I object to the name of this mosque, which is a reference to the Caliphate of Cordoba, a symbol of Islamic imperialism imposed by violent conquest.

I propose instead that it be called the Democratic Party Mosque, and that all Democrats be required to make a pilgrimage there once in their lives, to recite the shahaadah and view relics of Woodrow Wilson and William Jennings Bryan.

That should take care of everything, leaving only the bloody infighting that destroyed every other Caliphate that has ever existed. Barack Obama is obviously the current Caliph, but I think Allah has chosen Mayor Bloomberg to replace him.

Knowing a bit about NYC zoning laws and the amount of grease that is necessary to get Massive tower like the What Cha Ma Call It Tower on the WTC site as opposed to tearing down the old 5 or six story Cast Iron Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse and replacing with a light construction generic glass wall facade 13 story building.

I would bet the Mosque gets completed first.

As for the Greek Orthodox Church, if they have problems with the building department, Planning board and/or the Zoning, they have a chance of never rebuilding although I am sure things will be worked out for them.

The way I see it, there has not been any change at all. Rather, it is business as usual in NYC Real Estate, which has never been a Gentleman's game.

I do think the pilgrimage idea is a good one.

Yes, and they can also throw stones at the WTC replacement in their own version of "stoning the devil".

I don't think it is called the Cordoba Mosque. I don't even think it is a Mosque.

On the official website it is called Cordoba House, and they are kind of specific about it being a mosque.

They deny that the name refers to the conquest of Cordoba, only the "peaceful" coexistence between Muslims, Jews and Christians that followed the conquest. Peaceful because Muslims ruled, while Jews and Christians paid the taxes and did as they were told. Cripes, this is the best site for a Progressive Mecca since Stalin-era Moscow.

IF there's one thing I hate about NYC it's that it's nearly impossible to find a church ...

In case that wasn't clear enough, I count 16 churches closer to WTC than the mosque site.

You and your friend are on a neutron star, along with a basketball and the baskets. Assume the gravitational strength is 1 G and you are resistant to fatal factors such as radiation/temperature/pressure/lack of air etc.

Bactium

You and your friend are on a neutron star, along with a basketball and the baskets. Assume the gravitational strength is 1 G and you are resistant to fatal factors such as radiation/temperature/pressure/lack of air etc.

Bactium

In case that wasn't clear enough, I count 16 churches closer to WTC than the mosque site.

That's interesting. I just checked and I count 9 parked cars from my front porch.

As long as theyre cool with the gay bar being built to cater to Muslim customers next door, build away. I suspect they won't be too cool with it.

My point is : Why do we need another "Ground zero" church? Are the other 16 not good enough?

"The Muslims of lower Manhattan are not exactly your sharia & Taliban types. "

My understanding is that the Muslims in Manhattan aren't exactly the ones funding this mosque.

I could care less if the mosque gets built. But the hypocrisy is entertaining- IE the carpetbaggers from around the country politicizing this are racist haters. The carpetbaggers from Iran and Palestine politicizing this... well you're a racist hater if you mention them.

I suspect if the Muslim gay bar goes forward and the Islamicist have a fit about it... well you're a racist hater if you don't tolerate their intolerance.

I guess the question is does the Imam of Ground Zero have the funding for the building, or is this publicity the means of getting the funding?

"All I can say, Mark, is that you are very lucky to be so easily entertained. But if you find hypocrisy entertaining, you really don't need to work so hard to find it. I think you'd be hard pressed to find more than 6 people who actually hold both of those beliefs. I'm sure it's happened somewhere, but is it really that widespread? Kind of tertiary issue, no?"

Unfortunately two of those 6 people are the Mayor of New York City and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, called for an investigation of those who are protesting the building of the Ground Zero Mosque on Tuesday. She told San Francisco's KCBS radio:

AUDIO

"There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque is being funded," she said. "How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we've been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City." (h/t Kristinn)

Calls to investigate the funding for those proposing the $100 million "Cordoba House" have fallen on deaf ears, though, as New York's Mayor Mike Bloomberg has described such an investigation as "un-American."
Washington Times

"I don't believe that's the question at all. First of all, the Imam isn't funding it. A real estate developer is."

Actually...

"One of the two investors in the transaction with Soho Properties was the Cordoba Initiative, a tax-exempt foundation.10 Cordoba Initiative's CEO and Executive Director is American Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.13[14]15[16] The other investor is another foundation, the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA).10 ASMA was founded by Abdul Rauf, and is run by Abdul Rauf and his wife out of the same New York office as the Cordoba Initiative.10[4]10 Both foundations are working on the project with Soho Properties, the co-developer of the center.10[2]"
link

Soho Properties. Owned by Sharif El-Gama, Sammy El-Gamal, and Nour Mousa (nephew of the Secretary General of the Arab League) by the way.

Here's a primer over the shadowy funding for the project. What it clearly is not is a helpful neighborhood developer and the local dimestore Imam rallying the neighborhood like a Breakin' movie.

Rauf's institutes brought in less than 100,000$ in donation over the last five years and suddenly they are partners in a 100 million dollar project? I think asking where this money is coming from (and why) is perfectly legitimate. Certainly as legitimate as asking where the oppositions funding comes from.

Mark, I don't see that the quotes you selected in any way illuminate your claims of either hypocrisy or of anyone calling anyone else racists.

I don't see Pelosi or Bloomberg calling people who are politicizing opposition to the center racists, nor do I see them calling racists people who -- as you originally said -- want mention that Iranians or Palestinians are trying to politicize this. For hypocrisy to be involved, doesn't the same person have to make both claims?

It seems to me, however, that Bloomberg is right. It is un-American to selectively investigate the funding of a religious or cultural center without any basis for doing so. But that's a long way from calling someone who wants to a racist.

I believe that most of the rationales offered for opposition to the center are deeply and profoundly un-American, as these rationales seem to be a direct and blatant attack on one of the fundamental founding principles of this country, i.e., freedom of religion. These are attacks against Muslims as Muslims and against certain Muslim-Americans for the actions of other Muslims. It is difficult to imagine anything more contrary to either the spirit or letter of American law.

_ I think asking where this money is coming from (and why) is perfectly legitimate._

Why? On what grounds? Is there any reason to suspect there is anything illegal going on. It's a non-profit corporation. People are entitled to donate. Why does this particular project provoke your curiosity? Why aren't you wondering who funded the $120 million HighLine project north of the site? Why not ask who's funding the building of churches in Nigeria?

You say that you could care less if the mosque is built and yet you have an extremely strange desire to know all about how it is being funded. Apparently, you care quite a bit. Mark, really! this doesn't pass the most basic smell tests.

As far as ownership is concerned, If it is not in the name of a publicly traded corporation, then the same disclosure rules apply to any privately held corporation.

Instead of coming up this implied skullduggery, how about doing a little researching and stop wasting everybody's time with these sinister plots.

"It is un-American to selectively investigate the funding of a religious or cultural center without any basis for doing so. "

Isn't all investigation selective? Why do you rob banks, because that's where the money is? How many churches and temples are opened in hundred million dollar buildings financed by foreign entities with political ties that have been.. ahem.. unfriendly to US security?

This idea that we should be pretending Islam has no possible connection with terrorism, racism, sexism, and radicalism in general is just ridiculous. Mainstream Islam has done as little as they can get away with to distance themselves from the radicals... meanwhile billions are funneled to madrassas in Pakistan etc that are essentially soldier killing factories. If mainstream Islam wants the protections of other polite company, hadn't they better separate themselves from those not welcome in polite company? Aren't you known by who your friends are? So indeed yes, I am saying that Muslims owe their fellow Americans a little extra. If that is racist or xenophobic, at least i know I have a lot of company.

As a symbol, Cordoba is much more meaningful as a flowering of a particular cosmopolitan civilization.

A cosmopolitan civilization, of which no trace exists in modern Riyadh, Damascus, or North Africa. Wouldn't these places be better served by the revival of a more tolerant past? Or are we supposed to pretend that this mythic past represents the modern reality of Islamic states and theocracies? That is, when we're not pretending that this is just a "community center", and everybody's getting all upset over a swimming pool.

I gladly concede that they have every right to build their quasi-mosque. When they tear down Saint Patrick's Cathedral and build a mosque on top of that, they will have their rights.

How about in exchange for this tolerance, WHICH VASTLY EXCEEDS THAT OF THE FABLED CALIPHS OF CORDOBA, we have a small gesture from the Muslim world? How about if the Saudis allow Shi'ite Muslims to publish a newspaper in Mecca, like just for one week?

mark, as I've traveled this great land to see it's sights, I've often booked lodging described as being "at" certain locations, when in fact, they mean near or proximate. The Motel Six at the Great Ball of Twine is not as close as one might hope.

From what I've read, the location was chosen for proximity to Ground Zero, the message it hopes to inspire, the bridges to be built ya-da, ya-da. The polls I've seen of the 1/3rd are so New Yorkers that support the building do so because of 9/11.

I think the Imam is a fool and talks like one. His attribution of partial blame for 9/11 on U.S. policy, his equating 9/11 with Hiroshima, and his refusal to speak on politics (!) by saying anything bad about Hamas, tells me that he is not equipped for the crown he wants to give himself. I expect years of stories about the Ground Zero Imam's unbelievable statements about this or that.

But I respect his and his supporter's right to be stupid and foolhardy; the Constitution and G*d protect both.

I have no reason to doubt their sincerity, except, of course, for the fact that they are Muslim and therefor insidious and unscrupulous by definition. They cannot be trusted.

No offense to New Yorkers, but sarcasm is not your long suit. Try blunt hostility instead.

The mantra of denouncing every criticism as a conspiracy theory is no less tiresome than denouncing everything as racism, and this discussion is tiresome.

My understanding from reading the article is that the Orthodox complaint is that they're no longer getting many tens of millions of dollars of Port Authority (i.e., taxpayer) assistance in rebuilding somewhere else, but they can rebuild at the original site.

To this, I say, good-- there's supposed to be a separation of church and state going on.

If the mosque is getting tax dollars, that should stop. If not-- as I suspect is the case, since there are all sorts of dire mutterings about the funding being from somewhere outside the country-- I see nothing more than a case of sour grapes.

