I suppose it is my destiny to draw ire from the regular readers here, but I found something extremely odd this morning. I read Charles Krauthammer's column and found myself agreeing with every word of it. Of course, I am talking about the hot button issue that is mosque being proposed near ground zero. Then again, when 70 percent of the public is against something you aren't just talking about the lunatic fringe. You are talking about the vast majority of the American public. That percentage could be wrong, but it should not be ignored. Moreover, I find myself among them.
A few weeks ago I told the story about my experience on the editorial board of my college paper. While seemingly unrelated, the lessons learned there came rushing to the present in my mind. The biggest lesson was that while you CAN do something it doesn't mean that you SHOULD do something. That lesson is the lesson here I think. President Obama's words were eloquent and spot on for the most part, but are off the point.
The same was true of a local letter writer here that talked about how Houston was a world class city because it accepts all religions. This isn't about acceptance. Unfortunately, we do know a certain segment of that 70 percent wouldn't accept a mosque no matter where it was built. Most of the public that opposes this just don't want it built there. There is so much emotion wrapped up in this that you have to wonder if anything can come of this that makes sense. Most of the power rests with those that want to build the mosque. Why do they want to build it there? What do they hope to accomplish with building it there?
The Quran speaks of fostering peace with people of all religions. Do they really think this is the best way to do it? People's emotions around 9/11 are pretty raw and they get more raw the closer you get to ground zero. As Krauthammer said, it is about basic decency. If the specific church that Timothy McVeigh wanted to move its doors to the lot across the street from the federal building in Oklahoma City we would throw a fit. What is so different about this?
Most of the members of McVeigh's church opposed his actions and the thoughts that went into them. 99 percent of Muslims disagreed with the actions of 9/11. Those that go to that particular mosque will mostly condemn the actions that took place near there. Yet, this doesn't change the fact that those that took those actions invoked their religion as a reason for taking action. It is similar to those that take the lives of abortion doctors or make outlandish claims like that of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. All Christians must be cognizant of what these people are doing so that they can combat that image from taking hold with the overall population. This means you not only refute the ideas and actions, but you remain sensitive to those that suffer from the actions of those extremists.
At the end of the day, this is not about religious freedom. It is about basic human decency and respect for the dead. When someone from your religion does something so horrific you don't have to own it as your own, but you have to acknowledge that it happened and realize what seeing a common reminder of it will do to the victims and their families. In particular, I don't like being lectured about religious freedom. Again, this is about what SHOULD be and no what CAN be. Folks that make it about religious freedom (on both sides of the story) are missing the boat.
For those directly involved within the Muslim community I have one simple question: why do you want to build it there? Do you see this a chance to build bridges between the Muslim community and city of New York? If this is the case then feel free to make your case. If you think this is the best location or you believe your are entitled to that space then you have no right to trample on the memory of the dead like that. This is about decency, not religious freedom.
Hey Carguy,
you just scored BIG with me... :O)
As usual, Wombat and I agree. But we Americans just LOVE a good debate. Especially one where we can wrap ourselves in the American flag and proclaim OUR cause just and call the opposition un-American or something worse.
Hey, Scott doesn't usually get 55 comments. I think, even within our own group of intellectuals and philosophers, we have disagreement. For me, like Obama, it's their right, but I'd rather they didn't.
oh come on....this isn't a serious issue. This is an opportunity for certain political figures to get all weepy and doe-eyed in front of a camera whilst they beat their breast and declaim loudly of their love and respect for the victims and families of 9/11. Something to perhaps distract america from the fact that these same people just took some of the REAL heroes of that day behind the proverbial barn, jammed it in deep and broke it off(metaphorically speaking). What they should have said is "Thank you to all those that volunteered to search for victims on Ground Zero, now please go away and die quietly like good little martyrs so we can sell t-shirts with your face on them and blame your deaths on our political opponents."
This is the american version of kabuki theater...and it looks like people fell for it again.
Carol - When human decency fails to assert itself, only constitutional law can prevail, and in this case it is provident that the framers of the Constitution thought of situations like this and designed the law to protect us from social implosions - especially concerning confrontations between religion and politics.
I stand in awe of that document!
"At the end of the day, this is not about religious freedom. It is about basic human decency and respect for the dead. When someone from your religion does something so horrific you don't have to own it as your own, but you have to acknowledge that it happened and realize what seeing a common reminder of it will do to the victims and their families. In particular, I don't like being lectured about religious freedom. Again, this is about what SHOULD be and no what CAN be. Folks that make it about religious freedom (on both sides of the story) are missing the boat."
