of religion, Saudi Arabia does not.

Other countries also persecute Christians to this day -- China for example yet we borrow billions from them and import almost all of our goods from China - I salute the post that said IF "they" hate us for our freedoms allowing a COMMUNITY CENTER to be established where an empty building is now would show everyone that our country is free and in direct contrast to the crazies who occupy a small portion of Islam.

There are times I listen to the rabble of the whacked right blaming Katrina on gays, lack of morals, etc. and the killing of doctors simply because they disagree about a woman's right to choose. Islam doesn't have a corner on crazy - and I agree with another poster that said didn't live there, not my business. What does disturb me is this seems to be nationwide hysteria -- honestly Republicans I swear if someone said boo you would start to cry just in case you were scared.

Posted by: Lemon7221 | August 12, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

It is not a false equivalence at all. We are facing a threat to our civilization.

We must remember that one of Islam's core beliefs is the mandate that the faith be spread.

While I understand the desire to excluse all of the muslims for the actions of a few I am in no hurry to do so. this position I have taken with some reluctance. I base this on the clear lack of any outspoken, valid opposition to the radical agenda on the part of the so called "moderates".

Quick name an outspoken and moderate muslim. Zhudi Jasser is among the few names that come to mind. I don't recall muslims parading around the streets of the middle east protesting that 9 11 was a violation of the faith. Rather, I recall parties in those streets.

Just this week we learned that the Taliban in A stan murdered a group of christian missionaries who were returning from a trip wherein they provided health care check ups and glasses to muslims. the taliban's 'rationale'? These people were proselytizing. that is just a lie.

the islamic double standard is a valid point. They are saying to America "do as we say, not as we do". yes we are a welcoming nation, but we should only welcome those who are willing to assimilate.

Once again the liberals are on the anti American side of this.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 12, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

This is only offensive to people who believe that September 11 was an attack of the entire religion of Islam against the United States. There are also people who believe that September 11 was an Israeli Conspiracy to provide an excuse for war.

Neither of these looney fringe ideas have any legitimacy. So the "at least be sensitive to the victims" argument would have us also prevent any Jewish Temples from being built there? If the base argument is false (the US is at war with a religion, Islam isn't a real faith, 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy, etc) then all other conclusions based on that are illegitimate.

Posted by: mandrake | August 12, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Actually the MTA has a decent track record when it comes to reducing it dependency on oil. http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ffenvironment.htm#clean_bus

That bus' oil comes from...

Posted by: Papagnello

Posted by: MerrillFrank | August 12, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

@rjoff "Is there any place on the entire island of Manhattan that would be O.K.?"

The million dollar question! I'd love to hear Newt or the mama grizzley get asked THAT question.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 12, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Here we go again. Why must you people insist on posting and reposting the same tired arguments, just so we can shoot them down with logic and reason? You are either a) gluttons for punishment and public ridicule, or b) have your head stuffed too far up a dark place to acknowledge the fact that you are ridiculous.

Listen very carefully: Judeo/Christians do not want to help propagate foreign religions!
=================
I see, do you now speak for ALL Christians and Jews in America? I'd love to know when they elected you their spokesperson. I'd love to know when all Jews and Christians decided to amass into an organization with a single ideology and doctrine that even COULD elect a spokesperson. Other than God himself, of course, who from what I understand will be the final judge, and is also known as Allah to the Muslims. Now...if you're suggesting that you know better than God himself, I think you have a whole other set of problems on your hands...

We are a Judeo/Christian country and we don't want mosques at ground zero or anywhere else in the US!
===========================
"We" are not a Judeo/Christian country.
If we were, Judeo/Christian values and beliefs would be enshrined in the Bill Of Rights and Constitution. But they are not.
We ARE a country founded by individuals who were predominately (but not always) Christians, however. But those same Christian forefathers were far more wise than you and the heavy-handed religious right, and realized that their views on religion and morality should never be mandated by law.

There, I've said it again!
====================
You seem to be quite proud of the nonsense you're spewing.

We don't want to persecute anyone, but also don't want to help moslems build an empire in the US--
======================
Last time I checked, exercising your constitutional right to freedom of religion isn't the same as "empire-building." But of course, to a bigot who wants to oppress a certain segment of American society, any audacious moves they make to be equal would appear to be them trying to "take over." White bigots said the same thing about blacks in the 1950s-60s when they started exercising their freedoms.

This is exactly how the Saudi's would be treating us if we wanted to build a cathedral in their country.
==========================
Ahhhh, someone's been listening to right-wing talk radio or TV in the last week! Where else do these nonsensical soundbites come from?
So you're basically saying that you wish America were more like Saudi Arabia. Right?
Saudi Arabia is not a constitutional democracy, last time I checked.
So basically you're proposing something that is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, an act which is patently un-American. I'm sure you consider yourself a "true patriot," but by your own words you prove you are farther from it than I am, even farther from it than the very "Moslems" who want to build this center.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

"We are a Judeo/Christian country"

The United States is a SECULAR republic, ostensibly committed to the freedom of religious expression of all faiths -- or none.

The "ostensibly" qualification is because there are entirely too many fundamentalist Christian theocrats who would want us to believe otherwise. Those people would, of course, be wrong.

Posted by: SportzNut21 | August 12, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

skippy: "We are facing a threat to our civilization."

Oh for god sakes, no we are NOT. Muslims have been a part of the United States citizenry for centuries. In fact, Muslims are more fully integrated into our civilization and culture than they are in any other western country because we allow them economic and religious freedom as long as they live within the laws of the US.

Skippy, you are nothing more than a fear-mongerer.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 12, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

"We must remember that one of Islam's core beliefs is the mandate that the faith be spread."

Ironic to claim that as a defense against Islam when evangelizing and spreading the faith is also a fundamental Christian tenet, too.

You can't have it both ways.

Posted by: SportzNut21 | August 12, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

skippy: "Just this week we learned that the Taliban in A stan murdered a group of christian missionaries who were returning from a trip wherein they provided health care check ups and glasses to muslims. the taliban's 'rationale'? These people were proselytizing. that is just a lie."

And the connection of these Taliban criminals to the imam in lower Manhattan is what, exactly?

Do you similarly paint all Catholic priests with a "pedophile" brush?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 12, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Skip - Are Southern Baptists to blame for the culture of pedophilia in the Catholic Church?

Are Catholics to blame for those Southern Baptists that were involved in lynching’s a few decades ago?

If you want to paint all Muslims as being the same then you should be willing to group all Christians as being the same.

For that matter where were the various Christian Church's when it came to the early days of this country? What did they think of "Manifest Destiny" and the genocide of Native Americans?

So are all Muslims members of the Taliban and therefore responsible for the murder of the Christian missionaries?

And you say, "We must remember that one of Islam's core beliefs is the mandate that the faith be spread." That sounds familiar, hmmm, where have I heard of that before... Oh, wait, Christians have the same mandate! Therefore all Christians are members of the Taliban, right?

Posted by: nisleib | August 12, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

To Islam a mosque is a symbol of authority or a "badge" of something they've conquered. Its a political statement. If it were truly to build bridges why not include Christian and Jewish worship center within it?

If you're for the propogation of Sharia law, which this Imam wants instituted in the U.S., and which the Quran calls to be instilled EVERYWHERE, I would suggest that you familiarize yourselves with it first.

Posted by: siridh | August 12, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Skipper skipper skipper whew dude..

"We must remember that one of Islam's core beliefs is the mandate that the faith be spread."

You mean like the bible thumping Christians who come pounding on my door. Most religions and certainly the vast majority of Christians believe in a mandate to spread the faith. Some of them even force their beliefs down our throats with violence...can you say James Tiller...
whoever the other loons were blowing up clinics...shouting at women...acting like brown shirted goons?

If you read my earlier post skip for some facts you'll see our founding fathers knew better.

In fact Skip I think James Madison was prescient and had folks like you rpietro in mind when he said it!

As for "Once again the liberals are on the anti American side of this. "

Your side wants to shred the Constitution...DO AWAY WITH ESTABLISHED RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION...and you have the typical hypocritical gall to suggest we liberals are on the anti-American side.

I swear listening to the Fright wing on the Constitution is the equivalent of going to Tiger Woods for marriage counseling.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 12, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"Ironic to claim that as a defense against Islam when evangelizing and spreading the faith is also a fundamental Christian tenet, too.

You can't have it both ways."

Jehovah's Witnesses, anyone?

Anyone know the history of Christian missionaries in Africa..or even in the United States among the native peoples? It wasn't all hugs and good will.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 12, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

"Fright wing"


Ethan said I could declare this an afternoon winner! Good one rukidding! :o)

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 12, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Nisleib: there's a difference. Muslims want Islam spread by any means (even murder), Christians want Christianity spread because we believe its the true way to God -- but, we will let you CHOOSE not to believe.

Remember Daniel Perl -- off with his head, he's a jew. Oh, and try and build a worship center in Saudi Arabia or almost any of these Muslim countries. They'll kill you first.

Comparing Christianity to the Taliban shows you drink a lot of kool-aid and haven't done the slightest bit of research for yourself. Sheeple.

Posted by: siridh | August 12, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28 said:
We must remember that one of Islam's core beliefs is the mandate that the faith be spread.
=============================
That is also a core belief of Christianity, particularly the evangelical variety (what do you think "evangelize" means, anyway?)
And Christians have throughout history have "spread" their faith at the point of a sword, the barrel of a gun, and through legal dictate.
Do ALL Christians believe in violent means to spread the word of Jesus? Of course not. And not all Muslims believe in violent means to spread Islam. Christians build churches and cultural outreach centers that help their community; and as you can see from this story, Muslims do the same.

While I understand the desire to excluse all of the muslims for the actions of a few I am in no hurry to do so. this position I have taken with some reluctance. I base this on the clear lack of any outspoken, valid opposition to the radical agenda on the part of the so called "moderates".

Quick name an outspoken and moderate muslim. Zhudi Jasser is among the few names that come to mind. =====================
So because you can only think of one moderate Muslim, that means a majority of them are radical? That sounds like some seriously 'fuzzy math' to me, I'd like for you to provide statistical evidence of your claims. Go ahead, we'll wait.

I don't recall muslims parading around the streets of the middle east protesting that 9 11 was a violation of the faith. Rather, I recall parties in those streets.
=======================
That's because you are superimposing your belief system and your culture on to people who share neither. You forget that most Muslims live in dictatorial theocracies where protests of that nature are not allowed. You also suppose that the images you saw on the media told the whole story, forgetting that the media often slants things to their ratings' benefit (funny how the right always complains about a 'liberal bias' but they never complain when the media doesn't show it.)

Just this week we learned that the Taliban in A stan murdered a group of christian missionaries
=====================
And as you said earlier, the voice of the radical few does not speak for the majority. Most Muslims despise the Taliban. So why are you being selective in how you apply that logic? Because you're prejudiced and choose not to have a balanced view?

yes we are a welcoming nation, but we should only welcome those who are willing to assimilate.
=====================
I remember the last time "assimilation" was mandated. I think it was circa 1680, only that time it was African slaves.
America allows everyone to be themselves, regardless of their religion. The minute we start expecting "assimilation" is the minute we stop being America and become just like any of a variety of oppressive regimes.

liberals are on the anti American side of this.
====================
No, they're on the anti-Your-View-of-America side.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

There they go again! The Left is usually on the wrong side of history and this is no exception. Listen very carefully: Judeo/Christians do not want to help propagate foreign religions! There, I've said it! We are a Judeo/Christian country and we don't want mosques at ground zero or anywhere else in the US! There, I've said it again! We don't want to persecute anyone, but also don't want to help moslems build an empire in the US-- There, I've said it again! How politcally incorrect can one person be? This is exactly how the Saudi's would be treating us if we wanted to build a cathedral in their country. I, for one, am not interested in "building bridges", "reaching out", "being inclusive". My real goal is to convert all the moslems to Christianity! Can you imagine such an awful and repulsive person I must be? taoiseach@starpower.net

Posted by: rprieto | August 12, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Aw, no. You're not an awful person. Just a shade un-American. One of the reasons that our country is great, is because we don't exclude by law, people that don't necessarily believe the same things that the majority do.

And please! Just because you and others have coined this term "Judeo-Christian" nation doesen't bring any truth to what you are implying by it.

Posted by: JohnDinHouston | August 12, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Well actually, it gets down to the manner in which the faith will be spread, and what that faith's core tenants are.

I don't want to live in a muslim dominated society. I would be a dhimmi, subject to the worst of sharia.

American women would be second class citizens. Stoning anyone?

Spreading christianity is not the same as spreading islam. Yes I'll hear about Christianities unfortunate history but the simple fact is Jesus taught love as described by our gospels. What do the founding documents of Islam teach?

In addition, the manner of that propagation, in the modern era is important to understand. christianity is expanding rapidly in Africa and Asia. Is this because christian missionaries tell the people that they must live by the faith or die by the sword? Of course not.

Islam, as it is currently practiced is incompatible with modern western civilization. Much of what the liberals seek to advance is contrary to Muslim core beliefs. Wouldn't it just be irony for the gay rights folks to see the results of their hard work made illegal by sharia?

suzie, you clearly have a reading comprehension problem. Go back and read my comment. See the word "assimilation" in there sweetie?

Take a chill pill sistah. Read more carefully. Knee jerk reactions are just part of being a liberal, right?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 12, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

All, check out this new ad from Bill Kristol's new pro israel group attacking Dems as weak on Israel:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 12, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Right wing blogger Pamela Geller, who heads the anti-mosque American Freedom Defense Initiative, has been trying to run an ad on buses that is a truly nasty piece of work. You can look at it right here. It shows the World Trade Center, with flames bursting from one tower and a plane moments away from striking the other.

Directly across from that picture is a rendering of what the ad calls the "September 11, 2011 WTC Mega Mosque." The ad asks: "Why there?"

........................

I think that this Pamela Geller should be looked into. She is starting to look like she might be in league with Islamic extremists.

Look at what she is doing. Putting pictures of a mosque on some buses that will pass within a block of ground zero.

Buses that pass so close to such a sacred site, should also be considered sacred.

I call on Pamela Geller to show more sympathy, and understanding, and move her picture of a mosque, away from New York, and put them on buses outside the city, so that New York residents are not traumatized by the sight of such bus pictures.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 12, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

siridh said:
If you're for the propogation of Sharia law, which this Imam wants instituted in the U.S., and which the Quran calls to be instilled EVERYWHERE, I would suggest that you familiarize yourselves with it first.
=======================================
The Q'uran and the Holy Bible have much in common. They both recommend the spread of and installment of their faith around the world. Fortunately, we are a secular society in America, and would no more allow the Q'uran to dictate public policy than we do the Holy Bible. Thank God for that!
Same for Sharia law - there are still white Christians in this country who believe that we should be a white Christian nation, that homosexuals and doctors providing abortions should be put to death. They are no more likely to influence actual policy than this imam. However, the Constitution assures them both the right to their beliefs, so long as they do not violate the civil liberties of other Americans.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

"the simple fact is Jesus taught love"

You ignore Jesus every day.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

The arguments against it are tiresome. Give it a rest about the Japanese and Pearl Harbor. In case you didn't know, Honolulu has had Shinto shrines near Pearl for ages. Although the argument here about Bunker Hill and Church of England was a novel twist on that approach -- again ignoring reality that (good grief!) there are Episcopalian and Anglican churches in Boston, of all places.

I agree with nisleib that this controversy is driven by the need for the Right to find a racial/ethnic scapegoat like in their southern strategy. The Teabaggers were recently called out for their racism, and when the Right tried to retaliate with Breitbart's edited video of Ms Sherrod, they were thoroughly humiliated. So it's time for them to find a new target... look! over there! Muslims!

It's clear to see this isn't really about 9/11 or WTC "mosques" when we see groups protesting mosques being built in OTHER STATES.

Posted by: hitpoints | August 12, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Sargent - since you are so well versed in this issue why didn't you mention where the funds are coming from for this building???
Maybe tell us why the imam for this mosque is on a US State Dept. funded tour of the Middle East????
There are so many curious complication to this story - why did you just skim the surface??
Lack of time?, lack of knowledge?, Helping to muddy the facts?.

