Monday, August 16, 2010

Mosque at Ground Zero

 I should not really have to say this but what follows is my opinion. Everything here is my opinion and is open to other people's opinions which might agree or differ.

Although the argument has been going on since a mosque was proposed near what is now called Ground Zero, I hadn't really wanted to wade into it for assorted reasons. It seemed to me it was an issue for New York City to decide. I really do not see it as something the survivors of 9/11 should decide as they aren't all impacted by what happens there.

Oh you think they are? They are now but purely because the media has, as usual, hyped this. Reality is this is a destroyed building which sits there with no use. No other church offered to build a community center there and place of worship. They could have. The Iman behind this particular project may well back off simply because it's not worth what it's going to cost the Muslim people after it being turned into an insult by an assorted group of people and mostly by Republicans with as usual only concerning themselves with what they can get out of something.

Here's the thing, a community center by a religious group who encourage ecumenical thinking, who had NOTHING to do with the terrorists of 9/11, should have been a no-brainer. You might even think they were trying to contribute to rebuilding  community that 9/11, an ugly distortion of their religion, tried to destroy.

So what do Republicans, at least those in leadership, want to do with that building? See it stay vacant and too destroyed to be used. That sounds about right for what I hear from them on about anything. IF they didn't do it, it isn't good and should not be done.

The reason I say the survivors of 9/11, those who lost loved ones that day, should not be factored into this is they don't have the emotional distance to look at it from any perspective other than their hurt. Seriously, they think that having that building stay destroyed is a testimony to their losses? Muslims were also killed that day but nobody cares about that. This is all about somehow thinking bin Laden wins if a mosque and community center are built on that site. No, he wins if it's not.


Rain said...

I saw this after writing my post and thought it worth reading for added context: A very long post on Cordoba House.

Dion said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dion said...

Muslim = Terrorist...
That's what it boils down to for far too many. The words Muslim and terrorist are interchangeable and hardly anyone notices. I've got a new conflation...
American = Dumb.

Ingineer66 said...

I think it is very insensative of the Muslim group to try and build so close to the World Trade Center. If they want a mosque on the Lower East Side they should be at least 10 blocks from the attack site. Having said that, religious freedom is one of the founding tenants of our nation and it applies to all religions not just the poplar ones. So I believe that there is not a constitutionally acceptable way to stop them from building it. So if they must build right there to be in the face of the New York citizens then maybe there should be a synagogue across the street and a strip club next door and maybe a bar that serves free beer to US troops in uniform on the other side.

Rain said...

Why ingineer? What did these people do that caused 9/11? What do they have to apologize for? I have heard that sensitive drivel and disagree totally. They found available land that would help rebuild a disaster. So you'd rather the building stayed destroyed? If you read the article I also linked, it's not even visible from Ground Zero. What is too close? This is a very disgusting issue and Republicans should be ashamed of supporting it at all. There was nothing wrong with it and even more importantly it was helping to rebuild an area that is still suffering from the disaster. Who else offered that?

And if you read that article, you know that some are trying to block all new mosques. I'd say that's fear that Christians can't compete with Islam in attracting new acolytes. They might want to think why rather than try to block the buildings. To me this whole thing about sensitivity is ridiculous. Oh wait, I said that *s*

Rain said...

My guess is given the offer from the governor that they will build elsewhere. So the building stays vacant and damaged and that helps who exactly... And I don't mean you were saying drivel but that argument, which I have read many places from the right, is nonsense and not the real reason at all. The real reason is some do blame all Muslims for what a few outlaws did and that suits bin Laden just fine.

Rain said...

To add to this debate, I have read a lot of articles like this link-- Ground Zero Mosque. It is in this case by a Christian who is writing why he fears Islam. Based on that people would block mosques all across this country and maybe ban the practicing of the religion if enough of us truly saw it as a threat to America's liberty... or would that be the threat when one religion was chosen to be okay (even though it also has holy scriptures that talk of killing all unbelievers). This is the other side and how they think.

Rain said...

I am filling up comments with links but this is another take on this issue: Intolerance Zoning.

The more I think about this, the more I think it's a big issue for this country not only about religion but about our identity as a nation. A lot of that is up for debate right now about not only this but also immigration. The world is in flux and not many people, who were doing well previously anyway, like that idea much. It threatens a lot including the question of physical safety.

Ingineer66 said...