Scott, I don't think that I have ever disagreed so strongly with any statement as I do this one. This, IMHO, has nothing to do with whether the bad guys were of the Muslim faith...they were terrorists...plain and simple. No different from our own home grown Christian terrorists.
The mosque should be allowed just as any other place of religion would be on private property.
The most tragic turn of events, would be if they built a Starbucks on Ground Zero. And, I'm sure it will happen. Then again, nobody would complain about it. They would just shake their head and say, "Well, that's America for ya".
Hmmm - Socrates gains merit with comment on issue without such...
Good show, amigo1
Concerning all these people who are *so* against this mosque/community center (which is really neither a mosque nor at the actual Ground Zero location....but since when do facts matter to wingnuts?), I wonder how "outraged" they are about plans to rebuild buildings where the Twin Towers stood? Are they angry about that?
Or is all their outrage just at the scary mooslems that they are *so* convinced are coming over to murder them all in their beds?
(I get those damned emails from my rightwing friends all the time....)
You know, I lived in the Middle East for several years. Most of the people I dealt with were gentle and polite. And certainly most of them had more graciousness than Sarah Palin ever possesses.
Much ado about nothing. Those who are concerned over placement of a church among topless bars among many other categories of businesses and storefronts is completely without merit.
Surveys driven by far right polemics are meaningless and forced. The "can vs should" argument is specious. The mosque can AND should be built at this location - which is, of course, NOT at "Ground Zero", and not within any politically arbitrary (and non-existent) "buffer zone". If "good taste" (code for them damn Muslims) is the issue - and it is not - I'm completely in favor of the location BECAUSE (a) it makes bigots uncomfortable and (b) makes clear our commitment to freedom of religion and (c) shows solidarity with the peaceful people of all religions.
Really.
There is no issue here beyond the wet dreams of Karl Rove.
Haha..I can't wait to read that.
Scott - full disclosure: I'm part of a long line of Methodists and not close to any Muslims.
this whole ruckus is primarily about private property rights; it's been ginned up into a religious issue because that was the only way the very very shrill shrill Right could demagogue the subject.
property rights and religious rights cannot be vetoed by any majority - the exact reason they are enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
the Muslim group has owned the Manhattan building for 27 years, and the zoning/landmarks commission has approved their request to convert the building into a 'cultural center' - not a mosque; it would apparently be pretty much like our old Downtown 'Y'.
more importantly, the leaders of this group stood with Bush after 9/11 and condemned radicalism, and Bush even asked one of the leaders to be an emissary to foreign radicals.
as has been suggested, if the group decides to sell their building to someone and purchase another building, the property rights issue is brought into even higher resolution.
one thing everyone in Houston understands is if you own land which is zoned, and the zoning commission approves your request to build on it or re-purpose an existing structure, then you sure as hell can do what the commission eventually approves - especially if it's a unanimous vote.
we don't ever want the government to be second-guessing the results of such an approval process everyone is required to go through, stepping in to over-rule and determine where 'cultural centers' can be located based on arbitrary politics.
talk about a slippery slope !
Can Of Worms, Volume II - These polls mentioned indicating 70% of the public is against said mosque construction might imply another statistic. It just might indicate that more people than previously thought are agnostic, and want to exercise their freedom of (and from) religion!
arrrrggh!
I agree actually. I never said those from within the center would participate in violence. I don't believe they would/will. I do hope if the mosque ends up getting built that it becomes an agent of hope for the area.
I think it is about freedom of religion. What some people are saying is basically "Sure, y'all are free to practice your religion- just not right here. Go over there and do it." (Ok, personally, I wouldn't want a church, mosque or temple- especially a church- "in my backyard" but if they own the land and have the proper permits, there's not a lot I can do about it, except move.)
My concern is for the Muslims that want to build this center. Will the anti-Islamic nutcases try something? Will there be violence done against those who build the center? Will some "Christian" wacko show up with a gun on opening day and open fire? Speaking of fire- will someone toss a Molotov cocktail through a window some night?
There's a lot of crazy people in the world and with all the uproar about this, I'm more worried about violence towards the center, than from it.
Philip Smucker has an excellent blog post about this in the HuffPo today.
thank you, Mr Monster...
