Mosque Funding

[Cold_Zero]

I think that some people are confusing the issue.
To me there appears to be two issues.
1. Magisterium- When a religion controls the government it is hard to differentiate when the act of a Government or Army is coming from the religion or the state. It does skew the orthodox views of the religion and most of the time gives it a black eye. The Crusades are just such an example. For the most part Christianity has passed out of this phase from its height in Europe during the Middle Ages to Enlightenment eras. Islam has yet to come out of this phase (fully), but then again Christianity has a 600 year head start on them.
2. Radicalism- Plain and simple the Towers being knocked down was a concerted effort by a group (Al Qaeda) because long ago (well not really) the Saudi Kingdom laughed at bin Laden's idea of Mujahadeen during the First Gulf War. I am not going to get into the background, but if you search this sub forum we discussed this during ABC's running of the 9-11 movie that sparked controversy. While Al Qaeda wraps itself in a shroud of Islam, as I have stated before they by no means represent the sole authority on the religion.
So thus the debate about radicalism stalls on what is the true religion. I think what alarms me, as an outsider looking in, is the lack of academia and the clergy in Islam confronting and refuting radicalism. There appears to an uneasy line that exists where moderates try to avoid labeling it as wrong and sometimes talk down the issue of radicalism as not to offend them. One example is when clerics are asked if Hezbollah is a terror group. Maybe it is much easier to dismiss radicals, call them a nutjob or avoid the question, so you dont have to confront them.

So IBCoupe, I agree with your statement, but also think it is foolish to totally dismiss religion when it comes to the Al Qaeda terror attacks. We just have to keep it in the proper context.

[wingFeather]

some would say that politicians are still encouraging killing...

OMG SARAH PALIN! OMG! SARAH PALIN!

In this country, we don't shame our women. She is allowed to run for government office. I know you are upset that a woman can have such power, but this is America! Love it or leave it.

PS - please stop stalking me on other forums. It's not cool.

[IBCoupe]

It's not just clerics that have trouble labeling "Hezbollah" as a terrorlst group. Most anybody who takes an objective look at them undoubtedly sees their support for certain acts of violence, but the fact that they operate very much like a second government in countries like Lebanon, with all the social services one expects to find tends to make the issue more fuzzy.

And Wing, I don't think there's any criticism of Palin that's based on her genitalia. I'm pretty sure it's based on the nutty things she does and says. Like posting a series of crosshairs to mark targets she wants taken out (pun intended) of public office.

[heliochrome85]

some would say that politicians are still encouraging killing...

OMG SARAH PALIN! OMG! SARAH PALIN!

In this country, we don't shame our women. She is allowed to run for government office. I know you are upset that a woman can have such power, but this is America! Love it or leave it.

PS - please stop stalking me on other forums. It's not cool.

go ahead and keep trying to attack me. how many people here are vouching for you?

[heliochrome85]

It's not just clerics that have trouble labeling "Hezbollah" as a terrorlst group. Most anybody who takes an objective look at them undoubtedly sees their support for certain acts of violence, but the fact that they operate very much like a second government in countries like Lebanon, with all the social services one expects to find tends to make the issue more fuzzy.

And Wing, I don't think there's any criticism of Palin that's based on her genitalia. I'm pretty sure it's based on the nutty things she does and says. Like posting a series of crosshairs to mark targets she wants taken out (pun intended) of public office.

Groups like Hezbollah have been wildly successful at rebranding. They have gone from a terrorlst organization to one of national defense that functions like the YMCA meets the Army. The lebanese army is a joke, even by Arab standards. Without Hezbollah, the prevailing view in teh region is that the Shebaa farms would have been annexed years ago by Israel. So while they do end up using dirty tactics, they are seen by the inhabitants of south Lebanon as a defending force who have vast social programs designed to aid the impoverished inhabitants of the area. This is why if you ask an arab, they say Hezbollah is a good organization, and if you ask someone fromt he West, they see things differently. Just goes to show you that sometimes the criteria with which we assign these labels is slightly cloudy.

[Cold_Zero]

Spoken like a true Syrian.