Alchemist is making a disingenuous argument, but also a revealing one - the fact that there are 16 churches in the area being apparently an argument that another can be denied building permits. Even though in this case it is simply the rebuilding of one that existed before and would simply be REBUILT.

There are also Mosques closer, and, as pointed out, nobody is concerned about those, because they don't have a dubious provenience. They don't have murky connections.

Marcus - no, actually, that's not their complaint. I've looked into it further. That's what the authorities are putting out, but it's not actually the case. (You of all people should know better than to accept the narrative unquestioningly). Gov. Paterson has also offered the Mosque builders some government property, in a land swap; the land offered being more extensive and thus a form of subsidy. Of course, we don't have to object to that since they won't take that deal, wanting to build exactly where they do, for the exact reasons we all know they do.

Re. the Mosque: I think the interesting thing is they're going to build the Mosque, it's going to turn out to be exactly what we all know it is. It certainly won't be a celebration of bridge-building interfaith sensitivity (as it's being sold as, and as quarters that are either moronic, self-deceptive, or simply deceptive are accepting it as). It will be what it is obviously intended to be: An ongoing provocation. The usual tapes will be sold there, along with the usual copies of interesting books, and it's certainly within their free speech rights as well as their freedom of religion rights to do so, no?

But the very interesting reaction is the emotional, viscerally-inclined reaction of some to the one structure, vs. the other (obviously, this area doesn't need more Churches. But an area where few Muslims currently live needs a large Islamic Community Center/Mosque. Well, they're planning ahead and I can't object to that).

Of course, it's true on both sides. But lets not really pretend that only the opponents are reacting mainly emotionally, viscerally. The "defenders" mainly are, too, really. No one has (well, very few people have) really said they have no right to build the Mosque there.

A couple years ago I realized that the age of terrorism as such was fundamentally over. I mentioned it in a blog post here a few months ago. A lot of people will end up making the same smooth transition as certain Professors of Curriculum and Instruction did (he's about to retire, after a distinguished and successful career. The others of course soldier on).

The Winds of Change are blowing indeed. Some close their eyes and think they're standing up for our values against the benighted majority of this country that would stand in the way of progress. But that benighted majority thinks our values are under siege from the other direction.

I have come to believe most of both sides have no idea of the future that awaits us all. The winds of change are blowing.

A for my part, I accept that they will build the Mosque and that it is their right to do so. I put the fault not with them, but with all of the rest of us.

I say they will and should, but I do so with open eyes and not pretending it will be anything other than what it will be.

Note I also have no ulterior motive in that: I don't think "they should build it because it will be a revelation that will slap people into awareness." Only a fool would think anything non-catastrophic will have any such impact. Whichever "side" you think is blind in this debate will remain blind, locked in their own prescripted mindsets through which they view this and every other event.

The future awaits.
For me, it can't come soon enough. The sooner the better. The longer it takes, the worse.

Porph -

I think you are being unnecessarily pessimistic here. The mosque is a poison cup, but it isn't America or New York City that will have to drink it. It's the malcontent political class (with a few interesting exceptions) that are lining up to drain it to the dregs, and we should welcome them to it.

As you predict, the mosque will prove to be an embarrassment to everyone who is even mentally associated with it. Probably not as bad as the notorious Finsbury Park Mosque, but bad enough. Its Imam, who is currently junketing on the taxpayer's dime, is a proponent of Shariah law - the pages on their website describing this project were deleted after being exposed to the light.

But of course we are not going to have "Shariah compliance" in the United States, because we are not a suicidally insane nation. We are just going to have a lot of dumb pols who will wind up with Shariah all over their shoes, and that will be their problem, which is all to the good.

"Can either you or Glen come up with one concrete allegation against the these people that indicates a violation of Law, a violation of the rights of other people?"

I'm not alleging there is a violation of the law. I'm not saying the mosque can't be built do to illegalities. I don't particularly even care if the mosque is built.

This is a political question, not a legal question. How close the mosque is to ground zero, or how many churches there are, or anything else is physically immaterial, because as of now this mosque is being built where it is by the people building it because of its relations to ground zero (real or fancied). Thats the ground the game is being played on. Pretending that the location is unimportant is moving the goal posts depending on which team is on the field.

Now it may be said that this shouldn't be a political question, and maybe in a perfect world that is true. But building in NYC is political, no two ways about it. The reason the Muslim gay bar is potentially interesting isn't because there aren't other gay bars in the area- the point is that this particular one would be built because of this mosque, which in turn is being built where it is because of ground zero. So I guess we'll see how fast the wheels of government end up turning for each, and what arguments are made about who is being intentionally provocative.

But because this is a political issue, I have no problem asking who the funding is coming from. If the people of New York don't get the answer or get an answer that is disturbing, maybe the permits don't come through. All this faux outrage aside- that's how our system works these days. Offend the wrong special interest etc. This particular case is interesting because here we have a special interest from which has sprung an enemy we are fighting a global war with. The idea that we shouldn't look at them a little harder is just hard to swallow.

The Mosque isn't going to be a poisonous cup to the political class.

Note that even if the builders called it the "Mohammed Attah Memorial Sword of the Infidel Slayer Mosque," they'd still have every Constitutional right to build it. (Note there is every reason to believe this is ALMOST that, with a less overtly objectionable name. Noting that if they really wanted to build bridges and bring people together, the last thing they would be doing is exactly what they're doing. Note also though this isn't a critique of Islam as such. But it is the modus operandi of The Movement as well, which is why I can know them by their fruits - they poke a stick in your eye in the name of unity and ending divisiveness, and you're called names if you object to the poking while they continue poking you, driving the stick deeper into your eyesocket).

The first couple years after 9/11 I read Andrew Sullivan quite a bit. There was one thing he said often which I was always pessimistic about: He said 9/11 changed everything. On a whole range of issues. I hoped he was right about that, in the ways he meant it, but I never thought he was.

He himself is living proof that he was wrong and I was right.

There is a natural human inclination to try to take good away from bad. When he saw a pile of manure, he just knew there was a pony there. I hoped there might be a pony there, but I didn't think there was.

There was no pony. There was only a pile of manure.

Note also this is one of those many things that isn't really about "them" - it's not really about the Mosque builders (except to the extent that the Imam is akin to Rev. Wright, kindred in the same sort of Movement). It's about us. Both the common citizen and our political class (I love Speaker Pelosi's revealing "gaffe", btw). But if our political class was capable of shame, they would long ago have been shamed. If they were capable of awareness, they'd have long ago been made aware. If their drinking from poisonous cups would have felled them, they'd long ago have been felled, instead of electing political leaders with murky ties to murderous political fanatics.

I've said before and it's a running theme: There's no material reason we can't overcome any of our problems. And yet we aren't. (Take a trivial one: "knowing a bit about NYC zoning laws &tc &tc" - Do people know how long it took to build the Empire State Building? Which was constructed by people with far less technology? Not a decade, I'll tell you that much).

The tragedy is it's going to take something BIG before we fix our political class, give them the (non-literal*) poison cup they richly deserve. I'm left hoping it happens in a timely enough manner that things are salvageable, and that this big event is not one that involves a lot of death and physical destruction.

*A note lest someone either accidentally or maliciously take this overly literal: I do not mean a real poisoning of anyone. Lustration, a épuration légale.

Pretending that the location is unimportant is moving the goal posts depending on which team is on the field.

So how close is too close? Hell, it's not even on ground zero. Is New York city Hallowed ground? what about NY state? Or for example, riverside ca where protests are gathering over a planned mosque there. Or in Tennessee, same situation.

Whether or not the people here agree with these protests, there are certainly those that disagree with the formation of ANY new mosque. So, on some level, the location IS immaterial, because there will be protests, no matter where it is.

So let's tackle the idea of use as indoctrination. I fished through the documents provided, and I have yet to find hard evidence that this implies what you think it does. For example the highlighted:

Imagine: a Perfectly Islamic State
Goal: To define, interpret and implement the concept of the Islamic State in modern times.

Could meant they are attempting to bring Sharia law to the US. Or it could mean they are trying to modify Sharia law for the modern world, and are training to gain a better understanding of how to do this across muslim cultures. Since it's basically a broadcasting of minutes, it doesn't say much one way or the other. (Unfortunately, the cordoba site is blocked from work, so I can't dig further). You can read deeper if you like, but I see nothing more than circumstantial evidence.

But the comments below are also telling. For example:

I've no sympathy for Muslims, never will, they don't deserve to live in a country as great as the USA. Any leader foolish enough to encourage their immigration here should be ousted.

Apparently this person is deeply swayed by location.

Still, if there found to be taking funds from terrorist sympathizers or giving money to terrorist groups (both federal crimes, monitored by FBI) than we can legally shut it down.

But until you have evidence, this is a witch hunt.

"Building in NYC isn't as political as you might think. "

Ok, so we're playing in fantasy land right off the bat. Lets see how many internal inconsistencies we can find...

"However, this project as already passed through the local political processes at which it might have been stopped. After open hearings, the local Community Board from the neighborhood approved the project. The other spot where political opposition might have derailed this project was the Landmarks Commission, which also approved the project."

I'll refer you to opening remark...

"Your assertion that because this is a Muslim project it should undergo more scrutiny than other projects or be held to a special set of standards is without merit."

Its not a simply question of being a 'Muslim project', its a question of being a political stunt with shadowy funding. If this center was being built by the people in the neighborhood... as your side keeps trying to pretend, this wouldn't be an issue.

This is not discrimination. It is a political stunt being perpetrated in the midst of a battle of ideas. To ask who is pulling the strings is simple self preservation instinct.

Am I saying to ask questions about every Muslim building something? Of course not. Am I saying to ask questions about every high profile Muslim with ties to Saudi Arabia money and Palestinian groups that suddenly pulls hundreds of millions of dollars out of thin air? Yeh, we should. We definitely should.

"But until you have evidence, this is a witch hunt."

And how does one gather evidence if its racist to look?

You're free to look. That's perfectly fine. In fact, journalist digging is a good thing. You're also free to protest, that's in your rights. But I'm also free to point out that you have 0 evidence that would stand up in court. (or even in a magazine such as Newsweek)

What you have is hearsay, circumstantial evidence, suspicions, and plausible motives. Furthermore, publishing rumors based on circumstantial evidence has very little integrity (in my mind). Here's Jon Stewart on these open-ended questions.

