I Don’t Oppose the Mosque Near Ground Zero

Pat Condell doesn’t want to see a mosque built at Ground Zero.

… Building Mosques on conquered sacred ground is standard practice, its what Islam has always done to assert its supremacy and that is whats happening here. And of course they know how insulting it is, how offensive it is; are you kidding? Why do you think they chose this site as close as possible to ground zero? Or do you think that that was just an accident? And they also know that once its built it will be there forever as a permanent affront to all Americans — gloating in triumph and a major bridgehead in the ongoing stealth jihad. Thats how the Muslim world will see it and thats how they’ll be encouraged to see it, and to be fair to them, thats exactly what it will be, confirming what they’ve always suspected: America is a soft country — a decadent country crippled by political correctness; confused and guilt ridden, with no backbone and no pride.

Sounds eloquent, but I’m not buying it.

People have every right to be angry at the Islamic fundamentalists who flew planes into those buildings.

But the people who would use this Muslim center are not them. Let’s not make the mistake of stereotyping all Muslims by the actions of a handful of them.

This isn’t them rubbing salt in our wounds. This is us showing how much better we are than the Islamic societies who would never do this sort of thing if the tables were turned.

We’re forgiving.

We support freedom of religion.

We don’t let the actions of a few speak for everybody else in a particular group.

Call it political correctness, but it’s not something that scares me. Meanwhile, Condell seems to be having nightmares about it.

You can quote the Koran all you want — but just like Christians, Muslim-Americans don’t take seriously the parts about killing in the name of a god. There’s no need to overreact.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for fighting Sharia law. I still think Muslims are as deluded as Christians when it comes to the god question. I’m not “happy” about the building of any religious worship houses. And my non-opposition to this particular mosque doesn’t mean I support Islam in any way.

But I’m not freaked out by the mere existence of this building.

If you oppose it, fine. But oppose it on the grounds of where the money is coming from to pay for it. Not on the grounds of fear. And certainly not on the idea that the area around the World Trade Center is “sacred” when there’s a strip club and an adult video store a few blocks away from Ground Zero.

  • jemand

    “And they also know that once its built it will be there forever as a permanent affront to all Americans…”

    Is Pat Condell unaware that there are American citizens who also happen to be Muslim? Is he implying some sort of religiously based citizenship test?

  • http://timecube.com Gene Ray

    I’m not in the mood to watch this video, so can someone who’s already watched it tell me what, exactly, Condell is proposing? Does the mosque just piss him off, or is he actually suggesting that we not allow them to build it there?

  • Hitch

    I think it’s a silly topic. Collective guilt is wrong and collective “offense” is silly.

    Go ahead and build a mosque near ground zero. There is more important things than buildings, and that is peaceful coexistence, plurality, and an open society.

    To the same extent it should be OK to build an anti-terrorism center, or a center for the criticism of religions. In fact I think both should also happen in the area!

  • Ruthanng

    I agree completely.Having it there will be a great monument to what we are supposed to be about.

  • Philbert

    There is a church right on top of ground zero and a synagogue nearby at Wall St. I see no reason not to have a mosque in the vicinity.

  • http://yetanotheratheist.net Yet Another Atheist

    This is such a non-issue. People like Pat Condell who find offense in Muslims building a mosque near Ground Zero are no better than the backwards bigots who can’t tell the difference between regular Muslim-Americans and the extremists who carried out the attacks.

    He’s seeing insult where there is none. They don’t want to send us a message. Muslim-Americans were killed in the terrorist attacks, too. They’re honoring their dead — and not the terrorists.

  • Frank

    Condell may be taking it to an extreme, but that’s what he does. I do think he has a legitimate point about how people half way around the world will see this, and that point is valid regardless of how peaceful the muslims who would actually make use of the mosque are. If muslims in Manhattan are in need of another mosque, would it really be that much trouble to build it a few blocks further from ground zero?

  • jemand

    People halfway around the world wouldn’t hear about it really at all if he and others like him weren’t screaming mad about it.

  • http://thirdworldnetwork.org Gwydion Frost

    At least SOMEONE is building around Ground Zero… which is better than anyone else is doing.

  • Greg

    And certainly not on the idea that the area around the World Trade Center is “sacred” when there’s a strip club and an adult video store a few blocks away from Ground Zero.

    Given that the amount of religions that have revelled in hedonism over the years is not insignificant, this argument fails, Hemant. :P

    Whilst I have no problem with this – I would like to point out that anyone who complained about Draw Muhammad Day on grounds of their ‘right not to be offended’ is a hypocrite if they support this.

    And, naturally, anyone who supported DMD on grounds of ‘no right to not be offended’ and complains about this is a hypocrite too.

  • Sean

    Couldn’t agree more – Pat is getting more and more rabid as he gets older. He sounds like a conspiracy-theory nutjob now – it’s sad, he used to have good things to say.

  • bigjohn756

    How does a strip club and adult video store relate to either the mosque or ground zero? Sounds as if you have a prudish streak, Hemant.

  • R9

    Possibly if a mosque is built it’ll start spewing out a stream of Scary Muslim Jihadis, sort of like a barracks in Command and Conquer.

    But probably not. So yeah, they have the freedom to build a house of worship.

  • Valhar2000

    I do think he has a legitimate point about how people half way around the world will see this

    So… we need to consult with the “feelings” of people on the other side of the world about zoning laws in New York? Should we ask goat-herds in Yemen about workplace safety regulations for commercial offices? Or rice growers in China about statutes of limitations on credit cards?

    Or should we, instead, just follow existing laws and not scavenge for excuses to break them when they do not specifically result in the hurting of people we don’t like?

  • KeithLM

    Just curious Hemant, are you going to post about yesterday’s “Ask Richard” column and how alarmist and offensive that was? After all he made that assumption that all Muslims react the same way to atheists.

    I try to be open minded about a lot of this stuff, but frankly it is hard with Islam. I know it’s a minority that carry out terrorism, but look how many bitch and whine about every little affront to their “religion or peace”. How upset would they be if Jews built a temple at a site significant to them? How upset would most people be at that too? The fact is the 9/11 terrorists were Muslim and used Islamic principles to guide them. There’s better places to build this mosque and better dates to open it. It shows a serious lack of consideration, sensitivity and respect.

  • littlejohn

    I think we should encourage Muslims to build mosques at the base of every obvious terrorism target (Statue of Liberty, Space Needle, etc.).
    A terrorist might think twice about planting a bomb that would also flatten a mosque full of fellow Muslims. It might deprive them of those virgins, or whatever.

  • Claudia

    Pat has never made any secret about his opinion on Islam, although he’s become a lot more vocal about it in recent years. Remember that he’s British, and the UK has a lot more Muslims than the US. Its not at all unusual to see Niqab covered women on the streets and rich Muslims have used the UK’s ridiculous libel laws to pursue criticism of Islam in UK courts. In addition, the London bombings were carried out by UK born, highly educated Britons. You couldn’t attribute their motivations to lack of education, or poverty. All of these things probably influence him.

    I’m more of the view that Islam is no different from any other religion and could eventually, just like the Church of England or reform Judaism, end up a kindler, gentler religion. A cuddly Mohammad is possible. However seeing Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, all people whose opinion I value, say that Islam is fundamentally different does give me pause.

  • geru

    Yup, I don’t get what the problem is here.

    Wouldn’t this be the ultimate opportunity to show the whole world that freedom of speech and religion is absolute in Western civilization? And to show that no matter what, we will not resort to public hate mongering and scapegoating, because we are guided by law and reason.

    Just look at the protesters:

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_t6rV3U9ZEHM/TA0IfLUjfHI/AAAAAAAA0F8/0MTmb0lti7c/s400/GroundZeroProtest2.jpg

    They could just as well be carrying signs that say “BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT 9/11!“, it seems..

    OK, maybe that’s a bit harsh, but isn’t that what their message basically is, that the mosque is somehow an insult towards us?

  • Brody

    Sorry to be the sour grapes, but I think Pat is spot on. Although, I think you are spot on as well, usually :P
    Cheers

  • geru

    As I mentioned in the comments of TheAmazingAtheist’s excellent reply to Pat’s video, I think this just shows how easy it is to go off the deep end when debating these issues.

    Thunderf00t has also had a quite nasty tone in his last few videos, it’s a shame since both him and Pat used to make such well reasoned and well spoken arguments in their videos, while also being firm and non-apologetic.

  • fiddler

    1) This is exactly an attempt to rub salt in the wound.
    2) There is already a mosque in the vicinity.
    3) There is no good reason to prevent the new mosque from being built.

  • codemenkey

    while we’re at it, let’s build a timothy mcveigh monument next to the site of the oklahoma city bombing. what a load of shit!

  • Greg

    Just curious Hemant, are you going to post about yesterday’s “Ask Richard” column and how alarmist and offensive that was? After all he made that assumption that all Muslims react the same way to atheists.

    KeithLM – that is absolute nonsense – Richard did no such thing. This however is not the right article to discuss that in.

  • Judith Bandsma

    He seems to forget that destroying other religions’ ‘holy’ sites and building churches on them is also a documented christian practice, doesn’t he?

  • http://miketheinfidel.blogspot.com/ MikeTheInfidel

    codemenkey:

    while we’re at it, let’s build a timothy mcveigh monument next to the site of the oklahoma city bombing. what a load of shit!

    That analogy would only be valid if we were building a monument to the 9/11 attacks.

  • Verimius

    There’s nothing special about the building or the site. Check it out in Google Street View: http://bit.ly/acVcIS

    It’s two blocks away from Ground Zero, with some big buildings in between.

    Another storm in a teacup.

  • Murdoc

    Wait, are you saying that strip clubs aren’t sacred?
    MY WHOLE LIFE IS A LIE!!!

  • http://facebook.com/chad.cassady Chad Cassady

    I’d like to second that there’s nothing unsacred about adult stores and strip joints.

    It’s possible to be on either side of the stripping/pornography transaction for unhealthy reasons, yes.