I would think that the Iman in charge of this mosque would not want to be close to ground zero and would not want people to associate Islam with Ground Zero. If it were just a store front mosque I do not think people would have a problem with it. But this is a giant center. I have heard that you will be able to hear the call to prayers from ground zero. So that is what I mean by insensitive.

I have nothing against mosques in general. There has been one here in my town for at least 30 years. They did add a new security gate after 9/11 in case there was a backlash. But I do not know of any problems. I would guess the FBI has probably been there. At least I would hope they have to check on activities like they check on many religious groups that have radical elements. I have been friends for years with Naturalized US Citizens that are Muslim so I do not have a problem with Islam. There are many parts of it that I have liked since I learned about it in High School. I guess that was a violation of church and state separation to learn about a religion though. I will have to call up my social studies teacher and let him know that if he is still alive.

PS I agree that many of the so-called small government crowd is now all for government squashing private property rights and first amendment rights to stop it. The government should not be involved beyond zoning and building code issues. If the people of New York do not want it, then it is their right to protest and try to get the people building the mosque to move.

Rain said...

so leave it to the strip joints, the porn shops, anything else seedy rather than something spiritual? You know I am no fan of religion but this seems hypocritical to think somehow it's not sacred there but a lot of the rest of what is already there is okay. I don't see why anybody should find the sound of them praying to be offensive as it was not them who did 9/11.

I do though see the fear that some feel about this, the fear of sharia law, of the Islamic religion having a political agenda but why not discuss that instead of this angle of it is too close to Ground Zero when it had zero to do with what happened there? Maybe people hate to admit their real fear.

Maybe he wanted it there for healing. Has anybody thought of that possibility? Maybe he wanted to be part of a sacred healing of this space that was damaged so badly and still has a lot there that is not good for people spiritually. Why didn't other religions think of doing this?

Ingineer66 said...

Actually Rain I did think of that possibility when I first found out they were planning to build so close. Let it be an educational center of what Islam really is about. Since the Islamic leaders in the US have not been very vocal in distancing themselves from Sharia law and extremism, this would be a perfect opportunity. But the New Yorkers started saying they were offended and against it so that idea got lost very early on.

Rain said...

Have they done a poll on what New Yorkers want? Mostly what i hear comes from those outside of the city or someone interviewing a family member. The original idea was it would be an educational center. I think they'll go elsewhere since they had another offer but frankly that still leaves the building derelict. What will Republicans propose be done with it then? I bet nothing that costs them tax money...

Kay Dennison said...

I think people need to get a grip.

1) It's a couple blocks away from Ground Zero.

2) It's replacing a Burlington Coat Factory.

Lastly, this country was not founded on Christian values. See George Washington's letter to the Jewish congregation in Rhode Island. And go a bit further and study and you'll see that Tom Paine was an
atheist and most of the other Founding Fathers were nominal Christians at best. AND the Constitution does not use the word 'christian' anywhere.

It's reached the point that if/when someone asks me if I'm one, I'm going start saying 'no' because I don't want to be associated in any way with the likes of people like Glen Beck, Sarah Palin and John Boehner.

Gandhi was right when he said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians; they are so unlike your Christ.

Ingineer66 said...

Here is a link to how close the proposed location is.

Rain said...

That's the type of map I saw also, ingineer. And it's not a bunch of low level buildings there but many floors. The article said like canyons for how the roads and sidewalks appear. This building would not be larger than those around it.

Robert the Skeptic said...

I begin to formulate my thoughts on subjects such as these that involve religious freedoms and civil liberties. More often than not I find that Sam Harris says it far better than I ever could. From his blog: "American Muslims should be absolutely free to build a mosque two blocks from ground zero; but the ones who should do it probably wouldn’t want to."

In another article on the Huffington Post, Republican Muslims are trying to rein in their party's rhetoric on the issue.

Rain said...

The key is understanding that being Muslim doesn't mean they all believe the same thing. This was a good article on that difference-- Divisions in Islam.

I keep coming back to if this Islamic leader had not wanted to help rebuild the neighborhood so badly hurt by 9/11, who would? Who was going there to make the Burlington Coat Factory into something viable for the neighborhood again? If they go elsewhere, does that just leave this part of Manhattan sinking and forgotten? It's been 9 years and nobody had come before this. To me a saint would do exactly what he did. Not saying this imam is a saint but he sounds like a man with very good intentions. If many are afraid to be near what could be a target in the future, why not be grateful that someone wants to help rejuvenate it and the spirits of its people? If the Imam decides to go elsewhere over the massive pressure from the right wing and over fear talk from people like Harry Reid who might not be reelected if he can't convince some righties he's on their side, what happens to that part of the city then? You know who wins.