Posted by: thornegp2626 | August 12, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

...and pervert priest hiding Catholics should not be allowed to build churches near middle schools...

Posted by: areyousaying | August 12, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Siridh says, “Muslims want Islam spread by any means (even murder), Christians want Christianity spread because we believe its the true way to God -- but, we will let you CHOOSE not to believe.”

Does the word “Crusade” have any meaning to you? No? You aren’t much into history are you? If you look at the history of Christianity (as a whole) and compare it to the history of Islam (as a whole) which is bloodier? You think you have some moral superiority to Muslims, you don’t. Are there some Muslims that are awful people? Yes. The same could be said of every religion. And your religion is not some bright and shining light of innocence.

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

Siridh Says, “Remember Daniel Perl -- off with his head, he's a jew. Oh, and try and build a worship center in Saudi Arabia or almost any of these Muslim countries. They'll kill you first.”

The Department of stupid nonsensical rightwing talking points called and they want their 10 pounds on horse pucky back.

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

Siridh Says, “Comparing Christianity to the Taliban shows you drink a lot of kool-aid and haven't done the slightest bit of research for yourself. Sheeple.”

What is it with you rightwingers and your projection? You continuously blame others for your own faults. Go to a shrink and get some help.

Posted by: nisleib | August 12, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Virtually ALL of the anti-Islam, anti-mosque comments here have one thing in common:

A belief that THEY are more dangerous than US, that THEY shouldn't have the same rights that WE do, that THEY must be stopped so WE can be safe.
Of course, they can't really give specifics as to who THEY are, or even who WE are, without painting the picture with gigantic brushes.
That these anti-Muslim types are WRONG is beside the point, and is a fact they won't even acknowledge except to fire back with yet another insipid and false statement or assumption.

Ignorance is bliss, as the saying goes.
The anti-Islam posters here must be pretty happy, then.
They find happiness in their refusal to give rational thought to the issue, or to entertain the idea that they may not have the whole picture, or to apply any logic whatsoever to the matter. If I put blinders over my eyes and stuck my fingers in my ears and said "la la la" so I didn't have to hear FACTS, I might be blissful, too.


Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

thornegp2626 "Maybe tell us why the imam for this mosque is on a US State Dept. funded tour of the Middle East????"

Why don't you tell us why this imam was on the US State Dept tour of the Middle East during the BUSH ADMINISTRATION if he is so totally offensive and connected to terrorists?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 12, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Sargent - since you are so well versed in this issue why didn't you mention where the funds are coming from for this building???
Maybe tell us why the imam for this mosque is on a US State Dept. funded tour of the Middle East????
There are so many curious complication to this story - why did you just skim the surface??
Lack of time?, lack of knowledge?, Helping to muddy the facts?.

Posted by: thornegp2626 | August 12, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Why don't you teabaggers listen to your hero George the Dumber who said we weren't at war with the Muslim religion?

Posted by: areyousaying | August 12, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Joe McCarthy would be proud.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | August 12, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

How politcally incorrect can one person be?

Posted by: rprieto | August 12, 2010

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

well

you could come up with a "final Solution" to the Moslem question

that's what happened next in NAZI Germany in the 1930s

you are not really so much "Politically incorrect" as you are stupid

and why you want to bring an American version of the halocaust to our country is unfathomable

but if you take the time to learn some history, the NAZIs wrote the play book in 1942

you seem to want a Wansea protocal here in America

that isn't very patriotic

very christian

but you are a MORAL MORON

if that makes you feel better

Posted by: nada85484 | August 12, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

"the simple fact is Jesus taught love"

You ignore Jesus every day.

Posted by: Ethan2010


Makes me wonder, Ethan, how many of these "Islam experts" know that Islam teaches reverance for Jesus, and Muslims celebrate him as a great prophet during Ramadan.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 12, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

"Judeo/Christians do not want to help propagate foreign religions! There, I've said it!"

I've heard of Jews and Christians but never heard of a Judeo/Christian. What exactly do they believe? I guess on Saturday they believe that Jesus Christ was just another in a long line of Jewish holy men and on Sunday he is the one true son of God and the only path to heaven.

And if we're not going to propagate "foreign religions", won't we have to adopt some sort of American Indian religion? Speaking of the native Americans, how fair is it to them that Christian churches are built in this country. Their ancestors were slaughtered in the name of that religion, and now they have to see victory churches built here--even on their own land?!

Get a grip, America.

Posted by: writinron | August 12, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

votingrevolution:
As if it makes any difference, plenty of buildings in major metropolis' around the world have architecture comparable to the Twin Towers. Probably even elsewhere in Manhattan. You think there's some proprietary right to ban other buildings from an architectural similarity to them?
And if you were right about liberals not able to be withstood, Obama wouldn't be President.

Posted by: bitterblogger | August 12, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

hitpoints said:
It's clear to see this isn't really about 9/11 or WTC "mosques" when we see groups protesting mosques being built in OTHER STATES.
=====================================
This is one of the most salient points I've seen yet on these boards. Kudos to you!

You're correct...I'm no partisan by any means - I have beliefs that go to the arch-conservative over to the arch-liberal - but it DOES seem that lately, it's the right wing that feels the need to prop up boogeymen around every corner to justify their ignorance and bigotry.
Yes, the left does have their fair share of hyperbole, especially during the days of GW and Palin, but the right seems to thrive on it and perpetuate it to a much greater degree.

Is it because so-called conservatives today are generally less-educated than liberals?
Less concerned with fact and more concerned with hype?
The right wing any more seems to be a pop culture phenomenon, like "American Idol," only pretending to actually have something valid to contribute to the American discourse.

Back in the days of Barry Goldwater, conservatives actually had some common sense and a balanced approach to things. If only those days would return...

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Greg, you have posted articles on this topic ad nauseam. Give it a rest. We got your point. Also, we have had enough of the smug, self righteousness.

Posted by: shewholives | August 12, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

While legally I agree the legal case is weak .. . in terms of respect and honor for the victiums I would think the mosque principals would understand some poeple are offended and they would respect their wishes and choose a different location.

Posted by: sarno | August 12, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse
----------------------------
You would think, but sensitivity and tolerance need not be shown to others, we just need to show it Muslims.

Posted by: shewholives | August 12, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

ZONING.

I wonder if there is a legal route here?

No "medical marijuana" dispensaries near a high school, right?

No "sex toy" shop next to mosque, right?(happened in w. village/chelsea about a year ago)

I live at wall st and nassau, google it. It's too close.

Did I mention there is already a mosque 2 blocks from the "new" one?

Posted by: docwhocuts | August 12, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Comparing Christianity to the Taliban shows you drink a lot of kool-aid and haven't done the slightest bit of research for yourself. Sheeple.

Posted by: siridh

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

another idiot who thinks he knows something

I guess your research never included the crusades and the inquisition

the inquisition still exesists, btw

the Catholic Church just renamed their hate filled dogma

and as far as I can tell,the Taliban never devoted themselves to pedophilia

so when you get right down tofacts, the catholic church IS worse than the taliban

Posted by: nada85484 | August 12, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is this...

Anyone notice the supposed architectural design of the "mosque" in Pam Geller's banner?
A giant skyscraper with a huge crescent and star on it?

I highly doubt that is the actual plan, and instead is a hyped-up "worst-case scenario" designed to scare Geller's sheep into a call to arms.

Anyone seen the actual building or the proposed remodeling?

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

JMGinPDX - I've seen pictures of the building as it now stands. I'm no expert on NY architecture, but I'd guess it is a 5 story walkup that is in poor to crappy condition.

If you lived next to it I'd guess you would look forward to it being rebuilt.

Posted by: nisleib | August 12, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

PAPAGNELLO:

"That bus' oil comes from... "

Well, if you mean the gasoline, it's refined here in the US. If you mean the original oil from the ground, Canada most likely, which is where we get 40-45% of our imported oil. Not the answer you were expecting?

Posted by: 54465446 | August 12, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

"I don't agree with those who oppose the mosque, but I don't live there so it is none of my business."

Posted by: schrodingerscat

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

there is a famous poem about how people like YOU allowed the NAZIs to kill six million people

when they come for YOU, there will be no decent people left to complain

the Banality of Evil

you could look it up

Posted by: nada85484 | August 12, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

"You would think, but sensitivity and tolerance need not be shown to others, we just need to show it Muslims."

Allowing the center to be built has nothing to do with showing Muslims sensitivity or tolerance. It has to do with abiding by our Constitution. The very same Constitution that so many conservatives are complaining that no longer is followed, and that they must defend.

We still allow Catholic churches to built near schools, right? In fact, there are even Catholic schools, imagine!

Why is no one claiming that every Catholic church is a potential training ground for pedophiles?

What part of not prohibiting the free exercise of religion do these protesters not understand?

Posted by: hitpoints | August 12, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

@nada85484: I didn't post that quote, I was responding to someone who did. My response was:

"It's everyone's business when a group of citizens are at risk of being denied their basic constitutional rights."

You could look it up.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 12, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

I am fascinated by how this mosque has become a cause celebre of the Left. Has the Left ever gone out of their way to push a religious symbol before? Ever? Most of the biggest fans seem to be the ones who hate Christianity the most.

I guess that if Newt Gingrich and Pat Buchanan hate something, it must be good. Or maybe the anti-West message of Islam resonates with their American guilt. Whatever the case, this has become a truly interesting political Rorschach test.

Posted by: sold2u | August 12, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

hey, schrodingerscat

learn YOUR fate

here is the whole poem:

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Posted by: nada85484 | August 12, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

The predominantly white-American, conservative rights' anti-muslim crusade is all because "white America" is becoming just another minority in this Nation, and "they" feel threatened--it is also the reason for Arizona's SB 1070, the Republican's latest trial balloon of holding hearing to change the 14th Amendment, fringe political candidates like Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, etc., etc. "They" need to chill out.

Posted by: dozas | August 12, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

"68% of Americans oppose this mosque and 61% of New Yorkers do too. Are they all "right-wingers"?"

Maybe, but who cares? They are certainly all capable of being manipulated by fear-mongers and racists. That's what matters.

How many people, in 2002, believed the lies about WMD? For that matter, how many Americans currently think that the earth is 6,000 years old?

The point is that polls don't determine what's right and what's wrong. They just determine which side has been more successful at getting their message across. And in this case, it's clear that a message of fear, religiosity, and lies has been very effective.

Posted by: DaveR1 | August 12, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

While legally I agree the legal case is weak .. . in terms of respect and honor for the victiums I would think the mosque principals would understand some poeple are offended and they would respect their wishes and choose a different location.

Posted by: sarno
================================
Why? If they did, then they would basically be kow-towing to the false notion that Islam was responsible for 9/11.

Think about it - WHY do the victims' families not want an Islamic center near Ground Zero? Because many of them likely blame Islam itself, hold prejudice against Muslims, and therefore any representation of Islam near their 'sacred ground' is offensive.

Actually the fact that the hijackers were Muslim and claimed to commit their crime in the name of Allah is secondary. Any nutjob can do something stupid in the name of God (and many have), does that then mean the entire religion shares the blame and should react accordingly?
Should the families of abortion doctors slain by so-called Christians protest the building of a church near the murder scenes?

Never mind that the local community - those who also suffered 9/11 firsthand (far more than I did or probably a vast majority of the people posting here) - approved the deal.
Never mind that Muslims died in the attacks, too.

In point of fact, this is a great opportunity for them to help bring understanding and healing to the location, as a way of saying "we're not all radicals that want to fly planes into buildings."

Bottom line, those who want the Muslims to be 'sensitive' and move the mosque are secretly just as biased against Islam as anyone else, they're just couching it in softer, more objective language.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Great American Moments in the History of Bigotry......

Andrew Jackson forces thousands of Cherokee to leave their ancestral homes.

The American South and their peculiar institution....Slavery

Those who opposed Blacks, Women, Jews and Catholics from voting

Those who were members of the House Un-American Committee hunting Communists

Those who opposed de-segregation in the South...

And now, those who oppose building mosques in this country.

Posted by: logcabin1836 | August 12, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

RESURRECTION ANGLICAN CHURCH - In Hiroshima is not an insult to the many thousand civilian deaths from a WMD attack incinerating their citiy or the victims of Nagasaki, Dresden, Hanoi and others where civilian non-military targets were bombed to Terrorize the populations..contrary to the protocols and conventions of 'Civilized' Warfare. The Christian Church in Hiroshima like a Mosque at Ground Zero (a term used first at Hiroshima) is one doorway to Peace

Posted by: oneStarMan | August 12, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

PS...I forgot those fine folks who sent thousands of Japanese Americans to live in desert internment prison camps during WWII

These are truly the Ugly Americans

Posted by: logcabin1836 | August 12, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

wow what a bunch of outright hooey being spread here.

Ethan, I will stand before my maker, as will you. Your judgement of me matters not, his judgement of me does. I thought liberals were opposed to being judgemental Ethan. Does Mr Sargent know that you're violating a core tenant of liberalism while sitting in his peanut gallery?

I just love how the liberals approve of the murder of christian missionaries in A stan. It says a lot about the movement to read words like this:
"and as far as I can tell,the Taliban never devoted themselves to pedophilia

so when you get right down tofacts, the catholic church IS worse than the taliban"

Is this the standard liberal position? It certainly seems that way to me.

yeah, comments like that will definitely help America understand what the left is really like in America. How nice for you boys and girls to be so honest. It is quite a help.

it seems that reading comprehension skills are at an ebb among the liberals here. nisleib needs to point at the words I write individually. Perhaps he (she?) (it?) should say each one out loud. That may improve reading ability.

Note well how I described the difference between the manner that MODERN christianity is spreading and the manner in which Islam intends to propigate itself.

so thanks to the liberals here who cannot read well. I predicted that I would hear about christianity's unfortunate past. And you boys and girls didn't disappoint. This is the same tired, trite liberal nostrums we heard during the Iraq war. You guys need some new stuff.


Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 12, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

"Two full city blocks" in that area isn't far away at all. I know--I went to grad school a block from the WTC and often walked down from the Village.

As for religious freedom, it does NOT infringe on Muslims right to worship if they're expected to NOT choose site that offends sensibilities. Heaven knows, non Muslims in the Muslim countries I've lived in are given no such considerations. Let them be sensitive to US for a change.

Posted by: Ali4 | August 12, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I am fascinated by how this mosque has become a cause celebre of the Left. Has the Left ever gone out of their way to push a religious symbol before? Ever?
========================================
#1 - I'm personally not a leftist. Trying to characterize this as Left vs. Right really does a huge discredit to the Right, since all any of us on the "pro-mosque" side are doing is pointing out the Muslims' constitutional right to put this Islamic center wherever they wish.
Unless the Right readily admits they aren't interested in constitutional rights? I'll remember that the next time a 2nd Amendment issue comes around...

#2 - While I (and probably the majority of others supporting the rights of the Muslims) don't oppose the mosque itself, you are making a huge mistake in drawing a dotted line that says we support Islam, and an even BIGGER mistake by implying that we do so at the expense of Christianity or Judaism.

I actually abhor many of the tenets of Islam as it is being practiced - the oppression of women being one of the bigger issues.

Of course, that has little to do with the actual teaching of Muhammed - there is nothing in the Q'uran that specifically says it's OK to subjugate and beat your wife, just like there is nothing in the Bible that specifically forbids homosexuality. It's all in the interpretation, and there are moderate Muslims who don't buy into the more oppressive aspects of Islam just as the same is true of Christianity and Judaism.

But those personal beliefs about the religion itself have no impact on my belief that adherents to that religion deserve just as much equality and freedom as any Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Satanist, etc. etc.

Some of us know how to judge situations on individual merits rather than by sweeping, ham-handed decree.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

How is putting pictures of the Twin Tower ablaze, on city buses, any more sensitive to the feelings of New Yorker, than the Muslim site is supposed to be.

Why should New Yorkers, all over the city, have to see that picture of 9/11, shoved in their faces, day after day.

Only a sadistic hate mongering group, would use that horrific image, to traumatize the residents of New York, over and over.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 12, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

hey, schrodingerscat

fair enough

apology offered

Posted by: nada85484 | August 12, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Sold2U - The left is not pushing this, the right is pushing it.