    But the occasional dirty old man or stripper/porn star with self-esteem/mental health problems do not define the nature of sex and activities surrounding it, as the fundies would have us believe.

    In fact, I believe that the repression of sex CAUSES some of these unhealthy things that happen to people with their sexuality.

    Sex is good. Watch porn with your girlfriend. Hang out with hipsters at strip clubs. Smile at members of the opposite (or same) sex without being nervous. We’re all human, and we all do it.

    Oh, and yeah. Build the Mosque. No big deal.

  • Robert Thille

    I oppose building mosques everywhere. And churches, and synagogs. They are a waste of resources. But if a muslim organization owns the property (or otherwise has building rights) near the site of the Twin Towers, I don’t have a problem them building on it.

  • Aj

    Is it in bad taste? Yes. Does it matter much? No.

  • Jessica

    I don’t have a problem with it. From my understanding, it’s not JUST a mosque, it’s also meant to be a community center/outreach type building. Muslim Americans lost their life in 9/11 as well, no reason to exclude them because of some extremists.

  • reparker

    And they also know that once its built it will be there forever as a permanent affront to all Americans … confirming what they’ve always suspected: America is a soft country — a decadent country crippled by political correctness; confused and guilt ridden, with no backbone and no pride.

    Not to be nationalist, but I find it odd that someone who is distinctly not an American is telling America what we should do near our “hallowed ground.” If the rest of the world looks at this and sees only political correctness and no pride, then I suppose that they can, but I, as an American, don’t see that at all. I see a physical reminder of (1) the realization that terrorists are not representative of the whole of Islam and (2) a societal dedication to preserving the rights of the minority, even in times of crisis.

    I don’t care if Europe–land of banning burqas–thinks we are subverting our will to “teh eevil Muslims” by giving them a place to gloat over some terrible form of victory; that’s not what I see. And this is my country, our country, not theirs and it doesn’t have to live up to the rest of the world’s, or Pat Condell’s, warped standards, it has to live up to ours.

  • KeithLM

    KeithLM – that is absolute nonsense – Richard did no such thing. This however is not the right article to discuss that in.

    Richard automatically jumped to the assumption that girl would be in danger from her Muslim family. He said she could be shipped off to a country where she would be treated as a criminal or slave. His words, not mine. While I don’t necessarily disagree with him, isn’t it a bit alarmist to assume that?

    Pat is saying that the Muslims are doing this to rub salt in the wound. He’s saying by default that all Muslims have some association with the extremists involved in 9/11. He believes that doing this is meant as disrespect and to show off to the world what they have accomplished in the US. Again, a bit alarmist and paranoid.

    In both cases assumptions are being made about how much separation there is from the average Muslim to the extremists. Hemant is saying we should be gracious hosts and accepting of others. Richard is basically saying if your parents are Muslims, watch your back.

  • http://kyatheist.wordpress.com Patrick

    Pat Robertson also was spouting the crazy about this yesterday. These guys are giving people named Pat a bad name…In all honesty though I hope that the Community Center/Outreach part comes through more than the actual mosque. It’d be a great part of a field trip for people to visit the WTC memorial and then actual interact with some Muslims, versus them going away with the Scary Muslim is out to get you stereotype that I’ve been seeing so often in my neck of the woods.

  • http://www.hampsterdance.com/classics/originaldance.htm Bob

    They have as much of a right to build there as a Christian group. (Although NY should be upset about lost tax revenue.) Additionally, if this is a liberal Muslim group, they have an opportunity with this Mosque. Why not have a minaret on one side and on the other side have an equally tall flag pole with a block-out-the-sun-sized American flag. Or a big bronze bill of rights in front of the door. Or choose a Muslim-American victim of the attacks and name the Mosque after him and have some prominent public display honoring the others.

    Any of these would help to say, “We are Americans too and we identify with the victims of 9/11 and not the perpetrators.”

  • http://chaoskeptic.blogspot.com Iason Ouabache

    I don’t understand the people who are getting so upset about this. Ground Zero is not sacred land because there is no such thing as sacred land. Sure, it’s tacky for Muslims to build a center so close to where the 9/11 attacks happened but what exactly do you plan to do about it? You can protest until you are blue in the face but I doubt they will care. There’s no way to oppose this legally thanks to the First Amendment. Get over it, people. It’s just a building.

  • http://debaptized.com RevWubby

    While I don’t agree with Pat’s position about a “ground zero” mosque, I understand where he’s coming from. He’s very critical of the “Islamification” of Europe that he sees (Sharia law being allowed to supplant civil law in some areas). I also agree with his views on what the mosque would mean.

    But if it passes zoning and is paid for to stop it would be a suspension of right, not a protection of them.

  • Silent Service

    KeithLM,

    Richard did no such thing. He did not make any statements about how all Muslims view all atheist. His post clearly showed that caution is the best course of action until Muslim Atheist was in a position to cope with any potential bad reaction from parents that are, according to the letter writer, very strictly religious. That is not a broad brush painting all of Islam as intolerant. It was a statement of caution based on what little information the letter provided.

  • TychaBrahe

    My problems with this issue are not with a mosque per se, but with this particular mosque, and especially with the particular imam who is going to be in charge of the mosque.

    Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf blames the West for the 9/11 attacks. He works with an Islamic center on Long Island that publishes anti-Christian and anti-Jewish textbooks about the history of Islam. When challenged on the racism in these books, he admitted that they needed to be changed, but they have not been changed.

    He misdirects about terrorism. He associates the Islamic Jihad with the attacks by “Christians” on civilian targets like Dresden and Hiroshima, ignoring the fact that World War II was not a war between religious factions.

    I truly believe that the placement of this new mosque near Ground Zero is intended as a slap in the face of all those who died on 9/11.

  • http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/ Andrew Hall

    I don’t think the mosque is in anyone’s best interests. It would be like the U.S. building a USA Kicks Ass Foundation on ground zero in Nagasaki or Hiroshima and having a brass band play Stars and Stripes Forever a few times every day.

  • littlejohn

    ” It would be like the U.S. building a USA Kicks Ass Foundation on ground zero in Nagasaki or Hiroshima…”
    No it wouldn’t. Japan started that war with us, not the other way around.
    It would be more like building a Shinto temple at Pearl Harbor.
    We can debate Truman’s decision to use nuclear weapons, but he wasn’t a terrorist.

  • Killer Bee

    America is a soft country — a decadent country crippled by political correctness; confused and guilt ridden, with no backbone and no pride.

    He nailed it.

    But the people who would use this Muslim center are not them.

    How do I know that? Hatred of infidels and America in particular are preached in plenty of mosques while they enjoy religious freedom and tax-exempt status in the good ol’ USoA.

    Is he implying some sort of religiously based citizenship test?

    Only in my dreams would our government actually lift a finger to protect the already-citizens from the jihadis working their way into the heart of the Great Satan. How many Fort Hoods (Hasan was the son of immigrants), Shahzad Faisals (naturalized Pak), and Somali wannabe terrorists will it take to wake up? How many more Jihadi pilots should our flight schools train?
    Don’t we have enough of our own home-grown terrorists (McVeigh, Adkisson, etc.) that we need to import more from the outside? Are we destined to be the sewage drain of the world?

  • Killer Bee

    Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf blames the West for the 9/11 attacks. He works with an Islamic center on Long Island that publishes anti-Christian and anti-Jewish textbooks about the history of Islam. When challenged on the racism in these books, he admitted that they needed to be changed, but they have not been changed.

    Gee, a 9-11 apologist preaching in a mosque? Shocking!
    Saudi Arabia also pledged to change its textbooks. What barnyard animals are the Jews being compared to in the “revised editions”, I wonder.

  • JimG

    This has been tremendously overblown. As a journalist, I’m usually the first to defend media outlets’ presentation of things. But in this case, even supposedly reputable outlets are following the right-wing blog line in repeatedly describing this as a mosque “at Ground Zero.” It is not – it’s two blocks away, and the plan includes not only a mosque but a performing arts center and swimming pool. Yeah, that’s a design for jihadi central (/sarcasm). The Cordoba Foundation, which wants to build it, exists to build links between the Islamic world and the West. So what we’ve got here is a bunch of Christian fanatics pissed because a Muslim group doesn’t fit their stereotype, with the clueless and credulous following along.

  • Claudia

    Richard automatically jumped to the assumption that girl would be in danger from her Muslim family. He said she could be shipped off to a country where she would be treated as a criminal or slave. His words, not mine.

    Actually, they were her words, originally. Richard did not create the fear of her exile in a foreign land out of whole cloth. She said that she thought it was likely that she could be sent to another country. I think its not a wild assumption that the other country wouldn’t be Canada. What could happen to her as a female dependant on relatives in a country not her own would be totally out of her control, so cautioning closeted status until she could ensure this would not happen was perfectly reasonable. Richard did not invent the threat, it was provided by the girl asking advice.

  • Greg

    KeithLM:

    Richard automatically jumped to the assumption that girl would be in danger from her Muslim family. He said she could be shipped off to a country where she would be treated as a criminal or slave. His words, not mine. While I don’t necessarily disagree with him, isn’t it a bit alarmist to assume that?

    Actually, they were the natural conclusions caused by the words of the girl who wrote to him.

    Is it likely she would have mentioned the fear of being shipped off to another country if she were not afraid of what might happen to her as a result of being shipped off to another country?

  • Joffan

    As far as I’m concerned, strip clubs are sacred ground, and adult video stores are scripture libraries. :-P

    So I’ll support the mosque if they support the other establishments. (Some of their congregation probably do already, so no problem hey?)

  • Cobblestone

    Read Lawrence Wright’s book “The Looming Tower.” Some of the 9/11 hijackers, when they were staying here in the US, would have been just as likely to frequent those strip clubs and porno shops as they would the mosque. I don’t really have a point here, just another example of religious hypocrisy.
    http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101beforepinkpony

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Hemant Mehta

    How does a strip club and adult video store relate to either the mosque or ground zero? Sounds as if you have a prudish streak, Hemant.

    @bigjohn756 and others — It’s not about being prudish. But I’ve heard people say the mosque shouldn’t be built because the entire area surrounding the WTC should be for memorials or things like that.

    It’s clearly not the case, as evidenced by the strip club, adult store, (and, I see, churches and synagogues).

    That’s all I meant by that.

  • http://www.usu-shaft.com Jon

    My sentiments exactly, Hemant. I actually wrote on this very topic yesterday. Some here may find it interesting.

    http://usu-shaft.com/2010/a-mosque-near-ground-zero/

  • Wes

    I had my say in a video response to Condell when he first posted his crap. My opinion hasn’t changed since then:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7USB7G4YG98

  • Justin

    In Manhattan, everything is right next to everything. People outside of the city make a big deal, but I haven’t come across a single New Yorker who gives a damn.

  • Peregrine

    I find it interesting that the former World Trade Plaza is considered “sacred ground”. And “conquered sacred ground” at that, implying that it was considered “sacred” – not because of the attacks that happened there, but for it’s place as a driving force of the economies of the U.S. and much of the Western world.

    Whether Condell thinks Muslims see it that way, or whether he himself thinks that economy is somehow sacred, It’s interesting that that our consumer driven capitalist economy is somehow consecrated. Like we have to genuflect now, whenever we do our banking. And don’t even think of beheading any immortals there!

    And believers accuse us of worshiping science, as if science were a religion! If I were a Christian, and were to ask myself “what would Jesus do”, I might be compelled to answer “get pissed off and flip over a couple of tables.”

  • qwertyuiop

    Pat Condell is absolutely right. I don’t see anything untrue about anything he said.

    These people have no intention of assimilating and are against one of the prime principles of this country, ie free speech/expression. Need proof? Look at their reactions to the Muhammad cartoons.

    Is it in bad taste? Yes. Does it matter much? No.

    Tell that to the families of the people murdered by these lunatics.

  • Richard Wade

    I completely agree with Hemant’s position. We either have the courage of our convictions, or we are hypocrites. We either give individuals a fair chance, or we lump them together into categories and practice bigotry. We either stand firm on our principles of freedom and equality, or we are no better than the deluded fanatics who flew those planes, and the cowardly demagogues who sent them.

    Condell speaks of Americans with no backbone. The real spineless ones are those who give in to fear and hate, trimming off bits and pieces of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, sacrificing their liberty for what they think will be security. As in the words of Benjamin Franklin and others of his stature, those people deserve neither.

  • SickoftheUS

    Greg wrote:

    Richard automatically jumped to the assumption that girl would be in danger from her Muslim family. He said she could be shipped off to a country where she would be treated as a criminal or slave.

    Actually, they were the natural conclusions caused by the words of the girl who wrote to him.
    Is it likely she would have mentioned the fear of being shipped off to another country if she were not afraid of what might happen to her as a result of being shipped off to another country?

    Yes, the obvious fear she has is that she would be uprooted from her life and friends and school and sent to live in a strange place, just like any other 17-yo would feel.

    This does not equal DANGER! The girl did not mention harm or abuse. All of that has been concocted and drawn out and needled over in Richard’s response to the girl and by numerous commenters. The “Muslim”-neurons are very tightly connected to the “danger”-neurons in so many westerners’ brains. We need to go much deeper to ponder why that is.

    She didn’t even say that her parents had actually threatened to ship her away – she just said that’s what they’d “probably” do. Teenagers have a lot of negative suspicions about their parents’ intentions. And parents (unfortunately) often carelessly threaten negative things in an attempt to change behavior.

    Richard and others keep claiming that it is right and responsible to assume the very worst and to counsel the girl to take adopt a rather extreme paranoiac attitude and to act as if that attitude were reality. I think it is Richard and all of us who do not have nearly enough information, from the girl’s one short letter, to counsel such extreme steps, and I think the advice given is a reflection of our own fears.

    Waiting to hear the counselling to get her hands on a piece so she can protect herself on the way to school, and even more prudent, to not step outdoors because bad things can happen to people out there. After all, we HAVE to assume the WORST and make sure this girl tries to protect herself!

  • Peregrine

    So I posted my earlier comment, and then I allowed scripts so I could edit it, and then the video thumbnail came up, and I recognized the guy, and thought “oh, that guy?” and I was even more confused than before.

    So I figured I should actually watch the video, to see if that changed my reaction at all, but first I requested my earlier comment be deleted so that I could amend it accordingly without the timer running out. But now that I’ve watched the video, I wish I hadn’t, because I’m still confused. I notice its still there, so whether it gets deleted or not at this point, I’ll just live with it.

    I think Pat Condell needs to take a good couple of days off, have a cup of tea, and collect his thoughts. Because this video goes beyond some of his more thoughtful pieces, and lapses into emotional reactionism.

  • MaryD

    Americans delude themselves if they think there is such a thing as an ‘American-muslim’, it is a bit like saying that you can be a ‘democratic-communist’.

    The idea that islam can be ‘reformed’ is also a delusion; Islam is the koran and the koran is islam. The koran can’t change and neither can islam. Muslims in America don’t want to be ‘americans’ as you naive people understand it, they want America to become part of the Nation of Islam.

    Please don’t offend them by standing in the way of their plans.

  • http://foo.ca Richard

    Apparently Pat doesn’t know how many mosques there already ARE, closer to ground zero than this one is supposed to be…

    Research first, THEN rant.

  • SickoftheUS

    And a clarification: the girl mentioned Madrasa and the parents’ imposition of religious values. Like most of us here, I think that is abusive, and hopefully she can get out from under that fairly soon. But I’m making a distinction between that and the imagined abuse of “enslavement” or abuse of her as a woman in some Muslim country – imagining the latter scenario is what has people making these extreme statements here.

  • http://godlessevangelist.com Doug Stewart

    How about we place a monument in honor of Nazism and Communism next to every memorial honoring our dead solders of World War II? It would be a great tribute to free speech and the First Amendment!

    I’m with Pat. There are limits to tolerance.

  • Rarian Rakista

    It would be nice if they required zoning for religious buildings as they often try to get away with running a daycare there. Besides that who cares, all the Abrahamic religious buildings are destined to be turned into strip clubs and baby meat restaurants.

  • alex

    If muslims can’t build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero, then where is it okay for them to? Three blocks away? Five? On the other end of town? Is a church or a synagogue fine instead of the mosque? How about an interfaith community building? The one run by an Islamic community? Could a mosque be built on that spot in 2000?

    I’m sorry, but this attitude is nothing but bigotry. I personally dislike Islam as a religion of hate — ground zero or not — and not only Islam for that matter, but if we go that route, it is a clear violation of religious freedom. I usually like Mr. Condell’s videos, but this one is full of it.

    The laws are written for everybody, not just a select few.

  • alex

    MaryD:

    Americans delude themselves if they think there is such a thing as an ‘American-muslim’, it is a bit like saying that you can be a ‘democratic-communist’.

    This reeks distinctively of the alleged G. H. W. Bush comment (and a sentiment shared by quite a few fundamentalist Christians) that atheists should not be considered US citizens. Let’s strip all those born in the US to Muslim parents or converted to Islam later of their citizenship, then, shall we? Somehow, I don’t think that’s something US Constitution will support.

  • jemand

    those of you talking about the atheist muslim’s letter, could you do that *in that thread?*

    kthx.

  • SickoftheUS

    those of you talking about the atheist muslim’s letter, could you do that *in that thread?*

    The reason I didn’t make an effort to do that is because it seems like friendlyatheist, like most blogs with commenting, have a let’s-move-on sort of mechanic to them – most people are mainly focused on the new day’s topics and the old ones get left behind because most readers aren’t returning to them by the next day, so what’s the motivation to write responses that few people will read? I agree that latching onto newer somewhat-related topics isn’t the best solution.

    What does the “Notify me of followup comments via e-mail” checkbox do? The way this commenting system is set up, we’re not following up to specific comments, but rather we just have the ability to cut and past quotes and add html in our generic new comment at the bottom of the page. I’ve checked it sometimes but so far it hasn’t given me any email notices. If something like that worked, maybe it would help provide some continuity to discussions over time.

    Btw this isn’t so much a criticism of this blog, but about the structure of daily blogs in general. They don’t promote prolonged, in-depth discussion after the first day.

  • Neon Genesis

    “Pat Condell is absolutely right. I don’t see anything untrue about anything he said.

    These people have no intention of assimilating and are against one of the prime principles of this country, ie free speech/expression. Need proof? Look at their reactions to the Muhammad cartoons.”

    Like some anti-religious atheists that don’t want to assimilate with the rest of society and instead wish to create a religion-free society?

  • http://thegodlessmonster.com/ The Godless Monster

    @littlejohn,

    I think we should encourage Muslims to build mosques at the base of every obvious terrorism target…
    A terrorist might think twice about planting a bomb that would also flatten a mosque full of fellow Muslims. It might deprive them of those virgins, or whatever.

    You’ve got to be kidding me. They kill each other with zeal and gusto every day. It’s in the news. Everywhere. Every F-ing Day. A lot.

  • http://thegodlessmonster.com/ The Godless Monster

    I’m sure that those of you who have read my blog or my comments on this and other sites know my take on this. I am strongly opposed to the monster mosque at ground zero.
    It’s disappointing to me that more atheists aren’t willing to draw a line in the sand, but I’m not surprised. Equating Islam with Christianity or Judaism is just plain wrong, and if someone wishes to discuss this with me on my site, please feel free to vent there. I don’t wish to dominate a another blogger’s post with endless back and forth comments.
    While I’m not about to badmouth anyone for having an opinion that is 180 degrees out from mine, I do implore those of you who are in support of this mosque to educate yourselves in Islam.

  • jemand

    Godless Monster, if you were writing from a library/school in a Muslim country discussing Christianity in the middle ages, would you then decide that with all the witch burnings and forced ignorance of the masses and such Christianity is just categorically different than others?

    I really have problems with people saying that other people, or their beliefs, are categorically different or categorically worse than anything else.

  • http://thegodlessmonster.com/ The Godless Monster

    @Richard Wade,
    I love you to pieces, but I’m a little frustrated.
    Perhaps I’m being thin-skinned here, but it appears to me that you are lumping all of those opposed to the mosque at ground zero together. We all must be really bad and /or ignorant folks, judging by your comments.
    In all fairness, my rants on the subject are strident as well.
    It seems there is no middle ground in this discussion.

  • http://thegodlessmonster.com/ The Godless Monster

    @jemand,
    I live in the present and I like to deal with reality. What “could be” if Christians were given free reign to do whatever they wanted is theoretical and irrelevant.
    If you wish to live in a library, ivory tower or a fantasy world, so be it, but don’t ask me to share your make believe world with you.
    It’s time for some folks to catch up on current events.

  • Tony

    You have an anti-western islamic 9/11 “truth”er heading a mega-mosque as close to ground zero as they can make it and planning to have a grand opening on september 11th 2011. You’d think that at some point in that meeting someone would have said “Look lads, I know you mean well but don’t you realise how evil this will make us look!?

    I have mixed feelings. On the one hand denying this building feels like we’re giving up our values by making an exception to the freedoms we allow. On the other hand it makes us look like a bunch of pussies, always willing to compromise our beliefs in the name of diversity.

    If we made as much fuss about free speech as we should then it shouldn’t be necessary to oppose this mosque.

    Oh and Condell wasn’t saying that Ground Zero was literally sacred. He was saying that it is perceived as sacred, hence it is a target for a mega-mosque.

  • http://jetson.wordpress.com Jetson

    I’m opposed to it. I think it’s a slap in the face to everyone who lives nearby, as well as the victims families. There is no good reason to put such a large monument to a god delusion in that specific location, and plan a grand opening on the anniversary of the attacks.

    Sure, this is the land of freedom and opportunity, so who gives two shits what anyone does in the land of the free.

    I think its a ridiculous idea, and could be served just as well in pretty much any other location. there may not be any “sacred ground”, but there certainly is a spot on the planet where a pack of deluded idiots killed thousands of innocent people. It’s certainly not just some piece of real estate.

  • jemand

    Godless monster, I will say you kind of flummoxed me with your reply for a bit– first you say that equating Christianity and Islam would be “just plain wrong” and when I ask what categorically separates them, you basically replied with “nothing, just temporary current contexts.”

    You see how I don’t really understand now why equating them would be “just plain wrong?” They are both religious philosophies which are devastatingly destructive when used as the base of governmental authority. What happens when Christianity runs government isn’t theoretical– as we SAW that for hundreds of years in Europe (and arguably in some African countries today). They are both monotheistic religious coming from basically the same historic streams.

    They are *basically the same!* Equating them is perfectly accurate. The only difference, is temporary current cultural contexts, a sort of staggered kind of progress in which some places end up moving faster in some areas than others. That is to be expected. It’s just chance that it ended up to be Islam not Christianity in that situation. To justify saying equating them is “just plain wrong” you need to come up with a reason other than the just plain luck of ending up in the current status of progress– something inherently in Christianity or Judaism that makes it automatically better than Islam in all respects.

    Doesn’t exist.

  • Manksteve

    People of all creed and belief died in the attacks including Muslims. That guy is just plain racist.

    All regions have these kinds of extremes built into them.

    It just so happens there the current boggy man. Especially over here in the UK, where the certain politicly extremest. He’s a Know UKIP supporter a party in the UK that is full of closet racists.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzgokJdNtbk set up by this guy.

  • Andrew Morgan

    Oh puh-leeeeeeeeeeease! I love watching the touchie feelies come out.

    Why would anyone build a monument to an ideology even remotely close to the ruins that ideology helped to create?

    Any other day of the week and we would be tripping over one another to proclaim sarcastically that Islam is a “religion of peace.” That the fact that there are moderate, not murderous Muslims is a testament to secular, 21st century moderation, not to Islam itself. Do a search in the top right hand box for “Islam” and “Muslim” and count the number of times Hemant — not to mention the comments — makes that satirical reference, or proclaims that you can’t be a lesbian and be Muslim, or claims that Islam demands death for apostasy.

    But suggest that maybe — JUST MAYBE — Islam might have contributed to the attacks, and that maybe — JUST MAYBE — it might be a really terrible idea to build a monument to Islam near the site, and suddenly you’re a bigoted extremist racist who started out as a reasonable guy but now has gone off the reservation.

    Not convinced? Fine. Go do some research on the rampant extremism that takes place in NYC mosques. Not British mosques, or Turkish mosques, or Shit-hole-istan mosques, NYC mosques.

    Now — we should build ANOTHER one of those nearby? Are you fucking kidding me?

  • Erp

    They have as much right to build a mosque and community center as a Christian group in the same position has to build a church (if nothing else, not permitting it because of the group’s religion would mean which group could be discriminated against next, perhaps humanist groups). They also seem to be Muslims of the sort who would be first up against the wall if al-Qaeda were in control (or second after Ahmadis who are already being massacred in Pakistan and persecuted in Indonesia). I think allowing the mosque if nothing else sends a signal that the US is intent on evenhandedness; it is not on a crusade (much though some try to make it that a la General Boykin).

    Before condemning, people should know who they are condemning: http://www.cordobainitiative.org

    Do I approve of everything they say, certainly not. But much of what they are saying is a lot less troubling than what many Christians say.

  • http://thegodlessmonster.com/ The Godless Monster

    @jemand.
    You’ve placed yourself firmly and squarely in the appeasement-at-any-cost and denial camp. Your arguments are clearly ideologically based, so what could I possibly offer you in the way of evidence that history-both recent and past- has not already made perfectly clear?
    The answer is nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
    You are not going to be persuaded by evidence of any kind. Let’s not waste each others time any further.

  • Pingback: Pat Condell and the Mosque of Doom « Expanding The Proscenium

  • http://thegodlessmonster.com/ The Godless Monster

    @Erp,
    Funny they should call it the Cordoba initiative.
    On second thought, I don’t think it’s very funny at all.

  • SickoftheUS

    Andrew Morgan wrote:
    But suggest that maybe — JUST MAYBE — Islam might have contributed to the attacks, and that maybe — JUST MAYBE — it might be a really terrible idea to build a monument to Islam near the site….

    The unchallenged assumption in this thread is that Islam, a religion, primarily inspired the 9-11 attack. bin Laden has explicitly pointed to the actions of the US in aiding Israel, particularly with the 1982 Lebanon war, as his motivation. He was also angry with the US bombing of Iraq and with its military bases in Saudi Arabia. This ultimately comes down to concrete issues of land and power, and how one’s own culture are treated by people of another culture. Religion is a part of it all insofar as it’s a part of culture, but it is policies and actions that impact real people’s daily lives and comfort and power that ultimately heat up people to the point of violence.

    bin Laden didn’t fund 9-11 because he was trying to impose Islam on the US or prove the superiority of Islam to Americans. It wasn’t a religious attack. One of the important areas of inquiry the US media and government have kept off limits to honest public discussion is what the *policies* of the US are that prompted bin Laden to make this attack.

  • jemand

    “appeasement-at-any-cost and denial camp.”

    Wow. You obviously have a different definition of either reading or words than I do. I agree lets not waste each others time any more.

  • Neon Genesis

    “Why would anyone build a monument to an ideology even remotely close to the ruins that ideology helped to create?”

    Should atheist libertarians be banned from holding group meetings near an IRS building since that guy who recently murdered an IRS member believed in a fanatical anti-government ideology?

  • Andrew Morgan

    @SickoftheUS

    That’s maybe half right, at best.

    Al-Qaeda’s “Declaration of War Against Americans” includes three geo-political “well-established facts”, but uses the Koran to justify his declaration: “This is in accordance with the Word of the Most High — ‘[F]ight the pagans all together as they fight you all together’ and the Word of the Most High, ‘Fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression and [all] religion belongs to Allah‘. (emphasis mine, citations omitted, “The Al-Qaeda Reader” p.13)

    In “Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West”, he says, “Offensive jihad is an established and basic tenet of this religion. It is a religious duty rejected only by the most deluded,” and goes on to say “Muslims, and especially the learned among them, should spread sharia law to the world — that and nothing else. Not laws under the ‘umbrella of justice, morality, and rights’ as understood by the masses. [...] And whoever openly and clearly repudiates these issues, we consign him to the infidels.” (ibid., pg. 33)

    Later, he says (p. 54), “[T]he extremism meant by the west is found in Allah Most High’s Word: ‘Muster against them what fighting men and steeds of war you can, in order to strike terror in the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them whom you do not know, but Allah knows well.’ Thus whoever refuses the principle of terror against the enemy also refuses the commandment of Allah the Exalted, the Most High, and His sharia

    Etc.

    So, uh, no. Islam is kind of a necessary component here.

  • matt

    I didn’t watch it because Condell annoys me. If I want to listen to an old person bitch about things I’ll call my grandmother.

    But it bears mentioning to the people who oppose this: It’s a fucking 13 story community center. Yes there will be a mosque in it. There will also be performing arts center, a gym, a swimming pool and various other public spaces.

    So fucking relax already.

  • SickoftheUS

    Andrew Morgan wrote:

    So, uh, no. Islam is kind of a necessary component here.

    Of course he uses Islam to justify violent attacks and rally the troops – that’s what all groups do with their native religions when they’re revving up for a fight. You don’t think the US military relies on its chaplains, and the country’s religious leaders in general, to deliver the goods during the propaganda phase and to steel the population when losses get heavy? God is always on our side and blesses our attacks, don’t you know? The rhetoric we use might be a little different, but it’s basically the same righteous call to arms to defend our heavenly ordained way of life.

  • TychaBrahe

    @Peregrine – “We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives…. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

    “But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.”

    OK, the situations are not exactly parallel, but here is the point: men and women from all points of the globe died there because certain people are offended by our concepts of liberty and self-determination. We will not bow down to their concept of deity nor submit to their authority, so we are anathema, and our lives are forfeit.

    Their deaths in that act of violence consecrated that land. Many people wished to set aside that land as a permanent memorial to those who died, and while there will be a memorial on the site, it is more important that an office tower be built there. Capitalism has its problems, but it has created more wealth and more freedom for more people than any other economic system. That is why the WTC was a target, and that is why we must rebuild an office block there.

    When a suicide terrorist (another Muslim, quelle surprise) blew up a nightclub in Tel Aviv, killing many of the young people who had come to dance, the nightclub was rebuilt and reopened. Nearby is a memorial to those who were killed, and at the bottom it says, “We will not stop dancing.” Similarly, we Americans must make our memorial say, “We will not stop trading. We will not stop making money. We will not stop reaping the fruits of our labors. We will not stop striving for wealth or freedom. We will not submit.”

  • Richard Wade

    Godless Monster, (responding to your comment June 8, at 7:06 pm)

    I sincerely love and respect you too. Perhaps I should have acknowledged the emotions and sensitivities of some of those who object to the mosque, but I will not excuse those for whom most or all of their objection is rooted in hate and fear. People will have a mix of reasons and drives that make them object to the mosque, so perhaps they should all not be “lumped together” into those I describe as abandoning their responsibility to uphold liberty for all, BUT if they have their way by force, that is exactly the effect they will have.

    How far will they be willing to go to forbid this mosque? How are they going to stop it, short of terrorist acts of their own, or scribbling a condition onto the First Amendment, something like, “…except of course for them Muslims, ’cause after all, they’re just evil.” Once you add that exception, there’s always room for adding anybody else as an exception, including atheists.

    As Alex asked,

    If muslims can’t build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero, then where is it okay for them to? Three blocks away? Five? On the other end of town?

    He has asked a very important question. Exactly how far away is far enough? How big a radius is outside of the “sacred ground”? How will this be determined and enforced? How big a Constitution-Free Zone do they want to carve out of America? How big a hole in the Land of the Free is okay with these people who want to “protect America”? It will be a much deeper, much more shameful and horrifying hole than the hole in the ground that is there now.

    Do I like this idea of a mosque? No. I think it’s a very dumb P.R. move. It’s foolishly insensitive to the general public’s mood, and it definitely reverses the slow healing of enmity. But our rights must not be subject to turning on and off according to the whims of popularity. The general public’s mood is not a principle by which to erase and rewrite the laws of the land every three or four weeks.

    Do I think Islam poses a threat? The Islamic extremists certainly do. But being able to ban all Muslims from whatever turf other folks arbitrarily claim is verboten is another very threatening extremism, one that will grow and overshadow and crush us all. I will not stand silently by and let an angry mob tear down the principles that protect us all. In this country we’re all in the same boat. If somebody tries to drown the Muslims because they don’t like them by drilling a hole in the Muslim end of the boat, guess what, dumbass, you’re going to drown us all.

    How many times do we have to keep making this same stupid mistake? We rounded up all the Americans of Japanese descent at the start of WWII, American citizens, and imprisoned them in concentration camps, confiscated their property, ruined their businesses, and stole everything they had in addition to their liberty. All for the crime of physically resembling or being distantly related to people who attacked us. We did it because of fear, ignorance, hate, vindictiveness, and mainly, bigotry. Our rationalizations were not rational. Our excuses were hollow. We just took our guiding principles and tossed them into the toilet. It was never right, and it can never be made right.

    If it can happen to one group, it can happen to any. Sooner or later, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Hindu and an atheist are each individually going to do some awful, crazy, horrible thing. Once guilt by association is an offense for which whole groups can be stripped of the rights of citizenship, you no longer have a Constitutional Democracy, you have a fashionocracy, a true tyranny of the majority. And a deeply despotic tyranny it will be. No one will be safe from censure and penalty if they step out of the ever-shrinking boundaries of acceptable conformity.

    This is not about political correctness. It’s about Constitutional correctness. This is not about making nice to the Muslims or being touchy feely, or appearing liberal, or any of that bullshit people are trying to use to discredit the few adults left in this childish, spoiled, superstitious country, where so many are so willing to wipe their asses with the laws that are protecting their asses right now.

    And it’s certainly NOT about being weak. This is about me, ME protecting my rights. It’s in my selfish interest to support the Muslim Americans’ right to build their stupid fucking mosque, even though I think it’s a misguided, self-defeating blunder to build it.

  • http://timecube.com Gene Ray

    [Note: The following screed is directed only at those who think we should actually not allow this mosque to be built. I don't have a beef with anyone who's merely offended by it.]

    As evil as the Koran is, some Muslims are decent enough people to ignore the nastier parts. I don’t care how small that percentage of moderate Muslims is. The guilty-until-proven-innocent attitude I’ve seen in connection with this story is bigotry. Bigotry: a nasty word that gets thrown around a lot, but I’m using it advisedly.

    Maybe this mosque is a slap in the face of the victims of 9/11. Maybe it’s a malicious, deliberate slap in the face. It doesn’t matter. The free exercise of religion is right there in Bill of Rights, and if you want to take it away from someone, you better have a fantastic reason for it. Offense, no matter how reasonable, no matter how deeply, doesn’t cut it. And if letting someone exercise his first amendment rights is appeasement, you’re right, Godless Monster, no evidence could convince me that these people shouldn’t be appeased.

    I say all this as a militant atheist who would love to see Islam disappear off the face of the Earth. We just can’t do it by force, because we have a secular society–separation of church and state. Maybe the people waiting to attend this mosque don’t believe in that ideal. Maybe they dream of imposing Sharia on the USA. Well, it goddamn sucks, but since we can’t arrest people for Precrime, we have to leave them alone until they actually break the law.

  • http://kaleenamenke.blogspot.com Kaleena

    hehe. you really did just get back from a humanist conference! I love it and I absolutely agree with you!

  • Frink

    I think it’s a tacky and brazen move. The people behind this building know damn well the symbolism of what they are attempting, and surely many of you are aware of how tasteless this move is.

    I am not suggesting that Muslim’s be denied the right to build there. However, the question of “how far is far enough” is a red herring that distracts from the issue that this plan exhibits enormous insensitivity and poor judgment on the part of the planners and those public officials who have hidden behind a phony banner of tolerance to support it.

    Second, I have strong doubts about whether this is a wise decision on behalf of the Muslims who wish to build it, especially with the rise of right wing extremism in the U.S.

    I hate to use this example for Western Muslims, but it can hardly be avoided. No, this is not a case of Godwin. No, I’m not saying Muslims are Nazis. I’m not a god damn idiot. Just bear with me for a moment.

    Remember when the Nazis came to Skokie, IL in the 1970′s? It’s a major case study in the history of freedom of speech. Skokie had a large Jewish community with Holocaust victims. Likewise, New York has a large population which suffered under psychological warfare, loss of family members and friends, chronic health conditions as a result of the air quality, etc.

    In Skokie, the ACLU defended (ironically, using a Jewish lawyer) the rights of the Nazis to march a parade through Skokie, IL. As advocates of free speech, we’ll assent even to the rights of these extremists to voice their opinions in public. Likewise, we do not deny the right of Muslims (again–Westerners, not necessarily extremists) to build a Mosque at Ground Zero. The issue here is not whether they have the right to take an action, but whether the action is in the public interest or (as I suspect is not the case) in the private group’s interests. In both cases, the action proposed is in extremely poor taste and does not serve either the public interest nor the interest of the involved parties.

    The Nazis won the right to demonstrate, but by this time it had drawn national attention. Thousands and thousands of protesters were mobilizing to make an appearance at this event. The police in Skokie told the leader of the group (Frank Collin) that they had a limited force, and if security concerns got out of hand, they would withdraw to protect their officers. Essentially: “we’ll let you march, but don’t expect us to defend you when the shit hits the fan.”

    You would be right to argue that the American Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11 and terror abroad, and I would agree with you. But I would also be correct in pointing out that the U.S. Nationalist Socialist Party had no part in the holocaust, and you would be in denial not to agree with me. My point: both are still connected with the ideology that made these events possible. THAT is why it’s a bad idea. That’s why it’s in poor taste.

    If something objectively good manages to come from this endeavor, I will be the first to admit it. If nothing bad happens as a result of this project, however, it will be difficult to conceal my surprise.

  • fritzy

    Regrettable video–I typically agree with Pat.

    I think building this mosque is extremely insensitive, offensive and in poor taste. I do think it appears to be an attempt to rub salt in the wound (whether that is the actual intent or not.) That said, none of these are really sound, legal reasons to prohibit the building of this mosque. Show the world we’re not petty and we’re ready to move on. The right to offend is what America is all about.

  • T Ray

    It is illogical to infer causation from correlation. As long as we can count on eastern muslims (liberal, moderate and fundamentalists) to be logical we shouldn’t need to worry that a new mosque will be perceived as the result of the 9/11 attack. (/facetiousness)

    This story has been sensationalized. Information proliferation is driven less by factuality and relevance than by how interesting it is. It is likely this story will be shared around the world. How it is presented and how it will be received is more likely to be tied to ideology than reason.

    For the above reason (pretty similar to part of Pat’s video) and for my revulsion toward organized disinformation, I oppose this mosque at this location. But I also oppose any mosque at any location, or church, or temple, or Discovery Institute…

    But if the burden were placed on me to decide whether the mosque should be blocked or permitted I would have to permit it. Foreign perception and the harm of unqualified belief do not supersede the rule of law. If we are at all concerned about doing what is right, what is fair, then this project will not be obstructed.

    And it could catch some positive spin overseas. But I would not expect that to be the first or common perception.

    (Yes, two or three days ago I was staunchly against this project. And I still don’t like it. But I’m more interested in seeking the right answer than clinging to what I find most comfortable.)

  • Richard Wade

    SickoftheUS, (responding to your comments of June 8, 2010 at 8:27 pm, and 11:54 pm)

    THANK YOU for articulating what I’ve repeatedly failed to get across to people in other conversations. I very much agree with you that religion was only a peripheral motive in the 9/11 attack, mainly a tool for unifying more people behind Bin Laden’s cause. Invoking Islam was a lie used by old men to focus the passion, hatred and resolve of the young men whom they were sending to their deaths.

    Right after the attack, Demagogue-in-Chief Bush told the counterpart lie to our young men, “They hate us for our freedom.” No, they don’t. They don’t give a flying rat’s ass about our freedom. They don’t care what we do in our own countries, They think we’re all going to hell anyway. They hate us for what we do in their countries. For decades we have helped to establish and prop up despotic and corrupt tyrants who oppress their people, so that we can profit from their physical or strategic resources. They hate us because we paid for the boot that is on their neck.

    I am not saying that we “deserved” the 9/11 attack. Of course not. I’m saying that the only way we are ever going to have peace is to honestly face our part in the real problems, and not hide behind the propaganda buzz words of religion on one side and freedom on the other. Characterizing the original roots of this nine-year conflict as being a religious war is as big a lie as characterizing our invasion of Iraq being about WMD and liberating the people.

  • Brian Macker

    Neon Genesis,

    “Should atheist libertarians be banned from holding group meetings near an IRS building since that guy who recently murdered an IRS member believed in a fanatical anti-government ideology?”

    Last I checked Islam calls for the murder of non-believers and the libertarian philosophy doesn’t call for murdering tax collectors. Nor does it claim to be the infallible word of god that has to be obeyed, and gives 72 virgins as a reward for those who die in murderous activities.

    Matt,

    “There will also be performing arts center, a gym, a swimming pool and various other public spaces.”

    Great, and Nazis put up exercise centers for Hilter youth on the remains of Jewish Ghettos, so what’s your point? Isn’t this like the fireworks the mob provides while robbing citizens via labour unions, cement contracts, and the like.

    Islam was the main justification for the murder of 2000 people and the mosque is an insult to their memory. Adding a elliptical machine in the same building doesn’t change a thing.

    If you doubt that Islam was the main justification then how do you explain all the other bombings/stabbings/beheadings worldwide by Muslims of non-Muslims. Hell they even blow up Shiite Mosques, and kill Baha’i members.

    Even if Israel were the only reason that still is 100% wrong if you ignorant liberals new a single thing about the history of Israel, and why Muslims hate it. It has zero to do with concerns about property rights in land and everything to do with Jew hatred sanctioned and commanded by Allah.

    If they are so concerned about property rights and a right to return then why the hell did all the arab states kick out the Jews and steal everything they had? Why did they prevent the Palestinians they urged to flee Israel from becoming citizens of their countries with the rights to own property, and instead murdered them by the thousands and stuck them in refugee camps?

    The Israelis had no problem allowing the Arabs who stayed to have full rights, and to even set up funds to give recompense for landholders they did not allow back in the country because they sided with an enemy that planned to exterminate the Jews.

    The Jews lived in the area for thousands of years prior to Islam, lived there continuously since, and the immigrants who came were buying, not stealing land. Muslim reaction was to terrorize any Arab who sold to a Jew, and petition the British to outlaw land purchases by Jews in their land of origin.

    Also, since when do other people have the right to decide who our allies are and who we befriend, and how does that absolve them of the murder of 2000 innocents from around the world who happened to be in the WTC?

    The only reason this mass murder plays in the Muslim world is because of the religion called Islam. Without Islam all the rationalizations would fall flat.

  • Brian Macker

    Richard Wade,

    “They don’t give a flying rat’s ass about our freedom. They don’t care what we do in our own countries,”

    Absolute trash. They very much do care what we do in our own countries and are immigrating here specifically to set us straight. They especially hate that Jews have self determination in Israel. They hate the Muslims that live in Israel as traitor. A controlling factor in Gaza and the west bank will kill any Palestinian who shows the least interest in peace with Israel.

    Bastards stabbed Theo Van Gogh and you, the liar, say they aren’t the least bit interested in what we do in our own countries. They can’t even keep themselves from defacing stick figures of Mohammad, and those are the supposed moderates. Likely if they weren’t at risk of jail they’d be stoning people for blaspheme, or at least voting in laws that held that penalty.

  • Brian Macker

    Richard Wade,

    “Characterizing the original roots of this nine-year conflict as being a religious war is as big a lie as characterizing our invasion of Iraq being about WMD and liberating the people.”

    More crap, as was the rest of your diatribe. I invite you to go on YouTube and watch an endless stream of top level Democrats claiming that Saddam had WMD and needed to be dealt with. Or the fact that Saddam himself had cultivated that belief as a means of intimidation.

    All the Democrat Senators and Congressmen had direct access to the backing intelligence and voted overwhelmingly for the war. Don’t lay this all on Bush, he’s just one guy even if he was the President. Pelosi personally OK’d torture of prisoners.

    Don’t let the reality of the actual liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam and his psychopathic children and regime dissuade you from your delusions.

    Every evil you heap on Bush has been sanctioned and practiced by a long line of Democrats before him. It’s only when a Republican does it that it becomes patriotic to sell out your own country in order to gain political power again.

    Hypocrite.

  • ManaCostly

    I oppose the construction of anymore religious buildings of any faith anywhere.

    For obvious reasons.

  • Erp

    I do wonder whether some on this list have ever talked to a real live Muslim. One who has a regular job, loves his/her spouse and children, etc..

    New York City has many people who are Muslims of varying degrees of religiosity (600,000 to 850,000 seems to be the range of estimates). Many work in lower Manhattan, some were killed on 9/11 while they worked in the Two Towers.

    I’m also aware of why the initiative is called Cordoba. They are looking back to a time when Muslims, Jews, and Christians somehow lived together (albeit with Muslim rule and with restrictions on the minorities). However, it was far better than the alternatives of the time and no place is ideal. They are at least emphasizing the living together bit of Cordoba.

  • Andrew Morgan

    @Richard Wade & SickOfTheUS

    I’m doubtful.

    1) bin Laden’s list of gripes is so extensive, and covers so many things that aren’t actual “crimes” even by tortured, liberal self-loathing logic — like the fact that Spain lives on the Iberian peninsula — that there’s no circumstances in which we could possibly make him happy.

    Victor Davis Hansen, writing in the introduction to the book I’ve previously quoted, writes

    Indeed, the pretexts seem to steadily multiply and constantly metamorphose throughout their communiques. When American troops leave Saudi Arabia or the United Nation’s blockade of Saddam’s Iraq is lifted, then fresh new edicts and new threats immediately follow. The net effect is to accept that bin Laden and Zawahiri — like all fascists who seek state power to implement an all-encompassing reactionary ideology — have not so much an identifiable and specific gripe, but rather total and general hatred of the influence of the liberal Western civilization.

    2) The power (and subsequently crimes) of the United States extends beyond its military; most importantly, it’s expanding culture. As Mark Steyn points out, we export more of Western low culture than we do high culture or government. I think it is profoundly naive to assume they would have no problem with the West if we would just leave them alone, since the effect of our mere existence would remain — decadent and depraved Western values would still make their way across the oceans.

    “They hate us for our freedom” is such a now hackneyed phrase nobody takes it seriously — but saying “they hate us for exporting scantily clad women and bad pop music” makes quite a bit more sense when you’re dealing with countries where merely showing the skin of a woman is a crime and music is either outlawed or tightly controlled. The West can dominate in more ways than merely militarily.

    3) The root of all of this remains, which becomes clear when reading the writings and pronouncements of Al-Qaeda, Islam. I happen to think that Islam is the progenitor of the problem; you both happen to think that Islam is the justification that is used and that the complaints are primarily geo-political.

    However, the discussion has to turn on whether or not the Koran and hadith actually justify what bin Laden preaches. They do. Again from the introduction:

    All methods are sanctioned by Allah: murdering civilians (“It is permissible to slay the human shield without any disagreement”); collateral killing of Muslims, since “the intended target is always the infidel”; and free rein for Muslims “to kill the Americans and seize their money, wherever and whenever they find them.”

    It takes only a quick read of the Koran and hadith to conclude that their terrorism is easily justified by Islam. Islam remains a key component.

    Therefore, I oppose the mosque on the grounds that a religion that would either 1) directly incite or 2) strongly justify the attacks deserves absolutely no representation at the site of the murder of 3,000 people.

  • T Ray

    It’s not that hard to research the motives of Osama bin Laden.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Beliefs_and_ideology
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism

    To say “They hate us for our freedoms,” is a huge oversimplification but it’s not exactly wrong either. The west is not governed by sharia. Many (if not all) of the freedoms we enjoy are offensive to sharia sensibility (a new oxymoron!). So yes our freedoms do play a role in their self-righteous loathing. US/Western foreign policies and interventions in “muslim states” play (arguably) a bigger role. And our friendship with and support for Israel (who are real bastards to the Palestinians) is part of the foreign policy. Even without our political and military influence in muslim states we would still be contemptible.

    To say it’s all religion is wrong. To say it is all political is wrong. The foundation of meandering peace/violence in the teachings of the prophet smothered with oppressive living conditions, a stifling lack of opportunity and international political turmoil are the seeds and fertilizer for extremists like Sayyid Qutb and bin Laden. It’s a big crap sandwich and islam is the bread holding it together.

    There are plenty of muslims of whom the 9/11 attackers are not representative. Here in the West violent jihadists are statistically moot. This is probably because (like jews and christians) most muslims with stable lives cherry pick what parts of their holy texts to read and observe. But I’m just guessing.

    While islam provides a bedrock of vitriol, western muslims manage to circumvent it. These are the muslims we have a responsibility toward. As stupid, crazy, convoluted and contradictory as islam is, its practice is protected from infringement.

  • http://thegodlessmonster.com/ The Godless Monster

    @Frink,
    Well thought out and brilliantly written comment. If you could contact me at admin@thegodlessmonster.com I would be pleased.
    TGM

  • http://thegodlessmonster.com/ The Godless Monster

    @Richard Wade,
    Thank you for the clarification. I suppose there will be the one time that I would disagree strongly with you and this might be it.
    I cannot find fault with your argument from a Constitutional standpoint, let me be clear on that. But then again, I was never asking the government to intervene and outright ban the monster mosque. Let me repeat…I am not asking for government intervention. I also believe that I speak for the majority of those opposed to this mosque, so I am at a loss to understand where the Constitution comes into play here. The Constitution defines constraints on government activity, so I fear a straw man has been erected and attacked here. I was terrified of my family being rounded up and put into camps after 9/11. After 3 days, I left my home to go outside, confident that the U.S. Constitution would be taken more seriously than back in WW2 when Americans of Japanese ancestry were put into camps. That was a government action, by the way…not something provoked by a lynch mob. Are people seriously implying that others should not protest this mosque and that it would be unconstitutional to do so?
    I would hope that the government will not intervene when and if people choose to protest this travesty, as long as they do so within the law. It’s my desire that there will be enough of an outcry from the general public that the “moderate Muslims” building this filth pile will back off and rethink their strategy.
    These “moderates” know what they are doing by placing the mosque there. It doesn’t matter to them what you think, it is still a victory in their eyes. I know, I was one of them. I know how they think. It isn’t with malice, it is with a sense of self-righteousness and superiority.
    An idea in the mind of one side is enough to make a war. It might be unpleasant, but it is the truth as I see it.

  • http://TruthAboveFaith.com AcesLucky

    I say “No” to the mosque. But then I say “No” to the Muslim. I am a xenophobic bigot when it comes to Islam but for good reason. And I shall STAY that way until their own women are treated equally with men, they vehemently denounce and punish “honor killing” “stoning” and suicide bombing. Further, the more Muslims that migrate to the U.S. the easier it is for the radicals to hide, to which we should give no sanctuary.

    EVERY immigrant should publicly vow to put our SECULAR law of the land above all others, Sharia included but not limited to, in order to attain citizenship.

    I am against the Mosque because I am against what Islam stands for, not in the religious context, mind you, but the political one. They work for nothing less than total theocracy and THAT is the biggest threat to our freedom.

    Too many Muslims and they simply VOTE our freedoms away, masquerading as religious rights. There is no freedom in theocracy of ANY kind!

    I am AcesLucky and I support this message!

  • J. J. Ramsey

    “I am against the Mosque because I am against what Islam stands for”

    Because what Islam stands for is soooooo obvious. Oh, wait.

    “They work for nothing less than total theocracy …”

    Who’s they? You write as if the Jews Muslims all think the same, as if they had a hive mind.

    “I am AcesLucky and I support this message!”

    But not with any facts, apparently.

  • LKL

    I would oppose the building of any religious center on ground zero unless there was an explicit mission statement acknowledging the divisiveness of religion and the inherent danger of believing that one’s actions, however extreme, are approved by one’s god.

    If the purpose of the center is specifically to *repudiate* the versions of Islam that are violent and imperialistic, well, more power to them. If the purpose is to blindly claim that ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ without simultaneously acknowledging the dangerous aspects of it, then they shouldn’t be building there.

  • Erp

    I should point out that 9/11 among other things did destroy a church, St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. Should they not be permitted to rebuild unless they put up the statement?

    One Muslim who died on 9/11
    http://www.9-11heroes.us/v/Mohammad_Salman_Hamdani.php

  • Richard Wade

    Godless Monster,
    To clarify further, I have no problem with people disliking the mosque and protesting it. I am asking people what, if anything beyond that they are actually going to do about the mosque they dislike. As far as I can figure, they can:
    Grumble.
    Ask the Muslims nicely to not build it.
    Protest in the media and on the street.
    Organize boycotts of businesses that donate to the building of the mosque.
    Boycott any Muslim-owned business regardless of whether it donates to the mosque.
    Boycott any business that employs any Muslims. (In NYC, that is a lot of taxicabs.)
    Threaten and intimidate the Muslims who want to build it.
    Threaten and intimidate any Muslims anywhere.
    Physically attack, injure or kill the Muslims who want to build it.
    Physically attack, injure or kill any Muslims anywhere.
    Sabotage the building of the mosque.
    Bomb the mosque.
    Hijack a plane and fly it into the mosque.
    Pass a law forbidding the building of the mosque.
    When, not if, that law is struck down as unconstitutional, pass a constitutional amendment that allows the forbidding of the mosque.

    If I’ve missed any obvious options, add them in.

    Some of these are very unlikely, but none are completely impossible. People will pick and choose from these what is acceptable to them. The further down the list they are willing to go, the more this nine year nightmare deepens. Muslims and Middle East countries are not the only people capable of lunacy and hysteria-driven mayhem. There are many self-styled “real Americans” who are capable of heinous acts in the name of patriotism or God, and they seem to constantly confuse the two.

    The actual amending of the Constitution is extremely unlikely. But unconstitutional laws and unconstitutional acts by every level of government happen continuously, and the principles of liberty and equality are what are continuously trashed, both by individuals who are caught up in fear and by elected officials who take advantage of that fear.

    So I’m not bringing up the possible trashing of our Constitution as a strawman, as you were wondering. I’m asking people how far toward that they are willing to go in the heat of their emotions. I’m asking them to stop and think carefully about the implications of whatever they are willing to actually do.

    I’m asking them to honestly picture the America where they would get their way, and see if it would be any better than the worst Muslim theocratic state.

    You said,

    These “moderates” know what they are doing by placing the mosque there. It doesn’t matter to them what you think, it is still a victory in their eyes. I know, I was one of them. I know how they think. It isn’t with malice, it is with a sense of self-righteousness and superiority. An idea in the mind of one side is enough to make a war. It might be unpleasant, but it is the truth as I see it.

    And it doesn’t matter to me what they think. It only matters to me that we are still free to think as we wish.

    A Muslim totalitarian thought police state, or an anti-Muslim totalitarian thought police state. I hope that is not all from which we have to choose. If that is where this “war” of which you speak goes, then who won? Everyone lost.

  • http://thegodlessmonster.com/ The Godless Monster

    @Richard Wade,
    Happily,I stand corrected, we are not in disagreement. Thanks(again)for clarifying. I could claim that working on 2 hours of sleep has addled my brain a bit, but I’ll just cop to being a bit dense today.
    Thanks for your patient tutelage. I love a day when I can learn something!
    TGM

  • http://TruthAboveFaith.com AcesLucky

    @ J. J. Ramsey

    AcesLucky wrote: “I am against the Mosque because I am against what Islam stands for” etc..

    JJRamsey writes: But not with any facts, apparently.

    Let’s start with fact #1 and establish true or false. You tell me, do Muslim women have the same rights as men and are thereby treated the same?

  • plutosdad

    Two Egyptian Coptic Christians were protesting the mosque in addition to others, and had to be removed by the police because they were in danger from the rest of the crowd.

    http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/kelly/95748769_On_this_ground__zero_tolerance.html

  • LKL

    @ Erp:
    I would certainly hope that the xians think long and hard about the roles of violence and religions in the attacks, yes. Xians aren’t immune to religiously-motivated violence; though it has been relatively rare in the last century, they seem to picking up the pace in recent decades.

    As far as Muslims who died in 9/11… ? How does that make the extremists of their faith any less culpable? Shias are killing Sunnis in Iraq, and vice-versa; are you claiming that somehow the fact that the victims are Muslim absolves the perpetrators from the crime of Islam-motivated violence?

    Religious people saying, ‘we’re not all like that’ is not good enough. They also need to say, ‘that is wrong, and those people should be condemned and prosecuted if possible. What they do goes against our faith and the laws of civilization.’ Instead, we hear, ‘We’re not like that, but we can understand where he (or they) are coming from.’ That’s not good enough. Building a ‘we’re not like that, but we can understand where they’re coming from’ themed mosque on ground zero, or for that matter a xian church of that theme on the grounds of the Library of Alexandria, would be offensive.

  • Erp

    @LKL

    First the mosque will not be on the site of the former World Trade Center, it is a couple of blocks away (45 Park Place, google map it) in an area already dense with other buildings (the former building on the site was a factory). There are already mosques in the area though apparently very overcrowded.

    Second do you mean statements like

    “”On behalf of the American Muslim community, we condemn the attack in Times Square and thank all those who reported their suspicions, disarmed the bomb or are participating in the current investigation. We welcome the arrest of a suspect and hope that anyone involved in the attack will be apprehended and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

    American Muslims repudiate all acts of terrorism and will continue to work with local, state and federal law enforcement authorities to keep our nation safe and secure. We ask anyone who has information about this attack to contact local police and the FBI. Any person who is afraid to contact the authorities directly should contact CAIR. We will then assist these individuals in contacting relevant authorities.”
    http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?mid1=777&&ArticleID=26384&&name=n&&currPage=2

  • Brian Macker

    Richard Wade,

    Why don’t you stop and think carefully?

    For example your sentences, “For decades we have helped to establish and prop up despotic and corrupt tyrants who oppress their people, so that we can profit from their physical or strategic resources. They hate us because we paid for the boot that is on their neck.”

    Do you only see things from the hate-the-US perspective? Did we pay for the boot or did we pay for the resources and the four-fold expansion in Muslim populations with our trade, technology, and medicine?

    Do you think it would be reasonable for me to claim that I own the oil that has been extracted from Texas over my lifetime? How about the rest of the natural resources in the US? Where’s my cut?

    The only idiots I hear calling for nationalizing BP are on the left, like Janeane Garofalo.

    Lots of the trouble in these countries were fomented by communists and socialists. They are the ones that got it into the minds of many individuals that somehow they own other peoples resources just because they happen to be within the borders of their countries. That’s not the case. They no more own the oil than I own the oil in Texas, or the minerals in Utah.

    Many Latin American and Islamic countries invited in western companies to develop those resources. What is happening in Venezuala right now has happened in the past. Nationalization was in fact theft of the property of the stockholders in the oil companies. Now when they steal western resources we just shrug, but in the past we actually handed a bit of justice on them. They didn’t like that.

    Thousands died in some countries because of screwed up communist ideas about property rights. Hundreds of millions died in others, even when we were not involved.