Absolutely, like everyone here, I have numerouus friends that follow Islam. I didn't say that because of the whole, "I have friends who are....". I am hopeful that it all works out. I know that 99 percent of Muslims are peaceful because that is what their tenets teach them be.
Now, to clear something up for others that have brought up the, "if a Christian church...." argument I would feel the same way if an overwhelming majority were offended by its prescence. I've said it before and I'll say it again, for ME it is not a freedom of religion issue. I acknowledge that for many it is.
One of things I respect the most out of the people that frequent this site is that they do a good job of addressing the point that is made most of the time. There have been notable exceptions and those exceptions have made me angry. In particular, points that start with, "you know you would...." are not compelling because no, you don't know that I would. You may not a majority would but you can never know what any one person would say (well except maybe Sarah Palin, she's pretty predictable).
offshore778 - Hahahaha!!!! I will present you with my dissertation entitled, "In Defense of Liberalism" at a later date, eh?
Scott, where did you get the information that 70% of Americans are against the mosque? I've studied "surveying" and am always suspicious of survey results unless I know the questions and how they were posed. Due to the crap spewed by Newtie and others, many people now believe the proposed Islamic center is at Ground Zero and refuse to believe otherwise, no matter how the questions are asked.
"Death panels" are an example of polluting the waters.
During the health bill debate I received a questionnaire from my conservative congressjoke and it was worded such that it would have been difficult for anyone to answer the questions other the way he wanted. I returned it with a note stating how ridiculous his questions were.
Scott, I was actually responding to lomamonster's statement that religion ought be banned.
Lomamonster: That's why I used the "If" disclaimer. It was not my intention to be ugly.
The people who are determined to hate will never be convinced, Scott, but I stand by my earlier point. Rational people will have the opportunity to see the generosity and tolerance that exist in the real Islam and that will be great for relations. I'm just hoping that the rational people outnumber the hateful ones. I am an optimist, though.
I think alienHunter nailed it!
"maybe there is a higher cause to be served by letting it all play out!"
silly wabbits!
"A person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties.
If that is your real opinion then I hate to break it to you, but you are not a liberal at all."
You are not breaking anything to me because I have never claimed to be a liberal. I am a pramatist. I let my conscience, my life experience, and my knowledge lead me to my own conclusions on every issue. I don't let any entity be it church, party, or ideology dictate my beliefs.
These are all fair points and I'm glad we can discuss things rationally. So, here is the next question (since my opinions and your opinions are clear). When Obama (Saturday he said he did not want his Friday comments to be construed as whether he supporting the construction on that site or not) and Bloomberg (offering to find them another location) made cryptic statements to the affect that they did not personally support the building on that site, where is that coming from? Are they afraid of backlash? Do they want to find a political answer to appease everyone? Do they themselves thinking building there is a bad idea?
I do have to say I am particularly swayed by Bubba's arguments because I don't personally see it as a freedom of religion issue. I didn't go to law school or stay at a Holiday Inn express but my reading of the first amendment does not indicate anything about allowing permeanent structures for worship and since Congress nor any federal group is getting involved, the U.S. constitution is not being violated. Of course, I don't have a New York state constitution at the ready, but they are not violating the first amendment. No one is barring them from worshipping or throwing them in jail for worshipping. Any constitutionality issue would have to be with the state of New York.
All that being said, this is a sensibilities issue. If people (like Bubba) want to argue that the memory of the site and future of relations in the region would be better served with a mosque then I applaud the argument. I don't happen to agree but it at least is addressing the presient issue at hand.
offshore778 - There is sometimes truth in sarcasm, and one really doesn't have to qualify as a liberal to use it!
I am also coming to the party late, but I have to agree with Eljefe, Kelly, and Bubba, Scott.
Freedom of religion means just that. Separation of church and state means just that. These fundamental beliefs apply to all Americans, Muslims included. If we allow one group (in this case the rightwing whacktards) to forbid any religious group from building their worship/community center on their own private property, then we have lost our moral high ground and have become no better than the fundamentalist extremists we say we are fighting against.
It's a very slippery slope to an end I don't think even Charles Krauthammer, Sarah Pitiful Palin, or even Sharron Angle would like.
Sorry, but I too strongly disagree.
Saying that the terrorists responsible for 9/11 represent the Muslim faith, is like saying that Nazis represent the Protestant or Catholic faith. While the terrorists were Muslim, not all Muslims are terrorists. While most Nazis were practicing Lutherans or Catholics, not all Lutherans or Catholics (at that time) were Nazis.