Further, most of the people on the left don't really care about this mosque in particular, we are just trying to defend the US Constitution from rightwing attacks.

I doubt the Republicans pushing this story really care about this mosque in particular either. It is all just a part of the Southern Strategy that the GOP breaks out every couple of years, then apologizes for, then uses again, then apologizes for, etc etc.

This election cycles Southern Strategy/race baiting talking points (so far, I'm sure they have some more vile attacks planned):

1) New Black Panther Party (Scary black men!)
2) Anchor Babies (Scary brown Babies)
3) Terrorists Babies (Scary brown Babies w/bombs.)
4) Mosque in TN, CA and NY (Scary black men who don't believe Baby Jesus died for NASCAR)
5) 14th amendment (see 2 and 3 from above, and OMG, killer brown babies!)
6) Shirley Sherrod (Scary black Woman!)

Posted by: nisleib | August 12, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

There's no legal way to stop the mosque. Their right to build it is guaranteed by the First Amendment and federal law.

This is about lousy politicians trying to gain political advantage by claiming to to something that, as noted above, is impossible. If you want to support Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich, do it honestly, not by trying to stir up a holy war.

Posted by: GregCleveland | August 12, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

How is putting pictures of the Twin Tower ablaze, on city buses, any more sensitive to the feelings of New Yorker, than the Muslim site is supposed to be.

Why should New Yorkers, all over the city, have to see that picture of 9/11, shoved in their faces, day after day.

Only a sadistic hate mongering group, would use that horrific image, to traumatize the residents of New York, over and over.


Posted by: Liam-still
==========================
An extremely excellent point!
Geller should be ashamed; not only is that image highly insensitive, it's also extreme hype at its worst. But then again, that method is usually chosen by those who don't actually have SUBSTANCE to their argument. Someone who has the facts and reason on their side doesn't need to resort to such tactics.

Since there's no "like" button on this board, I say LIKE to your post :)

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

nisleib - you are wrong. the Left is all over this. how many posts has sargent done on this issue alone?

this is the Left's baby 100%

Posted by: sold2u | August 12, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

WOW
the Right Wing finds
another
Boogyman to hate..

So X like of them

ISA

Posted by: vettessman | August 12, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Heaven knows, non Muslims in the Muslim countries I've lived in are given no such considerations. Let them be sensitive to US for a change.
================
So now we should behave the way Muslim countries do, and be insensitive and oppressive?
Americans who use this type of "they can build a mosque at Ground Zero when we can build a church at Mecca" logic are the equivalent of a petulant child crying "Mommy, all my friends are jumping off bridges, I want to jump too!"

Dumbing ourselves down to the lower common denominator and doing a tit-for-tat "well if you don't allow ours, we won't allow yours" is not only childish and idiotic, it's also unconstitutional.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

There is literally no hope for the anti-mosque lunatics.

When your basic definition of human existence springs from a completely black-or-white, us-vs-them thought process, there's not even a place to begin a discussion.

To the wingnut, the world is a hostile, frightening place, and they see themselves as defending the demands of their white, christian god against...well, against almost anything progressive, enlightened, civilized, or educated.

There's nothing you can do with sad creatures like this. They live in a hell of their own making.

Posted by: info53 | August 12, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

GregCleveland wrote:

There's no legal way to stop the mosque. Their right to build it is guaranteed by the First Amendment and federal law.

__________________________________________

Not all approvals are in. The NYC zoning board is not the last word. It still needs approval by the New York State Public Service Commission. They review utility mergers and things like that. Their test is whether something is in the public interest, not whether it is constitutional.

If their review is anything like a public utility merger (which attracts about 1% as much public attention) then the review will last years.

So pro-mosque people, the fat lady has not sung yet. Plus this thing still has to get built by mob-run contractors (good luck with that).

Posted by: sold2u | August 12, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

A small technical point. The mosque's (if you will) right to freedom of religious expression is not infringed upon by the running of the bus ad. The mosque might argue that its right to freedom of religious could be infringed if it were not permitted to build the mosque where it wants to build it. But the Geller group certainly can argue that the government's refusal to run the group's ad is a violation of that group's First Amendment right to freedom of expression. A religious organization's constitutional right to religious expression is not violated simply because a NON-governmental entity express some opposition to it. Greg also has a first amendment right (vis a vis the government) to take a side on this issue.

Posted by: willdd | August 12, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

They should have run ads with a cartoon of Mohamed with a bomb in his turbin.

Posted by: armykungfu | August 12, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

JMGinPDX - I've seen pictures of the building as it now stands. I'm no expert on NY architecture, but I'd guess it is a 5 story walkup that is in poor to crappy condition.

If you lived next to it I'd guess you would look forward to it being rebuilt.

Posted by: nisleib
=========================
Thanks for that. I'm sure the Cordoba group will remodel, I imagine in a style similar to other Islamic buildings, maybe some mosaics and whatnot but mostly fairly austere on the exterior.

What makes me laugh (in that "they are some sick puppies" kind of way) is the implication in the ad that the Islamic center will be almost as tall as the WTC itself, or have some resemblance to a super-modern skyscraper.
Masters of empty hype - that is one thing - the ONLY thing - that Pam Geller and her crew are good at.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

This a fine collection of xenophobic bigots that are posting today. The Constitution doesn't allow exceptions for your own personal irrational fears and prejudices. Mosques should be allowed where ever they can be built. They should no more be conscribed than should old Jim Crow laws be dusted off for African-Americans, the "no Irish need apply" signs pulled out of storage for Irish or the "gentlemens agreements" understandings that kept Jews out of Ivy League colleges be reinstated. It's tough being a democracy. But if you can't take it, you can always move to China. They don't allow mosques there either and they helpfully have check all kinds of other democratic freedoms at the door as well...

Posted by: chuck2 | August 12, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

@sue/Ethan thanks for your acknowledgement of "Fright" wing but I cannot except in good faith. I used to be a journalist and I must give attribution...I saw it last night on one of K.O.'s stories. I thought it was excellent and makes a very salient point.
Wingnuts may sound funny and pejorative but I think 'Fright" wing is actually a very accurate description not simply snark.

And so Sue/Ethan can I nominate another winner?

@nisleib...you get my nomination for...

"4) Mosque in TN, CA and NY (Scary black men who don't believe Baby Jesus died for NASCAR)"

Having been a TV Sportcaster for a dozen years in Tennessee back in the 80's early 90's...when I read that I was thankful I wasn't drinking anything or I would have spewed it all over the screen.

nisleib that is some seriously funny snark.

Scary black men who don't believe Baby Jesus died for NASCAR...again LMAO!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 12, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

sold2u wrote:
"Not all approvals are in. The NYC zoning board is not the last word. It still needs approval by the New York State Public Service Commission. They review utility mergers and things like that. Their test is whether something is in the public interest, not whether it is constitutional.

If their review is anything like a public utility merger (which attracts about 1% as much public attention) then the review will last years."

----------------

Show me where in the Constitution there is an express right of businesses to form mergers, regardless of whether such merger is in the public interest.

You REALLY don't understand the Bill of Rights, do you?

Posted by: hitpoints | August 12, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

AHHH the homophones got me again...accept not except the award...OMG it sucks to grow old.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 12, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Right Wingers are terrified of their own shadows. No wonder terrorists think we're weak.

Posted by: FormerRepublicant | August 12, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

It's a shame you turn your back on 9/11 for a Mosque. Your so far out in left field, your in denial of what the Muslins themselves say the real reason is for the Mosque. Only a leftist would put his ideology ahead of the memories of 9/11. Fear has always gripped the left when it comes to appeasing the radical Muslims. Agreeing with building the Mosque is pure fear nothing else. The left fights the American people, but when it comes to fighting those who wants to honor those who attacks us, the left crumbles in a corner and agrees with building the Mosque.

Posted by: houstonian | August 12, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I don't believe in the Bible

I don't believe in the Koran

I don't believe or follow Buddhism, the Doa Ching, Shintoism, or Hinduism

I don't believe in any organized religion

I DO BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

now, tell me how I am "unAmerican" ???

Posted by: nada85484 | August 12, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

sold2u - So Greg Sargent points out the absurdity of what rightwingers are saying and that equates to the left pushing the story?

So if a reporter reports on a murder, is that reporter a murderer?

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

Skip - The problem is not with my reading comprehension, but your logic. You make quite a few claims that are flawed. For instance:

1)We are facing a threat to our civilization

No, we aren't. The real threat is that Republicans will do away with our constitution and turn this into a theocracy. And that will only happen in your wet dreams.

2) I base this on the clear lack of any outspoken, valid opposition to the radical agenda on the part of the so called "moderates".

I'm guessing you know less about what moderate muslims are saying than Sarah Palin knows about physics.

3) Just this week we learned that the Taliban in A stan murdered a group of christian missionaries who were returning from a trip wherein they provided health care check ups and glasses to muslims. the taliban's 'rationale'? These people were proselytizing. that is just a lie.

How is that at all relevant?

4) They are saying to America "do as we say, not as we do".

Who gives a flip what they are saying? You want to tie America's morality to Saudi Arabia's? And you have the gall to call us anti-American?

Posted by: nisleib | August 12, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I don't believe in the Bible

I don't believe in the Koran

I don't believe or follow Buddhism, the Doa Ching, Shintoism, or Hinduism

I don't believe in any organized religion

I DO BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

now, tell me how I am "unAmerican" ???

Posted by: nada85484 | August 12, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

sold2u wrote:
"Not all approvals are in. The NYC zoning board is not the last word. It still needs approval by the New York State Public Service Commission. They review utility mergers and things like that. Their test is whether something is in the public interest, not whether it is constitutional.

If their review is anything like a public utility merger (which attracts about 1% as much public attention) then the review will last years."

----------------

Show me where in the Constitution there is an express right of businesses to form mergers, regardless of whether such merger is in the public interest.

You REALLY don't understand the Bill of Rights, do you?
_________________________________________

Public utility mergers are Constitutional and state regulators block them all the time. I am pretty sure the 5 Commissioners are aware of the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: sold2u | August 12, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

"Agreeing with building the Mosque is pure fear nothing else."

On the contrary, it's American.

Posted by: hitpoints | August 12, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

What the bus ads are really intended to do is:

Say to people all over New York City, on a daily basis:

Don't Forget To Hate Muslims Today.

That is hate speech, and the transport company should be taken to court for enabling it.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 12, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

To the frighties who are upset with Greg for not quitting on this story get over yourselves. Look at the threads on Lizard and Michelle the wacko..they got literally half the response as this one. That's because as much fun as it is to laugh at the obvious loon from Mn or be disgusted with the Wyoming scumbag..that's all personality driven snark...

This is ACTUALLY A HUGE ISSUE...it's not simply a single Mosque we're discussing here...we are talking about whether we have enough courage and fortitude to stand behind our Constitution or whether we're were frightened little snots ready to throw our founding principles under the bus.

At least one thing is clear from some of the psters whining about...waaahhhh Saudi Arabia won't let Christians build we'll let them build when they do.

Now we know why you were so enthralled with the Crawford Tx Village Idiot! Raise your standards! IMHO our great nation can actually raise the bar...especially from where some of you have set it...the Taliban..Saudi Arabia....whew.....

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 12, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Religion is mentioned twice in the Constitution:

1) [N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (article 6)

2) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (1st Amendment)

THEREFORE, there is nothing un-Constitutional about people preventing Moslems from building mosques in their community.

Nothing!

So all you self-proclaimed patriots just shut your yaps about it being "un-American" to oppose mosques.

Posted by: pmendez | August 12, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Objection to the mosque seems to be based on the erroneous notion that it was somehow "Islam" that attacked the WTC.

We aren't at war with Islam, hyperbole by either extreme aside: We're at war with the twisted freaks who hide behind Islam to commit their crimes.

I would rather we welcome the mosque as a symbol of the nation's strength and tolerance and the ability to move forward.

Posted by: MidwaySailor76 | August 12, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

It’s pseudo intellectual faculty lounge dribblings like this that make the left laughable. It Mayor Bloomberg declared tomorrow that every pizza joint in NYC was to be converted to become a mosque at our own expense to show how welcoming and “tolerant” we are do you think that would matter for a millisecond in the mind of the sizeable minority of Muslims around the world that believe in a wahhab view of Islam? Would it stop one beheading, suicide bomb, or honor killing? Libs disgust me.

Posted by: restonhoops | August 12, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing said:

Islam, as it is currently practiced is incompatible with modern western civilization. Much of what the liberals seek to advance is contrary to Muslim core beliefs. Wouldn't it just be irony for the gay rights folks to see the results of their hard work made illegal by sharia?
=====================================
Once again, you are confusing support for a religious group's constitutional rights with tacit endorsement of the religion's core principles.
They are not the same.

I'm an agnostic bordering on atheist, but if someone said "tomorrow you will be required to pick a religion and become an ardent devotee, or else you die" then I would probably choose death first...
But secondly, I might choose Judaism, or perhaps Buddhism. Christianity of the more open-minded sort would be in there somewhere, perhaps.

Islam would be at the bottom of my list, because I disagree vehemently with large tracts of their beliefs (as they are currently practiced, at least, since it's all in the interpretation as much for the Q'uran as for the Bible).
That said, I also disagree vehemently with large tracts of the evangelical Christian doctrine, too (and I was raised as a P.K. in the Assemblies of God, so I know firsthand), and oddly enough, moderate Islam and evangelical Christianity look a lot alike in terms of their outlook on societal norms and morality.

Trust me, if this were a church or synagogue we were talking about, I'd be just as much a crusader for religious freedom for Christians and Jews respectively.
Likewise, if this Islamic center were being built in a place or in a manner that I believed violated the constitutional rights of others, I would be vocally opposed to it.

Also, the building of a mosque - the building of 1,000 mosques - does not put us any closer to the enactment of sharia law in America. That is a ludicrous boogeyman thrown out there to scare the bigots into action, it has no chance of actually ever happening.

Why?
Because we have a fun little document called the Constitution.
And we have separation of church and state.

And that protects me from the ignorant yahoos spouting off in evangelical churches just as much as it protects me from the ignorant yahoos spouting off in mosques...just as it protects those ignorant yahoos' right to be stupid.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"Why should New Yorkers, all over the city, have to see that picture of 9/11, shoved in their faces, day after day."

Liam, you are absolutely correct.

I was there.

I *SAW* the Twin Towers fall with my own eyes.

I SAW the mushroom cloud of dust envelop the entire southern 1/3 of Manhattan.

I was down below 14th Street that evening and saw the dozens of dumptrucks, backhoes, cranes, military vehicles all lined up on Houston ready to go dig for possible survivors.

Screw the Republican Party for making me think of 9/11 -- and the Republican Party's naked bigotry, racism, xenophobia and fearmongering -- on my way to work.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Another right-wing wacko sez:

"It is not a false equivalence at all. We are facing a threat to our civilization.

We must remember that one of Islam's core beliefs is the mandate that the faith be spread."

as their justification why we should allow a mosque to be built close to ground zero.

One of the fundamentalist Christians' core beliefs is the duty to spread the word of God. They do so by bothering, harrassing, and in the past killing, the unbelievers. Frankly, the sidewalk preachers, the door bangers, and public prayers, are as offensive to me as these people think the mosque will be to them. When, if ever, they go to NYC to visit the new World Trade Center, will they purposely walk two blocks to see the mosque? They won't be able to see any other way. I doubt if most of them will bother.

This is a great example of the xenophobia of the stereotypical Ugly American.

Posted by: Chagasman | August 12, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Not all approvals are in. The NYC zoning board is not the last word. It still needs approval by the New York State Public Service Commission. They review utility mergers and things like that. Their test is whether something is in the public interest, not whether it is constitutional.

If their review is anything like a public utility merger (which attracts about 1% as much public attention) then the review will last years.

So pro-mosque people, the fat lady has not sung yet. Plus this thing still has to get built by mob-run contractors (good luck with that).

Posted by: sold2u
_______________________
good grief. they can't have the abstract authority to determine whether any building use is in the public interest as they see it. Not even a zoning board has that power. this isn't a utility merger, and I suspect their jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the proposed use would adversely affect public utilities more than alternative lawful uses.

and just by the way, it was Bush who got Congress to pass a law limiting the power of state and local governments to deny zoning approvals to religious organizations on any but a limited number of grounds.

