RoR: Forum

I couldn't agree more. But, as Dr. Machan said, Obama did not stand up for a universal right, but only for the rights of these Muslims here in America. He could have won many a brownie point from the voters by standing up for this repulsive application of a right to build even though it's near ground-zero and asked that Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other predominately Muslim countries allow the construction of Synagogues and Churches near their sacred properties. He could have pointed out that their demands for tolerance are likely to fall on deaf ears so long as they don't practice what they expect of others.

Why we are celebrating the start of Ramadam in the White House is beyond me.

If it had been me, I'd have been clear in saying that I'm not defending their rights, but mine. I'd have lambasted the fundamentalist Muslims as intolerant, barbaric bigots prone to violence and deserving of no respect. And if it weren't for the universal rights that our laws recognize, they'd all have been shipped back to where they came from or worse.

Post 1

Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 8:19pm

While I agree with most of Tibor Machan's points, the more I've read about this mosque the less offensive it seems. It is located so that it can't be seen from someone standing at ground level at Ground Zero, it is open to anyone of any faith, the people building it are purportedly some of the most moderate and reasonable Muslim voices in NYC, and is a community center that is closer to a YMCA with an attached chapel than the radical Islamic madrassa that some have tried to make it out to be.

It is rare that Obama says anything that I agree with, but I must give credit where it is due, and his prepared remarks upheld the values of religious freedom I hold.

Yes, it would have been especially laudable if Obama had pointed out that our Constitution protects religious freedom, and if he had asked some pointed questions about when the Arab countries are going to allow churches to be built wherever people want to put them -- say, two blocks from the boundaries of the property where the Hajj in Mecca is held -- but, a good statement by Obama (or, more likely, his staff writers) nonetheless.

Post 2

Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 8:38pm

I don't agree that Obama's statement is a good one... Even though I agree that property rights and freedom of religion must prevail. His statement totally ignored the context. Where was the mention of why so many American's are upset? Where was the mention of the massive, continuing intolerance of the Islamic theocracies, or the fundamentalists? Where was any balance?

Take a look at the number of mosques within driving distance, take a look at the density of the Muslim population in that part of Manhattan, take a look at the fact that the people in charge of that project are ignoring the New York governor's offer to find them another property 8 to 10 blocks away, and take a look at the amount of travel that Muslims would have to make to attend that mosque. The location is NOT being chosen for practical reasons. I don't believe it is being built to serve as a cultural bridge since it will not allow anyone but Muslims to participate in any way. And you don't build a bridge by pissing off the majority of the people who are supposed to use that bridge.

And there are connections between Hamas and the Imam - who still refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Yes, it should be allowed to open, but it should be treated as a form of cultural war and fought at the same level - like someone on Fox News suggested, open a gay bar next door. Let people stand in front of the new mosque and hand out tracts for other religions, etc. I'm also pissed off that we are paying that Imam and covering his expenses to go on an international tour on behalf of the State Department.

This president's policies and practices are obscene even when he accidentally finds himself taking cover behind the right principle.

Post 3

Monday, August 16, 2010 - 6:05am

9/11 was the result of taking dark ages religion far too seriously.

At its very core, what is the fringe Islamic crap fight about? "Too many Jews in the 'hood."

Please. Like that fine sentiment has been worth lining up behind.

And now we're supposed to balance it with 'too many Muslims in the 'hood.'

I'd prefer the people of NYC decided the issue, and frankly, people are denied permits for enterprises every day in NYC. Nothing special about a mosque. Nothing at all.

We are respecting the perps way too much by fretting over a Mosque among all the jewelery stores, HR Blocks, art galleries, and hot dog stands of freedom.

Remember; what made that day so awe filled was not the actions of cowards holding knives to women's throats, and commandeering technology they couldn't hope to duplicate in centuries of trying, for the nihilistic purpose of poinrless destruction. What made that day so awe inspiring was the genius of men who had built 110 story towers in the sky, and jet airplanes to fill the same sky with humanity.

Any fool can run downhill, and that's what fools did that day. Gravity and nature conspire to do that all the time. The only impressive feats that day were the examples of men who run uphill.

So, build a mosque at ground zero, and then right next door, tell the story of what backwards ignorant fools and cowards once did in the sight of greatness, in the name of dark age savagery, in the cause of 'too many Jews in the 'hood.'

And welcome to freedom.

Post 4

Monday, August 16, 2010 - 9:59pm

"We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who led the response to that attack -– from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us also remember who we’re fighting against, and what we’re fighting for. Our enemies respect no religious freedom. Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam -– it’s a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders -– they’re terrorists who murder innocent men and women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion -– and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11." -- President Barack Obama August 13, 2010; 8:37 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/13/remarks-president-iftar-dinner

Steve Wolfer asked: "Why we are celebrating the start of Ramadam in the White House is beyond me."

