Mosque at Ground Zero

[SerScot]

Avatar,

The big question is whether "the Prom" is a school function or if it is a student organized activity outside of the School's Control. If the latter and the Principal cancels it that's problematic.

[Zarathustra]

Avatar,

The big question is whether "the Prom" is a school function or if it is a student organized activity outside of the School's Control. If the latter and the Principal cancels it that's problematic.

If it's organized by students and outside the school's control, then the principle couldn't cancel it.

Duchess, I do actually believe schools should be locally controlled. The problem is that they're not. We have a federal Department of Education (started by a Republican, Nixon--though test scores haven't budged since the creation of this bureaucratic behemoth). And this school receives federal funds. It's a public school, which means I can move there and send my kids to it (in fact, I'd *have* to send my kids there if I lived in the district, due to federal laws) ... though my kids couldn't play football there because the school doesn't offer football which conforms to normal, healthy sleep cycles of nonmuslims.

This idea that it's none of my business is preposterous. You don't live in my state, so why are you responding to my posts? They're none of your business. I don't care how many times you tell me it's none of my business, you can't stop me from having an opinion and expressing that opinion.

The point is that Muslims are forcing public institutions--government institutions which are available to all of us--to conform to their religious beliefs. If you're fine with that, then there's nothing else for you and I to say to each other on this issue. I'm right about the facts (which you haven't disputed; you've just said I have no right to my opinion on these facts). What I'm describing is indeed a FACT: Muslims move in an change our public/government practices to fit their religious beliefs. If you can't see that as a violation of church and state, then you're not trying hard enough. You're just making excuses.

[shadowbinding shoe]

Zarathustra - the Melting Pot has been cracking up for decades. Schools in the USA divide children into ethnic groups so they could, that is obliged, to learn according to their 'roots'. This is just continuing this trend.

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

If it's organized by students and outside the school's control, then the principle couldn't cancel it.

Hence, it would be problematic.

[Cybrweez]

Z's comment from last page, about liberals defending Muslims, has always made for great irony. I mean, on the one hand, it could show how a tolerant person may be, disagreeing w/the violence and subjugation of others, but still allowing others to practice those things, shows some intolerance (wisdom on the other hand??).

But, that same tolerance is completely absent when you look at Christianity, in this country. Z had some great examples, and you see the liberal attack against Christianity in this country, yet on the same hand, the liberal defense of Islam.

I"m dumbfounded.

EDIT: the person is a principal, not a principle

[aliantha]

I know how many of you feel about the Washington Post. But they've got a terrific article today about the reactions of New Yorkers to all of this, which I'm posting below (and apologies for the length). They also have a nifty interactive page with Google-maps-style videos of the streetscape near both Ground Zero and the site of the proposed mosque. Did you know there's a strip club a block from Ground Zero?

Mosque debate: New Yorkers take dim view of rabble-rousing outsiders

By Jason Horowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 20, 2010; C01



NEW YORK -- On a recent afternoon on the streets around Ground Zero, commuters jumped over puddles to make their trains home, French tourists snapped photos, a homeless man jangled a can, an angry woman cried into her cellphone and Ali Mohammed served falafel over rice.

Mohammed's food cart stands equidistant between the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and a planned Islamic center that has become the prime target of national conservatives who, after years of disparaging New York as a hotbed of liberal activity, are defending New York against a mosque that will rise two city blocks from Ground Zero.

Newt Gingrich has argued, among other things, that the Muslim congregation shouldn't build the center because "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington." Sarah Palin has weighed in, too, in opposing the "Ground Zero mosque." The pain she said, is "too raw, too real."

Mohammed, like many other New Yorkers, has reached his saturation point. "They got nothing to do with New York and they don't care about New York," said the 56-year-old from Brooklyn, igniting a Marlboro Light. "They are trying to create propaganda."

This is a point of consensus for New York's entire body politic, from the center's most vocal opponent to its most full-throated defender.

"Newt Gingrich is talking about Nazis and whatever, I mean, that means nothing," said Rep. Peter King, a Republican who has led the local opposition to Park51, a 13-story Islamic center that would include a prayer space with an imam, a 500-seat auditorium, a pool, senior center and meeting rooms. King, a plainspoken Long Islander, argues that the center would be insensitive to the families of Sept. 11 survivors, but noted that some of the most prominent national opponents to the project had taken their rhetoric too far, and until very recently, didn't seem interested in New York at all.

