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

[denuseri]

So put a cup of earth in a little box for them.

[DuncanONeil]

I must say that it is possible that you misunderstand "repeatedly claimed that the moderate muslims are remaining quiet". You referred to Hitler. Did the Christians that disagreed with keep quite let him go his own way or did they denounce him?
The issue is that the doers of good in the Muslim faith do not make a point of denouncing those that claim to be of the faith are doing wrong. Nor are there any calls for them to cease their "evil" ways.

This is what is missing from the non-fanatical members of the Muslim faith. Here in the US we have a group that is soundly denounced for their misguided faith the; Westboro Baptist Church. Now they have a right to believe as they do but that right does not extend to imposing that belief of those that do not, by force. True they only use intimidation but intimidation is a form of force.

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.

[DuncanONeil]

In reality no one is suggesting it SHOULD NOT be built only dithering over the location.

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.

[DuncanONeil]

Sorry but I do not have to do that. In so doing you are insisting that I be permitted freedom of worship, but I have freedom of religion. I dare say even Thorne would not object if I used a greeting or salutation in regards to him that was religious in nature.

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)

[DuncanONeil]

Christians are instructed by their "Holy Book" to good to others. Muslims are instructed by their "Holy Book" to do good to other Muslims.
Does anyone see a problem with this?

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)

[DuncanONeil]

Those words bear repeating:



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".

I have actually seen some, I guess they qualify, moderate Muslims speaking out - mostly about the NYC mosque - But strangely they were all from Canada!

[DuncanONeil]

This is really the point those outside the community are trying to make. Decrying the bad acts of a few among themselves does little for the community at large. Such denunciations need to be outside of partisan services to be of real value to Muslim neighbors.

As can be seen by some of the shenanigans around the nation secrecy is not an ally in this matter.

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.

[DuncanONeil]

Don't think I responded to this yet.
The mosque in NYC is not a freedom of religion issue. It is a "freedom" of construction issue. That is not covered in any clause of the Constitution. In fact it is not a Federal matter at all.

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.

[TantricSoul]

Someone please explain to me how building a mosque near "ground zero" is insensitive, in a way that actually makes sense.

After all, the project under consideration isn't a Taliban HQ, or Al Queda training facility.

The people that initiated the attacks on September 11th used Islam as a cover for their own purposes. This is clearly so.

Holding a religion responsible for the actions of a few is disingenuous at best, if not purely ignorant.

What our country has done in Afghanistan and Iraq is called vengeance not justice.

"Christians are instructed by their "Holy Book" to good to others. Muslims are instructed by their "Holy Book" to do good to other Muslims.
Does anyone see a problem with this?"

Not at all ... the followers of both religions are simply human, and both texts are simply texts. I don't see many Christians following the instructions from their book either. They aren't called the "Ten Suggestions" ... and I do believe that "Thou shalt not murder" is one of them. And while this isn't a commandment, isn't "Love thy enemy" in there somewhere also?

Just saying ... yours is not better than theirs, nor is theirs better than yours. ( <<< meant universally not personally)

Respectfully,
Tantric

[DuncanONeil]

This is much the same as trying to make the case that the people that are opposed to Westborough Baptist Church activities at funerals of members of the military we must as a nation be opposed to the Babtist church. That this somehow is a suppression of the Baptist Church to exist or be considered a religion.

The issue of the thread was the location of a particular type of building. Something local governments accomplish on a regular basis. Why is this to be considered differently because there are Muslims involved?

I seriously doubt that a significant number of us are "viewing them as a homogenous(sic) group". But conversely to ignore the apparent fact that most of the worlds terror is being perpetrated by adherents of that religion is nearly as bad a position to take. Even people of consequence when speaking of terrorists and describing them always include the proper adjective. Why is it an inditement of ALL Muslims when this adjectival form is used?

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.

[DuncanONeil]

I'm sorry, but I have a bit of a problem with the quote; "Muslims aren't allowed religious freedom."
That is very cut and dried. I find it hard to believe that talk radio actually said that without some qualifications.

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.

[DuncanONeil]

You are too sharp to be wierd!!

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.

[DuncanONeil]

He can be as forceful as he wants but "religious freedom" and the "location of a house of worship" are not equivalent.
The building, and its location, is a civil matter, it is the use of the building afterward that is protected.

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]

After a long protracted thought process and laborious typing I timed out again.

Then I screwed up and pressed the wrong keys and lost everything!

Someone please explain to me how building a mosque near "ground zero" is insensitive, in a way that actually makes sense.

After all, the project under consideration isn't a Taliban HQ, or Al Queda training facility.

The people that initiated the attacks on September 11th used Islam as a cover for their own purposes. This is clearly so.

Holding a religion responsible for the actions of a few is disingenuous at best, if not purely ignorant.

What our country has done in Afghanistan and Iraq is called vengeance not justice.

"Christians are instructed by their "Holy Book" to good to others. Muslims are instructed by their "Holy Book" to do good to other Muslims.
Does anyone see a problem with this?"

Not at all ... the followers of both religions are simply human, and both texts are simply texts. I don't see many Christians following the instructions from their book either. They aren't called the "Ten Suggestions" ... and I do believe that "Thou shalt not murder" is one of them. And while this isn't a commandment, isn't "Love thy enemy" in there somewhere also?