It would be really wonderful if this country could get over their fear and distrust of all that is Middle Eastern. Is it not possible to look at this as a gesture of good will? A step towards peace? A sign that our country is healing?
Would building a Moslem Mosque near Ground Zero be disrespectful to the victims and families of 9/11? No. The most disrespectful thing here, is that this country has forgotten that the Moslems who will be worshipping at this mosque, are Americans as well. Some people in this country have forgotten what being an American means. It's not about being white. It's not about being Christian. It's not about being the "victim" all the time. It's about trusting those around us and respecting their RIGHT to worship and pray in a safe environment, regardless where the location is. It's about sometimes stepping outside our comfort zone to be accommodating to those that are different, simply because it's the right thing to do.
Let's move on, America.
*Oh, and the zoning law argument is BS. Comparing a church or mosque, to a bar or strip joint, is blasphemous. Zoning laws are intended to protect the citizens from dangerous or disruptive behavior. Bars and strip joints (and I would also argue, sporting arenas) serve mass quantities of alcohol, therefore, statistically, they are considered more likely to host "dangerous or disruptive" patrons. Churches or mosques or synagogues (regardless what your stance on organized religion is), does not *usually* turn out drunken citizens every night onto the public streets. Unless, you count the little old ladies who can't hold their communion wine.
My perspective is doing the right thing in ensuring equal rights for all in this country is a SHOULD issue and not just a CAN issue.
Treating Muslims in the US as Iran and Saudia Arabia treats Christians is not what I aspire to for this country nor even a minimum baseline. We're better than that and better than being labeled a pejorative "politically correct" for doing what is morally right, fair, and legal. I believe "politically correct" is a favorite catch phrase of the right to use as a get out of jail free card for "I know it's wrong (morally, legally, ethically, or otherwise) but I'm going to do it anyway and justify it in my convoluted way to clear my conscience".
Hey Justin,
Where you been hiding?
Here's my day late opinion...
I know where you're coming from Scott, but maybe there is a higher cause to be served by letting it all play out!
Sorry, I disagree. It's like saying Spec's shouldn't build a liquor store within 3 blocks of a rehab center for fear of offending or tempting someone. The Islamic faith didn't destroy the World Trade Center, murderers did. The "Islamic Center" is not on the World Trade Center site, is not even within sight of it. The local neighborhoods in lower Manhattan have Jewish communities, Muslim, Asian, and everything else. It simply goes against everything we stand for as a country to tell someone of faith they can't build a worship center someplace for fear of offending someone else. What's next? Can't build a bookstore because book burners who live nearby would be incensed? How about a Science Museum close to a fundamentalist church that denies history and evolution? Besides, people seeing that Muslims don't have horns or carry AK-47s could actually be helpful.
I simply revert back to my original point. This is not a CAN issue as the law clearly states you can. It is a SHOULD issue. The general tenor of the area is duly noted, but as you know, it is more difficult to tear down once a business is established. I go along with the presidents initial statement and backpedaling. I surmise more people feel exactly the same way. I think the Islamic commmunity needs to rethink this. Both Bloomberg and Obama seem to be saying, "we support your right to build there but don't really think it's a good idea." I'm simply saying the same thing without editing myself for political purposes.
I thought Michael Gerson's op-ed for the Washington Post this morning was spot on. While the execution of the President's response may have been tone deaf, he had no other choice with regards to the substance.
As President of this country and Commander-in-Chief of its military, Obama cannot give in to the urge to restrict the lawful construction of a mosque in Lower Manhattan.
Gotta agree with Bubba on this one. I've worked in lower Manhattan. The streets around Ground Zero are narrow and jammed with everything from bars, porno shops, restaurants, cell phone stores, clothing stores, and historic buildings, all side by side. There is no sacred space around Ground Zero...there's no room. This is just another fake election-year controversy for the Repubs to whip up the base. It's not real and 99% of New Yorkers, if honest about it, don't care. In 2004 it was flag burning, troop hating liberals, and gay bashing; in 2006, it was troop hating liberals, immigration and gay bashing; in 2008, it was immigration, race baiting, and gay bashing; this year, it's immigration, race baiting, gay bashing, and the added attraction of Muslim bashing.
This issue is nothing more than the bi-annual whip up the base strategy. This will disappear off of Fox News on November 4.
