I was driving to work this morning and saw a billboard titled “Remember 9/11” with an image of the collapsed World Trade Center. In smaller print on the right, it said “”Stand up and be heard. No mosque at ground zero.” You can see the sign on a video at this website.
A few weeks ago on KSL, Carole Mikita interviewed a Muslim leader here in Utah. She asked him what he thought of this idea to build a mosque near Ground Zero. He said he thought it was a terrible idea. He said they can build a mosque in many places, and thought it was quite insensitive for these Muslims to incite a controversy there.
As a Mormon, we have had plenty of problems with protests about churches or temples being built. The Boston Temple was prohibited from building a steeple for quite some time because the steeple was considered too tall. (It was eventually constructed, but the church was forced to reduce the size of the steeple.) Many groups have protested the buildings of new temples for a variety of reasons. My sister lives in Colorado, and 2 Mormon churches sit side by side because the owner of a subdivision refused to allow any churches to be zoned in a particularly large subdivision. (As I recall, the owner was either a tobacco or alcohol owner that wanted to make sure no Mormon churches were built in the subdivision–so he excluded all churches. How is this legal?)
I appreciate this Muslim leader’s pragmatism. I too wonder why Muslims in New York aren’t more sensitive to the issue. On the other hand, I don’t understand how any Mormon can support a ban on religious construction, given that we have had so many problems with constructing churches or temples. As a matter of principle, I can’t see how it is constitutional to support a ban on a Muslim mosque anywhere. What are your thoughts?
Edit on 10/3/2010
I thought it would be interesting to show photos of 2 Muslim women supporting this project. Daisy Khan and her husband are trying to build at the controversial site. Azar Nafisi escaped Iran’s regime, and wrote a controversial book.
I know looks can be deceiving, but I think these are the kinds of Muslims we should support. From their speech, I could tell they want the same principles I want. I think it is a mistake to characterize all Muslims as violent. They were articulate Americans, and deserve the same rights you and I have. I am more in favor of the mosque than I was earlier. If we turn these moderate Muslims down, we further antagonize the Jihadists. These are the people we should support. If we can’t support these people, we hurt ourselves.
Mormon Heretic 
MH: I fully expected you to censure my last comment, and I would not have blamed you for doing it, but that is how I feel. As FT mentioned, ancient Islam is not only alive, but I would go so far as to say it is the dominant strain. The case of the woman condemned to die for being raped by her brother, happened this century. Entire countries are run by this ridiculous religion. I hate to say this, but if you really think that Islam is not every thing I mentioned above, you are grossly misinformed (or at least naive and idealistic). This is a very personal topic for me, and I will not back down. We may have to agree to disagree on this one.
I must also say that your application of my comments to all religions is way off base. I don’t know of ANY other religion whose core is total world conversion at any expense…including death of infidels. I mean seriously, Islam stands alone here among major religions. Past actions that go against what a religion stands for does not apply to the religion…it applies to the person(s) that carried it out. Crusades do not represent Christianity, but they do represent Islam.
As far as the constitutionality of it, I don’t believe that banning the building of the Mosque is a violation of the constitution. The constitution guarantees the freedom of worship. It doesn’t guarantee us the right to build a church/mosque/synagogue in whatever location we choose. It doesn’t even guarantee the right to build a church/mosque/synagogue.
Tara,
The Constitution does actually allow (based on the first amendment) for the free exercise of religion. To exercise a religion, you need a location. Based on your logic, the Constitution could conceivably disallow a religion to never be able to practice because it does not protect a religion from building a house of worship. And that of course would make moot of the first amendment. It’s utterly silly of course.
I still have yet to hear a good argument against the building of this cultural center that is not rooted in bigotry or racism or hatred.
“I still have yet to hear a good argument against the building of this cultural center that is not rooted in bigotry or racism or hatred.”
Although I certainly think that some of the opposition to the cultural centre/mosque is founded on those things, I think that in most cases it has to do with two main reasons: ignorance (about Islam, what the project really entails, what else is being built nearby, and why it was a total non-issue before the far-right got actively involved) and fear (which is a product of ignorance). It is these two which in turn spurn extreme reactions like those that Dan listed.
And though I’m not really surprised by the reactions of many, I have to say that I was a little surprised and disappointed at how little support this group of Muslims has been getting from Mormons, particularly prominent Mormons who are supposedly so concerned about the freedom to worship, the constitution, etc, (i.e. Romney, Beck). Not to mention the fact that Mormons should know a thing or two about being victims of religious bigotry and ignorance. I’m not a fan of Orrin Hatch, but I was glad to see that he supported the mosque project.
I think it’s time for Romney to give his “Faith in America” speech once again, and to this time heed his own counsel.
“Their position was that if the intent is for outreach and understanding, then the Mosque should not be built and the feelings of those who were affected should be respected. I believe that true Muslims would be respectful of that. However, those who are not will have no qualms about building a Mosque near ground zero.”
Let me put a spin on that quote just to illustrate a point:
“Their position was that if the intent is for outreach and understanding, then Prop 8 should not have been passed and the feelings of those who were affected should be respected. I believe that true Mormons would be respectful of that. However, those who are not will have no qualms about denying homosexuals their civil rights.”
