Do We Deserve a Mosque at Ground Zero?

[righteousmomma]

define "They"

 

"As in I also know that placating them only enables them because they see us as weak." ??

Here I mean the various folks who consider themselves Islamic Fundamentalists.

 

As for the billions of Muslim adherents to Islam wiki does nice summaries.

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

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

[SrWoodchuck]

Valin!

 

I am in total agreement that the GWOT may only be won on an ideological battlefield, but I also believe that we cannot negotiate from any other position but strength. Right now we have military & technological strength, versus their willingness to die [i'm talking the 15% of committed Jihadi's.]

 

The eagle on the dollar bill says what all should know....the olive branch [extended hand of friendship] along with the multiple arrows [rain of death upon our enemies.] Unfortunately, we have a policy of appeasement now, which as Righteousmomma states, makes us weak & vulnerable [& not only to Jihadi's, but China, too.]

 

As a Christian, I hate the old Soviet model of massive retaliation, for even perceived slights; but a policy that is less aggressive, due to politically correct input; has no teeth. Witness the treatment of Somali pirates captured by the Russian Spetsnatz. Immediate execution at sea. The pirates were 500 miles from their Somali base, and fully armed for their "fishing" trip. I agree with the outcome & think the waffling about piracy is ridiculous. How do we impress on the 85% of the world's Muslim's that do not want us dead, that we are too terrible to have as an enemy; and they'd better exert pressure on the other 15%? By threatening to blow up Mecca, as the Soviets might have threatened? No.

 

I believe we have to get Obama & cronies gone, and we have to have an out-sized threat of retaliation, along with the will to back it up, before negotiations are effective. [bTW-I think Obama's use of unmanned aircraft to pinpoint targets & his decision to go into Yemen, were two things that need to be acknowledged.]

 

I still would like to see the mosque, be delayed until other religions can be represented in an "American" model of remembrance on that hallowed ground. All donations should be private [non-governmental] and the Muslim community should be encouraged to contribute to the completion of the other houses of worship [but not required] if they want the mosque built sooner. Whether they contribute or not will be up to them & should give an idea if the mosque is what they represent it to be, or a flag of religious war over Ground Zero.

 

We should be making lemonade, no matter how bitter the lemons.

[pollyannaish]

I still would like to see the mosque, be delayed until other religions can be represented in an "American" model of remembrance on that hallowed ground.

 

Absolutely agree. This is an excellent solution. I just watched the full video of the aftermath of Lars Vilks appearance in Sweden. Scary stuff at our doorsteps.

[nickydog]

I still would like to see the mosque, be delayed until other religions can be represented in an "American" model of remembrance on that hallowed ground.

 

Absolutely agree. This is an excellent solution. I just watched the full video of the aftermath of Lars Vilks appearance in Sweden. Scary stuff at our doorsteps.

 

This would indeed be an excellent solution if there were other religions that really did want to be located there, but have any expressed any interest? And would "Cordoba House" still be the $100,000,000 13-story extravaganza (and you KNOW it would be an extravaganza) proposed? The only way it would work would be if there was a Hindu temple, Buddhist temple, Shinto shrine, Christian church (with both Protestant and Roman Catholic representation), Jewish synagogue, Wikkin whatever (like we have at the AF Academy now ), a mosque, and any other religions I have left out, AND they all have equal buildings. That's the only way I personally could endure seeing a mosque anywhere in the vicinity of ground zero.

[Pepper]

I am out of the league of posters here, whether the post is receptive towards a mosque or not.

 

IMHO we would not be having this discussion if we had had no dithering liberals on endless commissions delaying the rebuilding of the anything on the sites to begin with.

 

We could have already rebuilt bigger commercial towers that would dwarf any nearby structure, mosque or not - or purchase anything associated within spitting distance and made it into parks.

 

Now, if a property owner is within the zoning laws, I expect anything can be put up whether in good taste or a pointed stick. In the meantime, the Cordoba House does not have enough money yet. But give them time. See

 

Dreams by a Muslim group to build a mosque near Ground Zero may not match its means.

The ambitious and immediately controversial proposal to create the $100 million religious and cultural center does not seem to be backed by any cash.

The American Society for Muslim Advancement, which proposed the center, has assets of less than $1 million, according to its most recent audited financial statement.

A sister organization, the Cordoba Initiative, listed assets of less than $20,000 in 2008. Its tax filings do not disclose at least $60,000 in private contributions, a Post analysis found, raising questions about where the money went.

