Freedom of Religion ... unless that is; you are a Muslim.

[TantricSoul]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100808/...que_opposition


So I've been intermittently listening to the talk related to the NY Mosque project. I have been a bit taken aback by how loudly some involved are screaming out their intolerance, and often seemly gross misunderstandings, or downright intentional misrepresentations about the project, and about Muslims or Islam.

One such instance for example is a few famous radio/TV talking heads repeatedly saying the Mosque would be built "on ground zero" when, in fact, it would be two blocks away. Even without such misleading comments, I can completely understand the emotions running high around that project.

Should NY not allow the Mosque to be built there? Why not?
But what about the projects and incidents mentioned in the story above?
Is that as understandable as the tensions in NY?
I am curious and would like to see this issue from some other viewpoints.


Respectfully,
Tantric

[Thorne]

Should NY not allow the Mosque to be built there? Why not?
The city, or state, cannot legally forbid the Islamic Center (not specifically just a mosque) from being built there without showing that it would violate some building code, or other legitimate objection. Just because it happens to be close to ground zero is not a good enough reason. On the other hand, it may be showing incredibly poor judgment by those building the center to choose that particular location, simply because of the negative connotations. Still, this is a free country, supposedly, and freedom of religion is guaranteed in the Constitution. Yes, that same Constitution which the religious right accuses the Obama administration of trying to destroy.

But what about the projects and incidents mentioned in the story above?
Again, the Constitution grants freedom of religion for ALL, not just Christians. Those "demonstrators recently who wore 'Vote for Jesus' T-shirts and carried signs that said: 'No Sharia law for USA!,'" don't seem to realize that trying to establish of ANY religious law is equivalent to trying to establish Sharia law.

Still, exposing the hatred and bigotry of the fundamentalists is always a good thing, as it ultimately reduces their hold on people and exposes them for what they truly are: Christian (in this case) terrorists.

Is that as understandable as the tensions in NY?
I'm not sure any of it is understandable, though the tension in NY is the least surprising.

I was particularly impressed by the following quote:
"If the Wisconsin mosque had not been allowed to be built, I, at 17, might have put up walls and become a different person," [Zuhdi Jasser] said. "If we start preventing these from being built, the backlash will be increased radicalization."

If we want to see terrorist camps set up in the US, isolating and attacking peaceful Muslim neighbors is the right way to go about it. After all, that's basically what got things started in the Middle East, more than a thousand years ago.

[denuseri]

I think they should re-build the Towers there and make the bottom two floors a memorial center in each building and surround them with temples of all faiths; even the faiths of science and the faith of having no faith should be involved.

[Thorne]

I think they should re-build the Towers there and make the bottom two floors a memorial center in each building and surround them with temples of all faiths; even the faiths of science and the faith of having no faith should be involved.

Okay, I can go along with rebuilding the towers, though I don't know why you would want to, except just for spite. I can even go along with the memorial center, surrounded by temples of all faiths. (That would be a LOT of temples, though.) But no way can you equate science with faith. Science is a study of reality. No faith involved. There's a certain amount of trust, perhaps. I trust that those scientists who have passed muster with other scientists, and whose research has been validated by still other scientists, are probably right as far as we can know at the time. But there's no faith at all.

And what is "the faith of having no faith" supposed to mean? It's a contradiction. IF you are referring to atheism, or even agnosticism, then I have to point out that there's no faith involved there, either. It's a LACK of faith! A LACK of belief. I do NOT have a belief that there are no gods. I just do not have any belief in gods. A subtle but meaningful difference.

As for your temples, therefore, we don't need one for "the faith of having no faith", since there are no atheist temples. No one would come to them anyway. There are more productive ways to make use of a Sunday. And if you have to associate a temple with science, make it a museum, one devoted to the lunacy and irrationality of belief in superstitions. And the even greater lunacies, and irrationalities, of killing and dying for those superstitions.

