Friday, August 6, 2010

Religious hatred behind mosque opposition

A group started by noted hatemonger Pat Robertson (the story I saw called it a “conservative” group; doesn’t that go without saying?) has filed a lawsuit in what will no doubt be a long, expensive, but ultimately fruitless, attempt to stop the construction of an Islamic center a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. The action comes after the New York City Landmarks Preservation Committee unanimously refused to block demolition of a 152-year-old building that stands in the way of the project. Those proposing to build the Cordoba Mosque have made it very clear that their goal is to foster peace and understanding between Islam and people of other faiths. That didn’t stop one goofball at the committee’s hearing from holding up a sign that said, “Don’t glorify the murders of 3,000. No 9/11 victory mosque.” And Rick Lazio, a former Republican congressman now running for governor of New York, took the opportunity to do a little demagogueing, accusing the Islamic group’s imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, of being buddy-buddy with terrorists. He noted a “60 Minutes” interview in the wake of 9/11 in which Rauf said the attacks were in some part sparked by U.S. policies in the Middle East. Of course they were. Does anybody really doubt that the United States’ constant support of Israel against any other interests in that region just might have fostered some anger and resentment? One question I have for mosque opponents is this: Exactly how far must a mosque be from Ground Zero? Is is four blocks? Six? Eight? The distance from Ground Zero really isn’t the issue. It’s the hatred by many people of all things Muslim because of the actions of a militant, violent fringe of that religion. As an online poster noted recently on the O-R website, these folks won’t be calling for a ban on Catholic churches near grade schools because some priests raped children. Apparently, the central argument that will be made in the Robertson group’s lawsuit is that the landmarks panel “acted arbitrarily and abused its discretion.” No, it didn’t. It acted dispassionately, rationally and intelligently. The mosque opponents should give that a try sometime.

Labels: , ,


Blogger TysonBam said...

Pork Plant Opens Next to Mosque Next to Ground Zero

August 6, 2010 at 12:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They should have banned Christians from the Holy Land after the Crusades, too. We'd all be better off.

August 6, 2010 at 6:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you think anybody will be involved in constructing this building? I think not. No architect will take the job, no contractor will take the job, no workers will come to the front to do the work. I believe this building will never be built.

August 6, 2010 at 7:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's amazing how quickly the US loses the moral high ground these days. Kinda hard to bash others about intolerance when we ourselves have self-righteous intolerance whenevr it suits us.

August 8, 2010 at 5:52 PM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

Re: Anonymous- I assume there are muslim contractors, too...

August 8, 2010 at 9:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh yes, there may be Muslim contractors, but what job would they be awarded next?

August 9, 2010 at 8:24 PM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

I'm sure there are christian churches somewhere in need of being torn down...

August 10, 2010 at 10:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm surprised there are any Christian churches anywhere in the Holy Land after what Christians did in the Crusades.

The sad thing with the NYC mosque is that you can bet there's already a group planning how to blow it up or burn it down after it's built.

August 20, 2010 at 6:36 PM  
Anonymous Ingrid said...

Pat Robertson is not a hate-monger. He is against a barbaric concept of establishing an outpost representing a hating religion, whose God, Allah hates all of us, whose prophet lied, tortured, raped and murdered, as well as being a child-rapist has ordered all of our deaths, if we will not submit to his religion and commands. Islam is the hate-monger, and its adherents. to reply to your question of how far must a Mosque be from Ground Zero to be decent? considering New York was and is the symbol of the free infidel world, to the entire Muslim world, putting a Mosque anywhere in New York is a deliberated affront to the people who will be mourning those 3000 murdered. Islam is for world domination, go read your book, you should know that already, and is trying to establish it's triumphant presence in New York now (where there are plenty of Mosques already, before 9-11) as to glorify in our defeat thus far in this war they are fighting against the whole infidel world and one of its greatest, if not the greatest symbolic cities: New York. They have mosques enough already in their beloved Islamic countries and here. Stop the humiliation by this invading evil force called Islam.

September 2, 2010 at 12:16 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

Pat Robertson is most definitely a hate-monger. He's also an idiot. And I'm wondering, have you ever read the Old Testament? That's a pretty violent, vindictive, petty God you've got.

September 2, 2010 at 12:29 PM  
Anonymous Ingrid said...