 

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/short_on_3UhQftAjXfFZq1fNURK3BM#ixzz0o6YNPja5

[righteousmomma]

Good points, pepper.

 

I think the original question was "do we deserve a mosque at ground zero?

 

I still say, along with you, NO! We do not deserve a mosque at ground zero. We do not deserve a mosque anywhere in this Nation.

What we deserve and what we get are two different coins entirely. What is morally deserved by us --for good or bad- is not the same as a legal, constitutional right.

[Valin]

I am out of the league of posters here, whether the post is receptive towards a mosque or not.

 

IMHO we would not be having this discussion if we had had no dithering liberals on endless commissions delaying the rebuilding of the anything on the sites to begin with.

 

We could have already rebuilt bigger commercial towers that would dwarf any nearby structure, mosque or not - or purchase anything associated within spitting distance and made it into parks.

 

Now, if a property owner is within the zoning laws, I expect anything can be put up whether in good taste or a pointed stick. In the meantime, the Cordoba House does not have enough money yet. But give them time. See

 

Dreams by a Muslim group to build a mosque near Ground Zero may not match its means.

The ambitious and immediately controversial proposal to create the $100 million religious and cultural center does not seem to be backed by any cash.

The American Society for Muslim Advancement, which proposed the center, has assets of less than $1 million, according to its most recent audited financial statement.

A sister organization, the Cordoba Initiative, listed assets of less than $20,000 in 2008. Its tax filings do not disclose at least $60,000 in private contributions, a Post analysis found, raising questions about where the money went.

 

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/short_on_3UhQftAjXfFZq1fNURK3BM#ixzz0o6YNPja5

 

 

"IMHO we would not be having this discussion if we had had no dithering liberals on endless commissions delaying the rebuilding of the anything on the sites to begin with."

 

BINGO!!! We Have A Winner!

 

"Dreams by a Muslim group to build a mosque near Ground Zero may not match its means."

 

My My My. Interesting.

Could it be this project was announced to spark just such a debate as is going on here, and elsewhere?

Just throwing out a thought that popped into my (so called) mind

[Valin]

Good points, pepper.

 

I think the original question was "do we deserve a mosque at ground zero?

 

I still say, along with you, NO! We do not deserve a mosque at ground zero. We do not deserve a mosque anywhere in this Nation.

What we deserve and what we get are two different coins entirely. What is morally deserved by us --for good or bad- is not the same as a legal, constitutional right.

 

 

Why? Remember there is a little thing called the 1st Amendment, and the Free Exercise Clause.

[Pepper]

 

"IMHO we would not be having this discussion if we had had no dithering liberals on endless commissions delaying the rebuilding of the anything on the sites to begin with."

 

BINGO!!! We Have A Winner!

 

"Dreams by a Muslim group to build a mosque near Ground Zero may not match its means."

 

My My My. Interesting.

Could it be this project was announced to spark just such a debate as is going on here, and elsewhere?

Just throwing out a thought that popped into my (so called) mind

 

I'm a winner!! Thanks, Valin!

[righteousmomma]

 

Why? Remember there is a little thing called the 1st Amendment, and the Free Exercise Clause.

 

Valin

Not sure why you ask "why"?

But yes I am familiar with the First Amendment and the Free Exercise Clause which has been "interpreted" several times over the years.

 

You know, I have been meaning to say for some time that there is such a parallel between what political correctness and secular humanism is doing to one's concept and perceptions of God of the Bible and to one's world view and perceptions in society and culture as a whole.

 

Most of today's society have lost (if they ever had it) the ability to do critical thinking or even read history and philosophy to gain understanding of the world and human nature.

 

Of course the Bible has become to them a book of myths and human inspired stories to give their human nature some comfort and illusion of better days coming.

Situational ethics and values clarifications have been the biggest culprits along with elite intellectualism and atheistic philosophy.

 

So should we pander and placate and keep the peace at any cost because this is as good as it gets? Morality is conditional upon time and culture and ever changing?

Human nature is all biological and thus no absolutes?

 

Have to go and didn't mean to ramble on.

[Argyle58]

Good points, pepper.

 

I think the original question was "do we deserve a mosque at ground zero?

 

I still say, along with you, NO! We do not deserve a mosque at ground zero. We do not deserve a mosque anywhere in this Nation.