I don’t want to turn this into a discussion of Prop 8. Been there, done that a million times. I just want to illustrate how blind we all our own hypocrisy when we view things from within our own lens and cannot empathize with the other side. I’m not saying that “true Muslims” should oppose the mosque, but how does it feel if I were to claim that “true Mormons” would never interfere with civil rights?
Why is it OK for us and not for them?
I would like to draw one more parallel. What if the majority of Americans wanted to deny Mormons the right to build a temple in the state of Colorado because of the FLDS practice of arranged, underage marriage? Wouldn’t it be a bit unfair of the residents of Colorado to block LDS from building on Colorado land because of what a “Mormon” splinter group has done? We don’t like it when people refer to the FLDS as “Mormons,” do we? So how is it any more fair to lump the mosque group in with the 9/11 terrorists under the simple label of “Muslims?” The average Muslim doesn’t consider Osama bin Laden or Al-Qaida to be any more “Muslim” than Mormons consider Warren Jeffs to be a prophet of God.
FD:
Who speaks for the Muslims? I’ve been trying to make the point that we must distinguish between Muslims who wish to kill or rule everyone else, including all other Muslims, and Muslims who do not.
Dan is correct that it is against the Constitution to forbid legitimate religions, which includes many thousands of organizations we’ve never heard about, from building everywhere. He is wrong about forbidding a religious institution from building ANYwhere. A local CofChrist congregation less than 30 miles from me has been trying to build a church since about 1970. It has owned the property on which it wishes to build and meeting in a house on site since about 1980. It has had the money for more than a decade. There are four or five churches within one mile on the same street.
Yet the project is never constructed because nearby landowners think the traffic from a church that could further grow would depress their property values, so local zoning requirements keep moving the goal posts. No issue of religious freedom matters before the power of local zoning in determining whether a religious facility can be built.
That is what is going on in reverse at ground zero. No body was interested in oppressing Muslims because plans for a Mosque existed. Wall Street isn’t a place with night life or weekend crowds. There are developments for the rich and daytime services for the workers. People are practicing the golden rule in the material sense. The religious angle of the building is a cover for the 15 story development that involves a lot more cash for somebody, at minimum.
When the stated purpose for doing something is irrational in its own terms, you need to discover its actual motivation.
Dan, your not looking for good reasons, therefore you will not find one.
The best reason not to build on the site is obvious; because it will incite violence.
FD, your view of islam is very narrow. The average Muslim does not live in the US. The average Muslim lives in the Middle East. The average Muslim wants you to convert to Islam or die. This isn’t bigotry, or hatred or racism. Its fact.
Bishop Rick, if the builders of the mosque support bigotry, hatred, and racism, then I agree with you–the mosque shouldn’t be a cover for terrorism. However, as you said, “The average Muslim does not live in the US.” Therefore, I don’t think it is wise to conflate these mosque builders with “convert to Islam or die” Muslims unless there is clear evidence. It seems a bit like “religious profiling” to me.
I’m not pleased when people like Mike Huckabee unfairly stigmatize Mormons, and I don’t think we should stigmatize Muslims either. It would be nice if they would better understand sensitivities in the area and move to a less controversial location. On the other hand, the Mormons went from one hostility to another, so maybe Muslims have encountered the same thing. As some point, it’s not right to keep asking them to build someplace else in the disguise of “zoning laws.”
MH, I didn’t mean to imply that the violence would come from the builders of the mosque. It would come from non-Muslims, directed at the builders. If the Mosque is built, I would not be surprised if it burned to the ground within a year. This is the violence I’m talking about.
I mentioned that the average Muslim does not live in the US. I think that US Muslims are different. In fact, mainstream Muslims don’t even consider the ground zero group to be Muslims. They are more like the FLDS only in reverse. They are not as strict of followers of Ancient Islam as mainstream Muslims are. They are not the “convert or die” Muslims that live outside the US (though make no mistake, there are “convert or Die” Muslims in the US).
The point I’m unsuccessfully trying to make is that US Muslims are a small percentage of the total number. The overwhelming majority of Muslims live outside the US and they want you to convert or die. I watched a PBS documentary about 2 years ago that profiled a Native Jew that converted to Islam in the Middle East. This guy was asked point blank what he thought about the violence aimed at his people (Jews) by Muslims. He flat out stated that they deserved what they got because they were infidels. When asked about his family, he said they were infidels. When asked about the fate of infidels, he stated that all infidels deserved to die. This is mainstream Islamic thinking outside the US.
Regarding Huckabee, if Mormons were a much larger voting block, he would have a different opinion…So I’m with you there.
Bishop Rick,
You think I haven’t tried to find a good reason? You note that “it will incite violence.” Okay, let’s unpack that. Who will incite violence? Upon whom will the violence be incited?
BR,
Sorry, I answered your first comment without looking at this one. So a religion should not build its house of worship because others will want to burn it down? Why then, pray tell, did Mormons ever expand wherever they wanted? Honestly this is not a good reason to not build the center. So what if bigots burn it down. Build another in its place. So what if murderers kill your adherents. Keep the faith. I don’t understand your reasoning here, BR. Why exactly would anyone take this advice, to not build their house of worship over the fear that bigots and murderers will do them harm?