Posted by: JoeT1 | August 12, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

I really think we should do genetic studies on these loney tunes--there is a definite lack of brain cell activity in these anti-everything people.

Posted by: jstewartecu | August 12, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

It [sic] Mayor Bloomberg declared tomorrow that every pizza joint in NYC was to be converted to become a mosque at our own expense to show how welcoming and “tolerant” we are do you think that would matter for a millisecond in the mind of the sizeable minority of Muslims
======================================
Who care what it would mean to Muslims?
It would be
a) a violation of the pizza shop owner's right to his private property and enterprise,
b) a violation of the separation of church and state, and
c) a huge waste of taxpayer dollars.

So, your analogy is not only moot, it's pretty ridiculous too. Use some logic, man.

That said, I don't think anyone really is worried about the worldwide Muslim view of America in relation to this mosque.
Those of us who support it are concerned with only one thing - the building's owner's right to do what he wants with his private property (a cause celebre of conservatives, last time I checked), and exercise their 1st Amendment right to free practice of religion.
That's it.

So what the heck are YOU talking about?

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

WAR is PEACE
FREEDOM is SLAVERY
IGNORANCE is STRENGTH

1984's INGSOC (English Socialism)...or 2010's right wing, fundamentalist Christian, authoritarian theocrat mantra?

You decide.

Posted by: SportzNut21 | August 12, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

""""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (1st Amendment) THEREFORE, there is nothing un-Constitutional about people preventing Moslems from building mosques in their community."""

pmendez, HAHAHAHAHA! Are you FOR REAL? Is that snark?

You use the Establishment Clause of the Constitution -- which GIVES us all freedom of religion -- as evidence that you can violate Muslim's freedom of religion?

Do you understand the definition of the word "irony"?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

That ad is a grotesque piece of work. However we managed to live through the actual attack on the WTC and we'll manage to survive this ad. We NY'ers are a tough lot unlike the out of town wusses that probably wet their pants every time they see a mosque on TV.

Posted by: kchses1 | August 12, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

"Screw the Republican Party for making me think of 9/11 -- and the Republican Party's naked bigotry, racism, xenophobia and fearmongering -- on my way to work."

Would it have been better if the Republicans buzzed NYC with Air Force One while chasing it with fighter jets?

I've still not quite figured out why self-proclaimed liberals share so much ideological ground with radical Islamists. Liberals claim it's for "religious freedom," although the religious freedoms they support for Muslims consist of things like hanging gays, stoning adulterers, polygamy, repressing women, honor killings, and treating anyone who is not Muslim as lower class kaffirs who can be killed out of hand. Indeed, pretty much everything liberals claim to defend is punishable by death in fundamentalist Islamic countries.

Conservatives, by contrast, understand that actually preserving religious and social freedoms FOR EVERYONE means that each individual group may have to give something up in order to co-habitate with everyone else. Since Muslims generally seem unable or unwilling to give up their self-proclaimed religious supremacy (often evidenced by, say, building mosques atop sites cherished by other religions or ethnicities), conservatives are justifiably suspicious that the religious freedoms of others are at risk. Honestly, what do you really think will happen if a Jewish guy wearing a yarmulke walks into this so-called "bridge building" mosque?

What really bothers me is that liberals ignore the incredibly repressive aspects of Islam (while imagining it about Christianity) not even for some true, noble goal, but because it personally makes them feel enlightened and cultured for being diverse and tolerating an ideology that hates them. It's precisely the sort of dead-end, self-indulgent, nihilistic pampering that can twist itself into thinking it's a victory for democracy to build a giant mosque a landing gear's throw from one of the greatest acts of mass murder in American history. Every single liberal that thinks it's a good idea should take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves just what exactly they think they're doing to their own country.

Posted by: zippyspeed | August 12, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

2) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (1st Amendment)

THEREFORE, there is nothing un-Constitutional about people preventing Moslems from building mosques in their community.

=====

Oh. My. Goodness.

You have GOT to be kidding.

That second sentence in your quote of the First Amendment is EXACTLY why mosques should be allowed to be built, in ANY community.

Lest we forget, one of the reasons why North America was settled was to escape religious persecution. Over 200 years later, the persecuted have become the persecutors.

To try to use the Constitution as a weapon of intolerance is un-American.

Posted by: SportzNut21 | August 12, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

9/11 happened. People know who the attackers were. How would preventing that new Muslim center change any of what people already know actually happened.

It is just crazy right wing hysteria. The historical facts about 9/11 will remain the same, regardless of if the Muslim Center is built or not.

As for those who say; allowing the Muslim Center to go ahead is: "turning our backs on 9/11". Bush/Cheney did that the minute they let Bin Laden escape, and went off to invade Iraq.

They even used 9/11 in a cynical big lie, to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Strange how right wingers have no problem with Bush/Cheney desecrating the memory of all those who died on 9/11, to launch their stupid invasion of Iraq.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 12, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

This is for you zippy, you First Amendment-hating lunatic:

Screw the Republican Party for making me think of 9/11 -- and the Republican Party's naked bigotry, racism, xenophobia and fearmongering -- on my way to work.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

thanks to zippyseed for joining the fray here. The liberals are in an uproar.

Oh and thanks to nisleib too. I really appreciate your special insight into all things conservative. How many do you actually know? got any republicans in your drum circle? Just too funny.

And JMD, that's YOUR opinion. good for you. So what? YOu disagree with my assessment and that's fine. Given the liberal willingness to trample the constitution I see no reason to rely on the first amendment as a means to fend off sharia.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 12, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Actually, this issue has been really great for America in many ways:

Everyone is exercising their constitutional freedoms...the Cordoba group who is building the Islamic center...those who oppose it for a variety of illogical and ridiculous reasons...those who support it...everyone gets to exercise some 1st Amendment right.

And at the end of the day, with all the protests and ill-advised bus ads and flaming rhetoric...the Islamic center will be approved anyway, and everyone will go back to their own business, and everything will be fine. And maybe attitudes will gradually change.

America truly is the greatest country on earth!

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Yo, Ethan2010 & Sportz21:

Is CONGRESS trying to stop anybody from building a mosque anywhere?

Neither of you have a clue as to the purpose of the US Constitution, do you?

The US Constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government. If people have opinions about what kinds of buildings can and can't be built in their communities, they are allowed to act on them.

Posted by: pmendez | August 12, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Where were these clowns when they built an anti-choice fake clinic, next to a former real clinic, after Dr. Tiller was murdered by a terrorist.

Posted by: revbookburn | August 12, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

There should be an article on "The absurdity of the US Media"

Media should self-reflect as they share the blame for demonizing the political "enemy" and treating Islam as a monolithic religion.
When any suspected Muslim criminal/psycho is titled a 'terrorist' or claimed to be "sympathizer" of Qaida, it is no surprise that average Americans have difficulty differentiating.

Repeat a lie enough times and it becomes the truth.

Posted by: joiger456 | August 12, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

And please stop referring it as a "Mosque". It is a community center with a prayer room.

Posted by: joiger456 | August 12, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

I know the Constitution grants me freedom of religion...and also (believe it or not) freedom FROM religion.

It also grants 300 million OTHER citizens the freedom to worship (or to not worship) however they see fit.

This means not only Christians...but Jewish, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Unitarians, deists, pagans...and you too, pmendez.

I think it also means that your right to attempt to impose your misguided will ends at my right to lawfully exercise my rights.

So yeah, I understand the Constitution quite well, thankyouVERYmuch.

HTH. HAND.

Posted by: SportzNut21 | August 12, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

"""Is CONGRESS trying to stop anybody from building a mosque anywhere? Neither of you have a clue as to the purpose of the US Constitution, do you? The US Constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government. If people have opinions about what kinds of buildings can and can't be built in their communities, they are allowed to act on them."""

HAHAHA!

Frickin WOW man.

You are truly delusional if you think the Constitution only applies to CONGRESS!

Hahaha, get outta here. Too hilarious.

For the record, if a "community" decides to make a law that Muslims cannot build a Mosque in their town, IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If a city tries to do the same, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If a county tries to do the same, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If a state tries to do the same, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

It's called the Supremacy Clause, and it says that the Constitution and Federal Law are the supreme law of the land and can overturn local laws.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

~ United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

But nice try. Go read about the country called America. There's plenty of literature.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 12, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

I've still not quite figured out why self-proclaimed liberals share so much ideological ground with radical Islamists.
=========================================
"Liberals" - which of course is a misnomer right out of the gate, because it's not just ardent left-wingers that support this mosque, but I know it helps your black & white view of the world to think so - in this case are only concerned with protecting 1st Amendment freedoms. I actually despise Islam as a religious faith (as much as I despise evangelical Christianity, for much the same reasons).
But my moral opposition to their beliefs has no relevance to their constitutional right to practice their faith.

Likewise, things like stonings, honor killings, etc. are all forbidden in America by secular laws that protect the civil liberties of all individuals. What happens in other countries is a moot point. Nor are those violent practices specifically called for in the Q'uran, nor are the practiced or condoned by all Muslims across the board.

Since Muslims generally seem unable or unwilling to give up their self-proclaimed religious supremacy (often evidenced by, say, building mosques atop sites cherished by other religions or ethnicities)
==============================
So, you cherish the non-descript, side-street neighborhood that the Islamic center is going into?
Because it's certainly not going right on Ground Zero.
And, exactly how far do the borders of your "cherished site" extend? 2 blocks, 4 blocks, 6 blocks? Is there a "sacred site" demarcation line somewhere we don't see?
Plus, Ground Zero has somehow been co-opted by Christians and the religious right as THEIR sacred ground, which of course is ridiculous since a) Jews, Muslims, atheists and gays all died on 9/11 too, and b) it was not a "holy site" or even a sacred place to begin with, it was a place of business. This "hallowed ground reserved for true American patriots" idea is ludicrous, and was invented out of thin air by those who like to make an enemy out of Islam regardless.

Honestly, what do you really think will happen if a Jewish guy wearing a yarmulke walks into this so-called "bridge building" mosque?
============================
The same thing that would happen to me if I walked in, as a non-Muslim - I would not be permitted to worship there. However, given that this is going to be a CULTURAL CENTER and not strictly a mosque, I imagine there will be areas that non-Muslims can visit.
And before you jump all over the exclusivity issue, may I remind you that there are numerous private groups that limit entrance to their private facilities to members-only. Say, your local country club as an example. No harm there, aren't they just exercising their private property rights??

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

What really bothers me is that liberals ignore the incredibly repressive aspects of Islam (while imagining it about Christianity) not even for some true, noble goal
==============================
#1 I ignore nothing, see above. #2 the only true and noble goal here is the preservation of our Constitution.

It's precisely the sort of dead-end, self-indulgent, nihilistic pampering that can twist itself into thinking it's a victory for democracy to build a giant mosque a landing gear's throw from one of the greatest acts of mass murder in American history.
=====================================
I consider it a victory to democracy that a religious group can build a facility wherever they please. What if we started barring Christian groups from building wherever THEY please, out of a call for "sensitivity" to the surrounding neighborhood? (even though the neighborhood this building is going in have already approved the plan).
It's proximity to a site of mass murder is irrelevant unless you believe the proclaimed religion of the murderers and the religion of the Cordoba group are not only identical, but that they bear some indirect responsibility for the acts of 9/11. And that's where you fail to use logic, you're making a connection that ultimately doesn't exist.


Every single liberal that thinks it's a good idea should take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves just what exactly they think they're doing to their own country.
=================================
Ummm, defending the Constitution?
Protecting freedom of religion?
I know, I'm sorry...the Constitution only applies to white Christian gun-toting conservatives, right?

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Skip- Your big point appears to be that Islam requires the violent conversion of all humanity. However, you've completely fail to prove that many Muslims interpret the Koran that way or feel the obligation to abide by that particularly part of the Koran.

Christianity similarly tells people to convert people, albeit peacefully, but there are relatively few Christians who are missionaries at home or abroad. There are also various Christian sects that believe in speaking in tongues while other do not.

If Islam truly demands Muslims to do as they say, how do you explain the millions upon millions of Muslims who ignore this alleged requirement of their religion?

Ethan- pmendez just appears to forget about the 14th amendment. Even if he is saying that private citizens can try and stop other citizens from building a mosque, there are still limitations to that such as laws against trespassing, assault, etc.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | August 12, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Qur'an 9:5, 29-31

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful...Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One Allah. There is no Allah save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!

Posted by: sonofliberty09 | August 12, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

And JMD, that's YOUR opinion. good for you. So what? YOu disagree with my assessment and that's fine. Given the liberal willingness to trample the constitution I see no reason to rely on the first amendment as a means to fend off sharia.

----------------------
I see no "JMD" on this board, so I assume you're referring to me, "JMG."

I really can't understand what point you think you're trying to make - unless you're really not trying to make one at all and are just throwing out incendiary statements to try and deflect the accusations that you really don't know what you're talking about...but, at any rate...

#1 - I'm not a liberal. I have liberal views, but I also have conservative views, and I'm registered Libertarian. So much for your nice little "either/or" package.

#2 - trample the Constitution? I would like you to cite examples where liberals TRAMPLED the Constitution. They definitely have some interpretation issues with the 2nd Amendment (with which I don't agree, I support gun rights), but other than that I can't think of any outright TRAMPLING of the Constitution.
I do however see liberals trying to fend off the cherry-picking conservatives like to do of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments in particular.

#3 - no reason to expect that the 1st Amendment would fend off sharia? What??
Please, enlighten us with your worst-case scenario where the Constitution would be TRAMPLED and replaced by Sharia law. I think someone has been reading a bit too much George Orwell...

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

"Screw the Republican Party for making me think of 9/11 -- and the Republican Party's naked bigotry, racism, xenophobia and fearmongering -- on my way to work."

Hey Ethan! Where do you tend bar, bro?

Posted by: tao9 | August 12, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

@pm: they are allowed to act on them.

I have no problem with people peacefully protesting in front of the muslim Y every day if they want to, as long as they don't prevent or harass people from entering or leaving. I have a problem with people trying to take legal means to stop a private property owner to build what they want to as long as it meets zoning requirements.

The denizens of rightwingnutistan should be supporting their two favorite Amendments from the Bill or Rights, freedom of religion and expression and protection of private property... Somehow, they aren't defending the document they swear is the best ever....

Posted by: srw3 | August 12, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

All, come check out our Happy Hour Roundup:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/happy_hour_roundup_71.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 12, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Wapo erased a 172 comment thread on the Arab serial killer. That proves the mosque should not be built and that immigration be suspended.

Posted by: OldAtlantic | August 12, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

low. And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One Allah. There is no Allah save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!

Posted by: sonofliberty09
=============================
Yeah, that's great. Nice copy and paste.
So what?

Do you really want someone to go copy and paste all the passages in the Holy Bible that suggest Jews and Christians do all sorts of insane things, and that criticize the "infidels" who do not believe in God and Jesus?

Besides the fact that Islam does venerate Jesus as a great prophet, just not as a Messiah and a deity himself - and that it what is reflected in this text. It's really only offensive to those who believe Christ is the Son of God and Messiah, to anyone else, they're just words of some ancient dude who wrote some stuff down. Just like the Bible, or the Talmud.

It has no relevance whatsoever to the building of an Islamic cultural center, an act protected by a Constitution that wisely is not based on nor gives credence to any "holy book."


Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

As stated today by a political commentator, the Constitution guarantees freedom to practice religion. It does not guarantee that you can build a place of worship where ever you want. If Sargent had a brain, he'd know this.
.

Posted by: hz9604 | August 12, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

and of his kingdom there will be no end and the government he said the government will be on his shoulders people get riled up oft times and they dont even have all the facts its so easy to give into rage and hatred it is not so easy to stay on the path of what is right and true. It is true that terroists blew up the world trade center killed innocent people who left a powerful lot of grieving family behind and in respect for them this mosque being built on this ground should have been unthinkable never mind peaceful muslims in this country this was an act of war this was insiduous and the scars it left behind are still being suffered by them that to
in itself would bred alot of intentional hatred for like I said it is unimaginable bush obama men who where heads of state they so far as I can see have not saved us from the terrible circumstances facing this country our god will and then this mosque this idea will be mute wont it for will will be one god one nation under god

Posted by: robertajkaufman3 | August 12, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

@ JMGinPDX :Honestly, what do you really think will happen if a Jewish guy wearing a yarmulke walks into this so-called "bridge building" mosque?