What we deserve and what we get are two different coins entirely. What is morally deserved by us --for good or bad- is not the same as a legal, constitutional right.

 

I think that the word "deserve" is ill used in this discussion. Those that practice the Muslim faith do indeed deserve a Mosque, but not in that place, and especially not one pastored by a cleric with obvious anti-Christian and anti-American beliefs.

 

I have no problem with the Muslim faith when it is practiced taking the Quran as a whole, but I am against those who use certain passages as a platform for a dangerous political and social agenda. I hold those that pervert the teachings of the Quran with the same contempt that I feel for the members of the Westbury Baptist Church.

 

The Quran teaches that Muslims should honor the People of the Book, i.e. those religions that share the Abrahamic books of the shared Old Testament (Judaism and Christianity). This idea is spoken of in several passages of the Quran. Those that interpret other minor passages about spreading the faith by the sword do a diservice to their religion and their culture.

 

So, NO, we don't "deserve" THIS Mosque

[righteousmomma]

Interestingly this mosque which I heard is suppose to open on 9/11 (?)was the hot topic on local radio this morning for the first time.

 

The general agreement from the man and woman hosts and the callers (that I heard while driving a short distance) was one of anger and pretty much outrage. Many pointed out how over the centuries when Islam captures a site they build a mosque irregardless of others' feelings. Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem was the most common example but there were other places mentioned.

 

Most were also wondering why the msm has not been covering the story etc etc.

[SrWoodchuck]

Interestingly this mosque which I heard is suppose to open on 9/11 (?)was the hot topic on local radio this morning for the first time.

 

The general agreement from the man and woman hosts and the callers (that I heard while driving a short distance) was one of anger and pretty much outrage. Many pointed out how over the centuries when Islam captures a site they build a mosque irregardless of others' feelings. Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem was the most common example but there were other places mentioned.

 

Most were also wondering why the msm has not been covering the story etc etc.

Righteousmomma!

 

May I suggest that the msm is but a wholly owned propaganda arm of the New World Order?

 

We share a border with Canada & Mexico. Canadians, for the most part, support & appreciate America, but see no need to live here. Mexicans, for the most part, are a wonderful people from a great culture [not counting the narco-terrorista's] that look to America for support & safe haven. We have been fed the idea that Mexicans are doing jobs that Americans won't do, which is not entirely untrue; but far from the reality, that the Mexican government, is corrupt, and unable to provide an infrastructure & security that would enable a life for it's citizens.

 

What is the European model, that Obama & the New Worlder's are trying to emulate? A greying society, that requires a massive influx of immigrants to perform basic jobs, that greying citizens are unwilling or unable to do. Who are the immigrants that are filling that need? Not Chinese. Muslims from poor countries that are unable to sustain their populations. Who are the loudest voices & most physically active protesters of European societies? In Britain, France, Spain & Italy [where two were recently arrested for plotting to kill the Pope & achieve martyrdom] they are Muslims. The Scandanavian countries, too. Unlike Canadians, and even Mexican citizens that share a common language or religion or culture; Muslims do not.

 

This is not racist, it's pragmatic. Large hungry populations are going to cross borders & fill needs & if the host country is lucky, assimilate language & culture; but not always. We have to decide if we are going to have a "melting pot," where the best of each culture is combined and celebrated, to form one great nation, with all in support of that noble idea; or a multitude of fiefdoms, clans & cultures, with none bending to accept the common goal of one nation under God.

 

Maybe, that one God will eventually be Allah, or with the economic model we are pursuing, maybe the common language will be a variation of Mandarin.

 

The only way we can retain our autonomy & a national identity, is with secure borders, a smaller government, committed to protection & security of the Constitution [including people that honor their oath of office] & it's inherent rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness, rejection of the New World Order that will bind us together [as we are now, through the IMF & other transnational banking entities] with other nations out of our sphere of control; the generous American heart, in caring for others, and most important, trust in God.

 

A little luck would be nice, too.

[Pepper]

Nice post, SrWoodChuck!

 

I agree with what you say. A nation that does not secure its borders does not deserve to be called a nation but a free for all.

 

 

 

 

PS

 

Maybe, that one God will eventually be Allah, or with the economic model we are pursuing, maybe the common language will be a variation of Mandarin.

 

If I wake up one day to hear "Arrah" being shouted from the roof tops five times a day, both deeds will have been accomplished by the libs....