[bip0lar]

Not being from or having visited the States, the sight of rising Christian fundamentalism in conjunction with your internal politics makes my hair prickle. Documentaries like 'Jesus Camp', for example, scare me to the extent of wondering when (and if) the much bigger portion of rational Americans will not only stand up to them, but also take away their political power. The symbolism of ground zero now should be viewed from an entirely secular point of view, in my opinion, only because religious fundamentalism-whether it's christianity, or islam, or judaism- brought those buildings down in the first place. I don't want to say organised religion is bad, so i'll go with the way that religion today is organised is bad. Take away political power from the church (or the mosque, or the temple or the synagogue) and people will understand that their religious beliefs are theirs alone, and they cannot lobby for or against things they happen to find wrong or immoral. And, fortunately enough, in the states you can do that; you have the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, however, those places that have religion and politics intertwined are a different, more difficult matter. In the meantime, take your religious glasses off and do something human/humane for those people who died in an otherwise thriving city and country would be my thought.

--also, i miss the thank you button, cause i'd like to press it Thorne.

[Thorne]

religious fundamentalism-whether it's christianity, or islam, or judaism- brought those buildings down in the first place.

Well said. Fanatical fundamentalism of ANY kind is dangerous.

--also, i miss the thank you button, cause i'd like to press it Thorne.

Just be careful! Some people don't react well to having their buttons pressed! :0

[TantricSoul]

I was particularly impressed by the following quote:
"If the Wisconsin mosque had not been allowed to be built, I, at 17, might have put up walls and become a different person," [Zuhdi Jasser] said. "If we start preventing these from being built, the backlash will be increased radicalization."

If we want to see terrorist camps set up in the US, isolating and attacking peaceful Muslim neighbors is the right way to go about it. After all, that's basically what got things started in the Middle East, more than a thousand years ago.

That quote from the article really struck me as well, and I feel your comment is dead on.

Thank you Thorne for your views, nice to see I am not the only one struggling with finding sense here.

[TantricSoul]

I think they should re-build the Towers there and make the bottom two floors a memorial center in each building and surround them with temples of all faiths...

I was thinking in a very similar pattern regarding some sort of "all faiths center" or venue on that site that would serve as a memorial in the spirit of promoting understanding, tolerance and harmony. Perhaps a cultural museum, or something similar, for those that would rather understand through logical, and analytical thought processes?

Thanks denu for your comment!

[denuseri]

Okay, I can go along with rebuilding the towers, though I don't know why you would want to, except just for spite.

Lets call it having faith that no one will kncok them down again perhaps...setting the example that despite the violence of others that somewhere somehow people can rebuild.

I can even go along with the memorial center, surrounded by temples of all faiths. (That would be a LOT of temples, though.)

They could be shrines as opposed to full fledge temples.

But no way can you equate science with faith.

Um sorry to burst your bubble sunshine but I just did..and do...all the time in fact. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like one...well then...to me its a duck just like all the others.

Science is a study of reality.

Wow, it just so happens that religion involves a lot of that too.

No faith involved. There's a certain amount of trust, (faith by any other word) perhaps. I trust that those scientists who have passed muster with other scientists, and whose research has been validated by still other scientists, are probably right as far as we can know at the time. But there's no faith at all.

Sounds just like how the congregation of any paticular faith "trusts" in the tennents of it's way and the word of those who went before them.

And what is "the faith of having no faith" supposed to mean? It's a contradiction. IF you are referring to atheism, or even agnosticism, then I have to point out that there's no faith involved there, either. It's a LACK of faith! A LACK of belief. I do NOT have a belief that there are no gods. I just do not have any belief in gods. A subtle but meaningful difference.

Oh yes,,, back to the ducks I see...faith in a lack of somthing is faith all the same.

As for your temples, therefore, we don't need one for "the faith of having no faith", since there are no atheist temples. No one would come to them anyway. There are more productive ways to make use of a Sunday. And if you have to associate a temple with science, make it a museum, one devoted to the lunacy and irrationality of belief in superstitions. And the even greater lunacies, and irrationalities, of killing and dying for those superstitions.

The memorial will be devoted to peace (not to vehment anti-religos slogans that are by their very nature bellicose and unproductive to the institution of said peace), as will all of the temples of all of the faiths...to show that despite what one's beliefs are, (even if its to believe in not believeing or to only believe in what one thinks science can prove or not etc) that one should not resort to violence or extremism.

[Thorne]

Lets call it having faith that no one will kncok them down again perhaps...setting the example that despite the violence of others that somewhere somehow people can rebuild.

I will grant the belief that people can rebuild. As for having faith that no one will knock them down again, sorry, I won't go that far. There's always at least one nut out there who will take it as his personal mission to screw things up.

They could be shrines as opposed to full fledge temples.

Still, a lot of shrines, if you intend to represent every faith.