"First of all, this is real America," said King, sarcastically using Palin's phrase for the homeland. "The people who detached themselves from New York are all of a sudden embracing New York."

On the opposite side of the spectrum, Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the city's most outspoken supporter of the Muslim congregation's right to build the center, couldn't agree more.

"It's disgusting," he said of the remarks by Gingrich and other Republicans who rarely expressed support for the city. "It is an attempt to exploit for purely political motives a sensitive issue. And to exploit people they obviously don't really care about."

The heated national debate is unrecognizable from the reality in New York, both politically and spatially. For starters, there are the practical questions of whether the Islamic center's politically unconnected organizers have the savvy and know-how to navigate the city's real estate universe or to put together the $100 million they need for their ambitious project. But if they somehow do, the city's entire political establishment supports their right to build on private property.

And no one in New York has any misconceptions about what Lower Manhattan looks like. Red cranes may slowly be rebuilding Ground Zero, but they are surrounded by a vibrant cityscape: doughnut shops and strip clubs and churches and mosques and synagogues and off-track betting parlors and podiatry centers.

"New York is a very unusual place in its density," explained Howard Wolfson, deputy mayor of New York who, with Mayor Michael Bloomberg, wrote the speech that has thus far best articulated the case for the mosque, and which President Obama later echoed at an Iftar dinner with Muslim leaders at the White House. "I do not think the average person knows that you would not be able to see Ground Zero from this building, nor would you be able to see this building from Ground Zero."

Fanning the flames

On Park Place, the faded brick buildings of the planned facility still bear the ghost ads of "Burlington Coat Factory" and "Coats and more . . . for less!" The stores vacated after Sept. 11, but in recent months, Muslims who no longer fit into the Masjid Manhattan, on nearby Warren Street, have used the building as a mosque. Inside the glass doors, a uniformed security guard lazily read the paper in the lobby. Pairs of shoes rested on shelves and on the floor, some suit jackets hung on a coat rack and local Muslims supplicated on a worn carpet.

Television vans and international reporters keep showing up. Earlier this week, Larry Mendte, a correspondent from local station WPIX, stood in front of the building and practiced his lines. "Three, two, one. And if he really wanted to heal wounds, why open a mosque on or even near September 11?" Mendte said, pausing to ask his cameraman, "How's the light?"

Raheel Sida, a 28-year-old from Queens who works in the financial industry, exited the mosque and expressed some chagrin at the circus around him.

"It's a local matter," he said. "People just need things to talk about."

The conflation of al-Qaeda attackers and a peaceful Sufi congregation led by a nationally known New York imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is frustrating, to say the least, to the center's organizers.

"The people behind this are New Yorkers," said Oz Sultan, a spokesman for Park51 and a fixture in the city's vibrant digital media community. "These are local yokels."

To the confusion of much of the city's political establishment, Gov. David Paterson has sought to relocate the center, even though it is illegal for him to offer any state land. He has claimed to have meetings set with Rauf and the developer, only to be corrected by his press office. Sultan said there was currently no meeting or offer from a real estate baron to "magically swoop in and trade space with us."

The city's tabloids clearly don't want the issue to go away; they know they have a good thing going. They have splashed their front pages with stories headlined "Hamas Big Backs Mosque" and "Mosque Wars." As a result, it is hard to find anyone in New York who hasn't been infected with the mosque debate fever.

"It's inappropriate," said Damon Thomas, 37, the doorman at the New York Dolls Gentleman's Club, a block from the proposed Islamic center. As nude women danced around poles, and men at the bar watched Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner talk on MSNBC, Thomas complained that his friends dismissed his opposition to the mosque because he works at a strip club. "Hey," he reasoned, "strippers didn't fly planes into the buildings."

Nadler's view

A unique confluence of personal credentials has given Jerry Nadler, a portly, intellectual legislator, unique authority on the mosque issue. He represents the district encompassing Ground Zero and is the chairman of the Constitution subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. He represents the liberal Upper West Side but also a right-wing Jewish stronghold in Brooklyn. Unlike the rest of the Democrats in the New York congressional delegation, who have said as little as possible about the issue, Nadler has unabashedly supported the congregation's right to build the mosque.

"It's only a slap in the face if you think that the people in the congregation are responsible for al-Qaeda," Nadler said as he sat in his office, where outdated posters, some featuring the Twin Towers, hung on the wall.