Dan, you are obscuring the topic. They are not being asked to not build their house of worship. They are being asked not to build it there. They have been offered other locations to build. This is anything like what you are describing.
“So what if bigots burn it down. Build another in its place.”
Are you kidding me? A lot of forethought went into that one eh?
Your reasoning is ridiculous. Death and violence is ok with you…as long as you are right…what a waste.
dude,
It seemed okay to Joseph Smith.
two things:
1. Why are they asked not to build there?
2. if they did cave and say “okay we won’t build it there,” where exactly do you think they can build it? Do you think for one minute that bigots and hateful people will stop attacking a religion they dislike simply because that religion caved to their desires?
Actually not much forethought was needed. We’re building the “freedom tower” right on the spot where our previous building was burned down by bigots.
Bishop Rick, if the reason not to build is so Americans won’t be violent, what does that speak of Americans? (It’s not good.)
Mormons were kicked out of Missouri, Illinois, and Ohio. It was wrong in all instances. Sure Mormons have some blame, but mob rule is not what this country is supposed to be founded on. If these guys aren’t terrorists, on what moral grounds can we object? If all men are created equally, they have every right to build on property they purchased. Wisdom and prudence might tell them to move, but should they be bullied into not building their mosque? I think not.
MH, your right, it doesn’t speak well of Americans, but it is what it is. As you note, Americans have a history of being bullies. That’s why we are so liked around the world. That said, you are trying to have it both ways. On one hand, they should not give in to the bullies. On the other hand, it would be wise for them to build elsewhere. Which is it? You can’t have both.
Dan, why the quotes around Freedom Tower?
Do you have a problem with the building of that tower?
Would you have a problem if the mosque was built at ground zero vs near ground zero?
Or would it be OK to be a bully in that case?
I seriously doubt that death and violence was OK with JS as long as he was right. Please give examples.
One map is worth 1000 words. Google “list of New York City mosques” and look at the map that comes up. There are already six mosques south of Central Park in Manhattan (including two or three nearer than the closest express subway stop to the Trade Center. There are even more if you count those just across the Bridge into Brooklyn. By comparison, there is only one Mormon ward south of Central Park, one mid-town on the West Side, and one in the Bronx well up into the Palisades.
The notion that Muslims are the target of building discrimination in Manhattan is absurd, speaking as one who has lived in Manhattan. Who do you think politically controls Manhattan but the most liberal democratic gentry? Wworking class dems who are not simultaneously starving artists or students cluster in Brooklyn, the Bronx, or out toward Queens and SI). Even the Jewish population there trends strongly liberal; the orthodox communities aren’t in Manhattan.
So let’s focus: its THIS mosque, built by this group of muslims, in this location that is the issue.
FT,
Indeed. Bishop Rick has yet to answer why this mosque cannot be built in the location it is. His answer that “well, it will lead to violence against the mosque” is not sufficient.
Bishop Rick, Before I can answer any of your questions, will you please answer mine? Why are they asked not to build there? Do you think someone vociferously against the cultural center will simply stop his anger toward this group simply because they moved? Where exactly can they build if not in the location of the old Burlington Coat Factory?
“FD, your view of islam is very narrow. The average Muslim does not live in the US. The average Muslim lives in the Middle East. The average Muslim wants you to convert to Islam or die. This isn’t bigotry, or hatred or racism. Its fact.”
BR, how many Muslims from the Middle East do you know personally? Have you ever been to the Middle East? What do you know about the conflicts in various countries between those who DO hold the view of “convert or die” and those who don’t? By using the term “average,” you imply the majority. I don’t have any statistics, and I assume do you don’t either. I haven’t been to the Middle East, but I do know a fair number of Muslims who have recently come directly from the Middle East, as well as Afghanistan and Somalia to Norway. I visit and socialize with them almost every day. They seem pretty “average” to me and although I’m sure they’d love it if I converted (just like most Mormons would love for them to convert), they are hardly what you describe. So I’m not sure that my view of Islam is any more “narrow” than yours.
@Dan
The 1st Ammendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Since Congress can make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then yes, the Constitution guarantees the right of worship. Worship, however, can take many forms, and does not require a location or a building (look at the Israelites who wandered in the wilderness for 40 years with no permanent structure or residence in which to worship). If we assume that it does, then what if a particular religion decides that in order for it to truly be able to practice its religion fully, it would need to be able to construct a church building on the property of the White House. Should that religion be granted that as a constitutional right? Of course not. The only way you can look at it like that is if you take a literal approach and not look to the intent of the Framers. It’s kind of like the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. If you assume that when the constitution says that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, it is also saying that congress also has to bend over backward to accomodate the particular demands of a religious group, then you are being too literal. That just isn’t the intent. The intent was that government not be an impediment to the free exercise of religion. There may be legitimate reasons for a city, a state, or the US gov. to deny a group to build a church building on a particular site, but that doesn’t mean that that group is being denied their constitutional rights, so long as that group is able to build in another suitable location.