Just saying ... yours is not better than theirs, nor is theirs better than yours. ( <<< meant universally not personally)

Respectfully,
Tantric

[Thorne]

You are too sharp to be wierd!!

On the contrary! Weird is NEVER dull.

[DuncanONeil]

On the contrary! Weird is NEVER dull.

Touche'

[Lion]

The issue is that the doers of good in the Muslim faith do not make a point of denouncing those that claim to be of the faith are doing wrong. Nor are there any calls for them to cease their "evil" ways.

Like I said, Muslims have been saying it for a while, if no one is there to announce that the hundreds of mosques around North America are denouncing this, how are you going to know?

Ideally, what would you have Muslims do? So far, from my own personal experience, I've seen Muslims imams denounce terrorism in their sermons whenever any of these events happen, I've seen millions raised to send to Muslim countries to improve education in order to stop kids being sent to these extremist camps and graduate in suicide bombing, I've participated in muslim groups that raise money for local programs, giving food to poor (of any faith/or no faith at all). And that's just me. I find it a little insulting you've stated that the doers of good do not make it a point of denouncing the evil, when you don't even know the whole truth. It's become a huge point of frustration among Muslims that nothing is good enough. At what point will it be acceptable for you? Should the Muslims of North America march up the National Mall and state they don't like what's being done in their name, all in the name of publicity, or would you rather them actually doing something worthwhile, contributing to their communities, and abroad to slow and eventually stop the atrocities done in the name of Islam.

Seeing what people have to say about Muslims, when I am one myself is disheartening. Seeing that they are people like you who think that all my attempts to be a part of this society, being fair and kind (to the best of my abilities) still isn't good enough, and that people still associate me with the murderers who knocked down those towers is downright low. Hearing prominent politicians like Newt saying that the mosque's name (Cordoba) is a covert method of Muslims to claim victory, while no other politican has the decency to correct him or call him out on his slander depresses me.

As much as I disagree with this point about it being insensitive, I do respect those who have those opinions. What I find disgusting is the method employed to eliminate the plans for this mosque. The imam of the mosque who is the imam that the west wants, moderate, with a wife who has a voice as vocal as his, has been labelled as a terrorist supporter, the funds for the mosque has come into question (no one would ask that of a YMCA or a Jewish community centre, but a Muslim one is fair game?).

[Thorne]

I have to go with Lion on this one. The main stream media does tend to ignore those Muslims who aren't shooting guns in the air and threatening death to America. And after seeing a news report on the cultural center (NOT a mosque) which they want to build, I think the right wing in this country is creating a tempest in a teapot.

Working from memory, according to Keith Olberman, the site for the building is technically two blocks from one corner of the WTC property, but is at least four blocks from the memorial. Once built, the center will contain sports facilities, including basketball courts, meeting rooms and two prayer rooms, as opposed to an area for religious services. The building site does not have a line of sight to the WTC sight, nor would the building be visible from the WTC. And most importantly, there is already a smaller Muslim cultural center right across the street from the WTC memorial, which has been there since before the towers were built, and which has caused absolutely no problems in all these years.

Basically, the right wing nuts are protesting because American Muslims have the audacity to want to build a Muslim center within 'X' distance of the WTC. If they decided to move it further away, I have no doubt that the value of 'X' would change accordingly. Basically, they are being dicks and stirring people up for no reason at all.

[DuncanONeil]

Like I said, Muslims have been saying it for a while, if no one is there to announce that the hundreds of mosques around North America are denouncing this, how are you going to know?

Doing it in the Mosque is preaching to the choir. That does nothing to tell the rest of the community what is going on!

[DuncanONeil]

Basically, the right wing nuts are protesting because American Muslims have the audacity to want to build a Muslim center within 'X' distance of the WTC. If they decided to move it further away, I have no doubt that the value of 'X' would change accordingly. Basically, they are being dicks and stirring people up for no reason at all.

What about the Greek Orthodox church that was within the footprint of the WTC the is apparently being prevented from rebuilding on its old site?

[Thorne]

What about the Greek Orthodox church that was within the footprint of the WTC the is apparently being prevented from rebuilding on its old site?

What does that have to do with a Mosque which will not even have line of sight with ground zero? The two are completely different. If the Greek Orthodox church were being built where they want to build this Mosque, do you think there would be any protests against it?

[DuncanONeil]

What does that have to do with a Mosque which will not even have line of sight with ground zero? The two are completely different. If the Greek Orthodox church were being built where they want to build this Mosque, do you think there would be any protests against it?

The Greek church wants its old location back and is apparently being denied that, while at the same time all this hoofarah about the mosque. It's like one has more rights than the other!

[Thorne]

The Greek church wants its old location back and is apparently being denied that, while at the same time all this hoofarah about the mosque. It's like one has more rights than the other!

I'm not certain about this, but there was a Muslim Center/Mosque right across the street from the two towers. It was damaged during 9/11, and their lease isn't being renewed. I believe that's why they want to build where they're trying to build.

But the difference is that the Greek Church wants to build (rebuild) AT ground zero. The mosque is 2-4 blocks away. There is a big difference.

[tedteague]

The problem is nicely summed up as such:
"we can't legally stop people from obeying the law"

[Thorne]

The problem is nicely summed up as such:
"we can't legally stop people from obeying the law"

Sure you can! Just change the law.