But no way can you equate science with faith.

Um sorry to burst your bubble sunshine but I just did..and do...all the time in fact. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like one...well then...to me its a duck just like all the others.

Then perhaps you can explain to me how science walks and sounds like religion.

Science is a study of reality.

Wow, it just so happens that religion involves a lot of that too.

Not even close! Religion is a study in wishful thinking, at best.

Sounds just like how the congregation of any paticular faith "trusts" in the tennents of it's way and the word of those who went before them.

The difference is that the scientists have evidence and experimental validation, verified by other scientists, and usually predictions based upon their evidence and experiments. All reproducible by others, if they are willing to take the time to study and learn. Religion has no evidence, no verification, no reproducibility. It's speculation and snake oil, in roughly equal measures.

Oh yes,,, back to the ducks I see...faith in a lack of somthing is faith all the same.

Sorry, I have to disagree. A faith in the lack of something (which is NOT atheism) is not equivalent to a lack of faith in something (which IS atheism). As an atheist I don't say, "I believe there are no gods." Rather I say, "There is no evidence for gods, therefore belief in gods is not justified." Show me valid, reproducible, reasonably incontrovertible evidence for gods and I will change my position.

The memorial will be devoted to peace (not to vehment anti-religos slogans that are by their very nature bellicose and unproductive to the institution of said peace), as will all of the temples of all of the faiths...to show that despite what one's beliefs are, (even if its to believe in not believeing or to only believe in what one thinks science can prove or not etc) that one should not resort to violence or extremism.

A noble cause, to be sure. And if it ever came to be I would be very surprised if some fundamentalist, of any stripe, didn't try to destroy it within a year. Just for spite.

[Lion]

Getting back to the Islamic centre, I'm disappointed. Equating all Muslims to the ones that killed people is like equating Hitler to Catholics or KKK to all the whites of America. For the last 9 years, a lot of right wing commentators and politicians have repeatedly claimed that the moderate muslims are remaining quiet while the fanatical ones are doing all the talking. Fact is that barely anyone reports what moderate muslims do, it just doesn't make good news. No one is going to report the fact that the group that a few of my friends were in raised enough money to give away free food to poorer neighbourhoods, or that there have been community outreach programs or that there are muslim vets out there that served their country with distinction. One muslim goes on a rampage, and it's terrorism. One decides to act like a fucking douchewad and everyone in the entire religion is now a suspect.

It is highly offensive to me, as a Muslim to hear how people say the Islamic community centre is a slap in the face to those who died. To those who claim that, they either have never bothered finding out if there is a distinction between murderers and the rest of us, and brand us all under one assumption. If it was a YMCA, would there be an uproar? And what truely disgusts me is that people with the resources to find out more fail to do so, or out of sheer and willing ignorance spew out false hatred and accusations. Newt Gringrich comes to mind. How he is respected is beyond me.

[Thorne]

Well said, Lion. In principal, at least, I agree with what you've said. People shouldn't all be tarred with the same brush. We are all individuals, each capable of making our own decisions.

Truth be told, though, it's not only moderate Muslims who are ignored. Almost anyone who does something good, something for the community, is relegated to the back pages of the news, or 4 in the morning television. Good news doesn't sell.

The other problem as I see it, both among Muslims and among Catholics, is the profound silence coming from the moderate ranks. Why aren't the moderate Muslims up in arms about the death sentence for a woman convicted based solely upon the whim of a Sharia Judge? Why aren't moderate Muslims protesting the virtual enslavement of women? Why aren't Catholics howling at the Vatican over pedophile priests? Why aren't they protesting the excommunication of those who saved the life of a 9 year old rape victim while embracing her rapist?

The Islamic center in New York should not be prevented from being built, and it should be embraced by all Americans, of whatever creed, as a sign of peace. But this country was badly wounded, emotionally, by the events of 9-11. There is still a lot of anger, and a lot of fear. More rational discourse by moderate Muslims, more condemnation of the fanatics by the moderates, would go a long way towards healing those wounds.

