You’re missing the boat here Tony. The vast majority of Americans don’t want this mosque, quasi-mosque – or whatever it is – anywhere near Ground Zero. Altmire is a REPRESENATIVE!!! who’s merely doing his job – REPRESENTING his constituents.

Sadly, you are incorrect on both accounts, per your hyperlink, as to the characteristics of the Muslim Proposal.

First, it is NOT true that it is NOT a Mosque, simply because it also is to have other “cultural center” accoutrements. Indeed, this quote is from your hyperlinked piece: “And it’s also going to house a mosque.”

Second, it is indeed @ Ground Zero because the landing gear of Atta’s plane fell through its roof.

Note that these clarifications are delinked from any “political” considerations…such as the silence of the actual organizers of this effort (which is to break ground on September 11, 2011!).

Therefore, might you consider revising your derived commentary appropriately?

Robert-
There is a mosque at the Pentagon. Go there and protest.

Don’t any of you people realize that the goal of Bin Laden was to destroy America by getting us to panic, overreact, bankrupt ourselves with asymmetric warfare, and abandon our values in irrational fear?

By fighting moderate and modern Islamic activities, you ruin one of the best deterrents to terrorist recruiting and future attacks.

Plus, you are just embarrassing yourself and the country with the unmask bigotry.

As David points out, there is a mosque at the Pentagon which nobody is in an uproar about, and nor should they be.

However, the point of the article is not merely about the credibility of the debate. The point is that there is a far more serious situation that a Congressman should be doing something about.

Honestly, had Altmire expressed displeasure but then said “we should focus our attention and resources on showing why America is so good and helping people in distress,” I would heartily support him, even though I would disagree with his stance on the community center. There are far more important issues with actual consequence, and it is a shame that electioneering is such a greater priority than helping in a tragedy.

Tony and David:

This “disputational technique” of invoking moral equivalency doesn’t work when the facts get into the way.

Reformulate after you CHANGE your citation of your premises to ACCEPT the facts that (1)–The plan indeed is to construct a Mosque, and (2)–The building involved was indeed in “Ground Zero”!

Then, confront the fact that the Imam considers America to be an “accessory” to 9-11 and refuses to denounce the terrorism of Hamas/Hezbollah.

Next, note that the developer refuses to deny that funding for this $100 M project may be provided by Iran…and won’t allow “transparency” regarding the entire project.

And, please, don’t allow “politics” to get into the way of a cogent discussion of the specifics!

Tony: this is an excellent column. While I agree with you completely regarding the foolish approach being taken by many of my fellow Republicans over the mosque issue, I highly doubt that it would be a wise use of our tax dollars to ship cash over to Pakistan for “disaster relief,” especially when we have no idea how and where those funds will be used in a nation with a highly corrupt government.

As of this afternoon, the national debt stood at $13.3 trillion. Piling on to that by asking Congress to send public money to Pakistan just doesn’t make sense when personal, charitable donations to organizations such as the Red Cross (which you identified above) make much more sense.

Nathan,

I understand your concern about handing money to Pakistan. I also don’t think that is in the cards anyway. Funding can go to the UN, Red Cross, or other NGO’s aside from giving direct aid to Pakistan. Honestly, the corruption of Pakistani government might not even be as big of an issue as the instability of the government, which means giving to the Red Cross or other organizations is even more useful.

Congressmen like Altmire don’t have to appropriate new money from the budget to address the tragedy in Pakistan. He can just use his position as a Congressman to highlight the need for donations to the Red Cross, use his email list to ask for people to donate to care organizations (as many campaigns of both parties did after the tsunami), or even write an op-ed in the Post-Gazette about what people can do. But doing nothing is inexcusable from somebody with the power to accomplish something.

Finally, another person that thinks Altmire is a coward! The guy lacks the back bone to take tough votes as well as the work ethic necessary to sell tough votes to his constituents.

Tony… I agree with you completely in your post above. Thanks for clarifying and the strong endorsement of some type of action.

TB… I’ve known Jason Altmire for years and certainly don’t think he’s a coward. I disagree with him on the mosque issue, but I think he is an excellent man who represents the 4th District well. I used to live in the 4th before it was carved up and moved a bit north after the 2000 census. That district was represented in some way or another by Melissa Hart (2001-2007) and Ron Klink (1995-ish?-2001). Assuming that I have my history correct, the person who represented the district before that, Joe Kolter, went to prison.

While the borders changed a bit to include less of Westmoreland County and more of Mercer and Butler Counties in 2002, Jason Altmire is the best representative the 4th has had in many, many years. He’s smart, ethically sound, and thinks for himself. You can disagree with the man, but there’s no need to run him down personally.

Robert-
Are you suddenly worried about facts?

1) The site is cultural center, that will include a mosque.
2) It is not at Ground Zero. It’s two blocks away. The dust and debris carried for miles. How far away do you want to expand the radius to create a fake “zone”?

3) The Imam has been praised for years (including by the Bush administration) for his efforts to fight radical Islam and promote moderates as a deterrence to terrorism.

4) The issue with Hamas is over land rather than radical Islamic worship. There is no “moral equivalence” between Hamas/Hezbollah and the proposed cultural center.

BTW, I’m not an Imam (nor Muslim, Christian or Jew) and I’m appalled by Israel’s behavior in Gaza (phosphorus) and during the war with Lebanon (where Israel used cluster bombs). I think the US should break the embargo on Gaza. The leaders of Israel should be tried for war crimes.