By all means, keep asking questions. If you find some concrete evidence, I ask that you please take it to the FBI. If they are taking terrorist funds, I'd be happy to lock them away. But save the hyperbole until you actually uncover something damning. Otherwise, I'm going to keep calling this a witch hunt.

But if our political class was capable of shame, they would long ago have been shamed. If they were capable of awareness, they'd have long ago been made aware.

Who the hell cares if Jefferson Davis went to his grave still convinced that slavery was "the greatest of all moral, political, and social blessings"?

If you don't think that the current political establishment is badly cracked, then you've been listening too much to their amen chorus in the bankrupt and crumbling "legacy media".

I, too, am deeply disappointed by the failure of the post-9/11 consensus. Or at least, I was. Now I'm starting to think that it would have been a bunch of fuzzy crap anyway, which I would feel obligated to be a part of and to defend. I don't want to be in a fossil bed with a better class of trilobites. Humans are dialectical animals, and we do better when we are not all holding hands.

And seriously, Porphyrogenitus, if you're going to follow the trajectories of Andrew Sullivan, do it with an appropriate sense of humor. Romans who took auspices by watching birds fly were more scientific. If you dig through the Cordoba Initiative website, you'll find a friendly link to an Andrew Sullivan post about the mosque, which is of course entitled "Palin Vs. the Mosque". It will be great fun to see Andrew Sullivan team up with a bunch of Islamist head-choppers to fight Sarah Palin's uterus, and lose.

I want to make a couple of personal statement vis a vis this whole discussion.

1. I detest the infringement of the government in my affairs.
2. I detest the fact that my finances are subject to scrutiny if I move as little as $10,000 out of the country. Especially under the guise of helping to stamp out the drug trade or the war on terror.
3. God forbid if I carry 10,001 out in my pocket!
4. I do not like living in fear, nor do I like a nanny society in general or politicians in general that depend of spreading fear for their own political purposes.

This sort of behavior used to be the MO of the Dems.

Now, more and more I see the Republican Party giving the Democrats a run for their money, in this regard. I am appalled.

The party is listing towards the fear mongering fringe. This is really sad. If every we needed a party with a clear, precise philosophy, based on strict adherence to the constitution and the rule of law and the equality of all people under that law, it is now. From my perspective, we are getting less and less of this every day. It really pisses me off.

WTF, toc3!

Get a damn airline stewardess to carry your $10,001 through customs for you. Have you never read an Elmore Leonard novel in your life?

It's pointless to respond to toc, because he's not really here for reasoned discourse and never has been. All sorts of reasons and examples can be offered, and he will do what he always does, claim they don't count.

I say the above because by way of explaination of why I don't get into the merry-go-round with him that he invites me to.

I'll discourse with anyone reasonable. And, of course, anyone else is free to continue to engage in pointnessly futile discussion with toc or anyone else, but when I recognize it will be a complete waste of my time- well, I used to engage in futile back-and-forths with people like that, but I outgrew it.

The above said, I am happy to reply to someone when I don't think it will be a complete waste of time.

Therefore, a reply to Glenn:

You missed the point of my comment, which was in reply to what was said earlier.

"If you don't think that the current political establishment is badly cracked"

You may want to re-read my comment, and also past posts I've made both here and at my own blog. If you think I don't think our "political establishment" is badly cracked, you've misread me badly.

Though "political class"/"governing class"/&tc, terms I have used, don't quite fit, because it goes beyond the strictly political.

"And seriously, Porphyrogenitus, if you're going to follow the trajectories of Andrew Sullivan"

Again I suggest you re-read my comment, including the part where I said he is himself living proof that he was wrong, and I was right - it was precisely his trajectories that I was alluding to.

"Who cares if they are capable of shame or self-awareness?"

You better care. If you misread me, I want them to "die out" (be out of power, lustrated, supplanted). But you better care that they aren't, which is a sign of their utter decadence, and you better care how they die out and when, lest, Sampson-like, they pull down all around them - as they seem very determined to do, blindly, full of self-congradulatory assurance.

Alchemist: If Jon Stewart is your source of wisdom, there is probably little I can do to help you.

However, we know with near-metaphysical certitude that the Cordoba Initiative is completely insincere when they claim their intent is to build bridges: their intransigence when offered compromise alternatives that would reflect an actual shared understanding and willingness to listen to others demonstrates that.

Indeed, res ipsa locutor: They're doing the opposite of their claimed intent, and forging ahead.

Actual moderate Moslims oppose the location of the Cordoba Initiative's mosque (http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/18/moderate-muslims-oppose-location-of-cordoba-mosque-%E2%80%94-on-religious-grounds/).

Actual Moderate Muslims interested in living in a community with their fellow Americans also have plenty of places in NYC to worship which do not inflame relations with others.
Including in lower Manhattan.

John Podhoretz has a very apt column on the whole thing, reposted in its entirety below. As I said, this is not about "them," it's about us:

The shame of New York
The real story of the Ground Zero mosque is that the project only became feasible because of the appalling and astonishing fecklessness of the officials who were charged with the reconstruction of the site and the neighborhood all the way back in 2001.
We're just three weeks shy of the moment, nine years ago, when the landing-gear assembly from the plane that hit the South Tower smashed through the roof and two floors of 45 Park Place, which housed a Burlington Coat Factory.

Imagine that, in the weeks following, you had expressed the opinion that in nine years' time, that building would sit abandoned only 560 feet from Ground Zero--and there would be no memorial, no museum, no nothing on the 16 acres on which the towers themselves sat.

Forget the whole question of whether there would be a mosque (or Islamic cultural center) in its place. Just imagine that you'd delivered the view that New York would so completely fail to maintain a sense of purpose regarding the salvation of Ground Zero. Imagine the scorn to which you'd have been subjected at the suggestion.

Yet here we are. Memories of the last nine years have turned Ground Zero from a site of horror, to a reminder of grief, to an occasion for ludicrous artistic posturing--and now to something very close to parody.

Grand and grandiose schemes floated in the immediate aftermath of the attacks--opera houses, museums, exact replacements of the Twin Towers, the tunneling of West Street, the memorial inside the "slurry walls," the 1,776-foot building, the $2 billion PATH station--have vanished or shrunk to meaninglessness or transmuted into nothing.

In retrospect, with the exception of finding the precious remains of the victims, maybe Ground Zero shouldn't have been cleared at all. Maybe those 80-foot piles of twisted steel--which seemed to go on forever, and filled everyone who saw them with a kind of horrified rage almost impossible to put into words--should've stayed in place as a reminder of the evil, just as the hull of the USS Arizona sits in the waters of Pearl Harbor and always will.

It seems certain now that the clearance of the horror led directly to the shameful dereliction of leadership that allowed the most important building site in American history to become a ludicrous testament to the ability of postmodern Americans to hamstring themselves and lose sight of what is most important.

With the removal of the wreckage came a lassitude, a lack of urgency, that turned the silly arguments over whether this second-class dance troupe or that weird little museum should get a major venue on the site into urgent matters requiring months of public debate.

Then, of course, there was the design competition that led to the preposterous and architecturally unfeasible Daniel Liebeskind building--which was basically scrapped two years after it was declared the winner.

Oh, and how about that Michael Arad memorial, called "Reflecting Absence," with reflecting pools and an "underground interpretive center" whose designer all but demanded control of the $350 million set aside to pay for it?

Something will be there, something called a memorial. But it isn't there yet. Nine years have passed. Nine years. Nothing.

It's safe to say that, had Ground Zero been handled better, or handled at all, the Burlington Coat Factory site wouldn't have been sitting there fallow to be snapped up for a song and given to Imam Feisal Rauf. The buildings around the site would have been renovated in ways that would have been respectful of it and with some positive relation to it.

It's an unimaginable failure with many fathers: the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the politicians who control it; the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., and others. But at the top of the list of shame sits former Gov. George Pataki, who had primary statutory authority for the site and whose idea the design competition was.

Pataki's forgettable 12-year governorship deserves to be remembered only for what he was unable, unwilling or just incapable of doing when history called on him to do something great. Instead, he dithered and fought and pouted when Rudy Giuliani got too much credit, and fantasized about running for president and finally faded away.

Pataki called President Obama "dead wrong" for supporting construction of the mosque. But this wouldn't be an issue at all if Pataki had done the job that posterity called upon him to do. His failure is our shame. johnpodhorezt@gmail.com

Btw, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf - just the sort of PAO for Terror that used to come in for a lot of scrutiny on this (and many other) sites. At best an "idiotarian":

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/21/1079789939987.html

(an article from 2004, well before the current "controversy").

It would be nice to see the full transcript of his remarks, many of which were paraphrased there.

Note that his views expressed there are not particularly Islamic, with the full meaning of "particularity" understood. They're quite common in "Tranzi"/Progressive circles where asserting things like "Osama bin Laden was made in the USA" has always been non-controvercial.

Which is the real issue; this is a part of a whole, fish swimming in the same sea.

Andrew McCarthy revealed that the Imam's book What's Right with Islam was originally published in Malaysia under a different title: A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11. What's Right with Islam was a “special, non-commercial edition” of the book and was produced after the original, with Feisal’s cooperation, by the Islamic Society of North America and the International Institute of Islamic Thought. Both of those organizations are American tentacles of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Moreover, Rauf is a key member in the Malaysian-based Perdana Global Peace Organization, the single biggest donor ($366,000 as of June 2010) to the Free Gaza Movement. The last major event the Free Gaza Movement was involved in, the Flotilla, happened to include a contingent from a Turkish group that had previously been designated a terrorist organization by Turkey.

So, yeah, he's a real bridge-builder, and it's obvious what sort of bridge, and to whom: it's no wonder he fits in so well in Progressive circles.

One final barb re. Jon Stewart on Open-Ended Questions: I'll take him seriously when he doesn't engage in what he calls open-ended questions himself. But, then, we're not supposed to take him seriosuly. Again: Consistency. Consistently finding a way to have two standards.

So, naturally, I don't take what he says on this seriously.