I was not there, Steve, so I was not celebrating with you. Did you know you would be celebrating Ramadan when you accepted the invitation? According to President Obama: "Here at the White House, we have a tradition of hosting iftars that goes back several years, just as we host Christmas parties and seders and Diwali celebrations. And these events celebrate the role of faith in the lives of the American people. They remind us of the basic truth that we are all children of God, and we all draw strength and a sense of purpose from our beliefs." (ibid).

And I have to thank you, Steve, for consistently attacking President Bush on his practicing Christianity in the White House, as well as denouncing him for celebrating Ramadan.

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening, and welcome. Over the past eight years, we have made the Iftaar dinner an annual tradition here at the White House. And I'm really glad we did. At this year's gathering, we pay special tribute to the many contribution Muslim Americans have made to our nation. We join in wishing Muslims around the world, "Ramadan Mubarak."

We've also partnered with Muslims around the world to spread freedom to millions of people who have never known it before. We're helping the people of Iraq and Afghanistan build free societies after decades of tyranny. And during the month of reflection, we will remember all the brave Muslim Americans who wear the uniform of the United States Armed Forces. They represent the best of our nation. I'm honored to be their Commander-in-Chief.

-- President George W. Bush, September 17, 2008
http://muslimrepublicans.net/Article.asp?ID=168

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 8/16, 10:09pm)

Post 5

Monday, August 16, 2010 - 10:56pm

Michael,

I have no idea what you get from making smart-ass, meaningless, attacks made of nothing more than sarcasm. It is cheap and small.

I doubt that I have to explain to anyone else that I was using the word "we" to mean our country. (Do I also have to explain "our"?)

What I hoped to convey was that our government should stay separate from religion. And, if you go through my past posts you will see that I did attack Bush for bringing religion into his presidency. Many times. One of his first executive orders was to fund faith-based organizations, and somewhere on ROR is a post from me criticizing him for it. I also had serious concerns about a fundamental Christian's motive in waging war in the middle east - too much like a Crusade. I was sickened at the thought of the White House inner circle getting together for prayer meetings. I consider Bush to be one of the worst presidents we've suffered (sorry, there I went again, using the word "we".)

So, Michael, take your cheap shots and direct them elsewhere. I have no idea why you have become so touchy about attacks on Obama, but then I've always suspected an almost chemistry-like attraction between anarchists and the very far left.
------------------------

"Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs." Ayn Rand, “Brief Summary,” The Objectivist, Sept. 1971, 1.

Post 6

Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 8:23am

Steve:

I think that Michael has difficulty, despite his intelligence, in picking up on the subtleties of the language that others readily understand. This comes through time and time again where he responds in a manner that isn't warranted by the context of a previous message. I find it irritating, too.

Sam

WIJG?

Post 7

Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 12:32pm

How about a gay bar by that mosque? :-)
http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4696

Post 8

Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 1:07pm

Yes, a gay bar, a local office for the National Organization of Women, a synagogue and a couple of churches - preferably denominations that good at aggressive proselytizing. The close proximity should help their stated goal of building a bridge of cultural tolerance :-)

Best of all would be a store-front window, right next door, with a large-screen TV showing an endless loop of Pat Condell videos.

and some endless loops of Bill Maher doing a fine job poking fun at the Burka:

And on this video Maher is in truely fine form -- watch this one if you only watch one.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 8/17, 1:08pm)

Post 9

Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 3:43pm

Hmmmmmm - what y'all think of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg_iDPRud_c

Post 10

Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 4:45pm

The last thing the world needs is a drag queen in a burqa.

Post 11

Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 10:15am

How about a gay bar by that mosque? :-)

I'm thinking that the other side of the building should feature a hooker hotel renting rooms by the hours featuring ladies clad in lingerie hanging out in front, with a convenience store selling alcohol on the ground floor, and a bacon-wrapped hot dog cart on the public sidewalk in front.

See if they really do embrace tolerance of alternative worldviews.