Tara,
Um, those Israelites wandered over land! In the United States, all land is accounted for and owned by someone. There is no free land anywhere. It either belongs to the government or to private entities. Thus, in order to worship, one still needs a location. If the government prohibits a religion from having a location, the government then interferes with the free exercise of that religion, and is in violation of the Constitution.
Com’on Tara, this isn’t that hard. The White House is government property and is not for sale. You can’t just take someone else’s property. You either have to buy it or lease it.
once again, we get back to the sticking point. Exactly why can this group not build their cultural center on the old Burlington Coat Factory building? Give me a bigotry-free reason, please.
@TheFaithfulDissident
Ok. Let me put a spin on your spin. If your Prop 8 spin were accurate, it would be like saying that we are trying to prevent a mosque from being built anywhere in the US. That isn’t what’s going on here. But if we turn what’s going on with the ground zero mosque and apply the prop 8 spin accurately, it would look more like this:
“Okay homosexual community, you can get married anywhere but in this one particular church (whatever church we decide to designate). All other churches are fair game. We are only asking that you respect the sanctity of this one particular church.”
@Dan
Com’on Tara, this isn’t that hard. The White House is government property and is not for sale. You can’t just take someone else’s property. You either have to buy it or lease it.
I understand that. But you miss the bigger point, which is that you are essentially saying that if this group of Muslims are prohibited from building their cultural center in this one particular spot, then the government is abridging their constitutional right of freedom of worship, when there are so many other places that they’ve already built, and many other possible locations for future development. How is this one spot so crucial to their right of worship? Why are we not allowed “sacred ground” of our own? That is where the example of the White House came in. It wasn’t meant to be literal, although you analyzed it literally. The government can’t guarantee that you are able to worship anywhere you want. They can only guarantee you that you do have a right to worship. You are responsible to find a place, and some places are off-limits for various reasons.
Exactly why can this group not build their cultural center on the old Burlington Coat Factory building? Give me a bigotry-free reason, please.
Why do you assume that my feelings on the issue have anything to do with bigotry? They don’t actually. I have very amicable feelings towards true Muslims. I wish them all the good will in the world. My feelings on the issue are based on what those who lost loved ones on 9/11 are feeling. It is a painful thing for them that this may be nothing more than another Cordoba (oh and btw, did you know that’s what it was originally going to be named?). Islam is the influence behind 9/11, albeit a distorted version of the religion, nevertheless it was still the motivation for the terrorists who perpetrated the horrific actions of that day. It is literally like rubbing salt in the wounds of the families and survivors of 9/11. Maybe someday it will be different, but for now, it isn’t, and I think that we need to be sensitive to those feelings. I think anyone with compassion would be willing to acknowledge and respect that.
I was able to find some of what I was talking about with regard to Muslims who oppose the ground zero mosque:
“This is not a humble Islamic statement. A mosque such as this is actually a political structure that casts a shadow over a cemetery, over hallowed ground. 9/11 was the beginning of a kinetic war, it is not an opportunity for cultural exchange. It was the beginning of a conflict with those who want to destroy our way of life,” Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, told The Daily Caller.
“I am in no way looking to infringe on First Amendment issues. I approach this as a Muslim that is dedicated to reform,” he said.
Jasser cited the Quranic verse, “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book [Jews and Christians],” and said that Muslims backing the project should be introspective during this month of Ramadan.
“From sunup to sundown Muslims are fasting and working on putting our needs tertiary to our God and our country, not what we need. They are abandoning these principles and saying, ‘Well, this is what we need and we are victims if you don’t let us do this. And we can do it, so we are going to.’ I think that is un-Islamic. That verse is one that teaches Muslims not only to be respectful but to actually treat equally other religions.”
Schwartz echoed Jasser’s concerns. He highlighted three problems with the project. “First of all, aside from the issues of conflict with jihad, Islam teaches us, especially Muslims living in non-Muslim societies, to avoid conflict with our neighbors,” Schwartz told TheDC. “We think this is an incredibly heedless project. It went forward without adequate planning or foresight, without anticipating reaction and it is absurd to think that there would not have been reaction. It is simply absurd. Second, there is the problem of Imam Feisal’s propensity to mix with radicals. And thirdly, there is a problem with the lack of transparency about money funding.”
….Jasser said that the building of this mosque is ‘fitna,’ a religious term meaning mischief-making, which is severely frowned upon in Islam. “‘Fitna’ is anything that causes chaos in society,” he said. “This mosque is causing chaos, it is causing ‘fitna’ and that is not the Islamic thing to do — This is ‘fitna’ and ‘fitna’ is wrong.”
Fatah agreed saying that ‘fitna’ is an ethical and moral issue that ought not be taken lightly. “If a step taken by an individual causes disharmony then it is ‘fitna.’ [The mosque] has caused so much pain. There are many mosques already in New York, nobody has ever opposed a mosque, if there is opposition to a mosque on grounds of hatred I would be the first to confront it. But over here it is a matter of sensitivity and there is no residential community even near the community center.”
Schwartz said that the idea of trying to heal wounds is a good one, but that the Cordoba Mosque is not the right avenue to do so. “Outreach is a good idea, but outreach should be done in an appropriate time and manner, and this is not the place nor the time nor the manner. Outreach should be done in a setting that doesn’t encourage problems and controversy.”