Bumps Stump said...

Hi Rain . . Most of these replies tend to agree with you. As you might expect, I don't. My thoughts run closer to Dion's and Ingineer's - but recently I have come to an even more negative and nasty opinion of Islam.

I am now convinced that Islam is TOTALLY evil-and the various divisions and interpretations of Islam have obscured the truth. Like most Americans, I went along for years believing that in addition to Shia, Wahhabi, Sunni and other sub-units, there were basically two classes of Muslims;
1. Peaceful Moderates, and
2. Fanatic Fundamentalists
To my dismay, this simply isn't true. The Quran describes the edicts of Islam exactly. It does not, like the Christian Bible, leave room for interpretation or argument. The Quran demands are very clear and precise.

The first part of the Quran is religious and peaceful. What I overlooked for so long is that the second and last part of the Quran aggressively contradicts, reverses or voids ALL OF THE FIRST PART. The second part of the Quran is the bloody, militant and medieval part.

It is a fact that ALL Muslims are commanded to deal with BOTH parts of the Quran. They may not pick and choose to follow only the written text they agree with.

To be accurate therefore, All Muslims must believe in the complete Quran, and a Muslim Moderate and a Muslim Terrorist are both ruled by the same Islamic Quran. Like it or not, they share the same beliefs.

Make no mistake. A true follower of Islam is our enemy, and there is no reason to give aid and comfort (or privledges like building a Mosque) ANYWHERE.

Your friendly stick in the mud.


Rain said...

Have you studied the Bible, dixon? Looked at what it also says about killing those who don't believe as the true followers do, picking up a sword, Revelations, etc etc, All religions have these aspects but you aren't scared of the Bible because you think it's familiar. It would be easy to make a case for the horrors of Christianity also. The difference being how much power that particular religion has.

So basically you would end freedom of religion in this country? You know the only risk with Islam, even if you are correct that it's all 'bad', would be that people would find it appealing and choose to follow it at least in our country. So given freedom to choose, you don't want them able to choose that?

Bumps Stump said...

Hi Rain . . . You make several good point here. As you know I am a very skeptical Christian, find it difficult to believe in miracles, and generally don't understand how it could possibly have benefited mankind years ago when it was a bloody murdering mob of zealots. So my tie to Christianity is pretty flimsy. Secondly, yes I have read the Bible. More than once in fact. And I have also studied Islam. I don't understand one more than the other.
You question whether or not I am afraid Christianity can not withstand a competitive religious challenge from Islam. Well, I'm not afraid or even concerned. I do believe societies are better off when religion has no role in government. Islam teaches the opposite. Just for one minor piddling example I wonder why our government allows a special tax status for a church or temple or any other religious structure? If it was up to me I'd tax'em all. None of this changes my creeping suspicion that ALL MUSLIMS are, to some degree, the enemy of ALL INFIDELS. Islam is by definition, set up that way.

Cheerio - is it time to feed the lambs?


Rain said...

Well you know what I think about religion but in this case, we are talking about whether Islam is any more prone to go too far than Christianity if it gains power and I'd say no. Any religion can do the same thing if the wrong 'version' gains power. You know about the Christian militia groups rising up. Doesn't that worry you?

If we encourage Islamic leaders like the imam in NYC who has helped our FBI with terrorist tracking, who has talked in Muslim countries about moderation and who is as much a target of bin Laden as Christians, we are encouraging the right version for the benefit of Muslims and us.

I think that you see Islam as more to be feared only because you are less familiar with it. ANY religion can become a threat to freedom and frankly I'd go further than taxing their property, I'd end charitable deductions also as too often it's for their own pools, recreation rooms, etc etc. Little churches that don't offer all that aren't in a position to pay much tax anyway and those that have created big gymnasiums for their own fun, they deserve to pay for the facilities around them that help support that like roads, fire protection, etc. It won't happen.

Ingineer66 said...

OK Rain I think I have to disagree with you on the threat from Islam vs. the threat from Christianity. Sure there are nut-bars on both sides. But the major difference that I see is the Muslim nut-bars actually gained control of a nation, Afghanistan and were about 12 months from gaining control of Pakistan when their President decided he would rather be on our side than be President of a bombed out US Occupied Territory. And these leaders of the Taliban have said that they want a 12th century lifestyle at least for the common folks, not so much for the leaders.