[bip0lar]

oooor, and here i am unfortunately repeating myself, take the religious part of your identity (whatever that religious part may be) and keep it deep deep inside. Even though, as both Lion and Thorne said, there are Muslims who do good deeds, *just like Christians and Jews, and Hindus and whatnot* I do not see that as a product of religion. Good deeds are a product of humanity. So do your good deeds as a human for other humans, instead of Muslims for Muslims and Christians for Christians and so on and so forth. If, after all, it was only one's religion that drove them to good deeds, then morals would bring completely different results.
Unfortunately Thorne is right, good news doesn't sell. Then again it doesn't have to. Just do it, for yourself, your community and your peers. (and if you do wish to, do it for your god too)

[MMI]

The other problem ... is the profound silence coming from the moderate ranks.

... more condemnation of the fanatics by the moderates, would go a long way towards healing those wounds.

Those words bear repeating:

The other problem ... is the profound silence coming from the moderate ranks.

... more condemnation of the fanatics by the moderates, would go a long way towards healing those wounds.

It does, however, call for a certain amount of bravery for moderates to step forward and stand out against the fanatics: sometimes an extraordinary amount of bravery. They risk public notice - which many silent moderates want to avoid, or it sometimes means being ostracised by the community you belong to. And, of course, where fanatics are involved, it sometimes means risking life or limb. It's understandable why moderates are frequently conspicuous by their absence, but that's not to justify their reluctance to stand up for their beliefs in the face of their "co-religionists".

[Thorne]

Those words bear repeating:

Thank you. Nice to know that once in a while I make sense. Hard to believe, I know.

It does, however, call for a certain amount of bravery for moderates to step forward and stand out against the fanatics: sometimes an extraordinary amount of bravery. They risk public notice - which many silent moderates want to avoid, or it sometimes means being ostracised by the community you belong to. And, of course, where fanatics are involved, it sometimes means risking life or limb. It's understandable why moderates are frequently conspicuous by their absence, but that's not to justify their reluctance to stand up for their beliefs in the face of their "co-religionists".

Yes, I do understand this aspect of it, too. One of the reasons why I sometimes feel like advocating, "Do unto others before they do unto you." Sometimes the only way to fight the fanatics is on their own terms. And unfortunately, many times those terms involve death. This seems to be especially prevalent in Islam, where a relative handful of insane clerics seem to want to drag their people back into the Middle Ages. And there are always those who will follow the insane, if for no other reason than that it gives them an excuse to do things they would like to do anyway, without having to worry about their consciences. I wish I knew a better solution than, "Kill them all!" That only puts me on their level.

[Lateques]

I find it interesting that this exact phraseology exists for this thread on 5 other boards, both vanilla and kinky. It showed up over the weekend. I think we're all being victimized by pro-islamist spin and talking points. I think a talking point went out and posters hired to start these threads to influence public opinion.

Although I do not agree with the mosque being built so close, or their desires to celebrate it's opening on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, the first amendment clearly states they have the freedom of religion too. I find the structure of this 'community center' to be a slap in the face of the memory of those Americans who died that day, but they have the right to do this. We live in a free nation.

All of islam is not to blame for this rather lousy situation. Just a radicalized portion and those who support wahabbism. That is the real threat, not islam at large.

[Lion]

The other problem as I see it, both among Muslims and among Catholics, is the profound silence coming from the moderate ranks. Why aren't the moderate Muslims up in arms about the death sentence for a woman convicted based solely upon the whim of a Sharia Judge? Why aren't moderate Muslims protesting the virtual enslavement of women? Why aren't Catholics howling at the Vatican over pedophile priests? Why aren't they protesting the excommunication of those who saved the life of a 9 year old rape victim while embracing her rapist?

Thing is they/we are! Every time something like this happens, from the mosques to different Islamic organizations, the moderates are angry and increadibly vocal about all of this. The woman in Iran who has been sentenced to death for supposed adultry, people here are petitioning the Iranian embassy in Ottawa, the asshole Manhattan bomber who didn't detonate (thankfully) has been lambasted by everyone I know to be muslim. I can't speak for muslims in the east, but here, we're sick of bad news. Every imam has denounced all these idiotic actions in many sermons. As for the enslavement of women, you should see the activism that muslims are trying to do to rectify that. From fundraising for awareness and education for girls, there has been a push to address that as well.

Like I said, there is no coverage of all the steps muslims have taken to fighting all of this stuff. If there is no media outlet willing to do a segment (because the Clinton wedding and Lohan's incarceration was prime news) no one is going to find out.