Nothing. It's a community center with a prayer space for Muslims...Maybe he is there to take a cooking class (both Muslims and Jews have prohibitions on pork) or to take language classes. Who knows why he is there, but if it is a public accomodation, I assume everyone will be welcome...

What really bothers me is that liberals ignore the incredibly repressive aspects of Islam (while imagining it about Christianity) not even for some true, noble goal, but because it personally makes them feel enlightened and cultured for being diverse and tolerating an ideology that hates them.

That bastion of Liberalism, the ACLU, defended the Nazis marching in Skokie, a heavily Jewish neighborhood with many holocaust survivors living there. I have nothing but contempt for the message of Nazism and I felt the march was offensive, but freedom means that some idiots will do offensive things. I would rather have that than have the govt say, "Your group is from X or Y religion and for that reason alone, you don't have the same rights as everyone else..."

Posted by: srw3 | August 12, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

One of the most unfortunate aspects of this situation is the extent to which the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal has entered into a low and dishonest attack on the muslim community. We usually expect better of them but this issue seems to have unhinged them. Specious logic and casuistry are now the order of the day at the Journal.

Posted by: mmurray2 | August 12, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

All of the Henny Penny / sky is falling / watch out for the bogeyman in the turban rhetoric is, point blank, irrelevant and nonsensical.

The Constitution basically guarantees the Cordoba group can build their Islamic cultural center wherever they like.
It also guarantees that any Christian organization can build a church or cultural center wherever they wish.
It also guarantees that both parties can do what they wish with their private property.

Christians, right-wingers, etc. can gripe and moan all they want, but at the end of the day, the same Constitution that gives you religious freedom also grants it to everyone else.

True freedom means being willing to extend to your ideological opposite the same freedoms you enjoy, so long as neither of you violate anyone's civil liberties.

NO ONE gets to cherry pick the Constitution for the parts that support their limited, bigoted world view - whether your Christian, Muslim, white, black, gay, straight, male, female, etc. - we are all protected by the same document.
To suggest any other solution should be in place is patently un-American.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

srw3, you'd better read my posts more carefully. I was commenting on claims made by skipsailing. I did not say the things you are attributing to me in your post.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

This needs to be reposted.................

“Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”

The Treaty of Tripoli
Signed By John Adams
Ratified UNANIMOUSLY by Congress


All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." ~ Thomas Paine 1793

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." -Benjamin Franklin

"What has been [Christianity's] fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison

----

Conservatives love the constitution until they don't. The GOP is full of these type of folks, who vote against their own interest time and time again principle out of hate towards someone else. Gays, Poor, Muslims, Catholics, Women have all been the target of the hate block of GOP voters. I only wonder who the GOP leadership will target next being that they have zero ideas on how to solve this nations problems.

Posted by: hansenthered | August 12, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

religious freedom never was free men fought and died for it all thru time sometimes they stood for god sometimes they only thought they did there is an awful lot of terroists turning up in this country trying to blow up subways and such that is a fact some may be doctors lawyers students educated with taxpayer dollars sleepers in this country that we never told they could not attend services at their mosques the other day some by all appearances very devoted nice courageous people lost their lives when they only trying to help the afghan people in a remote village see better were brutally murdered for what the taliban called prosletyzing they dont cotton to religous freedom I guess now you probably are going to say ya but I think ya but when every grieving memeber of 9 ll look at ground zero they should not have to see a mosque there opionions kill they wound and they rub salt on open bleeding injustices and yes they even bred hateful things and violence but simple decency should not change honor those hurting people and a shocked nation first dont without just cause distrub anyone who doesnt believe like you but dont let then rub what they believe in your face it cannot promote peace these rich developers could build this mosque anywhere I say not here I dont care about bush or obama this Iman but not people losing innocent loved ones forever that gets to me and if one of them should have to suffer one tear for a mosque that could be built anywhere else that is a grave cold calculated injustice what else would you take from them

Posted by: robertajkaufman3 | August 12, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

As stated today by a political commentator, the Constitution guarantees freedom to practice religion. It does not guarantee that you can build a place of worship where ever you want.
Posted by: hz9604
==================================
No, it does not. Nor does it need to.
The Constitution also doesn't specifically say you can view pornography, buy an AK-47, or refuse to allow a police officer into your house without a warrant.
But the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments in their vague and general wording have been interpreted numerous times to allow exactly those three things.

One can argue - and I'm certain they have in a court of law - that forbidding the building of a religious facility is a de facto violation of the freedom of religion, by preventing a religious group from building or maintaining private property with the goal of free practice of worship, the state could be seen as trying to prevent that group from practicing their religion.
The burden would be on the state to prove that the actual structure or operation of it would violate some other law or someone else's civil liberties in order to refuse its construction.

Fortunately our Founding Fathers were wise enough not to get too specific in the language of our core documents.


Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

@JMGinPDX : apologies for misreading your post...I see that we actually agree....

Posted by: srw3 | August 12, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

When mobsters who collude as respects a murder walk the streets because of violations of due process, our constitution is victorious. When the most repulsive expression emblazons a building, our freedom of speech is shown to have been protected.

Posted by: Martial | August 12, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Objection to the mosque seems to be based on the erroneous notion that it was somehow "Islam" that attacked the WTC.
We aren't at war with Islam, hyperbole by either extreme aside: We're at war with the twisted freaks who hide behind Islam to commit their crimes.
I would rather we welcome the mosque as a symbol of the nation's strength and tolerance and the ability to move forward.
Posted by: MidwaySailor76
============================
The opposition is also based on the notion that the WTC site is some sort of "hallowed ground" for Christians in particular.
This belief I'm sure is driven by the "Last Days" belief that 9/11 was mentioned in Revelations as a sign of the coming of the Antichrist, that this is one more tool used by Muslims to overtake the country, yadda yadda yadda

The leaps of logic one must make to paint this as a terrible idea are truly mind-numbing.
The application of just the slightest bit of logic and reason negates all the rantings of the self-appointed leaders of the Right.

So...the actions of twisted ideologues are being interpreted by twisted ideologues and all the sheep who buy their illogical lines of rhetoric as having some relation to the very simple fact that an Islamic organization wants to set up shop a few blocks from Ground Zero.

Truly insane.


Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 12, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

A true mark of one devoted to constitutional liberties is strong support of the rights of the most vicious murderers imaginable as respects our criminal justice system. All the other rights matter not nearly as much. It is through abuses of the judiciary that democracy most often falls.

Posted by: Martial | August 12, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Here's the rub:

The decision of whether or not to build on Park 51 is somewhat irrelevant to the fact that the religious right has taken this as an opportunity to create a nation-wide campaign against Islam as a religion. The goal is to paint all of Islam as somehow responsible for 9/11 when it was a fanatical splinter group perpetrating the crime.

The ultimate goal is to have the religion branded as a cult and outlawed from the U.S. all together. What it comes down to is that the moving of this cultural center (it's not even a mosque) creates a precedent where any hallowed ground in the U.S., authentic or not, can create an argument against having any opposing religion that has committed atrocities against it in the past (a pretty common occurrence) from building any sort of building near it.

That is not Freedom of Religion.

Posted by: confoo22 | August 12, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

I think we should keep the southern fundamentalist churches out of the North, because of the role they played in the Civil War. You know, it still hurts people.

Posted by: colonelpanic | August 12, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

The attack on the Twin Towers and the murder of more than 3,000 of our compatriots was an act that cries out for revenge. After Pearl Harbor we drove the Japanese clear across the Pacific, killed hundreds of thousands of their soldiers, and nuked two of their cities as a thank-you for the vicious sneak attack. But are we now to reward the moslem assassins and the Saudi lunatics who sent them by allowing them to build a shrine to exactly that which motivated their murder and mayhem? Never. Never, no way!

We have unfinished business with the screaming beard-moslems, their Ala, and and their so-called "prophet." The bill will be presented in full.

Posted by: 7891 | August 12, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent dismisses those with concerns about the mega-mosque using the ad hominem "absurd." So I will counter: only an IDIOT would NOT view this as highly provocative and highly insensitive.

When Jews asked John Paul II to intervene in the building a convent next to Auschwitz, he did the right thing and acceded to their wishes. Should we not have expectations of the Muslims to do the right thing here and accede to the families who lost loved ones?

Posted by: GiveMeThat | August 12, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

It's long overdue for some reciprocity on this mosque business.

The 57 Islamic states owe it to the world to allow the construction and use of Christian Churches, Jewish Synagogues, Buddhist Temples and a variety of other religious facilities.

NO MOSQUES should be allowed to be built or opened until that reciprocity is established in every one of those Moslem states.

They can pray on rugs in their livingrooms for all that matters ~ but America's Moslems best get cracking to insure that those of us who do not share their faith find facilities waiting on us when we travel abroad to their homelands.

Or, alternatively, they can convert and get it overwith.

Posted by: muawiyah | August 12, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

I am sure the families of the people who perished in the World Trade Center will take comfort in the muslim call to prayer echoing down the street when they visit the site. Islam is the most intolerant religion on the planet but the bloggers (not a journalist) like Sargant may not have spent sufficient time in the middle east to understand this.

Posted by: Galasso | August 12, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

"Every single mosque is a potential terror training center"

Is every seminary a recruitment camp for sexual deviants?

[crickets chirrrrping]

Posted by: grosmec | August 12, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Well Sargent, how wrong can you be, the issue has nothing to do with freedom of religion. This is not about the right to practice religion, or the government or others impeding the free practice thereof, it is about the location of the Mosque. The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to build a Mosque, Church, or other place of worship anywhere you want - note that local zoning laws have long dictated where a religious building may be located and built. The test is whether not allowing the building of this Mosque at this site would impede the free practice of Islam, which it would not. If we follow your line of reasoning, then it would be OK for any church to say, buy a bunch of houses in your neighborhood, demolish them, and then build a house of worship without regard for any local input or zoning, or even a zoning variance. I bet you would scream and holler bloody murder if such an event were to occur in your neighborhood. The First Amendment right to free speech, however, is not subject to local approval and, except in very limited circumstances, is without exception. The fact is that the building of this Mosque in this location is an insensitive act. They could easily build this Mosque say a few blocks away and there would be little or no controversy. As a side note, do some reading on the Constitution and in particular, some case law next time before you decide to unilaterally act as a Supreme Court justice.

Posted by: fwillyhess | August 12, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

The problem is that muslims should not be in America in the first place.

Posted by: jnrentz@aol.com | August 12, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Muslim: This is not simply a religion, it is a life style, a 100% lifestyle. It is a lifestyle incompatibale in the West, Western Values, and the Western Tradition.

We should get out of the mid-east with the sole exception of supporting Israel (but no more foreign aid to Israel) and we should expel every muslim living in the United States.

In brief, we should not be there, and they should not be here.

Posted by: jnrentz@aol.com | August 12, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent's argument is childish. Of course the ads opposing the mosque are a free speech victory. Greg Sargent doesn't think so because he disagrees with the ads. That's the whole point of the first amendment, duh.

Posted by: Robert2008 | August 12, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Sargent doesn't argue that the ads are not a free speech victory. Robert2008 totally missed Sargent's point. And that point is: those who are touting the ads as a 1st amendment (freedom of speech) victory seem completely oblivious to the fact that they are advocating violating the 1st amendment (freedom of religious expression). Oblivious as Robert2008.

Posted by: GenProtectionFault | August 12, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing:
"American women would be second class citizens. Stoning anyone?"


"suzie, you clearly have a reading comprehension problem. Go back and read my comment. See the word "assimilation" in there sweetie?

Take a chill pill sistah. Read more carefully. Knee jerk reactions are just part of being a liberal, right?"
_____________________________________


Clearly you already view American women as second class. On the other hand, you present yourself as having no class.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | August 12, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Muslim: This is not simply a religion, it is a life style, a 100% lifestyle. It is a lifestyle incompatibale in the West, Western Values, and the Western Tradition.

... we should expel every muslim living in the United States.

In brief, we should not be there, and they should not be here.

Posted by: jnrentz@aol.com
*******

You are sadly misinformed.

I come from the small midwestern city of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which has had Muslim residents for over a hundred years and was the site of the first mosque built specifically for that purpose, dedicated in 1934. The Muslims are good citizens, good neighbors, good Americans. Two died serving in WWII and 20 are now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. There has never been a problem.

And now you, in your profound ignorance, want to make trouble. I've a suggestion: Let Cedar Rapids keep its Muslim residents, and YOU go away, since you don't believe in the Constitution.

Posted by: j3hess | August 12, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

"the Nazis marching in Skokie"

I hate Illinois Nazis.

Posted by: SportzNut21 | August 12, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
100 Raoul Wallenberg Place, SW
Washington, DC 20024-2126

The Remember with Love Adolph Hitler Foundation is setting up its memorabilia display at 102 Raoul Wallenberg Place, SW
Washington, DC 20024-2126

Now that would be absurd.

Posted by: LETFREEDOMRING2 | August 12, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

It wasn't Baptists behind 9-11, or Catholics who bombed the USS Cole, or Methodists bombing our embassies and military bases around world, or atheists who behead innocent journalists(Daniel Pearl).

No, the violence was spawned by the leaders of Islam, the Political Cult of Evil! This organization and its followers do not belong on freedoms soil. Period. Ever.


Posted by: greatgrandmasue | August 12, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

When Jews asked John Paul II to intervene in the building a convent next to Auschwitz, he did the right thing and acceded to their wishes. Should we not have expectations of the Muslims to do the right thing here and accede to the families who lost loved ones?
Posted by: GiveMeThat
-----------------------

The Catholic Church has a centuries-long record of official persecution of Jews, including the Spanish Inquisition. It was complicit in creating the antecendent conditions for the Holocaust.

In contrast, Muhammed preached tolerance for the "People of the Book", Jews and Christian, and forbade forced conversions. When Crusaders invaded Jerusalem, they slaughered Jews and Muslims. When the Muslims took it back, they left the Christian civilians alone.

A small group of fanatic Arab nationalists attacked us. Islam did not.

***************************

The 57 Islamic states owe it to the world to allow the construction and use of Christian Churches, Jewish Synagogues, Buddhist Temples and a variety of other religious facilities.

NO MOSQUES should be allowed to be built or opened until that reciprocity is established in every one of those Moslem states.
Posted by: muawiyah
----

WE preach freedom of religion. You want us to sacrifice OUR freedoms to spite other nations, and to spit in the face of the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who are Muslims? To me, that sounds like cooperating with Al Qaeda.

In fact, many non-Arab Muslim nations also have Christian churches already.

*********************

I am sure the families of the people who perished in the World Trade Center will take comfort in the muslim call to prayer echoing down the street when they visit the site. Islam is the most intolerant religion on the planet but the bloggers (not a journalist) like Sargant may not have spent sufficient time in the middle east to understand this.
Posted by: Galasso
-----------------

Islam is not just the Middle East, nor is the Middle East just Islam. The families who had losses in the terror attacks should avoid the mistake of increasing their anguish by confusing the terrorists with the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world.

And mosques in predominantly Christian communities do not usually have the call to prayer. (I grew up in such a community.)

*******
... But are we now to reward the moslem assassins and the Saudi lunatics who sent them by allowing them to build a shrine to exactly that which motivated their murder and mayhem? Never. Never, no way!
Posted by: 7891
--------------------

Great - you are now calling peaceful Muslim Americans assassins and lunatics. I see that Al Qadea, which can never conquer us, has succeeded in the conquest of your brain, convincing you that all Muslims are part of their pathetically small group. You may surrender to their fanatic spin, but I refuse.

Posted by: j3hess | August 12, 2010 9:50 PM | Report abuse

What's all this talk about Saudi Arabia and what whether they would allow churches?

Saudi Arabia is a theocratic tyranny, and what they do or don't do is irrelevant. We are a constitutional republic.