As I noted, there are already 2 buildings for Muslim worship near Ground Zero. In addition, the NY Times has noted there is a topless bar, sex paraphernalia store and an Off Track Betting store front near Ground Zero. Apparently in NYC at least, it appears you CAN "have absolute freedom to build anything anywhere we want".
And no Scott following US laws, the US Constitution, and local ordinances does NOT equate to the same "absolutist" perspective of an irrational wingnut. To make that type of goofball comparison, I would venture you are straying into wingnut "logic" territory yourself there.
Scott,
I generally appreciate your perspective, but you are dead wrong on this point. "Your religion offends me" is one of the key reasons for all of the anti-American sentiment of the Muslim world, and as 70% of our nation rallies against the mosque in the general vicinity of ground zero, we again send the message to anyone "who is not like us" that we judge a people or a culture by its worst examples if we don't know it well.
You mentioned the potenial outrage if Timothy McVeigh's Christian denomination decided to build a church directly across from the Murrah building, and you may be right. However, would anyone be offended by a Catholic church, or a Methodist or Presbyterian church in that slot? Yet, again nobody is bothering to distinguish between the many sects of the Muslim faith in this case, assuming that Muslim and radical jihadist are one and the same.
I'm a protestant Christian who devoutly believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ. I don't believe that, as such, I should be viewed by the non-Christian world as Jerry Falwell or Scott Roeder, any more than the vast majority of Muslims should be viewed as jihadists or Al-Qaeda supporting terrorists. Honestly, is failing to make this distinction any different than the contingent of the American population (which seems most heavily based in the South) that believes because they once saw an African-American woman with 9 kids buy groceries with food stamps, that the same is true of every African-American? The fact that this is an issue says much more about those who oppose it than it does about those who want to build it.
Please scroll down and read my earlier response to you. If Scott does indeed approve it, it will be buried and I would very much like to hear your response.
The use of building permits to squash the practice of religion for political purposes or preferences is still unconstitutional and would be overturned by the Supreme Court.
iPhone cut me off. Someone mentioned the Catholic church and what would happen if it were slated to be built across the street from an elementary school. If enough people protested I'm sure the church would change locations. The city of New York has the right to regulate what gets built around ground zero. Notice that Bloomberg even offered to build it elsewhere if they would approve. In other words he doesn't want it there. Most of the time the community should not have an overwhelming say in the allocation of private property but in rare cases they should. This is one of those cases.
Here's the thing though. Many of you are looking at this with same kind of absolutist eyes that the wingnuts are. You're just the mirror image. Again, this is not a freedom of religion issue. It is a zoning issue. Only the wingiest of the wingnuts say no to a mosque in every circumstance. We do not have absolute freedom to build anything anywhere we want. There are building permits that must be gotten. Ask the folks at Woodrows Pub how they feel about IWA. You don't build bars by schools or strip clubs by churches.
Someone earlier asked
I have the glass half full perspective here in that we in the US are not going to stoop to the lowest common denominator of our foes. The fact that we don't mirror policies of the Taliban goes a long ways towards understanding and acceptance of the US by mainstream Muslims and put the focus and attention back on them rather than Muslim wingnuts.
Just like we we can't convince irrational "Christian" (and I use that term VERY loosely) wingnuts in own country to listen to reason, compassion, facts, or logic, I couldn't care less what Saudi Arabia, Iran, al Qaeda, or the Taliban think of us in what we do. But consistent protection under US law and the Constitution goes a long way towards a meaningful open dialogue and relationship with Muslims in Turkey, Jordan, Morroco, etc. and in our own country.
I doubt very much they are chanting "Death to America in the current or proposed "mosques" in the Ground Zero area. They pass my smell test.
Yeah, liberty is overrated anyway.
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness."
-Karl Marx
Are you for real? One of the web definitions I found for Liberal is this:
A person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties.
If that is your real opinion then I hate to break it to you, but you are not a liberal at all.
Fortunately, the constitution protects our individual rights and our right to freedom of religion from other's smell tests.
Most major wars in the history of mankind have been fought over religion. It should be banned.
I understand the "Just because you can doesn't mean you should" point. My problem with the outrage about the proposed Mosque is that people, even the non-lunatics, refer to 9/11 as a Muslim attack against the US. After spending a considerable amount of time with some practicing Muslims, I don't feel that way at all. 9/11 was an attack against the US by deranged radicals. Period. Just because they claimed to be Muslim does not make it so, and it certainly doesn't mean that they represent that faith. I refuse to make that connection. With all due respect, Scott, it seems like you have, by implying that maybe "they" shouldn't build the center out of respect for the dead.