5) 9/11 was partially the result of bad US policies in the mid-East. Considering our actions there, I’m surprised there aren’t more terrorists. The US has put OIL over everything else and supported the Saudi royal family, the Shah of Iran, arms to Iraq against Iran, etc.

6) So what if Iran contributes to an Islamic cultural center? Do you fail to acknowledge the existence of moderates in Iran?
We’ve got Christian groups in this country pouring money into churches and missionaries all over the world. Ann Coulter talked (“joked”?) about trying to convert all the Muslims to Christianity and killing the ones that refused.

7) The “politics” getting in the way are the demonizations of Muslims, the Imam and attempted limits of free exercise of religion by bigots for political gain.

David,

Well said on all counts.

NRS

“Ethically sound…..” ha ha ha

Well, DD, your comment (plus the uncritical endorsement by NS) provides a template with all that is wrong with the anti-Semites who infest America.

You admitted error regarding your characterization of the Imam’s plans, but you failed to acknowledge that more than “debris” fell through the roof of the factory-building.

I care not how others characterize the Imam, for it is preferable to base quality judgments on what he himself has said; it appears you also feel America was an “accessory” to 9-11, further marginalizing all of your other opinions.

It appears you side-stepped the issue of condemning the terrorism of Hamas/Hezbollah by the Imam, CAIR…and YOURSELF!

And I care not of whether you are “appalled” by Israel’s careful efforts to defend herself against indiscriminate bombings…or do you think it’s OK for projectiles to have rained daily upon Sderot?

And, regarding the arms-embargo of Gaza, you think Israel should provide food/clothing/shelter/medical-care AND military paraphernalia to those who have sworn to destroy her?

And, to top it off, you assume that only the “moderates” in Iran are contributing to the Mosque?

No one is demonizing anyone; we’re all just posing legitimate queries.

Do you also consider 5/14/1948 to be the “Nakba”?

TONY!

It’s time for you to weigh-in regarding the exchange I have just had with DD, for the results thereof will go a long way towards gaining a greater appreciation for your viewpoint…and its underpinnings.

If you can now start with modifying your factual database, you may generate different conclusions.

And if you would please weigh-in regarding some of the subsidiary points…such as whether you subscribe also to the belief that America was an “accessory” to 9-11…then your worldview will become far more transparent.

Robert

Perhaps the time is for you to allow others to think for themselves and to stop trying to demonize all who not share your views. Count me among the latter.

There are many mosques in the area and there was never a question of any kind concerning these mosques or their legitimacy as places of worship. . It is the size and scope and proximity of this particular $100 million dollar, 13th Story Mosque/Community Center funded by Iman with Wahhabi/Isamist connections. The source of funding, unusual for a project of this size, is far from transparent leading to more questions and inferences. .

The proximity to Ground Zero and the timing all justify the characterization Ground Zero and, of course, the name Cordoba with its Islamic significance all lead to conclusion that this Mosque/Community Center is not all what you say.

And there is only the evidence of the Imam’s own words that is an advocate of peace, justice, tolerance and moderation. Taqiyya, deception to advance Jihad, is cultural norm in Islamic and Islamist networks.

This mosque is a potential 5th column and the proponents seem to have confused Mr. Heyl and Mr. Diano.

Robert-
I’m not an anti-Semite nor infesting. I’m an Atheist and I find all religions equally stupid, hypocritical and intolerant of each other. Jerusalem is no more special to me than the McDonald’s restaurant down the street. Certainly not worth killing anyone over “in the name of God”. Recognizing that Jews and Muslims are no better or worse but equal, is not anti-Semitic (though to some idiots, it is).

Part of the plane being hurled two blocks away doesn’t make the building Ground “zero”. Maybe ground “two”. As for his characterization of America being an “accessory”, that’s putting it mildly. The CIA trained people like Bin Laden and his friends when we were help them fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. The 9/11 pilots trained in the US. Accessory is putting it kindly.

Ideas like us “reaping what we’ve sown” are rather valid. Our CIA destabilized Iran and engineered 25 years of brutal dictatorship (and the secret police force called Savak). In the 1980′s, we armed Iraq, as our proxy, to fight Iran and kill a hundred thousand of Iranians as the US supported Iraq’s chemical weapons program. There is NO QUESTION that US policy has caused plenty of deaths in the Mid-East in our pursuit of oil.

I don’t believe in the gotcha litmus test that one must condemn each individual terrorist group or act of terrorism, rather than accept someone’s blanket denouncement of terrorism. Why don’t YOU denounce Israel’s NON-defensive use of phosphorous and cluster-bombs and indiscriminate killing of civilian non-combatants? Israel punishes everyone, not just it’s attackers. Kill ratios of 100-to-1 are not self-defense.

Besides the fact that Israel is illegally building in Gaza, they don’t have the right to stop OTHERS from providing food/clothing/shelter/medical-care with their embargo/blockade. The military excuse is the standard BS dual-use argument: plumping pipes “could” be used to make pipe-bombs, so Gaza gets no plumbing supplies.

The majority of the population (especially the children) haven’t “sworn” to destroy Israel. But, if they embargoed you this way, I’d bet you’d be ready to swear against them. You already seem willing to condemn all Muslims for the actions of a few.

Why would CAIR need to be condemned? It’s no more a terrorist organization than any other anti-defamation group.

As for who’s funding the NYC cultural center: if non-moderates wind up providing some of the funding, the jokes going to be on them. Better their money gets spent on an peace-promoting activity than on guns and bombs. Reagan was happy to take money from gay Republicans, then screw them up the a$$ (and not in the good way).