[bip0lar]

I find it as naive to say "we're being victimised by pro-islamist spin and talking points" about this issue as to say "we're being victimised by pro-gay spin and talking points". Why? Because it's easy to see that, apart from it being one of their fundamental rights to be whatever religion they choose to be (speaking of adults here), it's basically their right to be different and not classified 'threats' just because of who they pray to. I'm sorry but things sometimes are black and white, they just are. You don't need to be for or against a religion to understand that it is comprised entirely of individuals. By taking 'muslims' and viewing them as a homogenous group we're only achieving more bigotry in our own communities. If only we viewed our whole neighbourhoods and towns and cities and countries as our community we would be able not only to co-exist with our peers, but to lead productive lives as individuals, but in a community that supports all.
I speak from an entirely anti-religious point of view here. Not only do I not believe in a god, i find the whole concept of religion destructive on society. Out of partial political correctness and a lot of faith in the individual however, I will defend the Muslims of 2010 only because the actions of few have had a mass impact on the lives of millions.

[TantricSoul]

... I think a talking point went out and posters hired to start these threads to influence public opinion.

You can rest assured that I started this thread as part of my own reaction to current events. No "talking point" bulletin was involved. No payments were recieved (darn it) and so on...

[Lateques]

Good to know tantric. I've seen other sites where it was posted by known political spinmeisters. It was just on this one, I realized I was seeing a pattern. No insult intended. Regardless also, I've been hearing it on talk radio people saying the same lines of "Muslims aren't allowed religious freedom." So it's been kinda pervasive over the last 36 hours.

[Thorne]

Like I said, there is no coverage of all the steps muslims have taken to fighting all of this stuff. If there is no media outlet willing to do a segment (because the Clinton wedding and Lohan's incarceration was prime news) no one is going to find out.

Yeah, I can sympathize with that. I just don't know HOW I would have survived if I'd had to listen to even ONE more news report of the good things Muslims are doing and so MISSED learning all about Chelsea and Lindsay! </sarcasm>

[Thorne]

Out of partial political correctness and a lot of faith in the individual however, I will defend the Muslims of 2010 only because the actions of few have had a mass impact on the lives of millions.

I couldn't care less about political correctness. I'm an atheist, yet I also defend the rights of individuals to subscribe to any faith they choose, not for political correctness but because it's the right thing to do. It's only when people try to foist their religion onto others that I will call foul.

Note that this doesn't mean I won't point out the fallacies of those religions when called for. I'm a firm believer in, "If you're willing to stick it out there, I'm willing to spank it!" (You ladies get that? It's not just a religious thing, you know!)

[bip0lar]

Thorne, you odd person.

[Thorne]

Thorne, you odd person.

Why thank you! That's one of the nicest compliments I've ever gotten here.

Of course, I'm actually trying for weird, but odd will do!

Thanks again.

[TantricSoul]

Actually Thorne is in fine form in this post and has been a great pleasure to read.
Especially that reminder for the ladies ... that had me laughing for a good long while!
Thanks my friend.

[Thorne]

Thanks for the complements, my friend. Always nice to make someone laugh.

Or scream.

Or both.

[DuncanONeil]

[QUOTE=TantricSoul;883304]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100808/...que_opposition


[COLOR="darkorange"]

Should NY not allow the Mosque to be built there? Why not?

I do not think this mosque should be built in this location. Shold they be allowed to build a mosque, yes. But I do have problems with the insistence on the location. The Imam or the board, or whatever, insists; that it must be in Lower Manhattan, that this is the only available location, no other properties are availble.
The stated reason for Lower Manhattan may be laudable but in spite of that it is at the same time insensitive. That same insistence can lead to further outbreaks of emotion. If the goal is to smooth over what happened why aggravate those you are trying to teach? I have learned that the majority of Muslims in NY actually live in Brooklyn. Traveling downtown to this mosque is likely to be minimal. It is said that such travel woulds actually take these worshipers past more than one other large mosque, further limiting the attendance. This information calls into question the requirement for a Muslim house of worship in Lower Manhattan. June vacancy rates for Manhattan is reported as 10%. In itself that means only that there are vacant spaces. Further; "a recent survey by the self-advocacy organization Picture the Homeless and the Manhattan Borough President's Office found 1,723 vacant buildings and 505 unused lots right in the heart of the Big, rent-gobbling Apple."

But what about the projects and incidents mentioned in the story above?

All of the incidents outside of the one mosque in NYC are deplorable. But I wonder how many of them are a result of the actions occurring in NYC?