Rain said...

People need to just be honest about it. All around the country they say that mosque construction is being blocked. It is fear of Islam and it's about saying we do not really want freedom of religion here. We have freedom of 'acceptable religions' as defined by ... well who knows who defines it.

I see the concerns people have about an aggressive Islamic political movement but as for saying it wouldn't happen with Christianity, you only have to look at history to see it has happened. Inquisition. Witch burnings. even today militia movements.

Americans have been afraid of religious power because they often had ancestors who had to leave their homes over it (my family is an example as Huguenots, they had to leave Europe and came to the US in the 1600s). Religion in power is a problem and Islam illustrates that very vividly wherever they have ultimate power; so does that mean the religion should be banned here? Is there a serious risk they could take over this country? Would most Americans really let that happen? That's the real fear that people are talking about.

I did finally find out why it's called Ground Zero, and people don't seem to know when it began to be called that. I don't much like it as a title because it means we never get beyond it. It makes what they did that day into a permanent part of us as a people through how we react to other things, maybe to the damage to our economy due to the wars we didn't properly fund, who knows why but it doesn't look like this generation at least can let it go. It's one thing to build a memorial to a catastrophic event. It's another to turn it into a holy shrine, isn't it? The number of people killed there were less than happens on our freeways regularly but it's not about the deaths. It's something else that I can't really grasp like Americans have a soft spot, an unrealistic view of how they were immune to what the world has suffered many places.

You know, others died that same day (some fishermen off the Oregon coast had their boat go down, family men) and nothing was contributed to their families' losses which were as great but something about this has taken a hold of the American psyche in a way that I don't think bin Laden could have expected for his level of success. he might be dead but what he did lives on.

You know, the British who have had many killed in terrorist attacks during the Northern Ireland struggle but they went on with their business. They did not build shrines to the ones who did it. It's not just about the dead but those who committed the horrible act. We are commemorating them over and over again, aren't we?

And it isn't a mosque. It is an Islamic center and really if we ended the tax writeoffs for religious structures, they might think twice about it. Sometimes I wonder how much they want to do it given they won't say they won't take donations from Iran to build it. Seriously? They really want to rile up Americans over it?

Ingineer66 said...

Personally, I still call it The World Center.

cj said...


Would it be all right to build a memorial to Hitler at Auschwitz?

Can the Roman Catholic Church build a church in Mecca?

Do you know what Taqqiya is?

Can a follower of Islam leave the religion to become a Christian?

Do you know that it is the DUTY of all Muslims to see that Sharia law is the law of the land everywhere?

Do you know that they are now calling it the Cordoba House for a reason? Research Cordoba Spain to understand why.

And finally:

Why do we have to be tolerant of a religion that is anything but tolerant toward every other religion on the face of the earth?

The answers to all of these questions are important to any discussion about the Ground Zero mosque.

Rain said...

Cordoba represents a highpoint of Muslim culture that it has rarely matched since. Around 1000 AD, it had a population of nearly half a million and was a cultural center. In the 10th-11th centuries it was one of the most advanced cities in the world, as well as a great cultural, political, financial and economic center. It had what wass then the world's largest library, housing from 400,000 to 1,000,000 volumes. After that time it faded and became less successful under different leadership. Keep in mind that mathematics and many other advancements in science of its time had come from the Arab world. Amazing given the situation there today.

It is not surprising that a moderate Islamic group would see that name as the hope for the future of a moderate Islam. It represents the opposite of what someone like bin Laden wants which is why Imam Rauf is really the kind of Muslim that bin Laden would kill if he could.

A lot of the rest of what you are claiming about Islam is what the extremist element of Islam does teach and it's why some would do suicide bombings, why they cut off hands still today for theft, why they stone to death women for adultery (sometimes men also). Surprising though it might be to some, Christianity has had such times and the Bible has plenty of room to justify such violence in extremist Christians. There really isn't room in Christianity, some would say, for moderation either but we know that it is there because we are familiar with it.

As for the idea that Obama as a child would have gotten this idea that he should pretend to be a Christian, spend his life pretending; so he can someday destroy America, well it goes beyond any fiction book you can imagine. If that turns out to be true (with zero evidence that it is), it'd be about the equivalent of believing Bush, whose family was friends with bin Laden, helped plan 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq, and it's why he kisses the sheiks and why he didn't get bin Laden when he could. It would make quite a book and not to say such far out things do not happen; but there is not one scintilla of evidence for Obama being a Muslim. None. But since there is none about Bush plotting to destroy the Pentagon and world trade center buildings, who knows. I would say neither are true but extremists on both sides believe a lot of things I cannot imagine logical.