“We are Americans who happen to be Muslims, not Muslims who happen to be Americans,” Jasser concluded. “And this structure is all backwards. They just want to force Islam upon the American people and it is going to be used around the world, especially in Islamic media. From the ashes of this destruction comes the flourishing of Islam and I think that is just the wrong message. It is not good for America or for Muslims.”
Tara,
Um, they own it. It’s theirs. It does not belong to anyone else.
No clue what you mean by “sacred ground.”
Tiringly, once again, why is this spot off limits to them worshipping as they please there when they own that property?
But the Muslims who currently go the old abandoned Burlington Coat Factory to pray every Friday, they had nothing to do with 9/11, nor did Islam. Terrorists are terrorists, and not true believers, no matter how much they may want to believe it, no matter how much their enemies might want people to believe it. Islam did not cause 9/11. Christianity did not cause the Holocaust. Judaism did not kill Christ. That some (and don’t mistake that all 9/11 victims agree with your belief) 9/11 victims feel uncomfortable about a mosque near the site of the deaths of their loved ones should not change anything, because it wasn’t Islam that attacked us, and all Muslims should not be held accountable for the actions of the few depraved apostates.
No it’s not. Because it conflates terrorism with Islam, and that is a gross distortion and a lie, no matter how much Sarah Palin may say so.
Nothing wrong with that. The Cordoba building in Spain was a magnificent creation, and of course, Christians when they reconquered Spain, built back their own Victory Church over their conquest. Seems like a normal occurrence. In fact, Christians have, throughout history, done exactly the same when they went out and conquered or forced people by the sword to swear to Christianity. They planted their own Victory Churches as well. But we can excuse that, right? I mean, Christianity is God’s religion anyways…
Dan:
I noticed that even when addressing and quoting me, you completely ignored what I said to you.
I concur that there are more than a billion wonderful Muslims in the world, some of whom DO enter my house each week to learn music and some of whom have become family friends. I still am quite willing to ask questions to distinguish the billion from the tens of millions who wish me harm. Having the office you used to work in blown up, and having your wife afraid to step out of her car to get gas because a couple of hate-filled Muslims are having sniper practice on people getting gas in your county will tend to do that to you.
I must admit, however, that it was worth the price of admission just to hear Dan the Good Democrat stand up for the personal property rights of ownership of rich developers. 😀
I must admit
FT,
Probably a good lesson to learn that straw man stereotypes don’t get you far in understanding your political opponent. 🙂 Honestly, I don’t know why you would think liberals aren’t fans of property rights.
Because I sampled your blog on the subject of tax rates during the health care debate, Dan? Perhaps you posted retractions there later, but frankly, I no longer check there, so I wouldn’t know. But I made no general stereotype about liberals in my previous statement. (You can thank me for the publicity about your own blog later.) 😀
and tax rates is related to property rights…how?
btw, thanks for the plug. 🙂
Because money is also personal property; it’s just more convenient to carry than chicken or bricks. The electorate gets to decide how much to give the government; government does not get to decide how much the people get to keep.
That’s the difference between empires and democracies. A lot of politicians who forgot that are about to get fired at national, state, and local levels. But people can go to your blog to continue that discussion. (See — a double plug.)
FT,
I’ll just say this, and that’s all I will add to this threadjack. Money is not property.
@Dan
Yes, money very much is property. If you don’t believe so, then you don’t understand the concept of money.
Um, they own it. It’s theirs. It does not belong to anyone else.
Beyond ownership, because there was a time that they didn’t own it, and you keep avoiding the bigger picture here.
No clue what you mean by “sacred ground.”
Many people consider it sacred because their loved ones died and their remains were scattered there. I used the White House as an example of a place that a church would not be allowed to be constructed, regardless of ownership, but because it has meaning beyond the fact that it is a piece of land that someone owns. That is the bigger picture here, but you seem to only want to see in black and white here.
Tiringly, once again, why is this spot off limits to them worshipping as they please there when they own that property?
I never said they don’t have a right to worship there. I just don’t thing it is the right thing to do. I would like to see them do the right thing, and the fact that they probably won’t speaks volumes.
But the Muslims who currently go the old abandoned Burlington Coat Factory to pray every Friday, they had nothing to do with 9/11, nor did Islam.
Perhaps that is true. But what do we know of their intentions and their feelings towards us? Is it not prudent to ask such questions? Or should we just trust that everyone who is a Muslim is a peaceful Muslim up until the point that they actually harm us?
Terrorists are terrorists, and not true believers, no matter how much they may want to believe it, no matter how much their enemies might want people to believe it.
Well that’s stating the obvious, and I think we’ve covered that already.
….and all Muslims should not be held accountable for the actions of the few depraved apostates.
I never said that they should.
No it’s not. Because it conflates terrorism with Islam, and that is a gross distortion and a lie, no matter how much Sarah Palin may say so.
I haven’t conflated terrorism with Islam. Terrorists have conflated terrorism with Islam.
Nothing wrong with that. The Cordoba building in Spain was a magnificent creation, and of course, Christians when they reconquered Spain, built back their own Victory Church over their conquest. Seems like a normal occurrence.