You aren’t posing legitimate queries. You are engaging in fear-mongering, guilt by association and race-baiting which is all being promoted and manipulated for political gain.

Bob-
Fifth column? Are you smoking crack?

BTW, a $100 million infusion into NYC would be a nice boost to the local economy. I wish someone would build a $100 million mosque near the Liberty Bell and help out Philly.

Great parody: OUTRAGE OVER PLANS TO BUILD LIBRARY NEXT TO SARAH PALIN
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/outrage-over-plans-to-build-library-next-to-sarah-palin-201008193017/

The thematic issues raised by DD can be dispelled succinctly, thusly:

1. Just because he is an atheist, that does not mean he can disrespect the interests of others who are religious.

2. Just because circumstances prompted America to help one side in a conflict, that does not mean that changing circumstances cannot yield altered allegiences.

3. Just because a lengthy response has been provided, that does not mean that the specific questions raised IN ALL-CAPS have been addressed.

4. Just because he dismisses the fact that the landing gear from 9/11 hit the building that would be razed to make the Mosque, that does not mean that others would be so blithe as to ignore the emotions associated with this particular entity be viewed also as an “accessory” shrine.

5. Just because some civilians have been killed during wartime (as the terrorists have located their military targets purposely in civilian neighborhoods), that does not mean that Israel has targeted civilians.

6. Just because Israel has dispatched more Palestinian Terrorists than IDF-casualties have occurred, that does not mean that “disproportionate force” has been employed.

7. Just because CAIR has not itself been ID’ed as a terrorist organization, that does not mean that it is exempt from condemning those that are.

8. Just because you may adjudge monies to be spent futilely, that does not mean that the donors to this Mosque would not try to enhance its educational-efforts to promote Sharia-Law.

9. Just because we question the appropriateness of placing this Mosque @ this site, that does not mean that we are fear-mongering.

10. Just because you feel you can toss wild tangential accusations into this blog, that does not mean you are able to avoid confronting the vacuousness of your arguments.

11. Just because your cultural mien suggests that Sarah Palin must immediately be targeted (regardless of the cogency of her arguments), that does not mean you can provide what you consider to be a satiric hyperlink and feel you can avoid confronting reasonable attacks on your dismissive/aloof posture.

If Liberals view Patriotism as the last refuge of the scoundrel, then Conservatives and Independents should be recognized as viewing accusations of “Racism” as the last refuge of the elitist.

I was away having a pleasant evening with friends tonight instead of trying my best to stir up controversy.

Instead of going point by point, I’d like to say that I’m a bit disappointed in my original point being missed by these comments and it yet again degenerating into a back and forth on claims about Islam or this Imam or other ‘very scary things.’

My point was that demagoguing this issue, which candidates and Representatives have unfortunately done, along with cohorts in the media, has distracted for an actual tragedy. Sadly, some commenters have decided that distraction is still more important than grappling with a disaster that is ongoing in Pakistan.

The accusations that this center will be anything other than peaceful and respectful are tenuous at best and it strikes a poor tone to immediately assume the worst in people or a group of people based on their race, religion, ethnicity, etc. It saddens me to see what the dialogue has become and that such talk is not just merely tolerated, but accepted as truth. Meanwhile, this devastating crisis in Pakistan deserves attention. It is in our best interest, as a country and a people, to devote our attention to doing good.

I’m sorry that message got lost so easily in these comments.

Robert-
1) It’s not so much that I “disrespect” the views of religion (though I do), but rather that I have no stake in any of them. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. have no more validity to me than Voodoo, or the Gods of Mt. Olympus. They are all equally based on fiction and fantasy. So, while people have every right to waste their time worshiping and building houses of worship to mythical beings, I do not acknowledge their “right” to inflict harm on others in support of their false beliefs.

2) You ignore the questions of:
a) Did we have any right to take sides in the first place?
b) Why are you (and your ilk) unwilling to acknowledge that our interference has yielded negative consequences, blowback, and unintended harm against US interests?

3) I thought I answered your “ALL CAPS” by clearly stating that no condemnation by CAIR or myself is required. The problem is rooted in your false premise that condemnations are required, which I further showed the fallacy of by pointing out actions that you haven’t condemned.

4) The landing gear hitting the building doesn’t grant the building magical status. It’s an old Burlington coat factory store. The “emotions” that are being evoked have NOTHING to do with landing gear, but with a false association of this community center with the attackers.

5) Actually, Israel destroyed many civilian targets in the war with Lebanon to prevent civilian communities from rebuilding. The cluster bombs essentially leave little landmines that often kill civilians weeks, months and years later, especially children (because the bomblets look like toys). Israel has had no problem destroying buildings with families in order to “get” a terrorists under a policy that put “human shields” as acceptable losses. However, Israel did use Palestinian children as human shields to protect Israeli soldiers.

6) You’ve got a point. However, Israel’s actual use of Disproportionate Force IS what occurred. The 100-to-1 kill ratio is just one of the results of the disproportionate force. Leveling of buildings (including supermarkets) is another result.

7) CAIR is neither exempt nor required. I don’t think the Girl Scouts have condemned Hamas lately. The local little league teams haven’t put out a press release either. Gosh, does that mean they support Hamas, by the omission of condemnation?

One of the major motivations of cultural centers like this is to update Islam and modify/modernize Sharia-Law and take it out of the Dark Ages. In the US, despite the plague of fundamentalists, we don’t implement the various punishments recommended by the Bible. You should be at least as concerned about those trying to impose Biblical law which calls for the death penalty for adultery and gay sex.