As for your other comparisons, are we like any of those countries? Do we want to compare ourselves to Saudi Arabia or even the Jewish state of Israel which is a theocracy where as I understand it only Jews can vote?

Finally if you believe all of Islam is responsible for what happened on 9/11, which it seems you do, then why did we go to Iraq and Afghanistan to liberate those people? Why not just isolate and let them suffer? What the heck were those wars about if the Islamic people are such a threat to our way of life? Did somebody have the idea they'd go there and force Christianity down their throats? Seems illogical too to me but who knows what somebody thought. As it stands, we supposedly are liberating people we say we blame for 9/11... all of them...

Rain said...

That is the Bushes were friendly with bin Laden's family. I have never heard they knew the black sheep son at all...

cj said...

Rain -

I made no comparisons. None.

I asked questions.

Directly of you and those who read your blog.

You answered one of them. Sort of.

I never mentioned Obama.

And I never claimed anything.

I asked questions.

Something everyone should do.

I can answer them. I guess I'll assume you can't or won't.

And I'd like to know where you get the notion that I believe all of Islam was behind the attack on September 11th.

Here's a couple more I didn't include:

Do the earlier verses of the Qu'ran have the same meaning as the newer versions? Or do the newer ones replace the older ones? Any idea why that's an important question?

How about the honor killings that have taken place in this country? Including the one where the 'moderate Muslim' killed his wife in, I believe, Philly?

Or how about 'moderate Muslim' raped his wife and kept her a virtual prisoner... and an idiotic judge said it was okay because he was living by Sharia law?

If you don't want to answer my questions about Islam, how about answering the first question I asked instead of going off on a tangent about Obama and the Bushes?

Would it be all right to build a memorial to Hitler at Auschwitz? Or, how about a Japanese 'cultural center' at Pearl Harbor?

cj said...

Oh, and you're wrong about Israel:

If you're a citizen of Israel, you can vote. It says nothing about having to be Jewish.

Now, I could, as you did with my questions, assume that your comment means you're against Jews but that would just be silly.

Wouldn't it?

Rain said...

Answering all your questions here would take a blog, cj. It would go way over the size that is permitted. I thought I might have gone over when I explained why the name Cordoba House could have been chosen, but I took the time this morning to print them off. I have my grandkids at the farm this week, and this morning after I get tonight's dinner started and they have had breakfast, they are going out with us to move irrigation pipe but the current plan is they will go to town this afternoon, join up with the other two and all go swimming. If they do, I might have time then to write a blog with your questions and my thoughts on each.

Doing it this way will be a first as I usually take people's questions here as being points they are making. I do not feel obligated to answer them or prove I could anymore than I expect them to answer mine which often are intended to get others to think-- which is how I took yours. I am not doing it this time because I think it will change your mind, you seem pretty set in it, nor mine, as all of these have been out in the blog world and I'd already seen them. I hadn't though researched them all, but just gone with what I thought I had already heard.

I do appreciate your information regarding Israel. I had read that you could not become a citizen of Israel without being Jewish or married to someone Jewish. I checked a bit on what you said and although it's difficult to understand, it does sound like others can go there and apply for citizenship. I have no idea how many or how well that works or even if other standards might interfere with citizenship (like could a radical Islamist really become a citizen?) but it was interesting anyway.

Keep in my mind that I would not see it as wrong if they did limit who they admitted as citizens (nor do I think it's wrong that non-Muslims cannot even visit Mecca). With my respect for borders, I think countries have a right to establish their own and whom they admit as citizens. It's not bigotry in my mind. It's protecting their culture and Israel, given the threats against it, has to be concerned with security as well. Most countries have rules to protect themselves and when they don't, that's when it can lead to problems and has.

Generally I never feel obligated to try and answer everybody's questions for here. I assume that commenters know that they are putting out their questions and thoughts and this is not a test of somebody's knowledge or even whether we can all agree. Sometimes we agree to disagree.

Oh and my answer regarding Obama was because I assumed you asked about taqqiya because of him. You had some other purpose??

Anyway hopefully this afternoon or at least by evening I can get to your questions-- one by one in a blog.