A staunch defender of Israel, Nadler said that it is logical that he is fighting for the rights of a Muslim congregation that he said he might very well vehemently disagree with. "Jews, of all people, should know that we have to support religious liberty," he said. "Because if you can block a mosque, you can block a synagogue."

That is one of the reasons he found the political pressure to move the center, including that exerted by Paterson, inappropriate. But Nadler was most exercised about national Republicans who claim to speak on behalf of 9/11 survivors, despite refusing to support legislation to provide those same survivors with health care and economic compensation. He lamented their "cynicism," but also questioned their knowledge of the First Amendment.

"I tend to think that Sarah Palin probably doesn't [understand the Constitution]," Nadler said. "I think that Newt Gingrich is a very bright man; he probably understands it, at least intellectually. But he doesn't agree with it or care about it enough to avoid trashing the Constitution for political advantage."

The politics of religion

City Hall is especially sleepy this August. Construction has relocated noisy council members and sent the press corps out to a green-and-white wood shack that, for much of this month, has been a factory for mosque copy.

At 3:50 p.m. Tuesday, Mayor Bloomberg returned to his office from a trip to Washington. He was as dour and unanimated as usual, perfunctorily saying, "Hello, hello" as he walked through the hall.

The Islamic center debate brought out a different side of Bloomberg earlier this month, when he delivered an uncharacteristically emotional speech in support of the congregation's rights under the First Amendment, declaring there was "no neighborhood in this city that is off limits to God's love and mercy."

Wolfson, a veteran Democratic operative who wrote the speech with Bloomberg, emphasized that point: "He felt the country was founded on the principle, among other things, that government stays out of religion," Wolfson said, sitting in a conference room decorated with two orange and blue seats from the New York Mets' old Shea Stadium. "You don't tell people where to worship, how to worship, who to worship."

The explosion of angry rhetoric that unexpectedly reignited after Obama echoed Bloomberg's sentiments "speaks for itself," Wolfson said, noting, "Generally speaking, a good rule of thumb of American politics is that if you are tempted to make a Nazi analogy, don't."

As for the disconnect between the Ground Zero that the mosque opponents evoke and the actual site in Lower Manhattan, he said he understood their connection to the area, but added: "I don't know if people really understand what Ground Zero looks like now. It's a giant construction site, a place where tens of thousands of people will work."

Pride of place

Around the corner from 51 Park Place, King made clear he was coming at the issue from a different perspective than a lot of the out-of-town opponents.

"It's not anti-Islam," he said. "When people say it's a battle between cultures or it's about the violence in the Koran, I never buy any of that. You can find as much of that in the Old Testament and the New Testament; for me that is not the issue at all."

His phone rang. Gov. Paterson was on the other end.

"Thanks, David," King said after Paterson told him he had secured a meeting with Imam Rauf and the center's developer later in the week.

King stepped out of the coffee shop and walked out into the busy traffic, the commercial tumult and hammering noise of Park Place.

"It's New York hallowed ground," King said. "Maybe you have to be here to fully understand it."

[wayfriend]

Z's comment from last page, about liberals defending Muslims

Actually, liberals are defending multiculturalism. Z misrepresents it as defending Muslims. You swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

[Zarathustra]

Wow, what a worthless, pointless, rambling mess of an article. Did it have a point?

I notice that it criticized Gingrich and Palin, but not Howard Dean and Harry Reid. Odd. They're not New Yorkers either. I wonder what they have in common with each other, but not with Palin and Gingrich?

It's ironic to accuse others (nonlocals) of using this as a political issue, but then only criticize people of one party for doing it, when the other party is doing it, too.

And this bit about "it's a New York thing, none of your business," tell that to Obama. He's not from NY, either, but he weighed in on the issue. And while you're at it, tell that to everyone weighing in on the Arizona issue. Isn't that their own local problem, too? Why is the Washington Post bothering to have an opinion, since it's not a New York newspaper?

It's okay when liberals do it.

Actually, liberals are defending multiculturalism. Z misrepresents it as defending Muslims.

WF, this thread is indeed about Muslims. Which other culture were we talking about here? Once again, I urge you to check the title of this thread.

[wayfriend]

Actually, liberals are defending multiculturalism. Z misrepresents it as defending Muslims.

WF, this thread is indeed about Muslims. Which other culture were we talking about here? Once again, I urge you to check the title of this thread.

Are you suggesting that defending someone who happens to be Muslim is the same as defending someone because they are Muslim? If not... then this thread being about Muslims makes no difference to the point I am making. But if so ... wow, just wow, what a way to twist.

