Mosque at Ground Zero

[Avatar]

There's a difference between being religiously intolerant, and forcing others--including nonmuslims--to change their schedule at a public school for purely relgious reasons.

Sure. I was talking far more generally than this specific case though. The appearance of intolerance is being avoided (in general), and the appearance of religious accommodation is being created.

Do I have an issue with it? Not really, but only because I'm not affected. If they asked me to switch my work hours to accommodate somebodies religious beliefs, I'd tell them to forget it. But if everybody on the team agreed to it, that's up to them.

--A

[sindatur]

I don't know about Independent Blogs, but as far as FOX goesO'Reilly, Hannity, Hemmer, etc, I often hear them reiterate (at least twice a month perperson) that "ALL Muslims aren't bad, it Radical (Sharia or Extreme or other such descriptors) are the problem, and typically they use a descriptor when talking about Radical Muslims. They often encourage Moderate Muslims to come on the show (open invitation) so they can show the viewers ALL Muslims aren't Terrorist material.

[Cybrweez]

If you study Mohammad's life, you'll see a "moderate Muslim" is actually not following their Holy Prophet's example. He spread Islam by the sword, submit, or die. There's no argument about that. Anyone who believes that those who also spread Islam by the sword are not real Muslims, is trying to squeeze a religion into their multicultural worldview, and make it PC. If its a concerted effort to steer people away from the teachings of Mohammad, into a peaceful existence, then I applaud it. If its ignorance of Mohammad and his teachings, then I don't.

[Cail]

Oh, and Cail, about the team practice, losing sleep rhythms is preferable to heat stroke, since Muslims are forbidden to drink during the day while observing the Ramadan fast.

That's arguable. Regardless, the whole team isn't Muslim.

[Ki]

Thought Andrew McCarthy's article on National Review Online was excellent. Especially this:

This president, uniquely, could have framed that question in the right way. He could have called on Muslims who claim to be moderate to reject Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda explicitly, by name and without equivocation. He could have called for them to support freedom of conscience, to support the right of Muslims to leave the faith. He could have called for Muslims to reject the second-class citizenship to which sharia condemns women and non-Muslims. He could have demanded that they accept the right of homosexuals to live without fear of persecution. He could have called for a declaration that sharia is a matter of private contemplation that has no place in the formation of public policy.

If the Ground Zero mosque were understood as standing for those values, it would be a monument worth having: A testament to the rise of a uniquely American Islam that stands foursquare against the hate-filled ideology we’re fighting, an Islam for which Americans would be proud to fight. But that’s not in the cards for a president whose idea of a symbolic gesture is a bow to the Saudi king and an open door to the Muslim Brotherhood.

If you're interested in reading the entire article, here's the link.

www.nationalreview.com/articles/243899/ ... c-mccarthy

[Avatar]

If you study Mohammad's life, you'll see a "moderate Muslim" is actually not following their Holy Prophet's example. He spread Islam by the sword, submit, or die. There's no argument about that. Anyone who believes that those who also spread Islam by the sword are not real Muslims, is trying to squeeze a religion into their multicultural worldview, and make it PC. If its a concerted effort to steer people away from the teachings of Mohammad, into a peaceful existence, then I applaud it. If its ignorance of Mohammad and his teachings, then I don't.

Hmmmm. For a start, I'd like to see that backed up, (not that I necessarily disagree entirely, afterall, he presided over plenty of wars). Second, does that mean that anybody who makes christianity peaceful is guilty of the same thing? That was spread by the sword too, often with even less tolerance for other beliefs than Islam displayed at the time.

Finally, all things evolve, including beliefs, moves toward less extremism are not only good, but possibly inevitable as society evolves as well.

--A

[shadowbinding shoe]

If you study Mohammad's life, you'll see a "moderate Muslim" is actually not following their Holy Prophet's example. He spread Islam by the sword, submit, or die. There's no argument about that. Anyone who believes that those who also spread Islam by the sword are not real Muslims, is trying to squeeze a religion into their multicultural worldview, and make it PC. If its a concerted effort to steer people away from the teachings of Mohammad, into a peaceful existence, then I applaud it. If its ignorance of Mohammad and his teachings, then I don't.

Hmmmm. For a start, I'd like to see that backed up, (not that I necessarily disagree entirely, afterall, he presided over plenty of wars). Second, does that mean that anybody who makes christianity peaceful is guilty of the same thing? That was spread by the sword too, often with even less tolerance for other beliefs than Islam displayed at the time.

Finally, all things evolve, including beliefs, moves toward less extremism are not only good, but possibly inevitable as society evolves as well.

--A

The problem with religion is that nothing in holy texts can be erased, only reinterpreted. If you allow the people open access to their holy texts (the protestant revolution in Christianity) they can decide to revert to the bad old ways and all you can do is tear your hairs in frustration. After all they're just returning to the holy sources on which it all stands.

[Zahir]

If you study Mohammad's life, you'll see a "moderate Muslim" is actually not following their Holy Prophet's example. He spread Islam by the sword, submit, or die. There's no argument about that. Anyone who believes that those who also spread Islam by the sword are not real Muslims, is trying to squeeze a religion into their multicultural worldview, and make it PC. If its a concerted effort to steer people away from the teachings of Mohammad, into a peaceful existence, then I applaud it. If its ignorance of Mohammad and his teachings, then I don't.

Um...actually this is not an accurate description of the life of Mohammed. He defended himself and his people, and when he conquered Mecca forgave his enemies.

[Brinn]

I disagree Zahir. Islam under Mohammed was aggresively expansionist.

[SerScot]

Brinn,

The big expansion of the Caliphate took place right after Muhammad's death. Muhammad focused on the Beduin and on the Hejaz. I wouldn't call that "aggressively expansionist."

[Cybrweez]

Av, you'll have to research it yourself if you want details. You can start, like always, with wikipedia. Gives a decent overview. Has a map of his battles and conquests too.

SS, the caliphate expanded after Muhammad's death, but he had already done his own expansion, starting w/the conquest of Mecca. The caliphate could be forgiven for following in their leader's footsteps.

Av, looking at how other people interpret or use a religion for some reason may have value, but not much in determining what the original intent was. So, that's why looking at Muhammad is more valuable than looking at what any caliphates did after his death, and looking at Jesus rather than what any believers did after His death (its also why I don't like to use Koran verses to "prove" anything, as I could easily take it out of context). Of course, the Christians you speak of took a long time to gain power, not til 4 or 5 centuries after Jesus' death, enough time to change it to fit one's needs. The caliphates who also spread Islam by the sword actually knew Muhammad. Its a stretch to make comparisons.

[SerScot]

Cybrweez,

But what did he conquer? The Hejaz was valuable but necessary to secure the area around Mecca and Medina. The rest of the Arabian Penisula is a sand covered furnace. It's not like people were slobbering over the possible petrolum wealth there at that time. He was going after his cultural compatriots, the Bedioun.

It was Muhammad's successors who really started expanding the Caliphate.

[Zarathustra]

I said "somebody," not "Zarathustra." Originally I had a parenthetical after "somebody": "the neocon blogosphere". If I was pointing fingers at *any*body, it was them.

Okay, fair enough. However, the neocon blogosphere isn't taking part of this discussion. I'm the one who brought up the football practice, and I did not quote a political source or even a blog. You can see how the "somebody" (singular) seems to point to me.

Regardless, you're the one who is demonizing, by implying latent racism and explicit bigotry of those who hold a different opinion than you. You accuse unnamed others of demonizing Muslims, but no one here is saying anything about Muslims that is false, and you haven't given a shred of evidence that the "neocon blogosphere" is, either. Accusing others of racism/bigotry without evidence is much closer to the meaning of "demonizing" than anything you're talking about on the other side. (The only person talking about Sherrod and ACORN in this thread is you; that's about the lamest attempt at defensive irrelevancy I've ever seen. And ESPN isn't a neocon blog.)

So Ali, is Harry Reid despicable? How about David Patterson? Both of them are against the mosque being built there.

Add Howard Dean to that list.

I believe that if you look back you will see that Cail and I are in favor of the construction of the "Mosque".

I can understand supporting their Constitutional rights to free exercise of religion, or their right to build the mosque ... but why on earth would anyone (other than Muslim propagandists) actually be in favor of constructing it?? You actually think it's a good idea? You don't think it's provocative at all? You prefer it being built?

I'm not in favor of violating their rights. However, I don't necessarily think religious freedom means that you can build a church or mosque anywhere you want, nor do I think it limits religion to zone certain areas of a city as inappropriate for certain constructions especially those which can disrupt society, especially those which are potentially built for propagandist reasons by our enemies with whom we're currently at war. If a religious leader is tied to terrorist groups, or even groups which fund terrorist groups, and is on record stating his desire to impose sharia law in America, then perhaps we're no longer talking strictly about religion.

Public schools aren't open on Sunday.

They're also not open on Saturday. It's called, "the weekend." It's named after The Sun and Saturn. Are we appeasing the sun worshippers with this schedule?? You really think this is on the same order as a niche religion forcing everyone else at a public school to abide by their worship schedule?

The appearance of intolerance is being avoided (in general), and the appearance of religious accommodation is being created.