Surprising as it might be to righties, I did think about the cultural aspect to this before I formed my own opinion on them using the destroyed Burlington Coat Factory. If somebody had suggested it for the site of the Twin Towers, I'd have not thought it appropriate either because I think that has to rebuild the type of structure that had been there or we have lost an important battle. I know some of the families wanted it to only be a memorial. I disagreed with that as I think that would be a win for the 'other' side and there is another side. It would make us look weak and ineffective if we didn't rebuild on that site as others have said bigger than before but hopefully structurally sounder as I suppose it will always be a target of those who want to destroy our economy. Not that they probably worry so much about that these days given what we have done to it ourselves.

Dion said...

Knocking down the low hanging fruit...
Can the Roman Catholic Church build a church in Mecca?

An Islamic monarchy is not something too many American citizens strive for. I prefer a nation without religious persecution.

cj said...

So, you don't see how the tennent of taqqiya might apply to the rheortic coming from those who want to build the mosque might apply to a conversation about building the thing? Thanks for the answer. It explains a lot. Obama never entered my mind. And to be quite frank, he rarely enters my mind since he's proven himself to be an ineffectual leader. I'm dealing more with congress and getting rid of the jackals that are destroying our economy with their pathetic attempts to 'help'.

This isn't a question you need to feel you have to answer but one that you might want to check into - did you know that a Greek Orthodox church, destroyed by the fall of the towers has yet to be rebuilt because the government has objected to how they want to rebuild it?

And, part of one of the airplanes hit the building on the site where they want to build the mosque. It was damaged by the attack. How much more does it take to make it part of Ground Zero? Again, not a question you need to feel like you have to answer.

In a Time/CNN poll, 61% of the people asked think the mosque should not be built. So much for government representing the will of the people.

They can build the thing anywhere else in Manhattan. If Islam is truly a religion of peace and understanding, why can't they understand that? Why are they being so insistant on building on that site when so many see it as an insult and when it causes so much grief to the survivors of the attack?

Oh, and Dion, thanks for totally missing the point. I'll refer you to my final question as my response.

Rain, have a good time with your family and don't bother answering any of my question because you already have.

Rain said...

Why did so many right wingers like Laura Ingraham and Glenn Beck suddenly think this became a big issue? Glenn Beck actually had interviewed Imam Rauf and said what a positive example he was of a moderate and now it's become a threat to our country. Of course, Beck makes his fortune off getting people riled up. Ingraham wrote about it in the winter how she saw no problem with it but she does now. Walking orders came down? And they have stirred up all their troops.
Any religion can have deceit in it. In fact some think most religions are based on lies to start. But what you are using is a word as though it somehow is unique to Islam for deceit. You are tarring a lot of Muslims with your brush-- in fact all except those like bin Laden who make no secret of their desire to smash the US.

What I think is that is a badly damaged neighborhood and you want to leave it that way because nobody else wants to come in? And I have heard nothing about why they are denying a building permit to repair the Greek Orthodox church but you can't blame that on Obama can you? It might mean the building requirements for today are tougher than when the church was built. Did NYC give a reason?

What gets me is all the arguments over sacred ground given all the unsavory businesses right near there and if they do rebuild the towers, it'll have its bottom level as a bunch of stores that sell stuff. That's sacred? What stock brokers do further up is sacred? What the heck made the ground sacred anyway? If it's where people were is killed,then there is a lot of sacred ground around this world. Is it sacred to commemorate where the terrorists had a great victory? If so, I don't like that word at all.

I already did answer your questions, cj, in a new blog but since I don't agree with you on them, likely you won't like my answers. That's the problem with the extreme right and left. You answer it with what you believe and it's not good enough. It has to agree with them to count as an answer.

Dion said...

If I missed your point, cj, maybe you also missed my point. Freedom from and of religion is America. I don't want America to resemble a religious theocracy.

Rain said...

Dion, that is what the right doesn't 'get' with this that it's about their religion as well as Islam. There is NO religion that has not had extremists use it to do bad things. There is NO religion without a history of abuses when it has had power. That means all religions can be a target once you start hitting on one of them. Some of the religious leaders in this country have seen that risk and are beginning to take the side of freedom of religion. And this is about religion not just building where somebody decided it is sacred and won't tell anybody else how far away that would be from the actual site nor what qualifies as sacred. I am guessing strip joints are in the clear... It is not just one mosque being challenged right now and from listening to the right revile all Muslims as the same, it's clear that the threat to expanding the mosques is just the beginning.