9) No, it’s the false arguments you make beyond “appropriateness” that are the fear mongering. You also happen to be wrong on the appropriateness as well.

10) Actually, I’ve confronted the vacuousness of your arguments and filled the void.

11) There is no cogency to any of Palin’s arguments. That’s what makes her such an appropriate target for the parody of building a library near her, as she’s the antithesis of knowledge and culture.

Liberals aren’t against Patriotism, but are against false Patriotism used to promote war, injustice, hatred, racism, etc. We call out racism where we see it. There’s nothing elitist about recognizing attempts to discriminate against members of a particular race or ethnicity.

Tony-
I think the problem with aid to Pakistan is the concern (realistic or not) as to whether aid given will actually reach the people in need or instead be used by the Pakistan government for some other purpose. This is likely due to the revelations that anti-terrorism money was used instead for the Pakistan military on the Indian border.

Dave Diano openly, viciously, contemptuously, defiantly, insultingly expresses his hostility for religious belief and for religious people:

‘I’m an Atheist and I find all religions equally stupid, hypocritical and intolerant of each other. Jerusalem is no more special to me than the McDonald’s restaurant down the street. Certainly not worth killing anyone over “in the name of God”. Recognizing that Jews and Muslims are no better or worse but equal, is not anti-Semitic (though to some idiots, it is).”

In fact, it is the atheistic, godless ideologies of Fascism, Soviet Communism, Maoist Communism, Cambodian Communism, Vietnamese Communism that have killed more people in the 20th century than all the religious wars in history. And WWI was not fought for religious reasons, was it? In fact, there is not one single war or mass murder in the 20th or 21st century that is religiously motivated. They were motivated by atheistic ideologies that deny the unique value of each individual with unalienable rights endowed by Our Creator, immutable, absolute, reliable.

DD’s failure to recognize the differences between the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Islamist Jihadist Ideology accounts for this blindness to the threat within this country from a 5th column of an implacable enemy fanatically committed to replacing the Constitutional Rule of Law with Shariah.

Se know the purpose of the Mosque because centuries of Islamic teaching have taught some of us.

The word “Islamism” is used to describe a murderous ideology similar to the other murderous ideologies we know so well.

http://crnblog.org/?p=2538

There is a transcendental unseen reality, infinite, eternal, beyond time and space, b’olam, is there not? Does not every broken heart tell you that? Is there not a personal, interventionist God who cares what we do and that that Sinai speaks to everyone of us every moment?

FYI dr. bob and I (known as The Bob, two minds, one voice) are on the national board of JewsforSarah http://jewsforsarah.com Sarah Palin is a genius http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010

/08/sarah_palin_wordsmith.html

The most efficient way to reply globally is, first, to reprint what I just posted on “The Hill” website:

Anyone wishing a crash-course on the FACTS regarding this controversy — and wanting to learn why it has burgeoned during the past week — is invited to find the 8/20/2010 Hannity program (which may very well be rebroadcast over the weekend) themed on this issue.

The first half-hour is roughly divided into three segments: the origin of the situation (including quotes from myriad politicians), the prior-quotes from the Imam (including placement thereof into “Sharia”-oriented context, and the way this controversy has been (mis)portrayed by the Liberal Media (led by the Media Research Council).

The second half-hour contains pithy-quotes from 30 opinionated voters (17 of whom had voted for Obama), and the viewer will undoubtedly find at least one person articulating his/her feelings.

*

Although less sexy than the aforementioned quotes about the Nazis and the Japanese, Newt has echoed my perspective (included in Hannity’s hour-long expose), namely, that this particular building IS a “shrine” because the landing gear of one of the planes fell through its roof.

In addition, the extended-quotes from Rauf (annotated, in particular, by Robert Spencer, a no-nonsense expert in the Qur’an), illustrate his underlying goal (actually amplified by a young woman who is both his adherent and a filmmaker) of enhancing the capacity of Sharia Law to infiltrate American Culture and Jurisprudence.

That the Muslim’s classical approach to women is undoubtedly troublesome, this SHOULD prompt the Liberals to hesitate before reflexly supporting this effort (the leader of which has avoided public discussion).

*

And that most of the D’s (including Bloomberg) have manifest their elitist posturing (constantly citing the First Amendment and the essence of RLUIPA) rather than dealing with emotions; they have thereby failed to honor their responsibilities as probing leaders and as keepers-of-the-flame…less than a decade after 9-11.

It’s easy to divine whether this is a triumphalist effort vs. an ecumenical bonding. Its leadership (and its funding) undoubtedly bespeaks unconstitutional (oil v. water) underpinnings, assuming anyone is listening.

This is not merely a news-item that will fill an otherwise boring end-of-August vacuum, for there is plenty-else afoot (skyrocketing unemployment and debt, for starters)’ this is why Pelosi wants to investigate the funding of Mosque-opponents, as if this will somehow yield evidence of a partisan conspiracy.

*

To conclude: the import of this spontaneous debate (coupled with the widespread uncertainty regarding Obama’s religious faith) is to allow a coalescence of opposition to his policies and growing unpopularity of his mien (particularly after all the lavish overseas vacationing).

Obama (and the D’s who practice “identity politics”) will continue to cry “racism…xenophobia” at his peril, for the not-so-silent majority is speaking loudly, nationally; he is not reflecting the ability to relate with Everyman who frets @ the kitchen-table that he can fulfill his/her individualism within a world built upon American Exceptionalism.