Seriously? You see nothing wrong with a victory Mosque? Would you also see nothing wrong with a victory Christian Church?
In fact, Christians have, throughout history, done exactly the same when they went out and conquered or forced people by the sword to swear to Christianity. They planted their own Victory Churches as well. But we can excuse that, right? I mean, Christianity is God’s religion anyways…
So then, you’re fine with tit for tat, because I certainly don’t excuse the actions of Christians who do evil. You make a lot of assumptions about me in ignorance.
Tara,
I indeed understand the concept of money. It is currency, not property. And that’s all I will say on that threadjack.
I am not avoiding the bigger picture at all. The property belongs to them. They are the rightful owners. They followed all the zoning ordinances of lower Manhattan, got approval from all the right community boards and agencies; hell, they even went on Fox News in December of 2009 and Laura Ingraham of all people said she knew of no one who had a problem with their proposal. This speaks badly of people like you, Tara, that you would allow a bigot like Pamela Geller to bait you into being against this cultural center.
As I recall, the only thing that landed there was a wheel. No remains were scattered there. And if we’re talking sacred ground…exactly what is allowed on “sacred ground?” A gentleman’s club? a betting parlor? This point is hypocritical and bigoted.
The Burlington Coat Factory, I guess has some meaning to the owners of the Burlington Coat Factory, otherwise its value is not great except for prime location in lower Manhattan. However, for your analogy to be correct with regards to the White House, it wouldn’t be as if someone wants to build a church on the White House property, but on a property two blocks away from the White House. So let’s look at a map of DC and see how many churches there are two blocks away from the White House. These are all the churches within a close radius of the White House. Those dastardly Muslims don’t have anything two blocks away from the heart of our country, but they’ve got two “Islamic Centers” in DC! Gasp!
Feel free to ask them.
Nothing wrong at all. It’s what happens in life. Can’t change it. In any case, Muslims have not built a “victory mosque” anywhere in America, because they’ve not actually achieved victory in America, thus anyone who claims they’ve build, or they plan to build a victory mosque here, thinks America lost to their enemies. Funny just how belittling some of these, so called, patriots really treat their country…
@Dan
I indeed understand the concept of money. It is currency, not property. And that’s all I will say on that threadjack.
Money is not currency and currency is not money. Currency REPRESENTS money. Money is imaginary. It exists only in the human mind. Money exists as an unreal concept to help us run our economy easier. Money represents the value of human labor (including services) and the natural resources labor touches.
And here’s some further education for you on property:
Property: and subsequent Pursuit of Happiness.
Property is Life, Life is Property.
The two are interchangeable, and synonymous.
How can I say that? Take our lone individual to whom we have granted Life and Liberty. Put in a place where he can obtain all he needs to survive. This individual then uses wood and stone to build a shelter, domesticates livestock, harvests grains and fruits in his vicinity. The shelter, livestock and food stocks are property obtain by the individual using his intellect and spending time and effort, a portion of his life to gather the property.
In society we use the medium of exchange, money, to convert life to property. The individual works for a period of time, exchanging a portion of his life with an employer for money; the money is then exchanged for property. Conversely we can reverse the equation, exchange property for time. Most commonly leisure time, time not caring for the necessities, using previously acquired property in exchange for time to do other things we also exchange money with others to get them to do things for us.
Responsibility of our solitary, non-societal individual. Please pay careful attention to the responsibility of this individual. There is no one to provide this individual anything. He must use his time, a portion of his lifespan to provide the necessities of life. This responsibility is not lost upon moving into a society.
The right to property is the most difficult for some. This difficulty is rooted the “zero sum” fallacy. The false idea that there is a finite amount of property to be had. This leads to the conclusion that if one person has a lot, it was gained at the expenses of others. The truth is property is created when an individual uses his time to create it. This is clearest with intellectual property, a book, and a song a product purely of the mind. Bill Gates is worth in the neighborhood of $50 billion dollars, that was created out of nothing, no ore was mined, no crop sowed and harvested, no natural material was used in the creation of his property. The wealth of Bill and Microsoft is demonstrably created, not taken from another person. It also applies to resources. Resources are essentially useless in situ, iron ore is just rock until people over time applied intellect and time to figuring out how to extract metal from rock and make useful items.
Given that property is the result of the expenditure of the individuals’ life in exchange for the property and we agree that the individual has full right to life and liberty what other conclusion can there be but the individual has full right also over the property acquired in this manner?
Logically there can be no other conclusion. When we grant the right to life, what follows is the right to live that life, and what ever is produced by that life must be the property of the individual living that life.
If as some will claim the individual does not have the right all to the product of his life, they are claiming some portion of that individuals life, and subsequently can ultimately lay claim to the life of another person, traditionally this is called slavery.
Pursuit of Happiness recognizes that not all seek property, or wealth. That some individuals seek no temporal rewards, either in charitable efforts, pursuit of religious enlightenment, or personal fulfillment in arts, academic and intellectual efforts. Realizing however that pursuit of happiness does in no way relive the individual of personal responsibility for their own welfare.
I’ll deal with the rest of your comment later when I have time.
Tara,
I love how you cribbed jcmount’s piece without crediting him.
That would be theft of intellectual property, Tara. Ironic given how much you praise the importance of personal property.