All I'm hearing is that even though this is demonstrably an process soaked in politics all the way around- we are supposed to pretend there are no politics involved and the only opposition can be concrete allegations of terrorism. We're supposed to pretend this mosque has nothing to do with ground zero, although it is only being built because of ground zero. We're supposed to pretend this is a neighborhood effort being financed and built by a local groundswell of folks from the block, which is simply a fantasy. And if you disagree with any of those premises, if you feel we should know what kind of foreign influences are at work here, well its probably because you're a bigot.

Shut up, he explained.

Would it be wrong to object to a Japanese Cultural Center being built 500 feet from the Arizona Memorial circa 1951?

What if the VFW built a cross in the Mojave Desert as a memorial to the fallen of World War I?

"Mark B., your question goes right to the heart of the issue. The nation of Japan's armed forces attacked Pearl Harbor. We went to war with Japan. We are not at war with Muslims."

You're right, it is the heart of the question. Notice I said Japanese cultural center. We weren't at war with the Japanese people, right? We were at war with the nation of Japan, more precisely the leadership of that nation.

We aren't at war with Islam, but we are at war with people who claim the mantel of Islam. From their perspective, Islam is at war with us. Pretending that isn't the case is dangerous, and we've played that precarious game for a long time. The downside is it allows moderate Muslims to hedge, instead of to lead the fight against the radicals, who after all have hijacked their religion.

And again- i'm not making a legal argument here. I'm asking for the effect this has on people. Building a tribute to Japan a decade after WW2 would upset a lot of people who suffered. Is that a good idea? Does it make sense that ripping scabs off wounds is offered up as a way to heal wounds? And if it doesn't, doesn't it make sense to consider there may well be a different agenda at play? This is where the analogy breaks down, because today we are still in a war of ideas with radical Islam. We can bend over backwards to demonstrate our enlightened inclusiveness all we like, but Islam in general and extremists in particular don't reciprocate.

That being the case, this issue has further tribalism America. It certainly hasn't brought anyone together. I don't know if the builders consider that a bug or a feature, but I do know there are a lot of Jacksonian-style Americans wondering why compromise always means doing what the other side wants and shutting up about it.

We weren't at war with the Japanese people, right

Wrong, Mark. We were at war with the Japanese people, not just their leaders. That's why we felt justified in dropping atomic bombs on two of their cities. It's why we were able to convince ourselves that interning American's who were of Japanese descent was somehow okay and necessary. Japan and that people of that nation were at war with us, and we were at war with them.

Compromise? Since when do Americans, Jacksonian or otherwise, require people to compromise on their religious rights? Shall we ask blacks to drink from a different fountain because sharing one will upset some people? Not because they don't have a legal right to drink from the same fountain.... of course, they do... but only in the interest of togetherness and harmony because we don't want to upset people and create any more divisions. They should compromise.

You don't question their legal right to build the center near Ground Zero. You just don't want them to because it upsets people. Well, people are just going to have to learn to live with being upset. It's their property. It's a free country. Get over it.

If the law and local ordinances allow the cultural center to be established in this location, then it would be discrimination to deny one religious group a right accorded to other religious groups that comply with the law.

But I think it would be within its prerogative for the city to affirm in a public but dignified way the wrongness of those who have blamed US foreign policy for the attacks on 9/11. A cast iron plaque could be placed on the public sidewalk across the street from the cultural center, on a pole similar to a historic house designation, to read simply: "The United States did nothing to justify the attacks on September 11, 2001." The inauguration of the plaque could receive appropriate publicity.

If the Imam's center responds by posting any words in dissent or by posting some other grievance against the United States, on the private property of his cultural center, that would be reported. If the plaque is defaced in the middle of the night, the new center could be asked for public comment, and the comment (or no comment) would also be reported. Any kind of response or lack of response to the plaque would make any further concern about the cultural center unnecessary, as its purpose would then be clear from its responses or lack thereof.

Further evidence that it has nothing to do with location ...

Well, people are just going to have to learn to live with being upset.

And you will have to learn to live with their expression of being upset, because that's their right, too.

You should accept their expression without questioning their commitment to the law and the constitution, or imputing low motives to them. But of course if you insist on imputing low motives, that is also your right.

We are all agreed!

Next!

Bloomberg was right. Seeking to exclude or restrict religious practice on private property in the U.S., even on a voluntary basis, is profoundly un-American.

So, is it your position that religious expression on public land can be repressed by the government, but if the expression takes place on private property then even private objections, without any force of law, are un-American?

"No, it wouldn't be wrong for you to object to anything you want to object to and I don't think anyone has made any statement like to that effect anywhere in this thread?"

Care to count the number of times 'bigot' and 'bigotry' have appeared?

toc3,

"So we should strip them of 5th Amendment rights as well?"

My last sentence went too far, as in fact it would be unnecessary to infer anything about the center's purpose from what they don't say. If they say nothing, then what the city chooses to say would stand as it is and I would think the city's own interest stops there.

A plaque would meet the need of New Yorkers to have some kind of memorial statement near the site, until a better memorial has been established. If it is a short distance away from the new cultural center, it would answer in a dignified way one of the statements made in public by the Imam and others about 9/11.

I understood you to be defending the right of the Islamic center to be where it is, but not to be defending the content of every public statement the Imam has made. I think a way ought to be found to separate and address one of the charges about 9/11 on a plaque, which the Imam was not alone in making, without denying the right of the Imam's center to be where it is. If there is a better way the city could do this than my proposal, I'm open to suggestion.

mark -

Okay, so who is un-American? Sarah Palin? Governor Paterson? Construction workers who are signing a no-work pledge?

Ok. Let's simplify.

Ground Zero is a mass tomb. Supposedly time heals all wounds. Well, the national wound on this one is still fresh. This has NOTHING to do with POLITICS or THE CONSTITUTION. This situation arises out of the deep need to properly give sympathy and remembrance to the dead. It has not been properly done because ground zero hasn't been given a building in honor of it, as remembrance. To build a Mosque before a huge Memorial is asking our country to disrespect itself and its dead. I do not even want to hear another peep from people like TOC3, who are trying to solve a religious, spiritual, and the engrained need for bereavement through political and constitution excuse making. DO UNTO OTHERS. If you or a loved one died on 9/11 would you want a Mosque built across the street before a proper grave has be fashioned for You?

Porph, #39:

When I commented, I thought I had time to participate in this conversation. I realize at the moment that I don't, and really, don't even have enough time to follow it properly.

So in a sense, it's rude for me to say this, knowing I won't have time to respond until at least Monday and possibly not even then. But... the narrative I'm following, here, is the one you provided. It's your link, back up there in your initial post.

Humbly suggest if you want to make this a subtle issue of inquitable treatment and inequitable funding, you post a link or two that supports that.

Humbly suggest you not make dire mutterings about "the narrative" when, for this discussion, you are setting the narrative.

mark -

Fair enough, no un-Americans. I was in no way trying to be sneaky with you, I'm only trying to debate with you rather than with some rhetorical remnant of Mayor Bloomberg.

I think we are agreed that nobody's rights are being violated, whether the mosque is built or not. This is not a question of legal or illegal, it's a question of should or shouldn't. Who you side with is a matter of personal values.

If you argue that the mosque absolutely should be built - in order to make a principled statement about religious freedom and tolerance - then this is not an unreasonable opinion, if it is hortatory: "I call on everyone to accept this mosque." When it's accusatory ("I am for religious freedom, therefore my opponents are not") then it's both false and unconvincing. It further advances the suspicion that people want this mosque precisely because it puts a thumb in the eye of people they don't like, and whom they deliberately want to provoke.

Consider now the feelings on the other side, especially since this mosque has the stated purpose of promoting mutual understanding, dialogue, and "building bridges". Diplomatic overtures begin with displays of respect, not with unwelcome impositions followed by lectures and bitter denunciations.

I believe in freedom, of course - civil, social, religious, political, and economic freedom. Imam Rauf and his Shariah crew are not worthy symbols of this. Defending the constitutional rights of such persons is entirely proper. Elevating their motives at the expense of the American public - making them the victim-heroes and everybody else the villains - is not the truth, and it is not the right thing to do.

Good. Keep it up. From http://www.deccansojourn.com

This whole thing comes down to one special interest groups sensitivities (911 victims) vs anothers (Muslims).

How often have we heard tsk tsks in the past 10 years that certain things shouldn't be done or said because it would hurt the feelings of Muslims (and of course the usual dark hints of how this will inevitably lead to the ever looming 'backlash' against Muslims)?

Here is a clear case where a group of Muslims is practicing clear insensitivity to another social group to advance their own agenda. Lets be clear- these folks priority is to raise the profile of themselves and their outreach. That's entirely fine and even laudable, but the way they have decided to go about it pits them against the group of 911 victims whose priority is otherwise.

Make no mistake, underlying this conversation is a question of whether allowing 911 victims a measure of distance and peace is more important than Muslim outreach. There is no 'right' answer. But telling the other side to shut up you racist is clearly the wrong answer, because along with being dirty pool, its also self-defeating if healing and coming together is the goal.

This whole thing comes down to one special interest groups sensitivities (911 victims) vs anothers (Muslims).

Right now, neither is legally favored. Which is as it should be. As horrible as 9/11 was, it should not lead to special legal privileges. Of course, you're suggesting that we should legally favor one group, and that's where I disagree.

Make no mistake, underlying this conversation is a question of whether allowing 911 victims a measure of distance and peace is more important than Muslim outreach.

That's a great opinion. But I disagree. 9/11 victims in their family can easily get to the memorial, never seeing a mosque if they choose not to. As long as muslims are not in the streets chanting & spewing hatred, that will continue to not be a problem. In my mind, it's possible to do both.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter. Legally, there's no dispute.

I'm going to end with George will's words, as he puts clearly:

I think a month from now people are going to say ‘What was that all about?’ This is an August story, that is it’s a slow news time. And you can always tell a fundamentally weak story because it turns on sensitivity. Is so-and-so being sensitive to someone else? Sensitivity is overrated.

...The fact is when you have an entitlement to have everyone be sensitive to everyone else that’s how you got speech codes on campuses so we would not have speech that would offend somebody. There is no right for somebody to go through life without your feelings being hurt.

" you're suggesting that we should legally favor one group, and that's where I disagree."

No matter how many times you suggest opponents are trying to legally prohibit the building of the mosque, it will not become true. This is a social objection, just as I would object to burning Korans in front of a mosque. That doesn't mean i want the person arrested.