[stebo0728]

Ok so I get the daily, or every other daily d!ck Morris column in my email. Interesting read today regarding this mosque. Here are some quotes from it.

A soon-to-be published study funded by Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, found that 20% of the mosques in the United States have no taint of Sharia and simply promote peaceful worship. But 80% are filled with violent literature, Sharia teachings, and promotion of Jihad and its inevitable concomitant -- terrorism.

President Obama is confusing the issue when he describes it as one of religious freedom. There is broad latitude to worship God as one chooses. But there is none to promote violence and terrorism. The record of involvement of Sharia mosques with the 9-11 attackers and the Ft. Hood massacre shooter is so deep and extensive that it vividly underscores the difference between a religious institution and an organization that promotes terrorism.

Politically, President Obama's defense of the mosque and his efforts to make it a First Amendment issue are incredibly self-destructive. They raise questions about his political sanity. It is hard to believe how tone deaf he must have become to take such a position. He has now embraced two positions that are anathema to two-thirds of all Americans -- the mosque and opposition to Arizona's immigration law. Neither was a controversy that sought him out. He waded into each one voluntarily with flags flying. He had no role in the Arizona law but his lawsuit to invalidate it made it his fight. He does not sit on the New York City Planning Commission, but his endorsement of the mosque puts him squarely in the center of controversy. What is he using for brains these days?

Here the link for the full column. http://www.d!ck.com/blog/ground-z ... eal-issue/

Id be interested to see the study he references, and also to see what credibility to the issue that the publisher of the study holds. I know this is partly the argument being made by WF and I dont mean to fuel his fire, but if indeed this or any other mosques within the nation can be found to be instigating anti-american sentiments of a violent nature, perhaps it warrants further consideration? That would go for any religious establishment instigating violent sentiments. Peaceful protest is one thing, violence gets us no where.

[IBCoupe]

Here's something that I hadn't heard yet before today:
The people wanting to get the project completed are wishing to use it as a replacement of the house of prayer they currently operate twelve blocks away from Ground Zero. That house of prayer, incidentally, was a replacement for the prayer room that existed on the grounds of the World Trade Center, which was destroyed in the 9/11 attacks.

What now?

[IBCoupe]

Gaffney proposed that the US should "take out" the Al Jazeera news network because they aired publicly Al Qaeda's propaganda tapes. EDIT: And he's a "Birther."

Or so says Wikipedia.

And, how about, instead of investigating Mosques for extremism, why don't we investigate people who can be shown to be conspiring to commit criminal acts, and find out which Mosques, if any, are contributing to those conspiracies?

Seems like the morally and legally appropriate approach. EDIT: Though we know that there exists a portion of Christians who exhibit extremist and violent views, we don't go around investigating all Christians for extremist ties; we go about investigating criminals for their extremist accomplices. Why should this be any different?

EDIT: The framing of this whole discussion fills me with vitriol and shame; the louder these calls are made, the quieter I am when I call myself an American.

[stebo0728]

Gaffney proposed that the US should "take out" the Al Jazeera news network because they aired publicly Al Qaeda's propaganda tapes.

Or so says wakopedia.

And, how about, instead of investigating Mosques for extremism, why don't we investigate people who can be shown to be conspiring to commit criminal acts, and find out which Mosques, if any, are contributing to those conspiracies?

Seems like the morally and legally appropriate approach.

Agreed, sounds like the best approach to me.

[heliochrome85]

EDIT: The framing of this whole discussion fills me with vitriol and shame; the louder these calls are made, the quieter I am when I call myself an American.

careful there Michelle Obama...

[Cold_Zero]

Gaffney proposed that the US should "take out" the Al Jazeera news network because they aired publicly Al Qaeda's propaganda tapes. EDIT: And he's a "Birther."

Or so says wakopedia.

And, how about, instead of investigating Mosques for extremism, why don't we investigate people who can be shown to be conspiring to commit criminal acts, and find out which Mosques, if any, are contributing to those conspiracies?

Seems like the morally and legally appropriate approach. EDIT: Though we know that there exists a portion of Christians who exhibit extremist and violent views, we don't go around investigating all Christians for extremist ties; we go about investigating criminals for their extremist accomplices. Why should this be any different?