I don't believe at all that building the Mosque at this particular site is a "rubbing your face in it" gesture. I believe, as do my aforementioned friends, that this is more of a "Let us show you who we really are" gesture. It won't be just a Mosque after all, it will be an outreach center as well.
Fair points Bubba. That is the hard part of this issue. There are no hard and fast rules. It just doesn't pass my smell test. The fact that it is new, bigger, and closer is probably what does it. I'm of the mind that they should be able to do it legally but it just seems in poor taste.
Scott,
You wrote:
"the church itself is not a symbol of pedophelia."
To you, perhaps.
Neither the church nor islam get to choose how they are perceived. That's what this hoopla is about, isn't it?
A religious organization says they want to build a community center. Those outside the religious organization perceive the organization as not religious but dangerous -- even if the perception is not supported by evidence.
That's why I like the constitutional statement made by Obama. It's the only approach that feels legitimate.
(Of course, if I had my way, churches, temples, mosques, none of them would be tax-exempt. Generally, I feel they create more problems than they solve.)
Scott, I've already posted this comment on Desperado's blog on the same topic but I believe it applies here.
There are ALREADY 2 separate "mosques" near Ground Zero 4 and 12 blocks away for 40 and 25 years respectively.
So where is the demarcation point where anything Islamic shouldn't be built that's not just an arbitrary and irrational line in the sand?
They needed a bigger space in the general area they were already in (12 blocks away) and found it 2 blocks away from Ground Zero.
And if as you say that 99% per cent of Timothy McVeigh's church members are opposed to his actions, then honestly I don't see a controversy in the US if they were to build a church across the street from where the Murrah building once stood. And the same Constitutional rights apply to that church.
Rudolph was a Christian Identity zealot and that motivated his bombings. I promise you no one would say a garden variety church shouldn't be built near Olympic Park cuz some crazy Christian, with views so far outside mainstream Christian thought it made Baby Jesus cry, killed and maimed people there. It's perfectly analogous to crazy Muslims - the rest of Islam should not be held hostage by them.
And there's absolutely no reason to nod and be sympathetic with fearmongering and paranoia and xenophobia. If your neighbor's wife was murdered by a Hispanic man, and 9 years later a Hispanic family bought the house two doors down from him, I doubt you'd pat him on the head if he rails and shouts that Hispanics should not live anywhere near him and that they should be respectful of his pain. You'd likely say the logical thing to the neighbor - "Dude, those people didn't do anything to you."
To my knowledge, their Christianity had nothing to do with the attacks to the point where no one can name the particular church they went to. The attackers of 9/11 not only were Muslim but cited Islam as a foundation for the attacks. If the Olympic Park attackers had made a pronouncement that they were doing this to honor Jesus Christ then there shouldn't be a church there. Like I said, nothing about freedom of religion. It's about common decency and respect for the dead.
Honestly I would say the Catholic church needs to be more sensitive to it's victims, so in that heightened situation and if parents from the school complained then the diocese should listen. However, the church itself is not a symbol of pedophelia but more a blind eye to it. I did think of using that example. The problem is that we are looking at the difference between a public and private event.
My take is that it is a symbol of healing. If conservatives weren't on the warpath about this mosque they would just find something. They're full of anger for losing the election and need someone to blame. It's like a whole party of practicing alcoholics; everything is black and white and fear is the primary motivator. They desperately need rehab but are in denial and aided by enablers such as Palin, Gingrich and Glenn.
Scott, the Olympic Park bombing was perpetrated by a Christian zealot...honestly now, do you think anyone would care if a church was built 2 blocks away from there? Or even on the other side of the street?
I really, really strongly disagree.
Saying you can't build a mosque near the 9/11 site because some that practice their religion perpetrated the horrific event is like me telling the Catholic church they can't build near an elementary school because some that practice that religion molested little boys.
Would you be ok with that?
Thank you, I think. :)
Obviously, I don't think that is there intent. I think it is much more benign. I think they probably just see it as a good spot to be.
Dear Scott,
I've been meaning to tell you that after I read your book I realized that you have a very bad attitude...much like me. :O)
If the Islamic intent is not what I think it is then it is a very serious mistake. Only a fundamentalist mindset could even conceive of such an aggressive approach to religion (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Reptilianism). If, in fact, the mosque is intended as a 'rubbing your face in it' gesture they are jeopardizing their own well-being.