"That's a great opinion. But I disagree. 9/11 victims in their family can easily get to the memorial, never seeing a mosque if they choose not to. As long as muslims are not in the streets chanting & spewing hatred, that will continue to not be a problem. In my mind, it's possible to do both."

If we all lived in your mind, there obviously wouldn't be an issue. I suspect we'd also have an interesting colored sky.

"There is no right for somebody to go through life without your feelings being hurt."

An odd sentiment for the CAIR allies of the world to suddenly develop. What i object most to is the double standard. Don't insult the peaceful religion of Islam... and don't object to them insulting you.

I suggest that we very badly need an analogue of Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies, to be used against the invocation of the First Amendment in arguments where no First Amendment rights are at stake.

It is depressingly common, when some public figure dumps the vile contents of his mind out of his big mouth, for politically like-minded commentators to trot out the Pantomime Thomas Jefferson: "I don't defend what X said, but he has a right to exercise free speech." This naturally turns into a passive-aggressive counterattack against anybody who criticizes what X said - if you're against the content of free speech, you must be against the expression of it.

I want Imam Rauf to exercise his free speech, to the max. I want him to feel supremely confident to completely speak his mind, and I want people to listen to what he says. Some of us have been playing close attention to people like Imam Rauf for many years now, and it's long past time that some others started to listen up.

Rights are protected by Law. Laws can be challenged on the basis of whether or not they are judge to uphold the constitution or violate it.

This is the simple contract we have with our government to insure that our rights are not violated by the Government or by anyone else.

I showed a Mexican friend the Bill of Rights and he was stunned that it was only a dozen or so sentences.

An incredible document.

All I hear blah and blah and is it is constitutional to build the Cordoba house. Yes, that is indisputable. But what is disputable is whether it is right to demand a concession from Muslims on grounds of cultural/ religious empathy, the same empathy they are claiming to uphold by building this center for their 'religion of peace.' I don't see them rushing out to do that. I do see them rushing to dig their heels in and get their operation done, without consensus or consent.

Incidentally, a Catholic Convent was moved from the site of Auschwitz by the Catholic church so as to not to interfere with honoring the fallen. It was the right thing to do in the estimation of the local German community, the German Catholic community and the German Jewish community. It would also be the right thing to move the Mosque in the estimation of many in the New York area. Last I checked, legality is a baseline, but all religions answer to a calling besides just the Constitution. And this is not just a debate about legality, but also about respecting different religions and cultures equally. Downtown NYC is it's own culture, and deservedly so. Can you name me another NYC let alone another Ground zero on a tiny island that got blown up by jihadists? Its singularity does not mean one size fits all "its constitutional" fits Manhattan.

It is safe to conclude that if there were true separation of church and state, President Obama should have never given his opinion and teamed up with Bloomberg. All the two are doing is combining Church with state, and demonizing opponents of this particular Mosque. It is on the Islamists to do the right thing here, as a religion, and the right thing for the betterment of the downtown NYC community is to move the Mosque elsewhere.

I forgot option 2) If you're a citizen of NY, you can elect new commissioners.

or option 3) Get them convicted of conspiracy to aid terrorists. So far, the six degrees of Kevin Bacon game has not captured the attention of the FBI (unless they're pursuing an investigation in secret).

Option (3) is arguably your only option to prevent the mosque (unless you are a citizen of NY and willing to wait for the next election). So I understand why you're pushing the 'terrorist' meme.

But again, your evidence is flimsy (at best). Now you are completely within your rights to present flimsy evidence to the public. But there is always a backlash for pandering to paranoia, and having nothing come of it (see chicken little). Or for creating an angry mob that takes the law into it's own hands.

"The families of 9/11 victims are not a special interest group and they are not united in opposition to the proposed site of the Islamic Center. Hundreds of people who lost close relatives support the center. Many really don't care one way or another. Google it if you don't believe me."

And there are many Muslims in NYC that think the Mosque should be built elsewhere. We are talking about large majorities here. If 70% of all Americans think the Mosque should be built elsewhere, I'm pretty sure the percentage of 911 victims families and friends is in that ballpark. And they obviously are a special interest group or we wouldn't be having the conversation. Supposedly everyone is concerned with pouring salt in their wounds... at least in theory.

To reiterate- my point is Americans have been asked many times to adjust their speech and behavior in fear of upsetting Muslim sensibility... as a matter of social grace, not law. The opposite NEVER seems to occur to the elites in this country like Bloomburg and his lackeys.

"As an agnostic (leaning Atheist more & more) I am NOT a CAIR ally."

Sorry alc, that wasn't aimed at you but at the mosque builders themselves.

"Leave the cartoons public. Let the mosque build."

I agree! But let people be upset about it!

I want to have this fight with moderate Muslims, because in my estimation they are by and large not doing what mainstream America could and should expect of them in this ideological war we have been subjected to. Now they are not required to stand up and denounce extremism and racism and misogynism at every turn... but just as we would expect a Christian church to denounce abortion related violence loudly, so we should expect moderate Islam to spend their energy getting their house in order.

Instead they spend their energy furiously claiming that Islam is under this imaginary siege of racism and xenophobia that they must meet through outreach and counterattacking everyone that so much as infers that there is something wrong with the current state of Islam.

I think a lot, perhaps most, Americans feel this way. And we can never end this 'war on terror' until moderate Islam here and abroad cleans up its own house and stamps out violent and anti-liberalism.

So yeah, I think American-Islam has a debt to the rest of America, and it does irk that they spend their time playing the popular victim card and trying to build their 'brand'. This case is just a perfect storm of everything wrong. Its a good opportunity for the rest of America to show that Muslims might not be holding up their end of the social bargain as well as they should... and if they expect sensitivity they must display it.

it does irk that they spend their time playing the popular victim card and trying to build their 'brand'.

I have a hard time getting upset about this, because this is what every group (especially relgions) tries to do, when confronted with controversy. (the catholic church is a great example) I will completely admit that it's annoying, but it's par for the course.

And a certain point, you know the pols Wont do what the majority on New Yorkets want. Build it, and the graffiti will come. Have fun New Mosque. Everyone whose head is screwed on at all can see this is Bloomer and Bammer's Cats paw for the politically corrected and us opponents will be sent to liberal reform school. I agree with Mark B's points. And maybe this mosque debate can be us racist zenophobe constitution deniers chance to unleash angry mobs of counter political correctness in the interest of "dialogue'. One way dialogue, of course, Muslims streaming live their hallowed name and agenda and the rest of us biting our tongues. Because, he'll, that's what this slap from Bloomer and Bammer is all about. Their telling us poor students to "submit." to their reform and they know what's best and are using our laws against us to ignore what the majority wants

When you say things like "Boomer & Blammer" I have no clue what you're talking about. Or rather, I hope I don't understand what you're saying.

The reason I attacked your faith in the constitution is because you seem to know very little about it. You're not helping yourself here:

Their telling us poor students to "submit." to their reform and they know what's best and are using our laws against us to ignore what the majority wants

Our laws are not built around the majority. We are not a direct democracy (which the founding fathers hated). We're a democratic republic. The opinion of the majority cannot violate the constitution. So yes, they're following the laws. The majority cannot punish someone for for being legal & untrustworthy.

Does, idk, the Boston Harbor, Ethan Allen, or the Revolution ring a bell?

Yes, taxation without representation led to a single spark which is an important historical event. BUT it is not the legal foundation of our republic. That happened in a closed room with scholars and a dedication to taxation WITH representation. And a constitution that must be enforced even if the majority disagrees with them.

I'm the first to admit that our representation is lacking these days... but it's a long way from colonial rule. The founding fathers did not see mobs (or even direct voting of the populace) as an appropriate ruler

there is not a law in our Constitution that demands we tolerate murder, honor killings, and general treachery

And no one has asked you to. When they are convicted of these crimes, we will gladly lock them away. But you must have evidence against individuals, not stereotypes from 3rd world countries. That's not how our legal system works. Innocent until proven guilty. Again, the whole constitution thing.

The german church: The analogy may be good, but I am unfamiliar with Germany's laws, which can be quite strict around Holocaust sites.

If the church was simply asked, and they agreed, that's laudable. However if this event occurred in the United States, we cannot legally force someone to leave except under specific circumstances (which I largely disapprove of).

You asked them to leave. They said no. It may be "rude", but it's within their rights.

Muslims streaming live their hallowed name and agenda and the rest of us biting our tongues.

You don't seem to biting that hard. And you don't have to. The constitution doesn't say you have to be nice.

So I am cool with [angry mobs tipping events], if that is what it comes to.

Now, if you feel the need to overthrow the government to enforce what you think is law. That's fine. But it tells me that you're not interested in working through the United States legal framework.

Which was precisely my point.

Asking someone to voluntarily surrender that right so as to not offend others is to drain the right of all meaning.

Seriously? If I ask you to donate some canned goods to a food drive, does that invalidate the concept of private property? Does it make me a communist?

You're clinging pretty tightly to this notion that it will be a historical blow against the First Amendment if the developers back away from this site - like Rosa Parks going to the back of the bus. Well, it isn't.

It isn't the Islamic religion that's beating this drum for the mosque, it's politics. Very bad politics, which is why you can't find more than a couple of Democratic politicians in New York who will support this mosque. The rest are against it, or have lost the ability to articulate speech. Democrats around the country are trying to put the brakes on this thing.

Blame Barack Obama. He jumped into this card game and raised the stakes. Then he took back his chips, after having made the mosque an issue for every Democrat in the country. Following his path might be courageous in a way, but it has nothing to do with constitutional principle.

Finally, as others have noted, there are truly peaceful Muslims who are praying that this mosque does not get built. They know who the Imam Raufs of the world are, and they do not find them as cute as the left does. They don't want Saudi-style Islam, and they don't want a controversial mosque in the shadow of 9/11, because it will be a burden to them, not a liberty.

Well prepare for the worst, hope for the best. In a city where dude gets shot over five bucks and sneakers, and being offensive is it's own religion, I should start sellkng anti Mosque T shirts and make some bucks. Never let s crisis go to waste.

This is ridiculous. We are asked every single day to curtail our rights for the benefit of other citizens. Constantly. Thats why its actually news when jerkoffs protest military funerals, or wish aids on gays etc.