He cannot continue to “have it both ways” rhetorically, attempting to parse “rights” and “wisdom,” for he is expected now to demonstrate the ability to unify (as he has failed thus-far to do); in the absence of such a posture, the D’s will continue to jump-ship (notwithstanding efforts to fight “nationalizing” their races by demonizing their own R-opponents).

This should kick-start a rebuttal to this claim: “The accusations that this center will be anything other than peaceful and respectful are tenuous at best and it strikes a poor tone to immediately assume the worst in people or a group of people based on their race, religion, ethnicity, etc.”

These accusations are predicated specifically on the speeches of the Imam who wants to run the joint (now that we have all accepted, I hope, that it is envisioned BOTH as a “community center” AND as a MOSQUE).

It is potentially “other than peaceful” if its ideological tilt will be towards imposition of Sharia Law in these United States by an Imam who views America as an “accessory” to 9-11.

This was not an “immediate” posture, adopted to demagogue the issue; rather, it evolved from studying the specifics, rather than engaging in reflex-denial.

It is grossly-inappropriate to enlarge this discussion beyond what it should be perceived to be; opponents to THIS mosque at THIS site run by THIS Imam are TROUBLED by THIS mosque (not just a “community center”) at THIS site (hallowed ground) fun by THIS Imam (who articulates what some would consider seditious opinions).

Tony, why not be fact-driven, rather than simply lamenting predictable posturing? Tony, why not focus on the documented challenges I have articulated regarding THIS situation? Tony, why not liberate yourself from group-think and scrutinize the little we know about this Imam (and his funding, including that of his real-estate agent and the flamboyant internet-writer he employs).

Regarding DD’s commentary, in deference to Tony, the temptation to engage in a customary back-and-forth will be deferred…other than to state simply that every assertion is inapposite to generally-recognized truths. For example, it was the Hamas/Hezbollah terrorist who uses “civilians” as human shields, certainly not Israelis.

He knows he is trying to be provocative when he admits that he hardly cares because he doesn’t have any skin-in-the-game (being an atheist)…as if self-interest should determine one’s commitment to resolving conflict. He reveals himself as a typical-D, less interested in ethics and more focused on satirizing his perceived-opponent.

Self-marginalization will now follow him, whenever one of his postings arises, assuming he continues to avoid hiding behind a pseudonym. He will be forced to wear the albatross of having failed to condemn terrorist organizations and having concurred with the view that America was an Accessory to 9-11.

In short, opposition to this Mosque-construction plan (to break-ground on 9/11/2011!) is less related even to fearing Islamic Triumphalism than it is to the need to allow 9-11 mourners (and those who sympathize with their residual moods) the feeling that their “Never Again, We Pray!” attitudes will not be forgotten by busy Americans…who are burdened with job-hunting and burdensome-taxes.

Therefore, Tony, please confront the SPECIFICS of what I have articulated and grapple with the inevitable conclusions derived through thought (and notwithstanding noble, albeit tangential, concerns with Pakistani flooding…predicated on a columnist’s understandable tendency to slip into moral-relativism). It is not insensitive to relegate a natural disaster to secondary-consideration in this instance (note, even Obama failed to visit Nashville after its major-flood). PLEASE REFORMULATE YOUR POSITION ACCORDINGLY!

“Typical D” is so dead on accurate not much more need be said except “Never Again We Pray”.

Three Things You Probably Did Not Know about Islam published by White Rose from Germany

http://www.inquiryintoislam.com/2010/07/three-things-about-islam-video.html

However, instead of appealing to our best nature, people like Congressman Altmire, who should know better, devote their time to stirring up fears to get votes.

And do you want to know why? Because politicians like Congressman Altmire need votes to keep their jobs and the power and perks that come with them!

The GOP has nothing to offer but fear, what I fear most is that they will succeed.

If Pakistan wants our help maybe they should not support and give shelter to the terrorists that attack us. If you think they need help then get on a plane and go help them. God know it would be nice to get rid of your dribble and whining for a while.

Bob-
“In fact, there is not one single war or mass murder in the 20th or 21st century that is religiously motivated.”
Really? I didn’t realize you were a Holocaust denier. What do YOU think happened to those 6 million Jews?

Going back a little before the 20th century, there was that whole “Crusades” thing which spanned a few hundred years.

It’s your very attitude about Muslims compared to Christians/Jews that reveals you bigotry and paranoia. YOU use the word “Islamist” as a synonym for terrorist, falsely portraying every practitioner of Islam as a terrorist hellbent on mayhem and murder.

Again with the “fifth column”?

If you think that’s their purpose, then it doesn’t really matter where they build the mosque. 2 blocks or 2,000 miles away. What about that mosque that’s already inside the Pentagon?

Robert-
Hannity is your source? Talk about propaganda. The Daily Show has already deconstructed the FoxNews talking points on this. You’ve got nothing short of pure partisan politics at play to induce fear for political gain.

The idea that one Imam in one building containing one mosque is going to ‘impose Sharia Law’ on America is beyond any form of logic. You should be more worried about people like Palin and Santorum who want to control the White House and institute a (distorted) Christian theocracy and removed the separate of church and state.

You wrote:
it was the Hamas/Hezbollah terrorist who uses “civilians” as human shields, certainly not Israelis.
Please check out:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6715417.ece
A group of Israeli soldiers who fought in the recent war in Gaza have testified that the military allowed them to use reckless force.
The 26 soldiers published their anonymous accounts in a booklet compiled by Breaking the Silence, an Israeli soldiers’ organisation.
They describe the Israeli army’s use of human shields and deliberate targeting of civilian structures.

You’re complaining about leaders citing and following the First Amendment over keeping emotions inflamed?