    I don’t think you understand how this works. The West developed the technologies for finding and developing natural resources, looked for those resources, found them, bought the leases, provided the capital to build the equipment that extracts those natural resources, provided the actual labor (workers imported from the west) to work the equipment, and paid the taxes, and so on.

    What exactly did the terrorists do to deserve even one drop of that oil? Nothing.

    Should I hate and kill the British because they are “profiting from our physical and strategic resources?” What about the other and numerous countries that have companies in the US that profit from “our” physical or strategic resources.

    You don’t think that those foreign companies aren’t also buying influence with the politicians that are exploiting us? You don’t think that it was always a two way street, our politicians scratching theirs backs as their politicians scratched ours? We have a long history of exploitative politicians here in the west that worked with those foreign despots to screw up our country.

    Should I be able to murder British citizens because their politicians managed to get our politicians to help them with their wars? What about the South Koreans? My Uncle died in South Korea. Can I chop the heads off a few Koreans over that? Their politicians interfered in the politics of my country in a way that got my relative drafted, by force, and then killed.

    FDR did a very good job of messing up and exploiting the country (and involving us in foreign conflicts). For example, during the Great Depression his policy was to cult pigs and destroy the meat while people were lined up at soup kitchens. What foreigners were supporting him as he had his boot upon our necks? I’d say plenty, from Churchill to Stalin.

    Bush himself got support from the Saudi’s is it that he who keeps the Saudis in power or was it vice-versa? It’s not at all clear when they cooperate.

    Where is your sympathy for white supremacists and southern racists? Didn’t the north put it’s boot upon the neck of the south in order to stop slavery? Do they get to kill Yankees now for as long as they hold their grudge? Do I have to be understanding about it? Do I need to see things from their perspective?

    I think you need to learn a lot more about Muslim history and it’s attacks on the west that preceded anything we did to them. If they can blame colonialism on their bad behavior then we can do the same. The Spanish Inquisition, whose fault was that under such thinking? Seems like the brutal occupation of Spain by the Muslims might properly be blamed for their radicalization.

    Maybe it’s the Muslims that have a much greater deal of learning to do to see things from my perspective instead. Maybe that’s the real road to peace.

    England itself saw wave after wave of both colonizers, slavers, raiders, and conquests coming from the east. Don’t you think that just might be a reason why they would turn to force to expand in the other direction?

    Are you aware that Muslims were raiding Europe (including England) for white slaves, and raiding American shipping well into the 18th century? Are you aware that the Ottoman’s got involved in WWI and sided with the Germans, that many Muslims sided and worked with Hitler? Are you aware that the Turks practiced genocide on the Christian Armenians?

    It’s not like the Muslims had some Utopian democracy before the West started trading with them either. They already were ruled by despots, and the way they vote it seems they like it that way (voting in Fatah and Hamas being examples). Turkey is moving that direction also. Look at Iran.

    Nor did the West invent slavery, colonization, empires, or any of the rest of it.

    The reality is much more complex than you or they make it out. It wasn’t a matter of the Arabs having their own oil and using it peacefully in some commie utopia. First, there is nothing to use the oil with in those countries. Oil isn’t valuable in itself. It’s valuable only in combination with other resources. Resources they didn’t have. Second, they were so backwards they didn’t have the means to exploit it (and in fact the Saudis are still too stupid to do it themselves). Third, many of those countries came to be ruled by the British because the prior rulers of the area attacked them. Fourth, many sided with the Nazis (or later Soviets) because they wanted to exterminate Jews. Fifth, because of the above it was often a case of either the British or US developing their oil or the our enemies the Nazis and Soviets.

    Nor were the Soviets and Nazis playing nice. They would practice assassinations and install their own dictators, or get backing for politicians that would violate treaties, contracts, agreements, and leases they had with the west.

    I think it was pointless and stupid for Pres. Carter to apologize to the Iranians. Especially since the Iranians in essence stole the oil resources from the British. Factions in Iran had murdered the pro-western politicians, and then they voted in a guy who was taking advantage of the weakened British to steal the oil leases from them via nationalization.

    It’s not like the Iranians didn’t have their own history of conquest in the past, and one that they look back upon longingly.

    So I see absolutely no reason why any of them can sit back and bitch about what our ancestors did in the past to them in order to justify the murder of 2000 innocent people. On the issue of ancestor guilt they are just as, if not more guilty than any Westerner.

    Nor can they complain about stealing resources, since we openly allow foriegners to explore for and develop our resources, buy our land, and so for.

    Nor can they complain about us not getting rid of their dictators, because when we do (like Saddam) they bitch, and often we don’t have a choice but to work with the rulers that they sanction. We are omnipotent, and have powerful enemies we must operate against, which in fact the Muslims play off against us. Just like Venezuela is doing now.

    History is messy and you act like the US is and has always been omnipotent, and working in a vacuum.

    The laughable thing is you sound a lot like Sean Penn. I’m sure he’d have Obama working with Chavez. You want peace with Chavez right? If Obama started trading with Chavez, supplying him with arms to protect himself from the scary libertarianish Hondurans, then would you be stating that we had our boot on their necks? I doubt it.

    They hate us? I say they should get the hell over it. If it wasn’t for us they’d be exploited (not merely traded with) by the Soviets or the Nazis in a way that was much less understanding that what we’ve done.

    The real reason the Muslims hate us is because their religion teaches them to hate both infidels and Jews. You don’t see them looking back on the Ottoman’s as occupiers of Arab countries even thought that is exactly what they were. No they look upon that as a golden age. The reason is religious bigotry, and little more. The Palestinians were treated far worse by the surrounding Arab countries that the Muslims in Israel were ever treated by Israel. It’s not about how we treat them. It is about the issue of honor and the belief that only Muslim should rule infidel by order of Allah, not vice versa.

  • Brian Macker

    In short if some white supremacists blew up a synagogue I very much doubt that leftists would ask us to be more understanding about why they hate Jews.

    I’m not agreeable to such arguments when they are used on me to jrationalize the acts of those who hate people like me to kill people like me. Especially when I knew people who died, and when done with an air of superiority and the assumption that I’m less educated then a bunch of backwards 7th century worhshiping Muslims.

  • http://naturalpond.blogspot.com village1diot

    I am thinking that you have it backward. A strip club and an adult video store would make the ground “sacred”, IMO.

  • Pingback: Mosque At Ground Zero | Rodibidably

  • LKL

    @Erp:
    That’s a start.

  • GBArg

    What a huge number of blind idiots leaving comments here, saying that this atrocity of a mosque, following the atrocity of Muslims murdering 3000 people, either means nothing or will show America’s bigness! Wake up, people! Sharia Law will be upon you before you know it at this rate.

    Like it or not, you/we are in a WAR WITH ISLAM, all over the globe. Their primitive pedophile Mohammed wrote the Koran to conquer you! Read, study, think!!

  • Jeff

    what about the whole safety issue? When 911 happened, Muslim places of worship all over the US were vandalized. Do you think it’s possibly that the building of this mosque could jeopardize the safety of some of the muslims involved? The sad reality is that along with religious fundies, we also have nationalists, which can be just as deluded and dangerous. I’d imagine that there are a lot of american-flag-enthusiasts who will view this as a personal attack on the US and attempt to take matters into their own hands. Could you see the next big American tragedy be the blowing-up of a mosque right next to ground zero? Unfortunately, I would not be overly surprised if it happened.

    My initial thought was on the line of “That’s just a bad idea. It’s sort of offensive and kind of seems like a slap in the face.” After reading Hemant’s post however, I think my mind was changed. Similarly, I don’t support the building of any houses of worship because of my dislike of the whole lot of them. However, I also think that this is an exercise in allowing our freedoms to remain unhindered.

    Still, I worry for the safety of those involved.

  • Alex McDowell

    “How does a strip club and adult video store relate to either the mosque or ground zero? Sounds as if you have a prudish streak, Hemant”

    I don’t see it that way. You have your churches, I have mine. ;-)

  • Pingback: Should we “allow” a “mosque” at “Ground Zero” | Thinking Critically

  • Pingback: Atheists and Islam, Part IV. | An American Atheist

  • Guest

    3 years on Pat. Did your rant have a hand in delaying proceedings? I like to think so. You’re a comedian, so you have to laugh don’t you. The americans, like the europeans think that warfare is still about pearl harbour raids and nukes. Neither they nor the europeans get it, that what they face is a cultural growth interpenetrating society in exactly the same way as a mycelium will penetrate almost any apparently solid built structure. A little hydraulic flexing of the fibres once they’re in place and there’s no wall of brick or wood that’ll hold intact. Fungus ain’t totally stupid, at the level of survival and neither are those who have it sprouting all over their chins. oops, was that snide —- like removing Danny Pearl’s head wasn’t at all snarky was it, no that was just good clean open faced fun.. —- no but, .. except, more than mere fungal survival, they’re out to curtail yours, america. And you know. And all you do is stock up your bunker and make prepper videos. While they burn your flag in your streets. They don’t get, Pat, the agonists for the mosque, that some time a little down the line, their deadliest enemy is not going to be some unknown in an air raid shelter 4000 km away but the (equally unknown) family of ‘moderate’ complicit-by-silence longstanding seditionists in the flat right next door. Sorry guys, I haer you whining but see, it’s just the facts, get used to it, while you still have your head on your shoulders, to try to think with. But let’s say that war was still the 1940 scenario. Did you have Roosevelt bending over to Hirohito then.. ‘hey and why you’re reaming me why don’t you come on over and build yer shinto temple right on Pearl Harbour, you know, right while you’re removing the head, with yer bluntest knife, of any old ‘khaffir’ yank who should happen to wander into the wrong street at the wrong time, yeah be my guest, and while you’re at it tell my women how to dress why don’t you, like down Whitechapel —- hey and take a few home for a bit of rape ‘n pillage, Saladin style. Jeez, it just goes on, make it up. Anyway, yeah, they didn’t build it yet, so thanks Pat, at least in part, at least for now. Diamond, geezah!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X