So, if you have constitutional arguments against the mosque, let's argue them. But what Saudi Arabia does or doesn't do only matters if you think we should be more like them.

Posted by: msh41 | August 12, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse

please check out http://www.islamicsolutions.com/if-it-is-extreme-it-is-not-islam/

Posted by: Nabihah | August 12, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Besides the obvious violence Islam has heaped on the world, the secret sexual abuse of children is far more physically and mentally damaging.

Fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran

A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. Is that enough hopey-changy for you today?

The main reason for banning all mosques in the US and on any other soil of freedom loving nations, is that Islam (authored by Iran's very own Ayatollah Khomeini) allows and forgives all forms of pedophilia.

The Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran also allows "thighing” of girl and boy infants. Search the meaning before Islam demands the US close access to search engines in order to keep their dirty little secrets from being exposed to the world!

Naturally, as a good Muslim man, he stripped women of all rights too.

Oh yes, and Islam in Iran allows 'marriage for minutes' in their brothels attached to or close by their mosques! Have a daily prayer and a "comfort" for those weary travelers to Mecca. How many politicians will convert on the spot?

Child sexual abuse is against the law all across our land. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen but it isn’t sanctioned by any church doctrine. So is Islam a religion as it claims or a political cult?

Islam must go. Get out and take your sick perverts with you.

Posted by: greatgrandmasue | August 12, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are incompatiable with Islams goal of complete conversion, death to infidels and non believers and eventual slavery as we have witnessed when the Taliban become unstoppable.

Want that for your daughter? Not me. Ever.

Islam is a poltical organization, a twin of Nazi ideals.

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

It's the same old same old. The freedoms outlined in our Constitution only apply to conservative wealthy white heterosexual males. Poor people, women, African Americans and Latinos, gays and lesbians, and now Muslim Americans, well, there's another set of rules for them which best reflect the values held dear in rural Afghanistan.

Today's Republicans. A sorry breed and an embarrassment to our proud founding document and history.

Posted by: B2O2 | August 12, 2010 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Hey genius, since anyone who can read and count knows that muslims commit more terrorist attacks than EVERYONE ELSE combined, I figured importing islam into the US was a bad idea. Although I know most muslims are not terrorist, most terrorist are muslims. After all, muslims blow people up every day, usually other muslims. I didn't have to go shoeless at airports and have a 3 oz carry on limit before the religion of peace made it's US debut. However, this cordoba mosque shows promise for enlightenment.
Americans will be happy to know that the Cordoba House mosque has been working on a curriculum to reach out to Americans and teach them about the tolerance and peacefulness that is Islam. All the classes are taught by Muslims uniquely qualified to deliver this message to the American people.

Course 1) The Honor in Honor Killing
Taught by Mr. Yasser Said. Unfortunately Mr. Said is not available right now but when he resurfaces, he will be teaching the class. He shot his two daughters to death, Amina and Sarah, for befriending Hispanic men. As you can see, the Cordoba House hires only the most qualified.

Course 2) Fifty Ways to Lose Your Lover
Taught by Muzzammil Hassan founder of Bridges TV. Bridges TV is known for building bridges between Americans and Muslims, just not their wives. Mr. Hassan has been charged with beheading his wife, Aasiya Hassan, because she requested a divorce. He is uniquely qualified as well.

Course 3) How to Win the Hearts and Bodies of a 9 Year Old.
The teachings of Muhammad will be used for this class as well as a representative from the Taliban if your penchant is for 9 year old boys, maybe girls. Don't worry about the Muslim claim that homosexuality is an abomination, I'm sure they had a revelation from Allah justifying their actions

Posted by: jm125 | August 12, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

bobmoses: here's a clue for ya...voters do not have the authority to override other people's constitutional rights.
Posted by: suekzoo1 |
-------------------------
To be sure, but there is only a constitutional right to practice one's religion. The right to have a mosque (or another place of worship) at a PARTICULAR LOCATION is not mentioned in the constitution.

I really do think we need to drop these two silly games. One is played by some on the right that all questions are answered in the Bible. The other is the silly game played by others on the left that all questions were settled in 1789 when the constitution was drafted.

There has to be some room for reason, for facts, and for looking for the best solution to a practical problem. So please stop looking to the Bible or to the 18th century for solutions to every single thing.

I am dismayed by the religious fanatics and the constitutional rights fanatics, trying to take over the entire space of public discussion.

Posted by: rohit57 | August 12, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

So, Greg, answer the question. Why there?

Mark Impomeni
RedState.com

Posted by: MarkImpomeni | August 12, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Sargent doesn't argue that the ads are not a free speech victory. Robert2008 totally missed Sargent's point. And that point is: those who are touting the ads as a 1st amendment (freedom of speech) victory seem completely oblivious to the fact that they are advocating violating the 1st amendment (freedom of religious expression). Oblivious as Robert2008.
Posted by: GenProtectionFault
--------------------------------
But there already are a hundred mosques in New York City. I would love to see an explanation of why the religious expression of Muslims is violated if THIS mosque is built in some other locations.

Posted by: rohit57 | August 12, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Drill the twin towers, get a mosque 2 blocks away. If that isnt the ultimate slap in the face, i don't know what is.

Posted by: zap123 | August 12, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Amazing that the people who prance around shouting about "freedom" and the "constitution" don't want it applied to all Americans, only those who think, vote and worship as they do.

Posted by: MNUSA | August 12, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

"...a truly nasty piece of work..." you say about the ad on the bus depicting the 911 attack. I think the attack was a truly nasty piece of work by Muslims. Now Muslims want to build a mosque near the site. This is a nasty piece of work, as well. Frankly, I think Muslims are a nasty piece of work that go far past being a religion. They are a way of life that threatens to destroy our way of life, and idiots like you writing articles like this should make any decent American sick.

Posted by: johntu | August 12, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse

The writer of this article apparently does not realize the fact that freedom of religion does not mean private citizens have to put up with outrageous actions as long as it is part of some religion.

Most people are disgusted at this proposal for a mosque that showcases "tolerance". Think of the absurd justification given by the mullah -- a Muslim center to preach tolerance to America, ignoring its own practioners who need that lecture much more than American do.
This center would be more appropriate in Pakistan, Yemen and other Islamic countries with intolerant populations.

Let me see, what is equally appropriate. Perhaps a Wagnerian playhouse right next to Auschwitz, so that tourists who visit the concentration camp in the morning may be exposed to the glories of German music in the evening.

All of us should oppose this middle finger gesture to America and to its 9/11 victims.

Posted by: Observer20 | August 12, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

fwillyhess points out that:

"... The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to build a Mosque, Church, or other place of worship anywhere you want - note that local zoning laws have long dictated where a religious building may be located and built. The test is whether not allowing the building of this Mosque at this site would impede the free practice of Islam, which it would not...."

That would be the test if some authority were trying to forbid it, but the local authorities have been consulted from the start and have not opposed it. Just in case anyone thinks this adds anything to the argument of whether they should or not... It doesn't.

fwillyhess's point, I think, is that there is no 1st amendment issue involved in granting or not granting permission to build at that site, whereas members of the public who mount a campaign to pressure officials to change their position are unquestionably in 1st Amendment territory.

I think he's right about the second part but not necessarily about the first. The decision to forbid has to be based on law. It cannot be capricious. If the zoning and other authorities of NY should decide to forbid merely to appease anti-Muslim sentiment, and without a defensible legal basis, then I think we're in Free Exercise territory.

I don't think there's any question that many of the campaigners (and many of their supporters, as we can see on this page) do indeed wish to impede the free practice of Islam. They have no official position, and the 1st amendment constrains officials, not citizens, so there's no constitutional issue there.

But if the authorities do reverse themselves and forbid the building of the mosque, then I think you can justify very strict scrutiny of that decision. I think they would have to show that the reversal *did not* have the purpose of impeding Free Exercise that is so clearly the purpose of the campaigners.

Posted by: msh41 | August 12, 2010 11:15 PM | Report abuse

... why the religious expression of Muslims is violated if THIS mosque is built in some other locations.
Posted by: rohit57
----

You might look up the Supreme Court decision that extended freedom of religion to protecting Catholic church buildings from unwanted intrusions on remodeling/listing on the Nat. Register etc.

But there's the broader reality that denying this mosque this location accepts the factually wrong notion that Islam or Muslims in general are responsible for the attacks on 9/11. It is saying that they have a lesser ability to practice religion than other faiths. It accepts the defamation of all Muslims, including US citizens.

See zap123 above if you think it doesn't!

Posted by: j3hess | August 12, 2010 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Drill the twin towers, get a mosque 2 blocks away. If that isnt the ultimate slap in the face, i don't know what is.
Posted by: zap123
---------------

Great - you are now calling peaceful Muslim Americans assassins and fanatics. I see that Al Qadea, which can never conquer us, has succeeded in the conquest of your brain, convincing you that all Muslims are part of their pathetically small group. You may surrender to their fanatic spin, but I refuse.

Posted by: j3hess | August 12, 2010 11:32 PM | Report abuse

So, here's two politicians, the Mayor and the Governor, who are not American enough to overcome their politically-correct pandering to Muslims. The 9/11 attacks were not vandalism----they were organized Islamic jihad against America. And Islamic attacks have continued since 9/11; some successful and some not. We keep hearing about American Muslims going overseas for terrorist training. We will continue to live under the threat, and it is an Islamic threat. But the Mayor and Governor are completely insensitive to Americans, who are the victims of the 9/11 attacks. They speak with contempt for Americans who object to the mosque, and accuse them of religious intolerance! Are these politicians tone-deaf or semi-American?

Posted by: allamer1 | August 12, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Once again, I go back to the lesson I learned during the Cold War: you need not tolerate the intolerant. That has served me well in thinking about the Communists, the KKK, the Weathermen, and a host of others I have encountered in my life. Islam is an intolerant religion AND an organization devoted to the destruction of my culture and my country. I believe we should discriminate against Islamic immigrants and discourage (by all means) any and all of their activities.

Posted by: rusty3 | August 12, 2010 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Thank's for helping to move us a little closer to the day when American women can be declared to be half the worth of a man, locked inside our homes, raped by our husbands, slapped across the face if dinner is late, be forced to dress like ninjas if we dare go out the front door, and, for any "inappropriate" behavior, have our nose and ears cut off, or be wrapped up like a mummy, buried to our shoulders in a hole, then stoned to death. And that's just the good stuff.

Posted by: chimom | August 12, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse


i don't come down on either side of this conflict, but i do have this concern:

has anyone considered that these inflammatory signs on NYC transit buses transform those same buses into magnets for suicide bombers?

you won't find ME or any member of MY family riding on those buses.

Posted by: potomacfever00 | August 12, 2010 11:55 PM | Report abuse

They are not anti mosque, they are pro sensitive to the families of the thousands of victims killed by Muslims at same site.

Would you have called them anti buddhist shrine for demonstrating against Buddhist temple at site of Pearl Harbour a few years later??????

Would you have called them anti mosque for demnostrating against mosque at site of burned out bombing attack of Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem back then?

Der Speigel today confirms deaths of PKK Kurds by Turkey chemical weapons.
Would you favour Turkish mosque at same site too???

Get real

Get real

Posted by: truth34 | August 13, 2010 12:17 AM | Report abuse

I want the thread readers know that I am furious.
A cowardly attack on OUR soil killing innocent Americans was carried out by militant radicals associated with a religion that pretends to want peace in the world. Just like all the above posters have said, this is a country full of people who will not tolerate the religion those cowards cloaked themselves with, and to allow members of that religion to build new places of worship, or social halls, or whatever is just making a place for MORE radicals to be created so that they can turn against this Great Nation of ours!

For this reason, as supported (albeit with very poor spelling, grammar, and logic) by previous posters, we must all unite to prevent any more of these so-called Christians to build churches, so that there will be no more Timothy McVeighs to kill our people!

Opponents of the mosque, this is where your "logic" leads.

I know what the reaction of well over 90% of the Muslim world was to 9/11. I've spoken to some; read, heard, and seen interviews with others; and they were ashamed and saddened that it had happened. There were plenty of Muslims among the dead that day who had nothing to do with the attack except die because of it.

Yes, there were Muslims who celebrated that day. When the Oklahoma City bombing happened there were militia members in this country who celebrated. Does anyone want to declare Islam and Christianity to both be sources of terrorism that must be destroyed before they destroy us?

Where are you planning to start? And what do you want me to tell the congregation at my church to explain why we must burn it to the ground to defend our American freedoms?

Posted by: AndrewfromNH | August 13, 2010 12:23 AM | Report abuse

So how about the bleeding left libs howl for a synagogue, church in Mecca. Well don't just stand there dummy i mean dhimmi.

Posted by: truth34 | August 13, 2010 12:24 AM | Report abuse

The writer of this article is clearly a communist, seeking to promote the absolutely worst thing possible for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY!

ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION! IT IS A VERY DANGEROUS MILITANT, POLITICAL SYSTEM THAT TEACHES VIOLENCE! PERIOD!

TO LEARN WHAT ISLAM TEACHES, GOOGLE: AMERICAN THINKER SHARIA LAW

THE IMAM OF THIS MOSQUE HAS STATED HE WANTS TO IMPLEMENT SHARIA LAW; WHICH IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE VERY PRINCIPLES OF OUR CONSTITUTION. UNDER ISLAM:

-THERE IS NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH (ANYONE MUSLIM WHO CRITICIZES THE TEACHINGS OF MUHAMMAD IS TO BE KILLED)
-THERE IS NO RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE UNDER ISLAM! IF YOU ARE NOT A MUSLIM, THEN YOU ARE TO BE TREATED AS A SECOND-CLASS CITIZEN AND OKAY TO RAPE NON-MUSLIMS
- THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE UNDER ISLAM (IT IS ONE BIG MILITANT AND POLITICAL SYSTEM)
- THERE IS CRUEL & UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT (HOMOSEXUALS ARE TO BE KILLED, THIEVES TO HAVE HANDS CHOPPED OFF, ETC.)

GREG SARGANT IS VERY, VERY NAIVE ABOUT ISLAM OR HE IS A COMMIE BASTERD.

Posted by: fortitude | August 13, 2010 12:25 AM | Report abuse

FURTHERMORE, APPARENTLY, THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE IS TOTALLY IGNORANT OF THE FACT THAT THIS MOSQUE IS TO BE NAMED "CORDOBA HOUSE" WHICH REPRESENTS THE THE MUSLIM INVASION AND DESTRUCTION OF A CHURCH IN CORDOBA, SPAIN; WHERE THESE MUSLIMS THEN DESTROYED A CHURCH AND REPLACED IT WITH A MOSQUE.

THIS IS NO DOUBT A MILITANT FRONT!

Posted by: fortitude | August 13, 2010 12:35 AM | Report abuse

So, here's two politicians, the Mayor and the Governor, who are not American enough to overcome their politically-correct pandering to Muslims. ... We keep hearing about American Muslims going overseas for terrorist training. We will continue to live under the threat, and it is an Islamic threat. But the Mayor and Governor are completely insensitive to Americans, who are the victims of the 9/11 attacks.?
Posted by: allamer1
__

They can't match your insensitivity to law-abiding Muslim Americans, whom you lump in with terrorists. It is a threat from some who claim to be Muslim, but have been rejected by mainstream Muslims everywhere, including the highest religious authorities of Saudi Arabia. It is not an "Islamic" threat. The Mayor is not pandering to Muslims, he's paying attention to the Constitution.

Posted by: j3hess | August 13, 2010 1:01 AM | Report abuse


Once again, I go back to the lesson I learned during the Cold War: you need not tolerate the intolerant. ..I believe we should discriminate against Islamic immigrants and discourage (by all means) any and all of their activities.
Posted by: rusty3
-----

I grew up in a town with patriotic Muslim residents for over 100 years. Yes, you are intolerant. I will take tolerant Muslims over your like any day.

Posted by: j3hess | August 13, 2010 1:05 AM | Report abuse

Thank's for helping to move us a little closer to the day when American women can be declared to be half the worth of a man, locked inside our homes, raped by our husbands,
Posted by: chimom
----

A little hysterical, are we?