This is to degrade us, Brant, all free infidels. You really show your ignorance of Islam by saying that Pat is a hatemonger by opposing Islamicisation. Muslims obey the Quran's words, they are Allah's words and must never be argued with. Many do not know their Qurans. This is a good thing. But those who do, teach in the Mosques, and say those are their recruitment centers. Do not arrogantly tell me what kind of God you think I have. You have no idea. My God is nothing of what you said, and your words show you are the petty, vindictive being. Do not even presume you can cut down my God. I am not Christian, neither Jewish, neither Hindu, neither Buddhist, I belong to no group, I am nothing. But you are the reason we are seen as fools. You are an ignorant arrogant appeasing submitting excuse for a member of the male gender. You better go try to fix that, the first place is go find some humility, some honesty, and realize the world is in the shape it is because of your chosen horrible attitude. And about the Old Testament, stop all that. No one today or the last 4000 years has been doing those few violent parts which may have been necessary to defend from a treacherous enemy who would kill them in end. (Amalekites). Stoning? Who is the judge? I think this may have been writs by scribes not words of Yah. Much of the condemnation of the Messiah was against following the traditions of men and lies of the scribes teaching for doctrine the commandments of men. Anyway, no one does that now who holds the Old Testament. Our Messiah did not teach stoning. He was against it. Muslims will not renounce their prophet's vile atrocities. They obey them. NOw! All over the world. And so how anyone, even idiots, can defend that religion and their rights to kill rape and murder us for not submitting is the most perverse thinking imaginable. Why do Muslims never say, OK, we'll renounce this vicious atrocities we are commanded. They make no humane sense. Let's do it. Let's stay here and all live in peace, like the people of the Bible do. No. Because their Allah is vile and violent, and a deceiver and loves misery. Go read your Quran Brant. Then reply to me.

September 2, 2010 at 12:57 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

I don't need to read the Quran to form my reply, which is this: You need to bump up your meds a little bit.

September 2, 2010 at 1:02 PM  
Anonymous Ingrid said...

Brant, You are a sarcastic little perv who defends child-rape in prophets of peace who takes cheap shots and refuses to do the homework to find out the truth of what we are faced with. You dare to call yourself a man, and a being who loves freedom?
Your a reprobate.

September 2, 2010 at 2:37 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

You've got some serious anger issues, Ingrid. But let me ask you this: Since you're so concerned about a peaceful group of Muslims building a mosque, do you think the Catholic Church, which has had an alarmingly number of child rapists on its payroll, should be banned from building near schools? And since Timothy McVeigh was a Christian, should Christians be banned from building near federal buildings? It makes every bit as much sense as your stance, in which you blame all Muslims for actions taken by al-Qaida.

September 2, 2010 at 2:42 PM  
Anonymous ingrid said...

Yes, I think the Catholic Church's actions (weak, non) regarding child rapist priests and lack of vociferous renouncement is reprehensible. And since there are so many pedophile priests who have been protected by their higher up authorities, this is tacit approval of this vile, horrendous practice. Keep children away from those churches, for sure. And keep them away from schools and children, for sure. Let's do something for the helpless victims of that institution. Your thing on Timothy McVeigh is insane. And I do not as you also said, 'blame all Muslims' for anything. I am for Muslims, for any person who is not hurting others.

September 2, 2010 at 3:56 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

I think you've made it clear that you are definitely NOT for Muslims.

September 2, 2010 at 4:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ingrid, don't mind the responses to your posts here. There is only rejection, never an affirmation of an idea that is based upon anything, let alone truth.

Yea, easy to just take shots, but never to put a stake into the ground for your own position. There is no shortage of these types on boards such as this one. They call themselves atheists, but they can't even define the term. They are so-called atheists, not ones in reality. Their words betray their label. Just wandering around without any anchor, and not interested in finding one either. Very sad to read.

September 2, 2010 at 8:41 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

Anonymous, it's very easy to define atheism. Please explain to me how someone is an atheist in name only, but not in reality. I'm not sure what you mean by that.

September 3, 2010 at 5:41 AM  
Anonymous ngrid said...

Thank you, Anon. Yes, I was angry over what he said, but I see what you mean, it's like, well, what exactly is he for or against? Just to get on here and argue anything just to be difficult? Cheap shots are from cheap minds, or minds that have been ruined. I am sad about that observation you made too, it is sad. It's like nothng gets through - no fact, no logic, no amount of historical example.
I am sad for Muslims, as a people. I am not a hater, by nature. But I do hate Islam. I do not 'hate' Muslims, they are people who are victims of a vile indoctrination from little babies/toddlers. I only hate it when those who do understand what they are doing is cruel, vile and vicious keep on doing it, or SUPPORTING those doctrines. I even hate them, that do that, with a passion. But there are many Muslims that are practising Muslims who do not renounce Mohammed that are not completely able to, they are afraid of their fellow Muslims who are cruelly taken over by their decades of brainwashing. I would wish that we could help those who can be rehabilitated. Women, youth, children, some men. But putting up a Mosque is not the way to do it. That just promulgates the threat and our danger. It's very simple. If we help our avowed enemies, (whether or not we love them as people or feel sorry for them as victims) we will suffer. People simply don't know, especially angering when the danger is so great, and the people who like to misconstrue the words of others and refuse to read the Quran are only aiding and abetting those stated enemies who are at war with us (as free infidels). I was blown away by that last comment, I thought it was clear how I felt, so thank you again, anonymous, you made me feel less like I was living in an alien world! You are kind. If only everyone were.