EDIT: The framing of this whole discussion fills me with vitriol and shame; the louder these calls are made, the quieter I am when I call myself an American.

I was with you right up until you started dragging in another religion. We shouldn’t justify what we should or should not do according to another religion. We really should do so on principle. It is wrong to spy on Mosques unless it can be proven with a FISA warrant or search warrant that they meet the legal requirements to be investigated. It is not wrong because we do it to one group, but not another. That is merely just a victim mentality. And to be honest, we all could get into a pissing match about who gets treated the worse. But what does that prove?

[wingFeather]

go ahead and keep trying to attack me. how many people here are vouching for you?

Keep attacking me as you've been doing - just limit it to this forum. Following me onto other sites is just plain mental!!!

As for people vouching for me, sounds like gang mentality to me. I'd rather be right & alone, than popular. Obama is "popular".

[heliochrome85]

go ahead and keep trying to attack me. how many people here are vouching for you?

Keep attacking me as you've been doing - just limit it to this forum. Following me onto other sites is just plain mental!!!

As for people vouching for me, sounds like gang mentality to me. I'd rather be right & alone, than popular. Obama is "popular".

i dont know where you get this idea that im harassing you or following you onto other sites. all i did was google your email address that you publically show on NICO, and saw the results. grow up.

and nice cheap shot on Obama. yet again, a valuable post. feel free to ask AZ if you think ive unfairly targetted you.

[wingFeather]

I will be the bigger man here & end this off topic discussion. If you have a personal problem with me or my religion, you can send me a PM. Good day to you, chrome85.

Now, back on topic - have we found out where the money is coming from? Perhaps some of our tax dollars?

[Cold_Zero]

Nobody stocks me, except for Chinese and Nigerian spammers.

[wingFeather]

Nobody stocks me, except for Chinese and Nigerian spammers.

I used to have a whole fan club here during the 2008 election

[vikesfankevin1986]

i dont know where you get this idea that im harassing you or following you onto other sites. all i did was google your email address that you publically show on NICO, and saw the results. grow up.

and nice cheap shot on Obama. yet again, a valuable post. feel free to ask AZ if you think ive unfairly targetted you.

I'm just not responding to him anymore...

[stebo0728]

I will be the bigger man here & end this off topic discussion. If you have a personal problem with me or my religion, you can send me a PM. Good day to you, chrome85.

Now, back on topic - have we found out where the money is coming from? Perhaps some of our tax dollars?

I dont know about the mosque project, but we sure did use tax dollars to taxi this imam around the country.

[wingFeather]

Did you see the news article that NYC is trying to block a long-time church from coming back to the Ground Zero area, after their building was damaged by 9/11? Where are the people defending religious freedom on that project???

[Cold_Zero]

I mentioned it a few times. I am very familiar with St Nikolas Greek Orthodox church. I think the issue with them is the bureaucracy of rebuilding. Which amazes me that this Islamic Center got zoned and permitted so quickly.
I also like how everyone is johnny come lately about this church because of the media frenzy and when the mosque issue has faded, they will forget about this congregation.
http://www.goarch.org/special/september ... stnicholas

[n00b240]

A lot of those were actually covered in my Eastern Orthodoxy class. I don't think they do a ton for the crusades but they really help understand the differences between the churches (Catholic and Orthodox.) It also helps you see how Protestantism come about. When you look at things such as the council of Nicea, you see that the differences between the churches are so minor, but also very important. This is not just a religious debate but a very important part of history. Understanding the Council of Nicea and the split between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church is the reason Russia and Eastern Europe developed the way they did. It also helps explain the Crusades in a more minor sense.
If more people are interested in this topic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans
Diplomacy, Theology, and the Politics of Interwar Ecumenism by Bryn Geffert is an amazing book. It really helped me understand the issues between the churches and governments.