[sindatur]

This is where I take the time to say Muslims in General (Especially American Muslims) are not to be feared, it's Radical Islam and Sharia Law we need to be cautious of. Those Radical beliefs are a small percentage, but you can't be naive to the fact they exist and play mind games and use pity/sympathy.

I've known many Muslims that are as Muslims would like to be portrayed.

[Ki]

Did you know there's a strip club a block from Ground Zero?

Did strippers fly planes into the World Trade Center? Are we at war with strippers?

A mosque it not offensive. And quite frankly, neither is a strip club. It isn't that the Ground Zero site is so sacred that a mosque shouldn't be near it. As others have pointed out, there are already mosques near the site. It's that this mosque shouldn't be built after 9/11 b/c the writings of the imam behind the building of this mosque indicate that it is a strategy in radical Islam's war on the U.S.

[wayfriend]

Did you know there's a strip club a block from Ground Zero?

Did strippers fly planes into the World Trade Center?

Hey, I just read that article where that guy said that this morning...

Here's something else I liked when I read it...

Why Do So Many Americans Think Obama is a Secret Muslim?

... We are all susceptible to myths. Even Obama. He apparently believed he could speak out on the issue involving the New York mosque controversy because he believes in the myth of American multiculturalism, of which he is a prime beneficiary. Believing in the myth, he felt free to make a statement to help shape public opinion.

This was a mistake. This is not a society that believes wholeheartedly in multiculturalism. It is a myth to believe that. Obama's election wasn't in fact confirmation of our multicultural identity, much as we'd like to think that it was. Hence, Obama's inability to move public opinion to his side in this debate.

He should have known better. As the son of a Muslim father he lacks the moral authority in the eyes of millions to speak out on this issue. He cannot lead on an issue involving Muslims since his own identity as a child of a Muslim parent compromises his perceived independence. ...

[Fist and Faith]

I haven't read much of this thread. But when I saw that duchess had posted, I was surprised enough to peek in. Heh

As they said in West Wing, Islamic extremist is to Islamic as the KKK is to Christianity.

I think Muslims have a great claim in this, because the wrong done to them by the terrorists is worse than the wrong done to anyone else. Many people of many faiths were killed. More Christians than any other, and I assume more than all others. It may even be that the terrorists believed they were attacking Christianity as much as they were attacking the USA. (I don't know if that's the case, I'm just suggesting the idea.) But individuals were killed and harmed. Christianity was not. Not even a little.

But many people now think of 9/11 when they think of Islam. 9/11 is what many people think Islam means. But there are many, many Muslims who want the world to think of something other than 9/11 when we hear the word Islam. If I was them, I would want the world to know that I do not support such things. That I abhor such things. That I am not like them. A Mosque at Ground Zero would demonstrate that many Muslims are as appalled by the horror as anybody else, and that they also mourn the deaths.

I do, however, think a multi-faith kind of place would be better. Rather than letting the terrorists divide people, why not have a place that shows faiths and cultures coming together? Why not show that we can coexist in this world without trying to eradicate each other?

Remember our discussion about prom being cancelled in Louisiana becuase of the lesbian couple that would attend? Remember how the liberals here were outraged? Well, let's see if the same people get upset about a prom being cancelled (for an entire PUBLIC school) because it violates the Hezbollah-supporting principle's religious beliefs.

Again, I haven't read much of this thread, so I never heard of this case. But if it's a public school, is it not illegal to cancel a prom for religious reasons? As well it should be. This is, in fact, worse than the lesbian case. Homosexuality is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so people can claim that it is not protected in any way. The flaw with that thinking is that they can then say anything not specifically mentioned is not protected. But I prefer the attitude that all people have all rights by default, and rights must be taken away for specific reasons that cause harm.

Religion, otoh, was specifically mentioned. The government can't establish a religion. A public school is a governmental institution, funded by tax dollars. As such, it cannot establish a religion. Even if the vast majority of students are adherents of any specific religion, they cannot establish it. A prom should be scheduled, and police should be present to make sure the school officials do not prevent it from being held. Any student who objects can stay home. Parents who object can prevent their children from attending if they want.

You liberals do realize that women and gays are second-class citizens to Muslims, right? I thought those kinds of things were automatically on the liberals' shit list. For the life of me, I don't understand why liberals are defending a people and a belief system which so starkly contradicts liberals' core beliefs. Is it just about being able to put their thumb in the eyes of conservatives? That's all it takes to for them to toss their fundamental beliefs out the window?

I'm not sure what this rant is all about. But, personally, if I could, I'd free all people in Islamic cultures who did not want to be second-class citizens. I'm sure many people, even among the women and gays, do believe it should be the way it is, and they're welcome to it. And those who do believe they are equal to every other human being can live that way.

Obviously, the problem is raising girls in an atmosphere of oppression, and telling the boys that they are allowed to do whatever they want to the girls. How to stop that? It's not possible to force all people in the world to treat all others as equals. We can't stop men in the USA from beating their wives and girlfriends, even to death. How do we stop them from doing so in a culture where it's legal? Wish I knew. Or wish I was Superman or something.

[duchess of malfi]

You liberals do realize that women and gays are second-class citizens to Muslims, right? I thought those kinds of things were automatically on the liberals' shit list. For the life of me, I don't understand why liberals are defending a people and a belief system which so starkly contradicts liberals' core beliefs. Is it just about being able to put their thumb in the eyes of conservatives? That's all it takes to for them to toss their fundamental beliefs out the window?

I'm not sure what this rant is all about. But, personally, if I could, I'd free all people in Islamic cultures who did not want to be second-class citizens. I'm sure many people, even among the women and gays, do believe it should be the way it is, and they're welcome to it. And those who do believe they are equal to every other human being can live that way.

Obviously, the problem is raising girls in an atmosphere of oppression, and telling the boys that they are allowed to do whatever they want to the girls. How to stop that? It's not possible to force all people in the world to treat all others as equals. We can't stop men in the USA from beating their wives and girlfriends, even to death. How do we stop them from doing so in a culture where it's legal? Wish I knew. Or wish I was Superman or something.

Yes, let us discuss this. I am appalled by the subjection of women. But what can I do about in other countries? Become an army of one and invade and overthrow the governments and single handedly change the culture? How would you do that anyway - kill the men who want to keep the women down and then kill the women who are willing/wanting to be kept down?

Seems to me a better way is to let those people know that a different way of life is possible, and let them choose to live as they wish (if their government will even let them, which is obviously a problem with brutal dictatorships and theocracies hence my comment on having to overthrow governments).

Would I like to see those woman live better lives? Yes. But what can I do for them? I am not being snotty here - I would really like to hear your suggestion on common sense and practical ways an average American can help strangers on the other side of the world that does not involve large amounts of money (which I do not have).

While some in this thread seem to see all Muslims as being cut from the same cloth, this is simply not the case. That religion is widespread over more than one continent and encompasses people from many races and cultural/ethnic backgrounds. An Muslim in India probably has less in common with a Muslim from Nigeria as a Roman Catholic in Italy has with a Mormon from Utah. While many Muslims are trapped in third world countries with very oppressive regimes (who oppress pretty much everyone who lives there, I might add - not only women) - millions upon millions more live in stable Western style democracies such as Turkey and India.

And just as there are various branches of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, et al there are different schools of belief in Islam. At least one even has women imans (which is more than you can say for some Western Christian groups).

And to add to this - ethnic Arabs (whom a lot of people erroneously think make up most of the Muslim world) - are hardly monolithic in culture or religion, either. For example, there are groups of people who are culturally/racially Arabic but who have practiced Christianity for centuries. One group who has a Middle Eastern type culture but has practiced Christianity for time out of mind is the Chaldeans. If someone were to see a veiled Chaldean woman walking down the street they might think she is a Muslim, but that would not be the case at all.

Some people in this thread seem to see the word Muslim and start thinking about the terrorist under the bed.

I see Muslims and think that they make up some of my co-workers and neighbors. The Muslims I know are either first or second generation American citizens. The first generation ones came here because they believe in the American dream and wanted to build a better life for themselves and their children. One guy I know came here with his wife from India. He is an engineer at a nuclear power plant down near Toledo and she babysits. Their American born children attended the Catholic high school in Ann Arbor because their parents wanted to provide them (boys and girls alike) with the best possible education. Other Muslims I have personally known include doctors, dentists, nurses, pharmacists, and business owners. They came to America from places as diverse as the Middle East, Africa, India, and various island nations. They are of different races and cultures. Some are very devout, others do not practice at all.

Rather than seeing terrorists under the bed I am seeing American citizens whom a lot of people want to strip of their fundamental Constitutional rights - which is pretty sad when you think they came here in the first place so they could have those rights and follow the American dream.

I see parallels here with the WW2 situation involving Japanese Americans. Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor and people rightfully were every upset and angry and frightened over it. But then they began stripping Japanee Americans of their Consitutional rights because they might be hiding spies and sabateurs in their ranks, and that was a desecration of the Constitution and a very shameful chapter in American history.

Now some Muslim terrorists have attacked us on 9/11 (and a couple have made attempts since that came to naught). And people are very rightfully upset and angry and frightened over it. As far as I know, no one is proposing rounding up Muslim Americans and locking them up in concentration camps. But people do seem to be quite willing to strip them of some of their Consitutional rights because they might be hiding terrorists in their midst.

I have never understood how people allowed their neighbors to be taken away to concentration camps right here in America during WW2. This thread has made it clear to me that it was because of the paranoia, fear, and anger felt by some people who are not able to separate the actions of wrong doers from others of their race/ethnic group or religion.

And Z - you can rant and rave and talk and talk and shout until you are blue in the face. It is your right to free speech and I fully support you in that. Have at it dude!!! When I say it is none of your business I am NOT telling you to shut up. What I am telling you is that you are not a member of the local community making the local decision and what you have to say simply does not matter to the people making the decision. You have no vote or voice in that community. Your opinion is simply... irrelevant... no matter how loudly stated. As is mine (other than in the case of the Michigan high school, as I live in Michigan and unlike you my tax dollars DO go towards public schools in this state).

And guys - whenever I talked about the various proms I DID mention qualifiers about whether or not the decisions were legal or if they were disputed by the local community and parents. I still do not know if any laws were broken in those two cases? Were they? Or if there was widespread community outrage over the cancellations? Was there? Did anyone sue in either case? If so, what did the courts say? And please make distinctions between immorality and illegality. For example, in my mind discrimination against gays is immoral (though many people would not agree with me on that) - but in most parts of America is is clearly not illegal. So people can (and do) do it.

[aliantha]

Good post, Duchess.

Why is the Washington Post bothering to have an opinion, since it's not a New York newspaper?

1. The Washington Post has delusions of being a national newspaper.
2. The members of Congress who are voicing their opinions on this issue live here. And -- hey, look at that! -- so does President Obama.

Did you know there's a strip club a block from Ground Zero?

Did strippers fly planes into the World Trade Center? Are we at war with strippers?

Are we at war with Islam?

Opponents of this project say Ground Zero is hallowed ground. I would think that's hardly the place for a strip club. Maybe we should run *them* out, too....

[Farsailer]

I'm a wee bit too lazy to go through the entire thread, but is anyone aware of the sole church that was destroyed in the 9/11 attack? This was a Greek Orthodox church that was destroyed when the towers fell. The church has not been allowed to rebuild... yet they'll let the mosque go forward?

[Fist and Faith]

On what grounds do they refuse to let that church rebuild??? Is the land not owned by the church? I would assume a church (the organization) owns the land with a church (the building) on it.

[Damelon]

The church isn't being built at the moment because of a dispute with the Port Authority that doesn't have anything to do with religion:

"Negotiations did break off last year. We were expecting to hear from their lawyers -- we never did. We're still expecting to hear from them," he told Fox News. "We're disappointed. ... 130 Liberty Street was promised to us."

Arey was referring to the address, about 100 yards away from the original site, where the government earlier proposed relocating the church. The Port Authority and the church announced a deal in July 2008 under which the Port Authority would grant land and up to $20 million to help rebuild the church -- in addition, the authority was willing to pay up to $40 million to construct a bomb-proof platform underneath.

Within a year, the deal fell through and talks ended -- apparently for good, according to the Port Authority.

The archdiocese and Port Authority now offer sharply conflicting accounts of where things went wrong. The Port Authority has claimed the church was making additional demands -- like wanting the $20 million up front and wanting to review plans for the surrounding area. They say the church can still proceed on its own if it wishes.

[Fist and Faith]

Ah. Thanks. They can build again, on the original site. Can't imagine why that would not be the case.

But what's with offering them up to $60 million??? Aside from the issue that the church should pay for it themselves, how can it possibly cost $60 million to build a church??? Seriously? Do things cost that much to build in Manhattan?

[Cybrweez]

Fist, didn't read your whole post, b/c I couldn't get past the comparison w/the KKK. One question, can you show me where Jesus fought a battle, conquered anyone, even lifted a weapon? Now, do the same for Muhammad, and get back to me.