Is that as understandable as the tensions in NY?

No! They are not as understandable as NYC. But as I said they may be a result of the intransigence in NYC.

I am curious and would like to see this issue from some other viewpoints.


Respectfully,
Tantric

[DuncanONeil]

Up until you got to "you have the separation of church and state" you were doing pretty good. There is a world of misunderstanding of this "so-called" separation. As people think of it does not exist. The Constitutional provision is that the Federal Government can not favor one religion over another nor can they set, or treat one religion as the religion of the land.

Not being from or having visited the States, the sight of rising Christian fundamentalism in conjunction with your internal politics makes my hair prickle. Documentaries like 'Jesus Camp', for example, scare me to the extent of wondering when (and if) the much bigger portion of rational Americans will not only stand up to them, but also take away their political power. The symbolism of ground zero now should be viewed from an entirely secular point of view, in my opinion, only because religious fundamentalism-whether it's christianity, or islam, or judaism- brought those buildings down in the first place. I don't want to say organised religion is bad, so i'll go with the way that religion today is organised is bad. Take away political power from the church (or the mosque, or the temple or the synagogue) and people will understand that their religious beliefs are theirs alone, and they cannot lobby for or against things they happen to find wrong or immoral. And, fortunately enough, in the states you can do that; you have the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, however, those places that have religion and politics intertwined are a different, more difficult matter. In the meantime, take your religious glasses off and do something human/humane for those people who died in an otherwise thriving city and country would be my thought.

--also, i miss the thank you button, cause i'd like to press it Thorne.

[denuseri]

According to the Associated Press:

After skirting the controversy for weeks, President Barack Obama is weighing in forcefully on the mosque near ground zero, saying a nation built on religious freedom must allow it.

"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country," Obama told an intently listening crowd gathered at the White House Friday evening to observe the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

The White House had not previously taken a stand on the mosque, which would be part of a $100 million Islamic community center two blocks from where nearly 3,000 people perished when hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001. Press secretary Robert Gibbs had insisted it was a local matter.

It was already much more than that, sparking debate around the country as top Republicans including Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich announced their opposition. So did the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights group.

Obama elevated it to a presidential issue Friday without equivocation.

While insisting that the place where the twin towers once stood was indeed "hallowed ground," Obama said that the proper way to honor it was to apply American values.

Harkening back to earlier times when the building of synagogues or Catholic churches also met with opposition, Obama said: "Time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues, and stay true to our core values and emerge stronger for it. So it must be and will be today."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent who has been a strong supporter of the mosque, welcomed Obama's words as a "clarion defense of the freedom of religion."

But some victims' advocates and Republicans were quick to pounce.

"Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see," said Debra Burlingame, a spokeswoman for some Sept. 11 victims' families and the sister of one of the pilots killed in the attacks.

Building the mosque at ground zero, she said, "is a deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah."

Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was killed at the World Trade Center, said the president had failed to understand the issue. "As an Obama supporter, I really feel that he's lost sight of the germane issue, which is not about freedom of religion," she said. "It's about a gross lack of sensitivity to the 9/11 families and to the people who were lost."

Added Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.: "President Obama is wrong. It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero."

Entering the highly charged election-year debate, Obama surely knew that his words would not only make headlines in the U.S. but be heard by Muslims worldwide. The president has made it a point to reach out to the global Muslim community, and the over 100 guests at Friday's dinner in the State Dining Room included ambassadors and officials from numerous nations where Islam is observed, including Saudi Arabia and Indonesia.

While his pronouncement concerning the mosque might find favor in the Muslim world, Obama's stance runs counter to the opinions of the majority of Americans, according to polls.

Opponents, including some Sept. 11 victims' relatives, see the prospect of a mosque so near the destroyed trade center as an insult to the memory of those killed by Islamic terrorists in the 2001 attacks.

Obama said Saturday that he didn't comment on "the wisdom" of putting a mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks — but rather was commenting on "the right" to build a mosque there.

[DuncanONeil]

I was thinking in a very similar pattern regarding some sort of "all faiths center" or venue on that site that would serve as a memorial in the spirit of promoting understanding, tolerance and harmony. Perhaps a cultural museum, or something similar, for those that would rather understand through logical, and analytical thought processes?

Thanks denu for your comment!

There are problems with this approach as well. Some faiths actually require land in its natural state as part of their facilities.