September 3, 2010 at 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Ingrid said...

Brant, you didn't post my reply to your accusation 2 days ago.
Any special reason? I guess you are censoring us for truth and logic, opinions with which you disagree?

September 4, 2010 at 11:52 AM  
Blogger Brant said...

Actually, I didn't post it because you used filthy language. Ideas, no matter what they are, don't get censored. Unacceptable verbiage (in the eyes of the newspaper, not me) will not be posted.

September 4, 2010 at 4:07 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 4, 2010 at 4:07 PM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

This was all quite fascinating... I'd love to add something weighty and substantive to the conversation, but I'm just going to leave this here instead:

September 8, 2010 at 2:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All those condemning Islam as a violent religion need to re-read the Old Testament passages where the god of Israel tells his followers to take the land he has promised to them from the infidels by, among other things, smashing the heads of babies on rocks. How many Muslims, Jews, Africans, Indians and others across all continents have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity? How many Crusaders were "recruited" in churches?

If the god of the New Testament is the same as the god of the Old, I wonder what changed his mind so radically? Why didn't the NT God just have his son come down and bust a few Roman and Israeli skulls? Even Al Capone knew that you get further with a gun and a smile than with only a smile.

You don't need to be anything other than rational to figure out that following any god who authorizes the wholesale slaughter of people is not a great option.

September 14, 2010 at 1:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just because Pat Robertson may be a Christian, and idiot and a bigot ... does not mean he is on the wrong side of this. Conversely, just because one is a semi-journalist, politically correct and liberal does not mean one is on the correct side of this. The anti-Christian theme would play better if was a more consistent anti-religious theme. Don't really get the point of opposing all things allegedly emanating from a particular repressive Abrahamic belief-system/social movement just to favor a far more repressive version of the same thing.

September 21, 2010 at 10:03 AM  
Blogger Brant said...

I support the right of all religions to practice their beliefs and build their places of worship freely and equally. But I also wish for a world in which no organized religion exists.

September 21, 2010 at 1:35 PM  
Anonymous Ingrid said...

Then you are going to wish in vain, Brant, if you believe that giving Muslims free rein to 'practice their religion and build their Mosques wherever they want freely' becuase even you must know by now they want the whole free world Muslimized and no infidels will be tolerated, - which would be, you? - or Not? By the way, their practicing religion means they are freely allowed to kill, maim, humiliate, rape and steal from infidels. In Allah's mission and name. Will you be one of their infidel targets, or will you be (come?) one of them? You seem no stranger to abuses already on your board, so I don't think it will be that traumatic for you.

September 21, 2010 at 3:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seems to me we gave the Christians free reign to establish their religion and Christianize the world a long time ago. It's still going on but they haven't yet succeeded. And if you find a Christian who says that the main goal of most Christians isn't to make the entire world Christian, he's a liar. After all, they think that theirs is the only way to heaven -- just like it's an all- Muslim heaven to Muslims.

Last figures I saw stated that Christians have a 32% plurality of the world, a percentage that's dropping, while Muslims have 22% but are growing. Yet there are an estimated 34,000 ways in which Christianity is interpreted. My interpretation is that any true Christian should greet a mosque anywhere in the world with open arms.

If you have an idea that your beliefs are the only one that deserve consideration, I highly recommend that you read "Nine Lives: In Search of the Sacred in Modern India." The book profiles, among others, women who have no problem prostituting themselves as a way to god, performers who believe that they are possessed by the gods themselves in their dances, and a nun who thinks that she has somehow betrayed her faith because she formed an attachment to a fellow nun and felt a sense of loss when she died. It's an eye opener, if only because each of the nine people interviewed seem so wholeheartedly convinced that their faith will be rewarded.

One of the best things I've heard in church recently was from a Christian pastor who said: "If you think that being Christian is all about being right, you're in the wrong religion. It's about love." I believe that, and I'd like to believe in a god loving enough to have room in any afterlife for everyone of true faith.

September 25, 2010 at 6:40 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home