Hmm, so the 'moderate' Immam for the ground zero mosque is on record as saying it's part America's fault that 9/11 happened. He's also refused to condemn Hamas
( Read more... )
Except it's not a cultural center - it's a mosque with a gym and a theater. Just a cultural center would be fine - it's the worshipping Allah part and the calls to prayer 5 times a day blaring out that are the problem. A cultural center would be like what we have toward the japanese at pearl harbor.
Any building that was damaged by the actual plane that hit the towers gets to be part of ground zero. Before this mosque was planned if you had grabbed anyone walking in new york and said "hey - those buildings that were damaged by the plane and towers coming down, are they close enough to ground zero to be considered part of the site of the disaster?" no one would have said no. That argument is the same as saying that the land at pearl harbor isn't actually pearl harbor because there were no actual ships right there. If it got damaged during the blitz, it counts IMO.
Are there any other buildings in the vicinity that have the purpose - in whole or part - to worship and pray? Christian churches, Jewish Synagogues, etc. or centers that include a chapel space for such prayers? If there are, then there is absolutely -0- reason to forbid another faith from building something that would include the same options. Either you allow ALL of them, or you allow NONE of them.
I still wouldn't consider it purely a mosque, but I concede that my definition is not the only one that is valid. I do remain firm, however, that if there are going to be any spaces where calls to worship and prayer for any faith are allowed, we have a moral obligation to allow all spaces of that nature.
We don't have a moral obligation to allow a building to be built that our enemy will see as a victory. We don't have an obligation to allow it to be built with terrorist funded dollars, or an obligation to allow an Immam to preach hatred towards america and how the attack was our fault within hearing distance of the memorial to those who died.
We allow mosques to be built throughout the country. We aren't curtailing anyone's rights to request (and demand, if need be) that a memorial to Allah not be built on the site where so many were killed in Allah's name. ESPECIALLY when the people who see it as a victory flag are the one's financing it.
It's like building a Timothy McVeigh statue outside the oklahoma city bombing site, only worse because we are at war with a current enemy and McVeigh was a loner. Does someone have the technical right to buy property and commission a statue? Yes. Do the citizens of the city have the right to refuse it to be built? Yes as well.
Unless we are restricting all religious building in the vicinity, then the building (call it what you will) cannot under the law be stopped. And unless it is proved that the developmer's money came from an illegal source (My gut reaction includes the words "Saudi Arabia", but I have nothing to base that on) then it doesn't matter
( ... )
And for the record, I am just as vehemenently against people who say no mosques should be built as I am against this one being built. We are America and we value religious freedom - but allowing religious freedom doesn't require that we allow our enemies (either in person or vicariously through large donations) to build what they see as monuments of their victory over us on the site where they killed several thousand of us. And the defense of "these guys are different, they are the moderate group" gets a little thin when they (specifically the Immam) do things like support Hamas.
Comments 10
Reply
Any building that was damaged by the actual plane that hit the towers gets to be part of ground zero. Before this mosque was planned if you had grabbed anyone walking in new york and said "hey - those buildings that were damaged by the plane and towers coming down, are they close enough to ground zero to be considered part of the site of the disaster?" no one would have said no. That argument is the same as saying that the land at pearl harbor isn't actually pearl harbor because there were no actual ships right there. If it got damaged during the blitz, it counts IMO.
Reply
I still wouldn't consider it purely a mosque, but I concede that my definition is not the only one that is valid. I do remain firm, however, that if there are going to be any spaces where calls to worship and prayer for any faith are allowed, we have a moral obligation to allow all spaces of that nature.
Reply
We allow mosques to be built throughout the country. We aren't curtailing anyone's rights to request (and demand, if need be) that a memorial to Allah not be built on the site where so many were killed in Allah's name. ESPECIALLY when the people who see it as a victory flag are the one's financing it.
It's like building a Timothy McVeigh statue outside the oklahoma city bombing site, only worse because we are at war with a current enemy and McVeigh was a loner. Does someone have the technical right to buy property and commission a statue? Yes. Do the citizens of the city have the right to refuse it to be built? Yes as well.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment