When even Muslims defend our interests but we don't

chavamom

Mon, Aug 23 2010, 3:01 am

HindaRochel wrote:

There is no right to build in any particular place. If the rights being abridged were the rights of Muslims to pray, you would be correct. But this isn't about the right to pray; no Muslim is being told they CANNOT PRAY, nor are they being told they can never more build a Mosque, hold that Mohammend was a prophet, that they cannot fast during Ramadan.

Is that sort of like "you can sit anywhere on the bus, as long as it's not in the front"?

And while you are correct that you cannot build anywhere you want, the equal protection clause allows you to build anywhere that it is legal. No one has yet to come up with a legal reason this should be prohibited.

HindaRochel

Mon, Aug 23 2010, 3:10 am

chavamom wrote:

HindaRochel wrote:

Yes; but one can still protest against a building going up. That is a right. Moreover, if a legal argument is found tenable (against the building) it would be illegal to be built.

Again, you would be correct about "anywhere but the front of the bus" if the law that was presented was ONLY against the Mosque. It would not be (and such an argument would rightly be found untenable.)

There are two things here:

Protest, whether it offends are sensibilities or not is permitted, with some constraints (for the public health and welfare).

Law is constrained by the constitution.

No law could be upheld or should be upheld that prevent Mosque building and none would do so. Neither has any to my knowledge been put forth. The law would have worked on either a particular construction or the legality of establishing any religious structure in the area or any structure of a certain size. It would therefore not be a matter of "anywhere but the front of the bus" but NO one can sit beyond this point.

chavamom

Mon, Aug 23 2010, 3:32 am

Quote:

New York Gov. David Paterson said last week there is no local, state or federal statute that prevents the construction of the facility.

It's over, it's approved, you cannot go back in time and make it retroactively illegal to build there. But even if you would say "no religious structures here" - well, I don't see people clamoring to prevent the Catholic church on the corner across the street from the former WTC to prevent them from construction, nor the Greek Orthodox church that is rebuilding....do we really want to go there? Just to try to find a legal way to prevent a mosque 2 1/2 blocks from the WTC?

Barbara

Mon, Aug 23 2010, 3:48 am

small bean wrote:

Columnist Jonathan Rauch wrote that Abdul Rauf gave a "mixed, muddled, muttered" message after 9/11.[17] Nineteen days after the attacks, he told CBS’s 60 Minutes that fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam. Rauch said that the message was mixed, however, because when then asked if the U.S. deserved the attacks, Rauf answered: "I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."[18][19][4] Rauch observed. [17]

This is an excerpt from the speech of an Iman who spoke at a synagogue at a memorian service for Daniel Pearl, with Pearl's father in the audience:

Quote:

We are here to assert the Islamic conviction of the moral equivalency of our Abrahamic faiths. If to be a Jew means to say with all one’s heart, mind and soul Shma` Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu Adonai Ahad; hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One, not only today I am a Jew, I have always been one, Mr. Pearl.

If to be a Christian is to love the Lord our God with all of my heart, mind and soul, and to love for my fellow human being what I love for myself, then not only am I a Christian, but I have always been one, Mr. Pearl.

And I am here to inform you, with the full authority of the Quranic texts and the practice of the Prophet Muhammad, that to say La ilaha illallah Muhammadun rasulullah is no different.

It expresses the same theological and ethical principles and values.

The person speaking was Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf.

HindaRochel

Mon, Aug 23 2010, 4:04 am

chavamom wrote:

Quote:

New York Gov. David Paterson said last week there is no local, state or federal statute that prevents the construction of the facility.

No known legal remedies at this point that doesn't mean none will be found.

Protest are legal regardless of whether or not the building is legally permitted. Protest aren't always about changing the law.

I do believe there were protests about one church or other being rebuilt in the area but I only learned about it via a comment on a news article or in a blog; I haven't had the time to verify. Both were in existence prior to 9/11 I believe.. I don't think there is any protest against the Mosques that are in the area.

The Greek Orthodox Church is not going to be rebuilt last I heard (if you are talking about The St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church). The problem apparently is the Port Authority. So who is going to the back of the bus? This was a church destroyed by 9/11. Efforts were also made to move it. Why isn't the media more concerned with the rebuilding of a place of worship damaged by 9/11 than the building of a new edifice?

Again; two different things.
As legal as it may be to build it is still legal to protest. As legal as it is to protest it is still legal to build. If it becomes legal to prevent the building it will still be legal to protest that interference. As legal as it would be to protest the interference it would still be legal to prevent the building.l

PinkFridge

Sun, Aug 29 2010, 10:32 am

Barbara, I'm not thrilled about the mosque but I see the point of those not opposed.
As far as the Imam and Islam though...
The Imam may talk pretty but he speaks with forked tongue, I'm afraid. There's the famous 60 Minute soundbite of him all but saying that America invited 9-11 on themselves. There's quite a history of doublespeak among imams, especially when speaking in their native tongues and countries.

There's a LOT of naivete. I will confess to listening to occasional left wing radio, including a host who just came out and they are SOOOOOO naive. They think that the overwhelming majority of Moslems are moderates, they treat whole societies/communities/countries that regularly violate human rights as fringe groups instead of the threats they are... I don't buy this. Cabdeihu v'chashdeihu is the only way to go with our distant "cousins", IMO.