The funding of the Mosque opponents is probably based on the reasonable assumption that it’s being funded by the RNC and affiliates for political purposes. Revealing the political motivations would put the debate (and some ulterior motives) into context.

“widespread uncertainty regarding Obama’s religious faith”??? Umm… he’s a Christian. There’s no uncertainty about it. Of course, there’s still a lot of ignorant people who think the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that the Sun revolves it.
You’ve got people on the Right, like Limbaugh, constantly implying to their not-too-bright listeners that Obama is dangerous Muslim. Rush refers to “Imam Obama” and calls Obama the “first anti-American President”.

It’s not difficult to connect the dots.

The site of the community center is not “hallowed” ground. Nobody died there. There are strip clubs in the same area (though, they are probably generating some extra cries of “Oh, God!”).

Actually, satirizing you and your friends is pretty easy, since you are doing most of the work yourself. My lack of having a player in the game DOES give me a perspective with some impartiality that you lack.

There’s no shame in failing to play the “condemnation” game. I’m still waiting for you to condemn the worst of Israel’s actions.

There are also 9/11 mourners who SUPPORT the building of the community center as a way to demonstrate American values and determination. The 9/11 victims who can’t get past this should seek some counseling (and maybe a refresher course on the constitution).

“It is not insensitive to relegate a natural disaster to secondary-consideration” ???
You’ve got people dying and suffering vs complaining about someone putting up a building. Gee, that’s a real tough call there.

JB and Bill-
correct.

Jeff-
That’s mighty “Christian” of you (NOT!).

Why is nobody arguing the first & fifth amendments here? In this country you have the Constitutional Right to practice your religion freely, and the Constitutional Right to your property not being seized for public use.

Is building this mosque ill-advised, or in bad-taste? Possibly, and many will certainly see it that way.

But is it constitutionally protected? Absolutely 100% yes. And so is the constitutional right of people who disagree with it to protest.

One other thing…

Bob, there is an element of irony in your statements, since it was not that long ago that anti-conservative activists protested your gym in Philadalphia because of your political donations and leanings, and you were forced to sell your business.

—————————–
“There is really a guy named Bob Guzzardi. He is a free-market Republican who is a generous giver to various conservative PACs and candidates, including U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum.

Guzzardi is also co-owner of the 12th Street Gym in Philly, in the heart of the city’s gay neighborhood.

Recently, Guzzardi has been targeted by gay activists, who organized a boycott of 12th Street and staged a rally there Monday to leaflet folks, urging them to vote with their feet and quit the gym because of Guzzardi’s support of Santorum.

Guzzardi punted before the protest even began. He agreed to sell his share in the gym to his business partner and on-site manager, Rick Piper.

That didn’t stop the rally. The message of all the speakers was: Santorum is antigay, ergo anyone who supports Santorum is supporting the antigay agenda.

As Ray Murphy, one of the organizers, put it to me: “No one is challenging his right to give money to Santorum, but if you do, you cannot depend on us to give you our money.”

Not antigay

Guzzardi and his brothers are property owners in the neighborhood and, by all accounts, responsible ones.

They run good operations. They contribute to the local group, the East of Broad Association, which promotes and protects the neighborhood.

No one has accused Guzzardi himself of being antigay. His friends (I couldn’t reach him yesterday) say that Guzzardi, who is a convert to Judaism, supports Santorum mostly because the Republican incumbent is a big backer of Israel.
So what have we got here?

In both cases – the fictional Tony and the real Bob Guzzardi – we’ve got people being penalized for exercising their rights as citizens to support causes of their choice.

Political giving, the courts have found, is a form of free speech, protected by the First Amendment…. If you don’t respect free speech, answer me this: What is it you do respect? “

One of the dangers of becoming engaged with a writer such as DD is that he will have the tendency to corrupt a thought, thus prompting endless clarifications. This phenomenon has been rampant in his postings, as evidenced by how he distorted the point Guzzardi made about WW-II; he didn’t say that the war was primarily fought by one religion against another; rather, he focused on a Godless ideology that was the culprit [Nazism], along with others such as the Communists.

I was not left unscathed, reminiscent of the concept that the individual who sets the agenda will have a greater chance of winning an election. Thus, rather than remain focused on the Mosque, we are now refighting Gaza. OF COURSE, both the IDF and myself (and Guzzardi) would condemn blatant violations of war-ethics, but this is tangential to whether Hamas/Hezbollah are themselves TERRORIST organizations.

He may not have religious “skin” in the game, but this posturing reflects his profound commitment to involvement of his perspective when attempting to clarify the forces at-play in the Middle East.

By maintaining an attack-mode, he has side-stepped the necessity of defending his prior assertions in ALL-CAPS; efforts to engage in the leftist’s favorite trick – “moral equivalency” – won’t work.

He views America as an accessory to 9-1 and he won’t condemn terrorist organizations. Thus, most readers will not find his other arguments credible.

I missed how, globally, Stewart demolished the Fox News “talking points” on this issue; this is an efficient albeit unfair and unjustified method to ignore an entire body of documented work…before it is even viewed. Although DD may not wish to waste his time listening to precise soundbites provided by the Imam, others may wish to do so…and to draw independent conclusions.

And probing the finances of those who oppose this Mosque is either crazy or paranoid or stupid (choose your label), for it reflects the viewpoint of 60% of Americans. Anyone who would attempt to intimidate them is, himself, suspect.

Thus, Tony, we return to where YOU stand on these issues. Can you now concur that this opposition is heartfelt and justified and worthy of scrutiny?