It's much more than appearances. If nonmuslims want to play football and have a normal sleep pattern, they're s.o.l. At a public school. Forcing nonmuslims to conform with Muslim worship schedule at a tax-payer funded public school is active appeasement of Muslims and restriction of opportunities for nonmuslims. That has nothing to do with appearance. That's Muslims forcing nonmuslims to change their behavior in order to comply with their religious beliefs.

But if everybody on the team agreed to it, that's up to them.

We let children decide school activity schedules?? You really think this was decided by the team members? The article I posted said it was a decision by the administrators. If a majority of white students wanted to change school schedules in order to conform with Confederate holidays, would it be okay to force black students to conform merely beause the majority (of children!) decided "it's up to them?" Yeah, good luck with that.

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

I think that there are likely already Mosques and other religious institutions in the same area. If those are alright I see no reason why the Cordoba center isn't alright.

Freedom means tolerating things that might make your blood boil.

[Zarathustra]

Zarathustra,

I think that there are likely already Mosques and other religious institutions in the same area. If those are alright I see no reason why the Cordoba center isn't alright.

Freedom means tolerating things that might make your blood boil.

Given that those mosques and churches were *already* in the area, then it's impossible to say that they were put there for propaganda reasons relating to 9/11 or Ground Zero.

Do you know where the name, "Cordoba" came from? The mosque in Spain that was built on the ruins of a church to commemorate the Muslim conquest of Spain? Why is it important to name the mosque after this symbol of conquest? If the KKK claimed that they wanted to "build a bridge" to black people by building an exclusively white church on the ruins of a black church that was burned down, and name it "The General Lee House" while flying a confederate flag from the roof, would you believe them if they said it was an attempt at outreach? I can't believe anyone is this naive.

Why do you think it's so important for this imam to build at this site? If he really wants to build bridges, why is he ignoring the feelings of the majority of people who fervently resist? Can you plausibly maintain that his desire is understanding and outreach when he is ignoring the wishes of those he'd ostensibly like to reach? Why has he outright refused to compromise and build it elsewhere? Why *this* spot, and no other? Surely you can put 2 and 2 together, and realize that outreach and bridge building are the farthest things from his mind. Does it bother you at all that he refuses to condemn Hamas or that he has no problem accepting money from Iran to build it?

And rather than investigate where the money is coming from to build this monument to commemerate the attack of 9/11 and Islamic victory over America, Pelosi wants to investigate *us* simply because we disagree with it.

And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded.

I wonder how the Speaker of the House is going to conduct this investigation? Will it be a Congressional investigation? Will people be prosecuted? What are we going to do with this information once we find out where the funding is coming from? Does it really take funding for people to express their gut reaction to this mosque? Does she really think that we're being steered by some money maching? That we are incapable of forming these opinions ourselves? Does she want to investigate Harry Reid and Howard Dean, too?

[Cail]

Well first of all, Nancy Pelosi is proving once again that she's batshit insane and totally out of touch with the real world. In one breath she (correctly) says that this is a NYC zoning issue, then in the next she calls for the federal government to investigate people who disagree with building the damn thing.

And this continues the troubling trend that Pelosi specifically, but the new administration as well, has embraced......When someone disagrees with you, call them Nazis, file charges against them, and have the full force of the United States government investigate them.

[Cybrweez]

Yea, Pelosi's statement is unbelievable. This person is not only voted to represent some in Cali, but actually has a leadership position in the House. And she wants an investigation into funding of disagreement. Wow. Now her earlier 'un-american' comment seems right in line w/her thinking. Nice tolerance there Mrs. Speaker, I have a problem w/your bigotry.

SS, Muhammad conquered the whole of Arabia. By war. Plenty of battles, and other intrigue like beheadings, led to his uniting the Arabian peninsula. The why, or the who, isn't important. The fact: he conquered them. Hence, when the caliphs also conquered others, they were following their Holy Prophet's example.

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

I'm well aware of the history of Cordoba. It was a region in Europe where Muslims lives for Centuries. It was known for its beautiful architecture and famous for it's tolerance of other Religions including Judaism while other Europeans were conducting pogroms.

Why shouldn't it be called "Cordoba"?

[sindatur]

I don't see a problem with investigating where the funding of the opposition is coming from, but, it doesn't need to be a months long costly ordeal, and certainly shouldn't take up substantial time from Congress. However, I also believe it jsut as much effort should be put into following the funding for the Mosque, but, again, this is something that should require endless hearings and money.

[SerScot]

Sindatur,

I'm in favor of the Mosque but even though I disagree with the opposition the opposition is doing nothing illegal in speaking out against the Mosque. Why should the funding of perfectly legal activities be investigated?

That's like an investigation into a bunch of individuals who send a political candidate contributions to their campaign well within the individual limits of campaign finance laws. Why investigate these individuals when what they are doing is perfectly legal?