Post 12

Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 11:09am

Robert, I agree with the fellow about 'tolerance' and PC behavior being the wrong approach and that Islam is going to prove a problem because it is not just a religion, but also an insistence on enforcing religious laws on others, insistence that violence can be used against non-believers if they aren't adequately respectful, and it is a persistent political movement towards a Caliphate. If Neo-Nazis organized as a religion, and met at churches and prayed several times every day and wrapped their genocidal goals in holy scripture, it would be just what face today. But I still don't believe we help ourselves by using force in an instance where it is not self-defense (the Manhattan Mosque). In the idealogical war our best effort is to practice what we preach: real freedom - Full-on Capitalism. The best direct response would be to reverse the theft that funds most terrorism: the nationalization of other peoples property - the stolen oil fields. And send the marines in to stop what is proving to be very profitable piracy in Somalia. Take away the money. Make them compete in the market place and see how well they do.

Post 13

Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 1:20pm

Today Rush Limbaugh had some hilarious names for a gay bar near the mosque. The only one I can remember was "Abugrab." But I looked up the others:

Al Jizz Era
Out Fidels
Gayza Strip
Atta Boy
Ram Emanuel

I think that there should be a store next door that sells cartoons depicting Mohammed.

MORE NAMES FOR MUSLIM GAY BAR ACROSS FROM GROUND ZERO MOSQUE! -
Elton Jihad's
Istanbulldyke's
Fist Toward Mecca
Hairy Baghdad's
Saddam & Gomorrahs
Osama Bin Scrotum
No AhmadinnerJacket Required
Ramadantana's
Shia Real Man
Five Pillars of Lance
TurbanPackers
72 Virgin Margaritas
Queer Eye for the Suicide Guy
Psycho & Fabulous

Post 14

Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 2:03pm

I had meant to add this when posted that 'afterburner' vid, but couldn't locate it then -

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/08/dear_rest-of-am.php

Post 15

Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 6:00am

JH speculated:

I'm thinking that the other side of the building should feature a hooker hotel renting rooms by the hours featuring ladies clad in lingerie hanging out in front, with a convenience store selling alcohol on the ground floor, and a bacon-wrapped hot dog cart on the public sidewalk in front.

Prostitution has a long and colorful history in that city, especially during the nineteenth century. I propose giving it a legalization in the style of Nevada. Nevada has ranch brothels named after various animals, e.g. Bunny Ranch, Chicken Ranch, etc. I suggest a similar name for the brothel near the proposed mosque called -- you guessed it -- The Pig Ranch.

Post 16

Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 8:05am

>>>the more I've read about this mosque the less offensive it seems<<

Oh, please..! Not only it is offensive, but it meant to be offensive.

One thing I tried to point out before but didn't have time to write about it: There should be no preferential treatment for any groups or individuals. Otherwise you open the door for one-way propaganda.

Over many years American laws were written and re-written by American politicians to reflect political correctness rather than American basic freedoms.

Yes, we must return our laws back to American principles, but meanwhile we can not treat some groups other that the others. Either this is country of law or not ... ?

Just as in case if KKK decides to build their center in prominent place in NY there should be public hearing. Our Muslim friends should be asked some simple questions:

1/ Why their book preaches hatred, intolerance, murder of infidels and how do they feel about it?

2/ Are they going to preach hatred, intolerance, murder of infidels according to their book, and if not what exactly they are going to preach?

3/ Who is the real owner of the place?

4/ Do these owners have any connection to terrorist or extremist organizations?

5/ Where did they get money to pay for the property?

6/ Did they get any donations from people connected to terrorist or extremist organizations?

7/ Were the taxes paid according to American law?

8/ Is global climate going to be affected by building this mosque? ... and so on, you get the picture.

If they get it easy it would be a slap in a face of many Americans who have a hard time opening their businesses, churches or whatever. The law is a law: it should be applied equally to everybody. Applying laws to some people and basic American freedoms to others is simply wrong!

(Edited by Maria Feht on 8/19, 9:33am)

Post 17

Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 9:43am

Maria Feht wrote, "There should be no preferential treatment for any groups or individuals."

I suspect we all agree with that. But if a law is wrong, it should be repealed. Any law that makes people ask permission from politicians before they can use property they own is a bad law.

Some acts of 'war' are explicit and physical, like the 9/11 attack. They should be fought with explicit, physical actions. Other acts of 'war' are cultural, like the Cordoba Project mosque. They should be fought with cultural acts - no one has the right to use force in a case like this.

Post 18

Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 9:52am

>>Any law that makes people ask permission from politicians before they can use property they own is a bad law.<<

I beilive I addressed that - re-read my post:

... Yes, we must return our laws back to American principles, but meanwhile we can not treat some groups other that the others. ... If they get it easy it would be a slap in a face of many Americans who have a hard time opening their businesses, churches or whatever. ... Applying laws to some people and basic American freedoms to others is simply wrong! ...

Nowhere I said that these laws are good. But if they are applied to regular American citizens, they should be applied to terrorists too.

Post 19

Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 10:11am