Therefore, it would be desirable were he

44

Robert-
No the danger is that I will expose YOUR corrupt thoughts, arguments, motives, etc.

The point I made against Bob was his claim: “In fact, there is not one single war or mass murder in the 20th or 21st century that is religiously motivated.”
Clearly, the identification of the Jews for mass murder by the Nazis was religiously motivated. Kind of a glaring omission by Bob.
The Nazi’s weren’t God-less, but rather Christian. Hitler was generally opposed to the atheism he associated with Communism.

As for “getting into Gaza and off topic”… YOU where the one who introduced Hamas into the discussion with the false argument that by failing to denounce Hamas, the Imam was now open to accusations of supporting terrorism and that the Mosque might be front to support terrorism and an attempt to have Sharia law take over the US.

Actually, my lack of a religious affiliation permits me an impartial perspective that continues to elude you.

I’ve defended all my assertions in CAPS and smalls. And YOU are the one engaging in false “moral equivalence” by lumping all Muslims and believers in Islam with the terrorists and claiming a failure to denounce Hamas the equivalent of supporting Hamas.

Go watch some clips from the past few Daily Show episodes onlines.
Here are some helpful links:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/11/stewart-takes-on-ground-z_n_678224.html
and
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/19/jon-stewart-mosque_n_688546.html

No one’s looking to intimidate the people funding the anti-Mosque efforts. Rather the goal is to EXPOSE them as agents of the RNC engaged in race-baiting for partisan political gain. (Actually, the parade of GOP politicians and pundits on Fox is pretty much a telltale giveaway as to who’s pushing this and why.) Essentially, this is an extension of the GOP’s “southern strategy”.

Oh, and one more clip that demonstrates Robert and Bob’s paranoia:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-10-2010/municipal-land-use-update—ground-zero-mosque

It seems even Muslim Leadership opposes the 911 Mosque/Community Center

Top Muslims Condemn Ground Zero Mosque as a ‘Zionist Conspiracy’
by Raymond Ibrahim
Pajamas Media
August 19, 2010
http://www.meforum.org/2724/ground-zero-mosque-zionist-conspiracy

In a recent article, I argued that the Ground Zero mosque is counterproductive to Islam. The following day, on August 5, the Egyptian newspaper Al Masry Al Youm reported that none other than Al Azhar — one of Sunni Islam’s most authoritative institutions — agrees. My translation of the relevant excerpt follows:

The Holocaust was not religiously motivated. Jews were killed because they were Jews, not because of their religious beliefs. Any and all Jews, except a few select Jews in Hitler’s High Command, were killed. Rich Poor Orthodox or Assimilated, intermarried or not.

Opposition to 911 Mosque is not motivated by either paranoia or bigotry but by common sense and common decency. The Shariah Mosques, as should be well known, is not really a mosque/community but a recruiting ground for Islamist and Shariah recruitment indoctrination and a training to advance the imposition of Shariah in the US by violent but mostly by peaceful means.

Raymond Ibrahim has also written eloquently on TAQIYYA.

and there is a 5th Column operating before eyes that do not see what there is to be seen.

To everyone other than David Diano:

DD provided his clip from Comedy Central that, supposedly, debunked the talking-points on this issue as disseminated by Fox News Channel (as if one source could hold the monopoly on such analyses).

It hardly “demonstrates Robert and Bob’s paranoia.”

Therefore, rather than providing DD the secondary-gain that he desires from his attention-seeking behavior, it is desirable to await Tony’s reformulation…taking into account NOT the issue of religious bigotry, but instead the concepts of 9-11 sensitivity and concern with the known-leadership of this Cordoba-themed venture.

I am very sure that there are reasonable people who do feel uncomfortable with a mosque or community center being built in this location. I may not consider many of these arguments reasoned, but that doesn’t mean that rational people cannot disagree.

Freedom of religion, and the first amendment in its entirety, is not meant to be a technicality but a set of values. This country is founded on the principle that people with unpopular beliefs can still be welcomed and free to adhere to any faith that they choose.

Regardless of whether the 9/11 terrorists used their religion as their motivation for carrying out their attacks, all of Islam should not be judged and condemned based on their actions. It is a shame that many feel the need to do so. Reverend Phelps and his family are motivated to protest military funerals because of their faith, but surely that shouldn’t judge the overwhelming majority of Christians who do not preach hate.

If you start to say that a mosque or Islamic center shouldn’t be built a few blocks from where the twins towers stood, it is a slippery slope that starts to encompass many more areas. Should they then remove the mosque at the Pentagon, which actually was hit? Should any place where any debris went be made free of an unpopular faith? Should Muslims not be allowed to gather at airports or fly together? All of these questions sound ludicrous just typing them, because they are, but they go along with the same logic being used here.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf does not practice Wahabbism or advocate Shariah law as he is a Sufi Muslim and a moderate.

Any fears that the center will be a gathering place for Al Queda or terrorism is also exceptionally misguided because blocking construction of this building wouldn’t stop any bad characters from meeting anywhere anyway. Terrorists don’t have to meet in mosques and they don’t have to meet in NYC.

Regardless, my point in this article is not to say that a Congressman cannot have an opposing view to mine on a controversial topic. That alone is not my main concern. The problem is that there are real needs that aren’t being met while members of Congress with no connection to the area make proclamations against this project while ignoring problems that the could be addressing, such as the horrible tragedy still unfolding in Pakistan.

But please continue to argue on the internet with all the furor you can muster. It’s your right. If you win, you get a cookie. And a smug sense of satisfaction.

you did not address the two key-points that i have consistently made; one wonders why.