Our rights are what government cannot take by force. Our society is what we compromise on to live together in harmony.

The rationale offered by those objecting to an Islamic Center near Ground Zero is that it is somehow offensive.

You keep insisting that there can be no objection to the mosque that does not amount to an objection to Islam itself.

So you have no way to account for the objections of these Muslims who call the mosque a fitna, the equivalent of building a Serbian church on the graves at Srebrenica.

Many Muslims in the US are refugees from places like Bosnia. They know very well that the #1 enemies of Muslim religious freedom are the Saudi-bred Wahhabists and Salafists who crush rival sects every chance they get. These are the people who, besides fostering al-Qaeda, stole or demolished "unclean" mosques in the Balkans under the guise of "reconstruction" and "international aid", while the tolerant West stood around and watched. And this is what they have done everywhere in the world where their reach extends, and what they intend to keep doing.

If you can't distinguish one Muslim from the next, then you are not helping them. Of course, you can say you have no interest in helping them, you're just defending the constitution, or the principle of religious freedom. Some Muslims might think it strange that they have to be roped to people like Rauf, and pay a lasting price for their own religious freedom.

Some Muslims might think it strange that they have to be roped to people like Rauf

Who exactly is roping them to Rauf? I'm certainly not. If those particular muslims want to build their own mosque, I say go ahead. I don't have any expectations that all 1,500,000,000 muslims hold identical beliefs on all subjects. They have every right to object to this particular mosque. I don't find the objections to have any merit. This isn't Serbia, this isn't Germany. We have a history of treating all religions equally here. I'm not in favor of changing that. I don't want to start a precedent of saying this mosque is okay here, but that one isn't okay there. This church is fine here, but those Jehovah Witnesses over there...no way. Let's have Mormans confined to Utah and object if they set up shop in a Jewish neighborhood.

What you say may be true, Glen. But so far, I haven't heard anyone make the claim that a mosque of different stripe would be welcome at that address, that it is only this particular group who is objected to. Everyone I have heard in opposition is opposed to any mosque at that address. If there are people out there saying we welcome a mosque, just not this one, they are making a different argument than the one I have heard so far in here and elsewhere. It's not a better argument, necessarily. Just a different one.

Fine. To rebut Mark's comment about the history here of treating religions equally, how do you answer to the Christians in the conversation, many of whom regard a gravesite as sacred and defacing it as sacrilege. How should the gravesite of 3,000 murder victims be treated? Has that been satisfactorily squared with the equal treatment meme? Is some of the hurt and anger arising because of disatisfaction with the callous rough handling were getting under Obama's glorious presidency.It offends at a level that nobody wants to touch.

juliet,

How should the gravesite of 3,000 murder victims be treated

Like this

Fine. To rebut Mark's comment about the history here of treating religions equally, how do you answer to the Christians in the conversation, many of whom regard a gravesite as sacred and defacing it as sacrilege. How should the gravesite of 3,000 murder victims be treated? Has that been satisfactorily squared with the equal treatment meme? Is some of the hurt and anger arising because of disatisfaction with the callous rough handling were getting under Obama's glorious presidency.It offends at a level that nobody wants to touch.

"Mark B., Isn't one of our basic social compromises that you worship your way and I worship mine and we don't interfere with each other's worshiping?"

No. The Catholic Church dogma is such that when priests confess their sins after (say) molesting a child, they should be forgiven and the stain erased. Putting aside the legal implications (assuming they are dealt with by the book), a huge majority of Americans find that unconscionable and the Church is routinely (and rightly to my mind) lambasted, indeed ridiculed for it.

"What rights do you curtail every day for the benefit of others?"

I don't carry openly carry guns to a political event, regardless of legality. I don't show pictures of dead fetuses to women at family planning clinics, no matter how i feel about abortion. I dont dip religious icons in urine, regardless of the problems I have with their stances. I don't tell war widows their spouses deserved to die, regardless of my views on a war.

Some people DO do these things, and they themselves are then socially ostracized and cast from polite company... or perhaps by your point of view they are disenfranchised of their constitutional rights.

Now on the other hand, we have universities that give classes on the Mohammad cartoon controversy without showing the pictures, in respect to Muslim sentiment... we have Southpark being pulled off the air for showing a depiction of the prophet. We have football practices taking place at night in respect for Ramadan, we have _women with their faces veiled in driver's license photos.' And if you disagree with these decisions... well we know what YOU are.

Truly.

How dare you insult Islam, infidel! That's not a face veil, its a way to hide she need an eyebrow wax, what you talking about.

Wehehell, we'll pretend for a minute that Bloomberg and Obama's logic can be distinguished from those of sociopaths...

Do it for pride, Obama, Bloomberg. Work the average person's last nerve. They have both worked my last nerve. I will roll over on Bloomberg and Obama. They have no loyalty from me. Just watch me vote for someone, anyone, besides the two of them.

"Our rights are what government cannot take by force."

That's not actually true. It's just that when they do it, it's a violation. But it happens all the time.

Many of the people in this thread are, in other contexts, happily in favor of violations of Fist Amendment Rights, for example. Lets take "Congress shall make no law. . .abridging the freedom. . .the press" - noting that when that was written "the press" wasn't a quasi-official Guild, a member of the Extended Civil Service in all but name, but as much a physical object as anything. And yet today people - including people who themselves work in a corporation - will happily make all kinds of sophist arguments for restricting political speech; this or that "isn't a person" for example and so the freedom of the press not only can but should be abridged, curtailing the ability of people to peacefully assemble (organize) and publicize their views.

The ones who do this the most, though they have the self-image of being brave rebel underdogs, simoultaneously know that any grant of power to regulatry authorities to restrict such expressions will not be applied to their entities/organizations/incorporated groups, but predominantly to their enemies.

Today, even in the aftermath of the Citizen's United case, not only are there people who argue it was wrong and should be undone, but there remain tons of Congressionally-legislated abridgements (restrictions) on freedom of speech, and the press. . .and yes, even religion to some degree.

The above is of course a bit of a digression, but the whole thread here (and the specific issue itself) is a bit of a digression.

THe point is not that those involved don't have the right to build this mosque. The point is that we continue to be sold a bill of goods. And also told we're ignorant. . .while simoultaneously the ones who call a majority of Americans ignorant bigots are attempting to enforce ignorance.

We're supposed to pretend, along with them, that Imam Rauf is a moderate, that the ideas he wants to promulgate are not troublesome. We're supposed to pretend the State Department (and Federal Government generally) has a great track-record when it comes to picking who is really a moderate Imam, rather than a. . .spotty one (at best), even under the Pres. Bush (the same one they otherwise deride as a doofus).

We're supposed to continue to turn a blind eye while they continue to feed us crap sandwitches and call them sirloin burgers.

In the name of tolerance, we're not supposed to make those whose views we disagree with uncomfortable (on the other hand, in the same name of tolerance, they can call us all ignorant bigoted Islamophobes). When this is exactly the only power we do (and should) have to oppose people whose views we oppose. We clearly shouldn't outlaw them, but we don't have to make them feel welcomed. Especially when they are dissembling (clearly not intending to build any sort of bridge, but rather practice the very old game of poking you in the eye then crying foul when you object, and claiming you're being outrageous).

And no, it's not a particularly "Muslim" or "Islamic" game. It's well after our own time-worn political traditions. So no wonder the usual suspects have lined up on the sides they have. Our betters see the majority of Americans in this way: Cet animal est très méchant: quand on l'attaque, il se défend.

alchemist: My point was and will ever remain - in other contexts, Jon Stewart himself is happy to ask open-ended questions, if they allow him to insinuate against the people he opposes and views as enemies to be destroyed.

Similar with his bretherin among Progressives. But he'll never call them on that, instead, he'll happily participate as I said.

So I dismiss is criticism of "open-ended questionns" in this case, except, again, as an example of Progressive Consistency - consistently having two standards, one for themselves and ther mascots, and another for their opponents and targets.

alchemist again: "You've got 2 muslim friends you can call on, and they have the power to infer on all of them"

No, apparently only your designated people speak for moderate Islam.

Of course, your definition of what counts as moderate is quite interesting. I'm not sure you hold, say, Christians to such a low standard ("as long as they aren't killing me or funding those who are, they're moderate!") - I didn't know you thought, say, Fallwell or he Westboro "Baptists" were moderate. But perhaps you just don't expect as much from Muslims, holding them to a lower standard.

That's more your problem than mine, however.

"If you argue that the mosque absolutely should be built

But I'm not arguing that,"

Note that my position is not only that it will be built, but that they have every right to build it.

Yet, interestingly enough, the champions/defenders/Jon Stewart memebots here throw me into the "dangerous Mosque Opponents" camp simply because I do not like the people behind the Mosque and I express my disagreement with their views, and point out the incontrovertable fact that they certainly aren't building any bridges here.

In other words, I'm treating them no differently from how I treat other people whose positions I strongly disagree with. Yet I'm being expected to give them a pass and treat them as moderates just because. . .why? Because their Muslims?

Because Imam Rauf is an Official State-Department Approved Muslim, I'm supposed to treat him differently than how I treat, well, just about everything of that ilk (and by "that ilk" I mean the Official-and-quasi-official entities of the Extended Civil Service).

See, the revealing thing about this discussion so far hasn't been that I (and those roughly on "my side") have had two standards, one for Muslims and one for everyone else. It's that we're seen as wrongheaded BECAUSE we DON'T.

I have no reason to defer to anyone and consider their views any better when they say we are "accessories" and aver that terror attacks are to be rationalized against us until we change our policies, and other such blather, just because the person saying it is an Imam in NYC instead of a Unitarian Universalist or a Transnatinal Progressive.

But half the posters here seem to think I, and we, should treat these things differently than we otherwise would because it is a Muslim-American expressing them.

It's as if - well, I wonder just how tolerant they'd be if a religious group calling itself the New Branch Davidians decided to open a chapter a couple blocks from the Oaklahoma City Memorial (pledging not to commit any crimes, of course, but just wanting to carry on the teachings of David Koresh). Of course, the Branch Davidians had nothing to do with Timothy McVey. Lets say they forswore violence themselves, but on the other hand suggested (no differently from such luminaries as Gore Vidal) that Timmothy McVey may have had a point, given how the Federal Government had treated the original Branch Davidians.