Now that you’ve corrected the sourcing, Dan, stop deflecting and deal with the substance of the quote.
I disagree with the substance of the quote. There, I dealt with it. 🙂
@Dan
For your information, I don’t know who Pamela Gellar is.
As for the remainder of your comment, or your subsequent comments, there really is no point addressing them. Your primary concern is with being right and scoring points, not having a meaningful discussion, and I really am tired of being described as bigoted because I don’t share your opinion. You really are a waste of my time.
Tara,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller
that’s Pamela Geller. You should get to know her. She is feeding you your talking points even if you don’t even know about it.
Tara,
You made a lot of good points (which I agree with), and your right. You are wasting your time.
Although I have to admit that Dan’s point about building a church near the Whitehouse had merit.
I’m guessing Bishop Rick also chooses not to answer my questions…fair enough.
Dan, your questions have been answered ad-nauseum. You reject the answers and beat the bigotry drum. Why continue?
Thank you, BR.
BR,
They were not answered to my satisfaction. The answers to these questions continue to range from ignorance to bigotry. I have yet to see an answer that avoids fear, ignorance and bigotry regarding the Park51 project. This should be very clear from the fact that Tara tried to extend the “sacred ground” aspect of the attack to two blocks to the north, claiming that area is also “ground zero”, surely a terrible stretch to try and cover Park51 under the umbrella of “sensitive ground”. Nevermind that Muslims died that day too, or that there happened to have been a mosque (or a prayer room) in the Twin Towers before the attack, thus Muslims too, have a right to that “sacred ground.” Tara’s point stretched logic terribly, saying that anywhere where a person’s remains had been scattered to is sacred ground. I hear the ash cloud was blown down into Brooklyn. Should we ensure no mosque is located anywhere under that ash cloud? We obviously can’t trample on “sacred ground.” Tara’s logic was that a property two blocks away from ground zero is the same as a property right on the White House, showing the terrible logic attempting to avoid bigotry and fear. Of course, for the analogy to be correct in DC, you’d search for a church two blocks away from the White House, and as I showed, there are several examples. There are even Islamic organizations who own property within blocks of the White House. They aren’t cultural centers, though I am sure they have a prayer room for the Muslims who work for these organizations. All within essentially the same radius to the White House that the Park51 project is to ground zero.
Tara raised up the “victory mosque” charge without accounting for the fact that the Muslims who live in lower Manhattan who currently frequent the prayer room inside the old Burlington Coat Factory building have resided in lower Manhattan for almost three decades. It is their home as much as anyone else who has lived there for the same time. Tara also doesn’t take into account exactly where else in lower Manhattan someone could build their project beside the building they already own. This is probably because Tara is not familiar with real estate in lower Manhattan. Maybe Firetag can explain to her just how lucky this group happens to be owning a property in the dense jungle that is lower Manhattan. If they are denied this project, most likely they will not be able to find another suitable property in lower Manhattan, thus forced to find something elsewhere. And this comes back to bigotry. The whole point of trying to force this project to fail is to not have it built ANYWHERE in lower Manhattan, not just two blocks away. See, there is already another mosque four blocks to the north of ground zero with nary a word of concern that it could be viewed as a “victory mosque” by anyone currently complaining about Park51. The whole point is to stick it to the conquering Muslims. That would be a bigoted position.
Bishop Rick’s argument against the cultural center is that it would invoke violence against the center. That makes no sense as a reason NOT to build it. If someone uses violence against them, it would only reinforce in the minds of the victims the correctness of the charge that their opponents are evil. It’s exactly the same charge American Christians make against Muslims. “Look, see how they respond with violence toward us, they’re evil.” It’s exactly the same thing Muslims say of American Christians. “Look, see how they respond with violence toward us, they’re evil.” Both are bigoted and drenched in ignorance.
The group that owns the property have the Constitutional right to that land. And this is the most ironic point. Tara brings up the vital importance of “property” yet wants to do away with the right for this group to do what they want with property they own. If Tara truly believed in the principle of right of property, she would do what she could to encourage the group to do what they wanted with their own property. But she only believes in the importance of property for Christians, and that there should be limited access to property toward religions we don’t like. After all, 9/11 was done by Islam.
Have I misunderstood any of your points, Tara and Bishop Rick?
Dan:
Your fundamental problem is that you ASSUME the ignorance and bigotry of those you disagree with, and thereby appropriate for yourself the right to be judge of the argument as the “best as the brightest”. The attitude is why I stopped reading your blog.
Too bad you aren’t a couple of decades older (going from your picture). If you had been politically aware in the Viet Nam era, you’d have seen the Democratic Party’s “best and brightest” lead us to disaster before. It wouldn’t come as such a shock now that it can happen again.
Firetag,
I hold no assumptions of someone until the moments words come out of their mouths, or in cyberspace, when their words appear on my screen. I have no idea who you really are, or who Tara really is, or who Bishop Rick really is. I have no assumptions of you three except for what you write here. If you disagree with me on an issue, I don’t consider you a bigot, or an extremist, or evil. But if you hold views that are bigoted, then how can I not call them bigoted views?