I always felt, in my readings at least, that this split, and the way Europe develops the way it does; as what roughly looked like a West vs East conflict. Even though there were splits formed, I felt like the crusades would help to assert a certain governing dominance unified by a single group, that neither of the splits could have mustered on their own. And yes, such split, was prolly not the focus of the crusades, but I feel like it played at good part. That book by Geffert is an excellent read, its been a while since Ive been into all this, might have to get back into it, as I may have gone rusty

Thanks for the refresher tho, I'll bust those readings soon. Prolly shoulda taken a class in that stuff, My school had a pretty good religion program.

[IBCoupe]

Where are the public efforts to prevent it from happening, Wing? What necessitates a defense? You're funny.

[stebo0728]

I think the only grounds for possible legal action against the construction of the mosque would be IF reasonable evidence can be shown that the backers have a history of insighting violence in other mosques, and that it may be the possible outcome of this one. Originally I thought this was a bit of a rediculous claim to make, but if the study referenced above is correct, it stands to reason that theres at least a possibility of this.

[stebo0728]

In case no one else ran across this little tid bit. The Imam behind this has written a book "Whats Right with Islam is Whats Right with America"

The arabic title is "A Call for Dawa from the World Trade Center Rubble"

Helio can you give a good explanation for what Dawa is? I understand it to mean "spread of Islam" but is that too simplistic of an explanation?

[IBCoupe]

Where'd you get that from? Google says "Dawa" or "Da'wah" means "proselytizing." Seems odd to have such a drastically different interpretation, and is suspiciously convenient to the conspiracy theories about what this thing is for.

[vikesfankevin1986]

I always felt, in my readings at least, that this split, and the way Europe develops the way it does; as what roughly looked like a West vs East conflict. Even though there were splits formed, I felt like the crusades would help to assert a certain governing dominance unified by a single group, that neither of the splits could have mustered on their own. And yes, such split, was prolly not the focus of the crusades, but I feel like it played at good part. That book by Geffert is an excellent read, its been a while since Ive been into all this, might have to get back into it, as I may have gone rusty

Thanks for the refresher tho, I'll bust those readings soon. Prolly shoulda taken a class in that stuff, My school had a pretty good religion program.

The Crusades, directly or indirectly had something to do with the formation of modern Europe. And when I say Crusades, this also includes the Albigensian Crusades. People crusaded at home as well and the Albigensian Crusade is fully responsible for the shape of France today. The split was responsible for forming Eastern Europe because both the Catholics and Orthodox wanted those people. The split left the Byzantine Empire on its own and led to its fall. f*** after typing this I just realized the split was the reason for the Crusades (mostly.) Hmmm I just read what you said again and I think what I just said had nothing to do with it lol. I'm not going to delete it now tho...
I will just say, yes I agree with you on that

[stebo0728]

Where'd you get that from? Google says "Dawa" or "Da'wah" means "proselytizing." Seems odd to have such a drastically different interpretation, and is suspiciously convenient to the conspiracy theories about what this thing is for.

Heres something to read one it, you decide its credibility for yourself.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2549148/posts

[stebo0728]

And the problem here is not with the word Dawa, "proselytizing", its a major factor of any religion and to see that Islam wants to do it is expected, christianity "proselytizes" all the time. The problem is that it actually calls for it "from the rubble of the WTC". Not "from NYC where we already had a place" not "from just another mosque like all the many others we have around the nation" but actually "from the RUBBLE of the WTC" now that is a bit disturbing. Now, did he set that title himself? Does the contents of the book make the same call? Or was it just an inflamatory title placed on a book in an inflamatory region? Those are the questions to ask toward the credibility. A title is a title, and if the book in no way makes those claims, then there isnt much ground to stand on for protest using this. BUT ... if it does make calls of this nature, and is written by the very poster child of the project, then the issue becomes a bit more of an issue, at least in my book.

[IBCoupe]

Right, but I have my doubts. There's no substantiation that A) the two books are the same, B) the two authors are the same, C) the second title (in transliterated Arabic? That "cover" on the 9/11 families website doesn't actually show something with Arabic text on it is a bit fishy) is actually a book that's actually sold in Malaysia. If nothing else, the two covers seem starkly different in their cover art, so the claim that they're the same book goes out the window (though, admittedly, that might not be the point, but it is a claim that's made).

The only people who actually say that any of those things are true are people who were already opposed to the project. Doesn't pass the smell test.