Actually husband rape of their wives was legal in most states into the 1970s and 80s - maybe we're not so far advanced ourselves?

These are cultural practices, not part of Islamic doctorine. Muslims in the US do not engage in them.

And they remain against the law. The only threat to the law here is from people such as yourself who are ready to overturn equal protection under the law because you can't tell the difference between a few hundred fanatics and 1.6 billion law-abiding Muslims.

Posted by: j3hess | August 13, 2010 1:11 AM | Report abuse

Defenders of the mosque: Go speak out for the women, Christians & Jews who are brutalized every day under islam. It is happening now, today, not hundreds of years ago.

Posted by: chimom | August 13, 2010 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Your pro-mosque camp is all the more so absurd. With such absurd logic I'm surprised you guys aren't howling the following:

We demand an international investigation to determine why the U.S. built two tall towers that interfered with a humanitarian peace flight by Al Qaeda on 9/11.

Posted by: truth34 | August 13, 2010 1:24 AM | Report abuse

He who laughs last.

If this thing goes through you all had better buy yourselves ear plugs. The mosque mueziin will blare out 4 in the morning or so wake up calls that can be literally heard for miles away.

Posted by: truth34 | August 13, 2010 1:58 AM | Report abuse

The most populous muslim country on earth is Indonesia.
It was not conquered by muslim invaders.Rather people converted over a period of time through contacts with muslim trading outposts.
Any one afraid of something similar happening to the US?

Posted by: marioliggi | August 13, 2010 2:10 AM | Report abuse

They will be selling all kinds of merchandise at the site. It is prime NY real estate. It will not be some hallowed non-commercial area. I hope they put a strip there. 9-11 will be nothing special in 10yrs. Heck, it is just a gimmick to steal our civil rights now. Let's build a open fire pit at t he site and sell copies of the Constitution to chuck in it.

Posted by: rcvinson64 | August 13, 2010 3:10 AM | Report abuse

Why stop with preventing the mosque from being built near Ground Zero? If we really want to show sensitivity get rid of all mosques and Muslims in New York City entirely. And since the Germans and Japanese killed many more Americans during WWII than we lost on 9/11 we should start restricting their rights in America as well. We are a country of the absurd, so why not go all the way?

Posted by: JudgeRoyBean | August 13, 2010 3:48 AM | Report abuse

Hey PC reards with no concept of analogy, enough with Oklahoma City. Mcveigh was not a christain and his terrorist attack had nothing to do with any religion. He was a self described agnostic who saw physics as the closest thing to god. His kooky militia crowd or anybody else was not trying to build a militia monument near the site of the attack.
For those who cannot read and count, muslims commit more terrorist attacks than EVERYONE ELSE combined. We have enough of our own indiginous nutjobs. We do not need to import a people who at their best are irrational, illogical dark age primitives and at their worst are mass murdering exploding terrorists.

Posted by: jm125 | August 13, 2010 5:12 AM | Report abuse

Those who oppose the mosque/community center are, in essence, telling the Muslim community in New York that because those who attacked the WTC happened to belong to the same religion that they do, they should understand that having a visible symbol of Islam near Ground Zero is offensive to some and should voluntarily move the mosque/cultural center to a different location.

If you agree that this is a reasonable request, how about this one?

Timothy McVeigh happened to be a registered Republican. Although there is no evidence that large numbers of Republicans condone the murders McVeigh committed and although the victims of the bombing included Republicans, some Americans would prefer not to have any visible symbol of the Republican Party within a 10-mile radius of the Oklahoma National Memorial. I am sure that fair-minded Republicans of Oklahoma will understand and will not mind being asked to move the Oklahoma Republican Headquarters.

I'm beginning to warm to this guilt-by-association concept. Each time I drive by the NRA's shiny glass headquarters in Fairfax, I am reminded of the young lives that were lost in the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech and of the DC sniper's reign of terror. I am sure I'm not the only person who is offended by this ostentatios monument to gun violence. Now I can simply ask the NRA to move. Sarah Palin will inevitably weigh in, but she will be on my side for a change since she's suddenly all about understanding and healing.

Posted by: exco | August 13, 2010 5:27 AM | Report abuse

I can not think of a better way to say "Screw you, this is America" to Islamic extremists than to build a mosque right next to the WTC site.

Let them try to get their heads around that, much less talk smack about how we're the bad people.

Posted by: Nymous | August 13, 2010 6:07 AM | Report abuse

Get rid of all the shwarma and falafel carts. We infidels are unworthy of these terrorist delights!

Posted by: Really18 | August 13, 2010 6:25 AM | Report abuse

Being anti-Muslim because of what the nutcases did on 9/11 is not right because that means the terrorists have successfully highjacked represention for true Muslims.

However, emotional responses to having a mosque almost next to Ground Zero cannot be tamped by logic. New Yorkers went through one of the most traumatic experiences of our time.

Perhaps the City of New York could offer another piece of Manhattan property for the mosque, one not so close to the place that still resonates from the murderous actions of zealots who called themselves Muslims (but were messengers from Satan, not Mohammad or God).

Posted by: Georgetowner1 | August 13, 2010 7:05 AM | Report abuse

Although Sargent is a PC moron, he may have a point here. In this cse, the Cordoba House mosque has been working on a curriculum to reach out to Americans and teach them about the tolerance and peacefulness that is Islam. All the classes are taught by Muslims uniquely qualified to deliver this message to the American people.

Course 1) The Honor in Honor Killing
Taught by Mr. Yasser Said. Unfortunately Mr. Said is not available right now but when he resurfaces, he will be teaching the class. He shot his two daughters to death, Amina and Sarah, for befriending Hispanic men. As you can see, the Cordoba House hires only the most qualified.

Course 2) Fifty Ways to Lose Your Lover
Taught by Muzzammil Hassan founder of Bridges TV. Bridges TV is known for building bridges between Americans and Muslims, just not their wives. Mr. Hassan has been charged with beheading his wife, Aasiya Hassan, because she requested a divorce. He is uniquely qualified as well.

Course 3) How to Win the Hearts and Bodies of a 9 Year Old.
The teachings of Muhammad will be used for this class as well as a representative from the Taliban if your penchant is for 9 year old boys, maybe girls. Don't worry about the Muslim claim that homosexuality is an abomination, I'm sure they had a revelation from Allah justifying their actions

Posted by: jm125 | August 13, 2010 7:17 AM | Report abuse

Since the Post insists on hiring hyper-partisan left-wing bloggers like Sargent to report on conservatives, why don't they hire hyper-partisan right-wing bloggers to cover liberals??

Posted by: bobmoses | August 13, 2010 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Classic cherry picking of the most unseemly elements of a broad consensus (roughly 60-70% of Americans don't want the mosque there) against which to make an argument. Instead of attacking the thick-headed and most vociferous, why not address the well-reasoned oppositions, like Mr. Krauthammer. I've noticed that this tactic--or should I say logical fallacy--is employed by numerous liberals. Instead of addressing the merits of an argument, liberals tend to attack fringe elements, assert that they represent the position itself.

Posted by: squid1 | August 13, 2010 8:04 AM | Report abuse

Hey PC reards with no concept of analogy, enough with Oklahoma City. Mcveigh was not a christain and his terrorist attack had nothing to do with any religion. He was a self described agnostic who saw physics as the closest thing to god. His kooky militia crowd or anybody else was not trying to build a militia monument near the site of the attack.
For those who cannot read and count, muslims commit more terrorist attacks than EVERYONE ELSE combined. We have enough of our own indiginous nutjobs. We do not need to import a people who at their best are irrational, illogical dark age primitives and at their worst are mass murdering exploding terrorists.

Posted by: jm125 | August 13, 2010 5:12 AM | Report abuse

Actually MCVeigh's attack was a response to Waco. Where a Christian fundamentalist group got in a shoot out with the Fed. It had a lot to do with religion.

Posted by: alex35332 | August 13, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

The new GOP party slogan:

"If you ain't white, you ain't right!"

QED.

Posted by: lritger | August 13, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

C-c-c-c-cognitive d-d-d-d-dissonance?

Whazzat? (said the idiot)

Posted by: st50taw | August 13, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

In America people have opposed the construction of various buildings at sites considered sacred, or having historical significance for a long period of time.

Consider the opposition various groups have had to building on or near National Parks, or on or near Civil War battle fields.

Posted by: jnrentz@aol.com | August 13, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Classic cherry picking of the most unseemly elements of a broad consensus (roughly 60-70% of Americans don't want the mosque there) against which to make an argument. Instead of attacking the thick-headed and most vociferous, why not address the well-reasoned oppositions, like Mr. Krauthammer. I've noticed that this tactic--or should I say logical fallacy--is employed by numerous liberals. Instead of addressing the merits of an argument, liberals tend to attack fringe elements, assert that they represent the position itself.
******************************************
What is "well reasoned" about a hate-and-fear based disregard for the Constitution, property rights, the First Amendment and equal protection under the law?

We are witnessing the death of intellectual integrity on the right.

Posted by: st50taw | August 13, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

I support the right to build the mosque where ever it meets code. But, I don't understand the islamists' reasoning for building such a controversial structure near "ground zero." There is no good to come of it. churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, they are all make-believe, fantasy building that serve no good.

Posted by: m1kem1lls | August 13, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

boy, the wackos on the right are really going out of ther way to be outraged this time. A religious center 2 BLOCKS AWAY from "ground zero" - what nonsense.

What we should have done wa rebuild the twin towers exactly as they were as quikly as possible to show the idiots behind the crime that they accomplished nothing - it would be like 2 big middle fingers in the air to the terrorist. Instead the GOP wring their hands and whinelike babies - what weakness. Grow a pair!

Posted by: sux123 | August 13, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Either you believe in the Constitution or you don't. If a building meets building and zoning codes, they can build whatever they want in a free country. Besides, all of the righties who are yelling were the same people talking about how New York and the east coast are not the "real America." Since when were we all New Yorkers? This is the difference between New York and say...Nashville. Some people actually believe in the freedoms bestowed by God and the Constitution, they don't just talk about it.

Posted by: nsu1203 | August 13, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Let's see, there is already a mosque just 4 blocks away. If they put up their proposed mega-mosque, then they won't need the mosque on this other property. I'd say we'll make a compromise; you get to build your mega-mosque where you want, we get to tear down your other mosque and put up a Jewish synagogue. That's fair and equitable, isn't it?

Posted by: mhoust | August 13, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

muslims should not be in the United States.

Posted by: jnrentz@aol.com | August 13, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

muslims should not be in the United States.

Posted by: jnrentz@aol.com | August 13, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Is the 92nd St Y a "synagogue"?

Posted by: mattintx | August 13, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

BobMoses sez: "68% of Americans oppose this mosque and 61% of New Yorkers do too. Are they all 'right-wingers'?"

Be interested to know where he got those statistics. Nobody ever asked me, by the way.

Posted by: nicekid | August 13, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

X% say yes, Y% say no. Sorry, the vote is already in...it's called The Constitution.

Posted by: verite | August 13, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Wall Street is way too close to the sacred ground. Move Wall Street! Get the money lenders out of the temple!

Posted by: MaximumMan | August 13, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Greg, you are beginning to remind me of another left wing journalist, Eugene Robinson. Find a new topic. I know it takes effort to research something new, but that is what you are paid to do.

Give it a rest.

Posted by: shewholives | August 13, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

I agree w/hotpoint: If Muslims had hidden pedophiles, we would have torn down every mosque in the country.

Posted by: kvirt01 | August 13, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

The subtext of this discussion is a growing drumbeat of hatred against muslims. One might think that the Sultan has risen from his throne on the Golden Horn and moved through the Mediterranean and across the Atlantic to smite New York. That seems a bit overwrought. We are going to be sharing this nation and world with muslims for a long, long time. Let's cool down the discussion.

Posted by: mmurray2 | August 13, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

nisleib, I think the points you've been making about that are very interesting. I just thought the hypocrisy here was stunning.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 12, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse
-----------------
Greg, were you part of the Journolist where there was a concerted effort to accuse everyone of racsism when they do not agree with you?

Posted by: shewholives | August 13, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Muslims are their own worst enemy.

Posted by: shewholives | August 13, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

"... Ground Zero, which is the empty space at the bottom left"

I think that final line, in fact, says it all.

Posted by: TJMikeK | August 13, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

A RESPONSE TO: rprieto’s post:
Rprieto wrote: “Listen very carefully: Judeo/Christians do not want to help propagate foreign religions! There, I've said it! We are a Judeo/Christian country and we don't want mosques at ground zero or anywhere else in the US!”

Ah the so-called Judeo/Christians are at it again. They use religion to justify everything - like they did to justify slavery. They killed thousands of black slaves and freed-slaves by lynching. They (for example, the Southern Baptist Convention) joined with racist groups (like the Ku Klux Klan) to exclude Black Americans from attending schools and universities and from eating and staying at certain “white-only” locations. To this day, they [the KKK] use the Judeo-Christian religious symbol, namely the Cross, to intimidate non-whites (and sometimes Jews) and drive them away from neighborhoods they believe only whites should inhabit.

The Judeo-Christina organization referred to as the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa (also known at the time as the Gereformeede Kerk and the Hervormde Kerk) provided justification for the barbaric practice of apartheid by citing (or interpreting) the Calvinist principle (to mean) that God intended for the races to be separate and that God created all the other “dark races” to serve the “superior light” (white) race”.

The Judeo-Christians, executing the principle of Manifest Destiny, killed (at times by poisoning) millions of native American Indians and other indigenous peoples as they expanded westward and southwest into what is today Texas, California, etc.

Another Judeo-Christian, Adolf Hitler, believing that God created the white race to be the dominant and superior race on this earth, set out to “implement and perfect” this belief by aiming to create a truly “pure white race”. And thus we had War World II that resulted into the deaths of millions of people, including at least 6 million Jews who were systematically and purposefully rounded up, put in concentration camps and gassed to death.

The same Judeo-Christians concocted a bunch of abominable lies about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and Iraq’s involvement in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and took this country to a needless, senseless and costly war that took the lives of more than 4,000 American service persons and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

A Judeo-Christian named Timothy McVeigh, believing in the righteousness of his twisted anti-government cause, took the lives of about 168 innocent people (including 19 children at a daycare) when he blew up the Alfred T. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on June 19, 1995.

I could go on and on forever. But in the interest of brevity I will stop here.

Posted by: erickaba | August 13, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

One more note to opponents of the mosque.

There are no hordes of Muslims coming into the US to "take it over." We have Americans, whose families may have been here for centuries, who were born into that faith, or converted because they found a message that made sense to them.

None of the major religions have messages that are completely positive if you read every word written within their holy texts. What counts is how the words have been interpreted and practiced over the centuries.

Mosque opponents are strident in pointing out horrors that are committed in the name of Islam--despite the fact that many of those acts are either forbidden by the Quran, or have been interpreted in ways that would be incomprehensible to the Prophet if he were to return to Earth today. There are far more Muslims whose beliefs fit with those of the rest of the civilized world.

Previous posters have spoken about the glories of the "Judeo-Christian American culture" they believe they represent. Many of them have taken this culture to mean a literal interpretation of the Bible is mandatory--except when it isn't. Thus they will loudly advocate the execution of gays (Mathew Shepard, for instance) according to Leviticus, while they eat shrimp, wear cloth of blended fabrics, and refuse to defecate at the correct distance from their town walls. They seem not to have noticed that the Bible has two books. The Prince of Peace had messages that are hard to find represented at a "Teaparty" rally, a Christian militia training camp, or any of the Texas megachurches, and if He were to return today He would be certain that the moneylenders had taken over the temple.

Islam and Christianity both demand conversion of other faiths. Where did Islam get it from? Christianity! Have these conversion efforts caused horrible suffering, death, and destruction? You betcha! Both faiths have these horrors in their history, and adherents today who don't think anything is wrong about it.

If you're upset by Islamist radicals who want to convert or kill Americans, why weren't you upset when Ann Coulter (and others) have repeatedly demanded that the entire Middle East--not sure whether they include Israel in that--be converted and/or nuked? Make sure your own house is in order if you demand others to do so!