I don’t know what your point is really about the Democratic party. If you read my blog, you’d find I have been highly critical of them constantly cowering in fear when a Republican whispers “Boo.” I can’t tell you how angry I am at Senator Harry Reid, almost enough that if I were in Nevada, I would write in Mickey Mouse as my vote. I certainly would vote for the Republican if Republicans in Nevada didn’t put up the utterly silly Sharon Angle as their candidate. I still would not shed a tear if Angle beat Reid. I voted for Obama because I liked most of what he said. He’s actually done quite well at keeping the majority of his campaign promises. He’s drawn down on Iraq as promised. His stimulus was not big enough to raise employment. He passed health care reform (he ran on that). He passed financial aid reform, credit card reform, and would have done a lot more if Senator Harry Reid had any guts to not give a damn about the Republicans. I don’t trust Obama to end the war in Afghanistan, or to be able to make peace between Israel and Palestine (a requirement in the Middle East). Pakistan is a terrible, terrible mess.
In any case, I’ve said my peace here. I won’t say anymore.
This morning, I watched Christiane Amanpour’s town hall meeting “Should we fear Islam?” Here’s the link: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/town-hall-debate-americans-fear-islam-christiane-amanpour-11787545
I was really impressed with both Daisy Khan and Azar Nafisa. Daisy and her husband are trying to build the cultural center. I will post their photos in the post when I can. They don’t wear head scarves. They don’t like Al Qaeda. They are Americans, and don’t represent the fear.
The 3 white guys in the show opposing the building claim that radical Muslims will infiltrate the mosque. However, FBI agent Brad Garrett said those claims are overblown, and haven’t happened in areas. It is fear-mongering.
There are 1.5 Billion Muslims in the world. If people claimed Christianity was a violent religion and referred to the Crusades and certain biblical verses, or FLDS, or Branch Davidians as “representing Christianity”, we will all take offense wouldn’t we?
Here is what I wrote on my blog mattandfaroe.blogspot.com about it:
As I was driving to work the other day I noticed a new billboard that had a picture of the rubble left of the World Trade Center Towers and text that read: “Remember 9/11, No Mosque on Ground Zero.”
This year the last day of the Muslim holiday Ramadan fell on 9/11. After a month of fasting the last day, Eid, is a huge day of celebration for them, like our Christmas.
In light of this NPR was interviewing a Muslim leader in charge of a Muslim cultural center in Fresno, California. He said that because 9/11 feel on a day when they would normally celebrate, he had decided to move their day of celebration and their traditional carnival to the day before.
As I was listening to the interview I thought, wow, that is so great that he has so much reverence for 9/11 and that is so respectful. Then he was asked why he did it, and he didn’t say out of respect, but he said out of fear. He said he was afraid that if they were celebrating that they might be persecuted. He also said that Muslims in the area had been persecuted since 9/11.
Back to the billboard reading “Remembering 9/11.” The billboard is asking us to remember 9/11 by not allowing a Mosque to be built several blocks away from ground zero. If we were truely “remembering 9/11” we would remember that life is short and bad things happen and their is no time in our lives to hold grudges. Why do so may Americans feel animosity towards Muslims, when it is one extremist group that is to blame?
9/11 should inspire us to be better and to rise above hatred. Why are some compounding the hatred surrounding 9/11 by hating back? Wouldn’t it be great if we were so forgiving as to allow a Mosque? We should learn from it to be more loving and forgiving of everyone. Two scriptures come to mind: I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men’ (D&C 64:10) and D&C 98: 40 And so on unto the second and third time; and as oft as thine enemy repenteth of the trespass wherewith he has trespassed against thee, thou shalt forgive him, until seventy times seven, (also Matt. 18: 22)
“If people claimed Christianity was a violent religion and referred to the Crusades and certain biblical verses, or FLDS, or Branch Davidians as “representing Christianity”, we will all take offense wouldn’t we?”
MH – I understand the point you are trying to make, but the Crusades happened 1000 years ago and BDs and FLDS are examples of isolationist sects that have/had no ambition for world domination, and certainly never attacked the U.S.
“Why do so may Americans feel animosity towards Muslims, when it is one extremist group that is to blame?”
Faroe – First: Just one extremist group? You make it sound like extremist Muslims fall into a small group but, that “single” extremist group has been at war with the U.S. for over 9 years. It has a global footprint and is showing no signs of defeat. Truth is, there are MANY extremist Islamic groups throughout the world, that unite under the banner of Islam. They are well funded, well organized and are just years away from obtaining Nuclear weapons…and when they do their first target will be Israel and their second will be the U.S.
This “one extremist group” is much bigger than we know about and it is the unknown part that causes the fear.
Second: Sharia Law, which ALL Muslim groups sanction.
Dan:
“They were not answered to my satisfaction. The answers to these questions continue to range from ignorance to bigotry. I have yet to see an answer that avoids fear, ignorance and bigotry regarding the Park51 project.”
I’ll gladly affirm a RATIONAL fear of Islamic fundamentalism, which implies that I am neither ignorant about, nor bigoted toward the more-than-a-billion peaceful Muslims. If that doesn’t satisfy you, then I guess it is fortunate that I don’t actually HAVE to satisfy you.