[building was directly-hit...analysis of Imam's ideology/$$$]

i presume this is your last-word, and it is also mine (probably).

Tony, you seem confident that you know Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf is benign and not funded by Islamist. Note that I use phrase “Islamist”, not Islam, to distinguish ideology and religion. And you seem equally certain that a Mosque cannot be used as a front. There is a quite a body of evidence to the contrary.

It would be good if you had left off you last sentence which expresses a contemptuous and dismissive disdain for anyone who disagrees with you after you give superficial acknowledgment to the idea that reasonable people can disagree. I hear this as the voice of a closed mind unwilling to support assertions with evidence.

Imam Rauf has refused to condemn Hamas or Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. This would not seem to be a high hurdle.

Fine Robert, your two points -

Building directly hit – you mentioned that a wheel from one of the planes hit the building. However, the building in question was not a target. Not to diminish the devastation caused by the attack, but debris hit buildings for a wide radius around ground zero. To say that any of those buildings should be closed off to a project devoted to Islam is unfair.

On the funding issue, I think there are many reasons to not divulge the funders for the project. While I always advocate transparency in politics, and there would be benefit here, the vehement anger that people have, and the misinformation they use to target that anger, would make many who would fund this project leery of having their name given out. It makes sense that individuals would not want their businesses or families targeted for protest or anger because they supported this project. Many donors to religious causes do not wish to have their names given out for many reasons, and with freedom of religion so sacred in our country, that is very reasonable.

Now, of course a mosque COULD be used as a front for terrorists. So could a bar, coffee house, personal home, train station, hotel, a church etc. etc etc. That doesn’t mean that it IS used as a front. It is not fair to jump to conclusions like that and assume that a place of worship is used for evil purposes because some individuals who belong to that faith have committed horrible acts.

I find it sad and wrong to judge people as guilty of malfeasance until proven innocent, especially if people assume the guilt in regards to their race, religion, gender, or ethnicity.

Here is a link to a Time Magazine profile of Rouf: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2008432,00.html

I’m sorry if I sounded disdainful, and I do believe that reasonable people can disagree. But reason does not begin by assuming guilt or assuming the worst and prejudging.

Bob-
Pajamas Media? That’s as bad as World News Daily. Beyond bogus.

You are using a Imam who’s arguing that a mosque near ground zero is a “Zionist conspiracy”. Yeah, that really helps your argument.

Besides, since when do foreign religious leaders (including the Pope) get to interpret the US First Amendment and rights of religious freedom?

“Jews were killed because they were Jews, not because of their religious beliefs.”
Umm.. Jews ARE Jews because of their religious beliefs. Genetically, they are same as Arabs for all practical purposes.

The proposed community center is not designed nor intended to be a “recruiting ground”.

Robert-
The clip with Wyatt Cenac has him spouting much of the same nonsense you and Bob have, to demonstrate how ridiculous it is.

What did you think of the news about a church that wants to have a book burning of Korans?

Robert, the building was not “directly hit”. It was not a target. Material that reached there, got there indirectly. I don’t believe the terrorists had a beef with a coat factory.

There is nothing wrong with the Imam’s money, ideology or criticism of past US actions in the Mid-East. Hate to clue you in, but it’s possible to criticize US policy without being a Muslim terrorist.

Bob-
You are trying to twist the issue that the community center “could” be used as a front into a declaration that it “will” be used as a front. You haven’t presented any credible argument to make that leap. I’m not going to condemn Hamas either. Does that make me a terrorist recruiter?

Tony-
Reasonable people can disagree. However, the First Amendment cannot succumb to bigotry, ignorance and intolerance.

The question of whether this Mosque should be built on this particular parcel of land is not a question of law or religion. Rather it is a question of sensitivity (or lack thereof).

Case-in-point: Several years ago, a group of Catholic nuns wanted to build a Catholic Church near Auschwitz. Then as now, there was controversy. However, Pope John Paul II stepped in with little fanfare and quietly told the Nuns that they could not build their church. He told these nuns that although they had “the right” to build their church, they were also being “insensitive” to the feelings of Jews who view this area as “sacred ground” and therefore this Church was not going to be built.

If Muslims and this Imam truly want to “Build bridges” then they must not build this Mosque/Cultural Center at this particular site! They have been offered other parcels of land away from this site, which would meet their needs. That is an offer they should not refuse!

Let us assume that the crux of the matter is whether the imam plans to promote “moderation” and, further, let us assume that your hyperlink to the “Time Magazine” article represents what Guzzardi and I find distasteful…albeit the most sympathetic narrative the pro-Mosque “side” can produce.

Here is the money-quote: “Rauf finds himself being excoriated for some perceived reluctance to condemn Hamas.” Uh, yeah, and it is not merely “some perceived reluctance” because it is “absolute known refusal.”

For some reason, Tony, you continue to avoid this fundamental concern…unrelated to any dimension of prejudice…precisely articulated by Rob Boysen.

Should the zoning advantages afforded under RLUIPA be available to a group that refuses to renounce terrorist organizations [that may be (in)directly funding it]?

[BTW, I do not recall any other newsarticle about a fragment (not dust or shards of metal) that went through the roof of a nearby building.]

Opposition to Islamism, totalitarian, expansionist and violent, and fanatically committed to replacing the Constitution with Sharia, is not motivated by paranoia or bigotry but by common sense evaluation of reality.

And who are the intolerant bigots?

Muslims, not Americans, are religious bigots

Washington Examiner

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Muslims-not-Americans-are-religious-bigots–101125989.html