As for the mosque? Freedom of Religion says there's nothing wrong. The "Free Market" so many on the Right endorse as a lesser prophet says it can't be built if the market doesn't allow it, and it sounds as though the financing exists. It's not even on the WTC site, or facing it. It fits the size of surrounding buildings--it won't tower over anything "sacred."

What's your beef?

Posted by: AndrewfromNH | August 13, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

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 Islamo-supremacists. It’s ever our fault for provoking these bullies. 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 “racists, fascists, Islamophobes, xenophobes, neanderthals, bigots” (the whole Star Wars cantina of Quisling boogeymen)... and hope the crocs eat them last.

There’s a word for that: Cowardice.

Own it, Quislings.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 13, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Here we go again. The only way to prove patriotic Americans aren’t crushing the 1st Amendment is to calmly support neo-pagan KKK demands to emolate Crann Tara monuments next to MLK memorials.

The only way to prove we’re not Neanderthals is to remain coldly apathetic over Marxist demands to erect Stalin’s bust next to the D-Day memorial.

Apparently, the 1st amendment is now an invitation to shut up, bend over and grab your ankles? Not in my America, Jack!

Why are areligious Quislings– who reflexively vomit over school (*gasp*) Christmas pageants– suddenly the arbiters of what’s reasonable at Ground Zero?

Submissiveness to Imam Rauf’s Islamo-supremacist demands sends the message that Americans are Quislings and cowards.

Are American Quislings (in both parties) prepared to let Cordoba House intellectually bully them into accepting Imam Rauf’s false assertion– that sharia law advocacy is (somehow) representative of moderate Muslims?

American Muslims may be the very soul of moderation. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for secular Americans (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) 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 @ SecularIslam.org.

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.

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

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 13, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

I’d also like to point out how bigotted, ignorant, intolerant and intolerant it is of Quislings (in both parties) to condemn the spiritual commitment of Muslims who faithfully obey Islam by observing “honor killing” fatwas.

By what authority do Quislings excommunicate (takfir) devout jihadists when they practice “honor killing” to enforce those sharia fatwas, endorsed by the Corboba House sharia law advocates?

Again, the prerogative to issue apostacy fatwas is granted only to Islam’s prophet, or authoritative representatives of the— which are the Quislings invoking?

Have Cordoba House’s handlers in the Apartheid Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the Muslim Brotherhood approved the Quisling anti-honor fatwa?

But don’t take my word for it: “Honor Killing” is absolutely Islamic.
http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/honor_killing.htm

Own it, Quislings.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 13, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

EVERYONE who lives in the USA gets criticized & scrutinized~it's part of living in a free & open society. If some people don't like Islam being challenged, that's just too bad. I wonder if they jump to the defense of other religions as quickly, or if they're the first to laugh when Jesus & Christianity are mocked~which happens pretty much daily.

Posted by: chimom | August 13, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Contrary to Mr. Sargent, the legal issue regarding Pam Geller’s bus ad was always one of freedom of speech. The bus line's ad agency never had adequate reason to refuse the ad. Geller changed the ad to accommodate their bureaucratic demands, but the agency repeatedly rejected the ad, and then simply refused to even respond to Geller's last modification. That is when she sued and the bus line caved completely. They knew they had no valid grounds to suppress her ad. Moreover, the constitutional right to freedom of religion does not enter into the debate. No responsible opponent of the Cordoba Project, including Geller, denies it has a legal right, a constitutionally protected right, to build the mosque two blocks from ground zero. But the site is an indisputable artifact of the 9/11 attack. The proposed site is close enough to ground zero that one of the hijacked jets' landing gear went through the roof of the building on the site. It plummeted clear to the basement, destroying the building sufficiently so that repair was commercially unfeasible, which is why it was put up for sale. The 9/11 attack, insidiously crafted by Muslim terrorists, and carried out explicitly in the name of Islam, is the specific reason the property in question became available to the Islamic organization that now wants to build a Muslim community center and mosque on the site. The actual issue in dispute regarding the Cordoba Project is one of a total lack of respect for the people who Muslims murdered in the name of Islam. It is also an issue of continuing insult to the families of the dead and the majorities of New Yorkers and Americans who appreciate the incredible hypocrisy and insensitivity of a group that would build mosque on a site destroyed by Muslims – as well as the fact that the site is within short walking distance from ground zero where Islamic terrorists committed their largest massacre of innocents ever perpetrated in America. A mosque on the site of a building that was destroyed by the 9/11 attack, and within several blocks where Islamic terrorists killed thousands, is an astoundingly open and permanent affront to all Americans. It is a permanent roadblock to better relations between Islam and America. Mr. Sargent will not admit that suppressing an ad because of its historic content (its accurate depiction of the destruction of the twin towers) is a violation of Geller's right to express her opinion guaranteed under the constitution. He disdains her view that a mosque at this location is not appropriate and ignores the fact that her opinion is shared by a majority of Americans. He uses words like “absurdity” and “antics” in describing her struggle to speak out. He uses the word “nasty” to describe her graphics that accurately depict a fact of American history -- the hijacked jets striking the towers. Mr. Sargent may be an advocate for freedom of speech, but his piece is no evidence of that. In the end, he is simply wrong.

Posted by: libertasdon | August 13, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

I would like to modify my earlier comments. I said the twin towers were destroyed by Muslims. I shoud like to say, "certain" Muslims. I reject any inference, however slight, that my words imply all Muslims sought the destruction and death of 9/11. Further, I reject any notion that the 9/11 terrorists and those behind the Cordoba Project are one and the same. But beyond that, I deliberately wish to highlight the fact that the building on the site of the proposed Cordoba Project, as well as ground zero, were destroyed by violent Muslims acting on behalf of Islam. And now other Muslims desire a Muslim community center and mosque on, and near, these sites. It is too close a connection between Islam and the murders and propery destruction perpetrated in its name for this to happen. To the proponents of the Cordoba Project, I say show some respect. Build your project elsewhere.

Posted by: libertasdon | August 13, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

As a progressive, Greg will defend anyone who may harm the U.S.

Controlled by Marxists and U.S. enemies, progressives seek to destroy the U.S.

Naturally, progressives defend Islamics like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who seeks to force sharia on us and wants to build a mosque where our people were killed by people he supports!

We should all be be incensed about it, particularly because we are paying for the Imam to finance his mosque!

New York Post’s Geoff Earle and Brendan Scott report, “The imam behind a plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero is set to depart on a multi-country jaunt to the Middle East funded by the State Department -- raising concerns that taxpayers may be helping him with the controversial project's $100 million fund-raising goal.”

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley called Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf “a distinguished Muslim cleric,” with whom the State Department has a long-term relationship, having already funded two similar missions for Rauf..."

Why are we U.S. taxpayers funding a mission trip to promote Islam, and when can we expect to fund a similar trip on behalf of Christianity?

Is Obama emulating Odinga? There is PROOF that Obama used his elected office—and taxpayers’ dollars—to support Kenya’s Raila Odinga, his violent anti-American Marxist relative, who made a pact with the Muslims to institute sharia (Islamic law) in Kenya, although only 10% of Kenyans are Muslim.

Odinga’s followers killed 750 people and burned a Christian church with 50 people, many of them children, inside.

Obama supported Odinga: youtube.com/watch?v=c6eVVVKFHu0

We must stop Islamics before they force sharia on us as they are trying to do in Kenya!

Posted by: AntonioSosa | August 13, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama IS a muslim. The only, supposedly, Christian church he went to was a nothing but a hate-mongering church. It's so weird to listen to lefties defend a religious/political system that is disgusted by everything they stand for~gay rights, equal rights for women, open sexuality. And, they sure love to verbally savage people they disagree with, but can't take it when people openly oppose their beliefs & opinions.

Posted by: chimom | August 14, 2010 12:48 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if Japan placed a Zero at Pearl Harbor? I wonder if the US placed model of an A bomb at Hiroshima? I wonder if the Germans hung a NAZI flag at Auschwitz? I wonder, nah I don't think it would be appropriate I wonder why they can't see it, humm interesting isn't it.

Posted by: ponderingthoughts | August 14, 2010 1:29 AM | Report abuse

Title for this idiotic blog should have been: "the absurdity and INSENSITIVITY of Greg Sargent"; story of a no named leftie with no where else to go.

I cannot wait to see you all fall down in November. Yeah, change is coming, but not what you had in mind. We are going to drive all of you out! Especially dweebs like you Greg.

Posted by: richardsh | August 14, 2010 3:04 AM | Report abuse

The media really tries to destroy people it disagrees with~Sarah Palin is a good example. But when conservatives speak out liberals immediately throw the racist/whateverphobe bomb at us. We have a right to speak out and must continue to do so. I don't know if many people actually read the comments here, but I've been wondering about something in a very serious way with no sarcasm or anger intended. Whether one is religious or not, lets say the roles of Islam and Christianity were reversed in the US and Islam was the dominant religion. Under those circumstances, do people believe the country would retain it's freedoms, and that gay and lesbians would still be able to be open about their sexuality and be able to demand the right to marry? Do people believe that under Islam American women would retain all the rights we have today? I'm curious, not because I hate anyones religion or want to stop them from practicing it, but because I watch the middle-east. Now, in the US Islam is currently a minority religion, but in other countries it's growing quickly due to the fact that when a muslim population gets momentum in new areas it converts people by force, and also because once muslim, people remain muslim since the penalty for leaving Islam is death. Also, muslims still have many children, as we used to in the States. I don't want to become a muslim, but being a somewhat conservative, heterosexual woman I'd wouldn't be among the first to be hurt under a repressive system. I'm not asking whether muslims should build mosques or practice their religion, ....I'm just wondering, if a day comes in the future when mosques overtake churches and Islam becomes part of the government as it is in other countries, do women, gays and lesbians believe we will be able to retain all of our freedoms as we have them today?

Posted by: chimom | August 14, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Well by that reasoning I guess the Japanese should erect a shrine at (or near) Pearl Harbor, and the Mexican's of course should build a new mission by the Alamo, and the German's build a nice little monument at Treblinka? ? ? . . .

What insane thinking to believe that this is appropriate or even innocent in any way. This is just a way for Islamic radicals to celebrate what they see as a victory (look at history), a way to rub the United States nose in Islamic "success".

Posted by: robinTX54 | August 14, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Soon as the media gets exercised about the rights of the five Christians arrested in Dearborn for exercising their freedom of religion and speech, I will take them serious on the ground zero mosque.

Posted by: pn27 | August 14, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Leave this absurd debate already. It has become a non-issue.
http://therealopinion.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/go-ahead-for-the-nyc-mosque/

Posted by: SaadK | August 15, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

In America we have freedom of religion. However, Islam is not just a religion. It is a political movement toward world domination. It is a legal system that requires the cruel, barbaric, and primitive Sharia law. It is a religion that requires everyone to participate or be eliminated. It doesn't deserve the protection of freedom of religion. We also have freedom of speech in the USA, but we can't yell "Fire ! " in a crowded theater. It is illegal. Having freedoms set forth in the constitution doesn't require us to commit suicide by allowing a so called religion to destroy the freedoms and safety we have. If the Nazi movement had been called a "religion", would anyone been stupid enough to protect it under the freedom of religion? The Islamic movement is no different. There are some so called "moderate" Muslims, but they are just not following the dictates of their Quran. In the Baptist religion, we would call them "backsliders". Look at any Islamic country and you will see the freedom of religion does not exist. The oppression of women exists in all of them. Honor killings, terrorism, and cruelty dominate the way their countries are run. Islam does not belong in the world community.

Posted by: good_angel | August 15, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

I am sorry, but Islam is different amoung religions. There have actually been catholic priests tossed out of the church over the pediphile issue (not enough obviously).

But has anyone EVER heard of a radical Muslim cleric tossed out of any Mosque, EVER?

It seems that while yes, not all muslims agree with these radical clerics. They do sit and listen to them and then do nothing about them!

And that, it seems to me, makes Islam very different! They seem to act as if the cleric is supreme and can never be confronted or removed from their role!

So, what happens when a radical cleric wants to speak at the Cordoba Mosque? Is he allowed to come and preach killing jews and christians at the new interfaith center in downtown New York, site of religious harmony?

Or is he turned away? Has any Islamic cleric ever been turned away from a Mosque?

Posted by: heathergreeneyes | August 15, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

"....bobmoses: here's a clue for ya...voters do not have the authority to override other people's constitutional rights....."

Unless of course they are liberals pushing gun control. That peskly right to bare arms thing........ now that Constitutional right they have no problem taking away!

Posted by: heathergreeneyes | August 15, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

On Islam and freedom of religion.

Does it really apply if Islam also brings with it a system of laws or a way of governance?

Keep in mind that Islam and Islamic law do not recognize the "seperation of church and state". So, while practicing freedom of religion, does this also mean Sharia law? It is part of their religion!

What do you do when the religion is the faith, the religion is the law and the religion is the state?

If you look on the Cordoba House website, at their Shariah Index Project, they actually ask if seperation of church and state is exceptable!

Does anyone think Cordoba house is conducting this Shariah Index Project for any other reason then to spread shira law? It sure does not look like it is meant to advocate agianst spreading it!

Please go to their own website and read it for yourself! Unless you think the Cordoba House website is part of the vast right wing consparicy, I would assume you consider it a valid source of information on their own project!

http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/shariah-index-project

Posted by: heathergreeneyes | August 15, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Islam HATES women.

Any questions?

Posted by: dokadow | August 16, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

How sad that so many of the posters here are blaming the opposition on the right wingies! It MUST be all of them because all us liberals are totally okay with rounding up the gays and having us all beheaded.....riiiight?

I guess if you're not one the groups the "religion of peace" targets for extinction through beheading your much more sympathetic. Any other group of people calling for the extermination of any other group of people would be labeled a hate group, but Islam gets a pass for it's homophobic hate?

Islam is a hate group, not a religion! I don't have a problem with freedom of religion, but it's not religion, IT'S HATE! Republicans would win this whole "mosque fiasco" if they concentrated their opposition on the fact that ISLAM is a hate group and not a religion. PERIOD!

I won't tolerate the KKK parading their hate around and calling it religion, and I certainly won't tolerate it from the cult of Islam either! My gay flame will not be extinguished by hateful religious zealots that preach intolerance for others while demanding tolerance for themselves.

Posted by: WhatAreYouPeopleSmoking | August 16, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Sitting up here in Canada it's interesting to watch this story unfold.

I believe it's not Moslems in our neighbourhoods that scare Americans or Canadians.

It's Obama's insensitivity to the pain, fear and suspicion people are experiencing over this unnecessary mosque (especially New Yorkers).

Obama reacted the same way when Air Force One buzzed NY for a photo op, and people were filmed fleeing in a hysterical panic.

He gave terrorists the opportunity for a good laugh at their victory. This mosque will be their 'victory' too.

Obama worries more about offending Moslem leaders than the 2/3s of Americans who are pleading for respect for the victims of 9/11.

The president casts more doubts on his own loyalties to America and the free world than Osama bin Laden does.

Posted by: 1adanaC | August 16, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Sitting up here in Canada it's interesting to watch this story unfold.

I believe it's not Moslems in our neighbourhoods that scare Americans or Canadians.

It's Obama's insensitivity to the pain, fear and suspicion people are experiencing over this unnecessary mosque (especially New Yorkers).

Obama reacted the same way when Air Force One buzzed NY for a photo op, and people were filmed fleeing in a hysterical panic.

This fiasco gave terrorists the opportunity for a good laugh at their victory. This mosque will be their 'victory' too.

His reluctance to defend your southern border and to leave it undefended against drug cartels and terrorists is another concern, even to Canadians.

Obama worries more about offending Moslem leaders than the 2/3s of Americans who are pleading for respect for the victims of 9/11.

This president casts more doubts on his own loyalties to America and the free world than Osama bin Laden.

Posted by: 1adanaC | August 16, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

My question is why do they want to build a mosque near ground zero? Americans would not even think of such a thing to do to someone else. The U.S. government is to busy trying not to offend other cultures, so they let the American public have no say in the matter. What happened to by the people for the people, is this not a statement in the U.S. Constitution? And who is the owner(s) of the property that sold the property near ground zero. I say boycott their business' and products.

Posted by: cngarr1 | August 18, 2010 10:47 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