Do we think for a moment that the same people wh are rising to the defense of the Codoba Initiative, either in the comments here or the wider intelligenia, would be singing the same tune?

No need to answer that - I know the response will be to dismiss the thought experiment completely. Because we all know: No, they would not. Despite the fact that such a group would have all the same Consitutional rights. It would still be offensive to them. But they cannot admit that in this context, not openly. Because it would be to conceede the point of the original post: That there is a consistent double-standard.

Oh, and one final thing: I will of course continue to speak of The Narrative, the one that is constructed, because, no I'm not construcing it. It's another of the foolish things we're asked to accept, that me or anyone like me, with my little pea-shooter, is doing that.

Heck, I am not even doing that with respect to this thread - not at all. Quite the contrary, in fact. As alluded to at the start of this comment: you all are imposing your own trite narrative upon me, despite my repeated statements that not only will the Mosque be built, but they have the rigt to build it.

That's not, however, the same thing as having to like them or their views, or remain silent about my opinion of them. But that seems to be the real issue here. The problem with opponents of the Mosque's builders isn't that they oppose it, it's that the opponents (which I don't really count myself as) aren't staying silent and letting their betters tell them what to think about it.

So, again, consisent two-standards when it comes to political (and other) expression. On the one hand, there are those who won't be troubled by anything Imam Rauf or anyone else involved in this project has said, but they will be very troubled by anything said about them by critics.

That's not so much bravely sticking up for people's rights as a taudry choosing sides disguised as rights-championing, and thus more seedy than praiseworthy.

I'll close this week's little visit with a C-Hitch quote. Since apparently I suck at embedding links in comments, here's the raw link: http://www.slate.com/id/2264770/

"From the beginning, though, I pointed out that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was no great bargain and that his Cordoba Initiative was full of euphemisms about Islamic jihad and Islamic theocracy. I mentioned his sinister belief that the United States was partially responsible for the assault on the World Trade Center and his refusal to take a position on the racist Hamas dictatorship in Gaza. The more one reads through his statements, the more alarming it gets. . ."

[Break here, but I do advise following the link and reading the whole article]

"Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance. It would be nice if this were true. But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject was that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything "offensive" to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter …"

Now on the other hand, we have universities that give classes on the Mohammad cartoon controversy without showing the pictures, in respect to Muslim sentiment... we have Southpark being pulled off the air for showing a depiction of the prophet.

As I mentioned before, I completely disagree with these decisions. (As someone who illegally downloaded south park episode #200) But that is not legal censorship. That is corporate censorship. The only people who have control over those sorts of decisions is the corporations themselves. It's something that corporation do for advertising concerns, not from legal censorship.

Again, still don't agree with it, but nobody's being 'locked up' over it. First amendment rights have not been violated.(technically)

But half the posters here seem to think I, and we, should treat these things differently than we otherwise would because it is a Muslim-American expressing them.

Porph, to lead back to the title, 'consistency', I find you generally make some very consistent columns. Usually, you have something interesting to say, and I get hooked. Right about the apex, it starts to get more vague, drawn out, and there's generally some unsubstantiated critique of an unrelated figure (obama, pelosi) thrown in for good measure. These 'points' I have routinely critiqued in the past.

Although this post was very short initially, I see the same sort of unsubstantiated attacks in the later posts of this article. So I don't think this is a 'muslim' thing, this is just par for your course. And, as usual, I based my counter-argument around those flawed points. So you see, I haven't treated you differently at all.

It's just another day where we vehemently disagree about something.

As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind.

And when that happens, I will push back on the other side.

"As I mentioned before, I completely disagree with these decisions. (As someone who illegally downloaded south park episode #200) But that is not legal censorship. That is corporate censorship. "

Exactly! That's the distinction i'm trying to make! Not everything is government.

Porphyrogenitus explained what I was trying to say- just because you can do something in society doesn't mean you should do it- and when you do there should be social consequences.

Right now the self-appointed arbiters of that social consequence game seem to be the media and the elites (at least they are the ones with the megaphones), and they are not playing on a fair playing field. There is indeed a huge double standard at work, and its not harmless. Resentment is building, when the entire premise is that they are working to reduce resentment.

Mark B.

just because you can do something in society doesn't mean you should do it- and when you do there should be social consequences

I couldn't agree more. But when you ask someone not to do something they are allowed to do, you should have a legitimate rationale, in my view. That's the whole point here. I am not arguing you can't object to something, I am arguing that the reasons given in this instance are totally without merit. If you find something offensive, you need to give a good reason as to why it is offensive, assuming you want others to take you seriously. Just declaring it offensive, doesn't cut it.

In the same way, simply calling some elite or part of the media or the governing class isn't an argument. Nor is pointing out that there are double standards. If there are two standards, perhaps one of them is defensible. You need to address the standards themselves, on their own merits, not address the hypocrisy -- real or imagined -- of others. That is irrelevant to the issue. It's a silly silly sideshow.

No one has adequately explained why building a mosque near GZ is offensive other than by associating Islam with the 9/11 attacks, which to me is just nuts for reasons I've outlined plenty of times, and that have never been addressed.

The most bizarre argument advanced is that these people are secretly celebrating the attacks by building this mosque. Then in a feat of logic that defies any description, these same people are asked to respect the feelings of the families of the victims. It seems to me an unlikely appeal. It's either naive or disingenuous.

"No one has adequately explained why building a mosque near GZ is offensive other than by associating Islam with the 9/11 attacks, which to me is just nuts for reasons I've outlined plenty of times, and that have never been addressed"

No one has adequately explained it to your satisfaction. For over 70% of Americans, the explanation is self-evident.

Lets try it this way:

1. Is the mosque being built where it is specifically because of the connection with 911?

2.Is it not an acceptable conclusion for the American people that putting that agenda in front of 911 sensitivity is insensitive?

To argue otherwise is a political argument based on the assumption that sensitivity to Muslims trumps sensitivity to the 911 attacks. Of course that assumption is never stated, it is simply taken as a given.

Is the mosque being built where it is specifically because of the connection with 911?

Actually, from what I understand, no.

The had previously tried to build somewhere else, but couldn't get the permits to pass the commission. They already have a community center somewhere else, but it's not big enough to meet current demand.

As the building was vacant, they tried this one.

Or so I've been told.

To argue otherwise is a political argument based on the assumption that sensitivity to Muslims trumps sensitivity to the 911 attacks.

The difference is that the 'cordova center' has not asked for beneficial treatment, and you have. They have simply followed the law, which you are now asking to ignore. At this current moment, they (being the cordova center) has not asked anyone to be censored, and you (by demanding that they should move) are.

Therefore, I'm siding with them. It really has nothing to do with being muslim at all.

"The difference is that the 'cordova center' has not asked for beneficial treatment, and you have. They have simply followed the law, which you are now asking to ignore."

Alchemist- in the interest of saving bandwidth (and my sanity), lets for the remainder of this thread assume a reply to everything you write that reads "Once again, I am not asking anyone to set aside the law, this is a question of social pressure, not legal remedy. Please get off the strawman, he's already dead".

"I don't have any real knowledge about the motives for the choice of site."

Given their refusal to consider an alternate site as a compromise, their current agenda is pretty clear.

"Given that the group's mission is to help bridge the divide between muslim and non-muslims in the US (and clearly, as we can see from this outcry there is a huge divide)"

Have these actions helped or hindered that goal by the way? There is a divide indeed... and again the unspoken assumption seems to be the the fault for that divide is entirely American bigotry, and not stunts like this designed to 'teach the rubes how to be tolerant, whether they like it or not'. See a disconnect there?

Yes they have the right to make their ham-handed, sure to backfire, political statement. But they are going to see a backlash, and its telling who is trying to protect them from that backlash and why. Protecting some social groups from the consequences of their views and actions (but not others) is just a damned destructive practice that is tearing us up.

"What I can't see is why anyone would find that objectionable. You keep skipping over that important connection, in my opinion. In my opinion, those who are objecting are having an irrational, emotional over-reaction mostly based on baseless association between muslims as a group and those particular muslims who attacked on 9/11."

And you keep missing my point- that by intentionally initiating this dust up, the builders are acting in a way that in and of itself is insulting and insensitive. There are exploiting the pain of 911 to promote their agenda. No matter how noble that agenda may be, its not surprising that that pisses people off.

"I've never argued anything about needing to protect muslim sensitivities. I don't see how that comes into play."

Because, as a counterpoint to ignoring 911 sensitivities, the Muslim community has insisted on all kinds of special treatment to protect their own sensitivity. That is the definition of irony.

What is striking is the resemblance of some posters opinions to that of Obama and the mayor. It all hinges on the legality. 99.9 percent unchangeable. No matter what. Come hell or high water. Well, the lesson which some here seem slow to appreciate is differences in opinion and concommitant anger can quickly spread throughout the population. Small things like this can spread and come to dominate. In genetics it is called the founders effect. Almost all thoroughbred horses, for example, were sired from 3 stallions in Saudi Arabia. Well, shoving a Mosque onto an unwilling people despite their strenuous objection will have consequences that ripple outward to the entire U.S. Don't get it twisted, laws are only laws, But the law of unintended consequences defies. This little stunt has cultural implications. Conciliatory PR paraded by these crypto-Muslims hide their ulterior motive which is domination. Defend them if you must. But I am not fooled.

Given their refusal to consider an alternate site as a compromise, their current agenda is pretty clear.

If I spent 6 months - 1year meeting all the zoning requirements, meetings getting this past commission, and then had someone ask me to please nicely move because they're not happy with the location... I would probably say NFW! I expect it has nothing to less to do with location and more to do with sheer effort.

ON a second note, his current mosque is nearby, (I'm not sure of the exact location). IT would make sense to me that he would want both near to each other. In that case, a second location would be less helpful.

Once again, I am not asking anyone to set aside the law, this is a question of social pressure, not legal remedy.

You can't call the Southpark episode "censorship" and then say this is only "social pressure". In that case, muslims fighting back against the cartoons was only "social pressure". I disagree, I call them all an attempt at social censorship. I think I'm being pretty even across the board here.

Teach the rubes how to be tolerant, whether they like it or not'.

