Â
Recently in a another post I made took the position of I was not opposed to the building of a mosque as long as the Imam spearheading the project was NOT in bead with the terrorists.
Well guess what?
Extremism at Ground Zero?Imam Feisal Rauf, the central figure in the coterie planning a huge mosque just off Ground Zero, is a full-throated champion of the very same Muslim theologians and jurists identified in a landmark NYPD report as central to promoting the Islamic religious bigotry that fuels modern jihad terrorism.
Exposing Radical Islamist Hypocrisy at Ground Zero
There are many reasons to doubt the stated intentions of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Ground Zero mosque. After 9/11 he did not hesitate to condemn the United States as an “accessory†to the attacks but more recently refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. This is unsurprising considering he has well-established ties to U.S. branches of the Muslim Brotherhood. He has also refused to reveal the sources of funding for the mosque project, which is projected to cost $100 million.
More importantly, he is an apologist for sharia supremacy. In a recent op-ed, Rauf actually compared sharia law with the Declaration of Independence. This isn’t mere dishonesty; it is an Orwellian attempt to cause moral confusion about the nature of radical Islamism.
The true intentions of Rauf are also revealed by the name initially proposed for the Ground Zero mosque—“Cordoba Houseâ€â€”which is named for a city in Spain where a conquering Muslim army replaced a church with a mosque. This name is a very direct historical indication that the Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate."
Muslim columnists: Yes, the Ground Zero mosque is a deliberate provocation
"[Excerpt: "The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,†meaning “mischief-making†that is clearly forbidden in the Koran."]"In light of this information I could NOT support this Mosque being built by these supporters.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 20
Preventing this building will do us harm. It will show that we really don't believe in freedom of religion. It will show that we are hypocrites before the world. It will be an attack on the First Amendment. For our own sakes and for our own ideals, we should not object to the building of the mosque.
The moderate muslims know and object to real reason for building this mosque. Only the "lets show them how tolerant we are" crowd can't understand why the mosque shouldn't be built by this group.
Regardless of the motives, objectives, goals, desires, or whatever of those who are trying to build the mosque there, it is our ideals, our Constitution, our standards for government restraints, and our ethics that are in question here.
From what I am told, I really wouldn't like the folks behind this move. I understand that some of them don't deserve my respect. That in no way allows me to lower my standards for what my government is allowed to do. I am proud to be part of a nation that holds as an ideal the freedom of everyone (note, that means even people we have good reason to not like) may practice the religion of their choice. If we only extend that freedom to whose who agree with us that indicates that we really have no freedom of religion at all.
The Muslim have a name for non Muslim people who help them achieve their goals either inadvertently or actively they call them useful idiots.
I have been called far worse on Gather by Conservatives (and a few liberals). Let them call me what they like. That tells more about them than it does about me. :-)
They don't call you personally that name...They call people who allow them to achieve their ultimate goals.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke
Protecting my ideals, my morals, and my fellow citizens from government abuse is hardly doing nothing.
My destroying the meaning of the First Amendment protections for the practicing of religion would help them achieve their goals. Radical Muslims also oppose religious freedom. If we allow them to trick us into being just like them, how can we claim superiority for our ideals?
But you are misguided in your thinking, refusing to restrict murders and killers in promoting their religion of murdering and killing is your inactivity that is dangerous.
We do NOT allow animal sacrifice in religions in the U.S. there are restriction to religious practices in our country.
we are already showing that we don't believe in freedom of religion... we are letting the mosque happen, but the church that was ALREADY in that spot that was destroyed by the attacks on 9/11 isn't being allowed to REBUILD their building that was ALREADY THERE.
Does the First Amendment say freedom of religion if you have not committed a crime? Does it say freedom of religion if your religion meets community standards? I seem to recall something from the Christian Bible about Jericho and Sampson and David who all killed. So does the Christian Bible promote killing? Certainly many Christians have killed and murdered many people over the centuries.
I think you will find that the Koran does not call for animal sacrifice in their religious practices. They also accept the Old Testament.
Just because you don't like the people and their ideas does not mean that I am willing to deny them the protection of the First Amendment in the practice of their religion.
I oppose killing (the death penalty, "collateral damage," tobacco products, junk food, and so forth) but the Mosque is not for killing.
This is a whole different issue. Who owns the land? If the land owner(s) want to build a church there, that should be their right. I do not approve of eminent domain in such a case in order to build a Mosque.
but they aren't allowed to REBUILD their church which was destroyed from 9/11.
go figure.
If they are not being allowed to rebuild that sounds like abuse of government powers to me. There would have to be some reason why the site was a danger to the public if there were a building put on the location or something like that to justify such a restriction.
So if someone wants to get upset on this issue that is what to be upset about.
Sorry Larry I guess I wasn't quiet clear as to why I included that comment, as with all of our rights none of them are absolute!
We can and should restrict this mosque because the person who is spearheading it has shown sympathies for the acts of terrorists.
Not quiet Joy,
Half-baked mosque
Developer owns only part of site
Read more:
"Not so fast.
The developers of the controversial mosque proposed near Ground Zero own only half the site where they want to construct the $100 million building, The Post has learned.
One of the two buildings on Park Place is owned by Con Edison, even though Soho Properties told officials and the public that it owns the entire parcel. And any potential sale by Con Ed faces a review by the state Public Service Commission.
“We never heard anything about Con Ed whatsoever,†said a stunned Julie Menin, the chairwoman of Community Board 1, which passed a May resolution supporting the mosque."