See, now you're just making inferences. I think when all this hoopla dies down, they will have a chance to engage the community their in.But it's almost impossible with a mob on the streets. Mobs are not known for their ability to accept new ideas and think cooly and calmly about them.

Community healing will happen, eventually, but this anger is certainly slowing it down (on both sides).

"You can't call the Southpark episode "censorship" and then say this is only "social pressure"."

BAM, strawman takes another haymaker to the teeth. Somebody stop the fight!

"I think when all this hoopla dies down, they will have a chance to engage the community their in.But it's almost impossible with a mob on the streets."

Exactly. Shut up, he explained. Get out of the streets and start listening to our lecture... oops, engagement so we can stop calling you racists. Don't you know that's how it works?!

I posted the below comment in the "Setting the Bar Low, Setting the Bar High" thread, but I think I should also post it in this one:
I'm not emotionally invested in "The Ground Zero Mosque" thing; it doesn't really bother me on an emotional level if some decent people want to build a Mosque two blocks from Ground Zero. A lot of people are, and I have some respect for their attitudes. {addendum: and a lot of identification with how the opponents are getting jobbed, called names on tee-vee and in publications by the very people who say inflamatory rhetoric should be avoided.}

But I'm not even sure it would be somehow wrong if, for example, a Islamic Prayer Room was built into a tower that is designed to have, what, 100K people working in it? In other words, in the very building we're glacially constructing on the site itself.

As part of a whole, which, if the building included the above-mentioned Non-Denominational Chapel, I don't, personally, feel that it would somehow be an insult to the dead if it also had a Islamic Prayer Room. Or if said Non-Denominational Chapel served Muslims in prayer.

It would bother me if people started showing up to pray on the site as a way of celebrating 9/11, a sort of "victory" prayer. In other words, it matters to me what the views of the people involved are. But he fact of average Muslims conducting prayers in the course of the normal conduct of their faith, perhaps (probably?) even praying for those who were killed there, I don't find that objectionable in the least.

Indeed, I would probably find it inspiring if a congregation of Muslims every day had some of their members pray for the victims on that site, praying never again would anything of that sort be done there in the name of their faith, praying on behalf of the victims. Nothing could be more inspiring, nothing would be more demonstrative of the commonality of Americans of all faiths.

Keep it simple sweetie.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's wikipedia

"9/11 comments

Some U.S. politicians have voiced concerns about his views,12[13]14[15] referring to comments Rauf made when interviewed by Ed Bradley on CBS 60 Minutes on September 30, 2001. Rauf's website says he was referring to the US CIA in the 1980s "financing Osama Bin Laden and strengthening the Taliban."16 Critics say he meant that US actions motivated the 9/11 terrorists.[citation needed] Columnist Jonathan Rauch wrote that Rauf gave a "mixed, muddled, muttered" message after 9/11.17 Nineteen days after the attacks, he told CBS's 60 Minutes that fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam. Rauch said that the message was mixed, however, because when then asked if the U.S. deserved the attacks, Rauf answered, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."3[17]18[19] When the interviewer asked Rauf how he considered the U.S. to be an accessory, he replied, "because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA."7[18]19 Although this CIA-Osama bin Laden controversy has been brought up by many others, Rudy Giuliani, Peter T. King, Rick Lazio, and Sarah Palin expressed concern about these remarks when discussing Rauf as the driving force behind the Cordoba mosque.18[20]21 As Daisy Khan explained on August 15, 2010 on This Week with Christiane Amanpour:22

KHAN: It was a longer interview, and in the longer interview, he talked about the CIA support specifically to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. And...
AMANPOUR: You mean that...
KHAN: Yes, in the '80s.
AMANPOUR: ... against the Soviet Union.
KHAN: The Soviet Union. And how this was, you know, in CIA terms, a blowback of that. That's what he meant.

At National Review, Dan Foster wrote:

When you say that the United States was "an accessory to the crime" of 9/11, as he did, it tends to blunt my ability to pick up the subtleties of what comes after. That interview was equivocal at every turn, and when moral equivalences are trotted out re: 9/11, the tie goes to "you're either with us, or with the terrorists." In other words, we are perfectly entitled to suspect that the "accessories to the crime" bit represents the investment, while the "condemning terrorism" bit is merely the hedge.23

The editors of the magazine wrote "While he cannot quite bring himself to blame the terrorists for being terrorists, he finds it easy to blame the United States for being a victim of terrorism."24 In 2004, he said the U.S. and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end. Speaking at his New York mosque, Rauf said:

The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets.

He also said that there could be little progress in Western-Islamic relations until the U.S. acknowledged backing Middle East dictators, and the U.S. President gave an "American Culpa" speech to the Muslim world, because there are "an endless supply of angry young Muslim rebels prepared to die for their cause and there [is] no sign of the attacks ending unless there [is] a fundamental change in the world".6"

So he has opinions like everyone else, and not very U.S. friendly ones at times. He is Sufi, which does encompass Sharia law. You make the call. I already made mine, and that in spite of the Mosque being perfectly legal, the guy dances around "hate speech" on National Television. He certainly harbors anti-Western sentiments. We're all too in shock to notice? Illegal? No...On the plus side he is not a criminal that I can tell, but that doesn't mean he can't or won't or wouldn't want to open a can of whoop ass. The guy really hates Americans to say we deserved 9-11.

Some U.S. politicians have voiced concerns about his views.

Yes, and the point of this is what? Politicians are in the business of voicing concern over other people's views. Are his views illegal? As I said, aren't there a lot of people, including Americans, who share these views? Everyone is entitled to their opinions, no matter how batty they are, as long as they do not infringe upon the tights of others

But in post #84 you said:

I do not even want to hear another peep from people like TOC3,

Which leads me to speculate that maybe you have set yourself up as arbiter for which opinions people are allowed to hold and which they are not. I can't subscribe to that opinion, but I admire the fact that you seem to be consistent in your point of view.

The rest of what you wrote is pretty much a continuation of the point that you do not like his opinions. I don't like them either, but what does that have to do which the property owner/developer doing what he wants to do with his property? If idiotic opinions were against the law, the prisons would be overflowing.

It is Good to here that you are making an attempt top say what your complaint is.

What my concern is: The Muslim center Muslims planners and some other muslims dominating with the arguement by mind-jiving everyone
with the old "you're an islamaphobe" meme.

Well, I am glad you are on the ramparts defending the American people from being Mind-jived by these people. I am curious. Am I one of the mind-jivers or one of the mind jivees?

That we should feel like they're not pissing on the grave on 3000 victims.

I don't feel that we are pissing on the grave of 3,000 victims. Have I been brainwashed or am I part of the plot to take over the world

That they are trustworthy and not out to kill.
They that won't kill again for Allah. Bologna.

I was never aware that this was part of getting a building Permit

Have they given us a reason to trust? No. And so on.
No need to comment on this since you have been kind enough to give us the answer

So if your argument with other Americans of intelligence equal to yours is all about fear of violation of the Constitution, may I suggest you get past that and look at the real genuine concerns and fears (some rightful some bogus) that Americans have about Islam. Period.

Well, I heard all this sort of fear mongering in the late 50's and early 60's during the Civil Rights Era. The Constitution did a pretty good job in protecting people's rights, demanding that these fears be substantiated and setting the country on a much better and healthier course in regards to race relations than it was previously. Is that good enough to tell other Americans*

Telling me I dont know the legality is just a way of showing you seriously think I don't know that. Which seems rather silly. And still doesnt' indicate why we shouldn't profile Muslims for ridicule, strenuous scrutiny, and railroading. Those are all legal and American, too.

Be my guest. Try not to get yourself into to much trouble.

It is Good to here that you are making an attempt top say what your complaint is.

What my concern is: The Muslim center Muslims planners and some other muslims dominating with the arguement by mind-jiving everyone
with the old "you're an islamaphobe" meme.

Well, I am glad you are on the ramparts defending the American people from being Mind-jived by these people. I am curious. Am I one of the mind-jivers or one of the mind jivees?

That we should feel like they're not pissing on the grave on 3000 victims.

I don't feel that we are pissing on the grave of 3,000 victims. Have I been brainwashed or am I part of the plot to take over the world

That they are trustworthy and not out to kill.
They that won't kill again for Allah. Bologna.

I was never aware that this was part of getting a building Permit

Have they given us a reason to trust? No. And so on.
No need to comment on this since you have been kind enough to give us the answer

So if your argument with other Americans of intelligence equal to yours is all about fear of violation of the Constitution, may I suggest you get past that and look at the real genuine concerns and fears (some rightful some bogus) that Americans have about Islam. Period.

Well, I heard all this sort of fear mongering in the late 50's and early 60's during the Civil Rights Era. The Constitution did a pretty good job in protecting people's rights, demanding that these fears be substantiated and setting the country on a much better and healthier course in regards to race relations than it was previously. Is that good enough to tell other Americans

Telling me I dont know the legality is just a way of showing you seriously think I don't know that. Which seems rather silly. And still doesnt' indicate why we shouldn't profile Muslims for ridicule, strenuous scrutiny, and railroading. Those are all legal and American, too.

Be my guest. Try not to get yourself into too much trouble.

That was meant to read 3000 and 13 by Nadal Hassan.

This came up in the news this morning, I thought it was worth coming back to drop this:

Tenesse mosque fire ruled arson

When I say feelings are strong, and that is likely to lead to issues, THIS is exactly what I mean. When I say that this is more than ground zero THIS is exactly what I mean.

I'm not accusing anyone here of being an 'islamophobe' or of taking the law into their own hands (as bloggers, we seem to prefer barking over biting) but this are the kinds of things that happen when anger is fueled. When I saw the duel protests in NY and DC this weekend, I started to get worried that something really terrible might happen. It did, just not there.

Again, the criminal is the only one responsible, but I think it would really help to take this conversation down an octave. (Again, I blame the political leaders on both sides more than anyone here, as they are certainly leading the narrative on this issue).

Hoo boy:

Tenesse mosque fire ruled arson ...

Have they questioned Russ Carnahan's staff?

No matter how many times the left gets burned playing with this hypocritical box of matches, you're never going to learn, are you?

P.S. - It's funny that a planned mosque in NYC may not be called a mosque, but construction equipment at the site of a planned mosque in Tennessee is an actual mosque.