How do you feel about a mosque at "Ground Zero"?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Cleo'Mom: "Also, al-qaeda jihadists are not building the mosque and that's who attacked us on 9/11."

How do you know that, without any doubt?

If they are then we have lousy and ineffective intelligence. And that should be a bigger concern than all of this.

And as far as one mosque 4 blocks away being enough - well would only one catholic church within four blocks away be enough? Also, this building won't just be a mosque, it will be a community center with a library, swimming pool, etc..

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I thought this letter to the editor made some very valid points while refuting those of a previous letter writer:

Who we are

In a recent letter, Susanne Kline of Mt. Lebanon states that a less emotionally sensitive location should be found for the proposed Cordoba House project in New York City, and that the issue is not Islamaphobia, but "common sense and decorum." She asks "when do those different from us need to be tolerant and accepting of us, our values, our traditions" and she states that a proposed Roman Catholic church in Mecca would encounter greater vitriol.

Ms. Kline must have a very narrow definition of "us." My understanding of America includes the belief that Muslims, in fact, are us, just as non-believers, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Jehovah's Witnesses and a long list of others are "us."

And, yes, a Roman Catholic church in Mecca would encounter greater vitriol, but this only makes America shine by example. Saudi Arabia is no democracy and does not even pretend to be, so the comparison is totally invalid.

As for common sense and decorum, if this was really the issue, the people who are protesting this project would be focusing their attention on the "gentleman's club" in the neighborhood. If this were any other group besides Muslims, conservatives would be defending private property rights for the building owners to build as they choose.

Finally, fortunately, here in the United States, our constitutional and civil rights do not depend on anyone's particular emotional sensitivity or personal definitions of "common sense and decorum;" these are subjective and can be used intentionally or unintentionally to foment fear of diversity and bigotry.

American religious freedom, in Thomas Jefferson's own words, was and is for "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindu and the Infidel of every denomination."

[Cleo's Mom 257]

food for thought:

Sacred ground for Muslims

Jen Phillips in Mother Jones finds "the righteous outrage of those contending the former World Trade Center site is 'hallowed ground' amusing, because they have no idea just how right they are.

"Before the World Trade Center was even designed (with Islamic architectural elements, incidentally), the ground was indeed sacrosanct: The bones of some 20,000 African slaves are buried 25 feet below Lower Manhattan. As at least 10 percent of West African slaves in America were Muslims, it's not out of bounds to extrapolate that ground zero itself was built on the bones of at least a few Muslim slaves. That is to say, hallowed Muslim ground."

[loserbob 11]

No one is asking that you go there or visit it or associate in any way with any Muslim or eat their food or accept them. But some people might want to and so what? People are very fickle. They need something to be angry about. Whether it's Obama, the mexican immigrants or now the Muslims in NYC (and elsewhere). It will be something else or someone else next week or next month. Remember when people hated France? Remember the stupid freedom fries? Turns out they were the smart ones not to be duped into bush's unnecessary war in Iraq.

Carl Paladino wants to do an eminent domain easement. Also I read on "Capitol Confidential" that when the mosque is built theyre going to put the faces of the terrorist hijackers on a wall built specifically for that reason! You can read about it at that site.

[loserbob 11]

If they are then we have lousy and ineffective intelligence. And that should be a bigger concern than all of this.

And as far as one mosque 4 blocks away being enough - well would only one catholic church within four blocks away be enough? Also, this building won't just be a mosque, it will be a community center with a library, swimming pool, etc..

The Catholic church thing, 1 wouldnt be enough. This country is major majority christian. I wonder what the ratio of christians and places of worship is to Muslims to mosques in New York. Again Catholics didnt blow people up!

[loserbob 11]

I thought this letter to the editor made some very valid points while refuting those of a previous letter writer:

Who we are

In a recent letter, Susanne Kline of Mt. Lebanon states that a less emotionally sensitive location should be found for the proposed Cordoba House project in New York City, and that the issue is not Islamaphobia, but "common sense and decorum." She asks "when do those different from us need to be tolerant and accepting of us, our values, our traditions" and she states that a proposed Roman Catholic church in Mecca would encounter greater vitriol.

Ms. Kline must have a very narrow definition of "us." My understanding of America includes the belief that Muslims, in fact, are us, just as non-believers, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Jehovah's Witnesses and a long list of others are "us."

And, yes, a Roman Catholic church in Mecca would encounter greater vitriol, but this only makes America shine by example. Saudi Arabia is no democracy and does not even pretend to be, so the comparison is totally invalid.

As for common sense and decorum, if this was really the issue, the people who are protesting this project would be focusing their attention on the "gentleman's club" in the neighborhood. If this were any other group besides Muslims, conservatives would be defending private property rights for the building owners to build as they choose.

Finally, fortunately, here in the United States, our constitutional and civil rights do not depend on anyone's particular emotional sensitivity or personal definitions of "common sense and decorum;" these are subjective and can be used intentionally or unintentionally to foment fear of diversity and bigotry.

American religious freedom, in Thomas Jefferson's own words, was and is for "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindu and the Infidel of every denomination."

Im not saying this to be mean. You know what she meant when she said that. Again it goes back to ethics. Im not sure why your so sympathetic towards muslims and illegal immigrants. As far as us shining, we look like fools in the eyes of radical muslims and I feel we are being taken advantage of! This only energizes radicals!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Im not saying this to be mean. You know what she meant when she said that. Again it goes back to ethics. Im not sure why your so sympathetic towards muslims and illegal immigrants. As far as us shining, we look like fools in the eyes of radical muslims and I feel we are being taken advantage of! This only energizes radicals!

It's not that I'm sympathetic to any particular group. If someone is here illegally then that is a law enforcement issue. But when we start singling out specific groups to target then it diminishes us as a country. Our statue of liberty says to give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free. If we start to restrict that to who that means (only white, christian europeans, for example) then it sends a message to the terrorists that they have won.

The terrorist and Al-Qaeda can't destroy us by destroying our buildings but they can if they turn this country into a country divided with hate everywhere and that's where it's headed. Every conservative talk radio is about hate. That is how they will destroy us - so that we no longer would be the country that stands for freedom for all, equality for all, religious freedom, etc... And when then do that they can sit back and say they've won. And then we will be like them. Because they hate everyone and are exclusive and have no equality or freedoms. And they would never let a christian church be built in Saudi Arabia.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Carl Paladino wants to do an eminent domain easement. Also I read on "Capitol Confidential" that when the mosque is built theyre going to put the faces of the terrorist hijackers on a wall built specifically for that reason! You can read about it at that site.

I couldn't find the article. Why don't you cut and paste it?

[DonTony 0]

I live in NY and knew someone that died on 9/11 so I'll chime in with my biggest gripe.

Not one Muslim of any authority has ever stepped up and stated.... 'out of respect to our fellow New Yorkers that lost loved ones and are still suffering, we'll move the planned Mosque further away from the Towers.'

They are not acting like New Yorkers. They are not showing any respect or concern to fellow New Yorkers. If they moved it just a short distance away, it would have given their fellow New Yorkers an Olive Branch. But instead, all the unknowns, the past comments, the silence, and the shadyness just adds salt to the wounds of many.

I am sick and tired of our Government always kissing the asses of the Muslim population and others abroad. There's always this idea that we have to 'show the world' we are a melting pot. People around the world should be kissing our asses. And the Muslims that live the United States should be the ones voicing their love and appreciation for the US to those abroad.

There are many good people in NY that are Muslim. I have a few friends that are there for me always, and vice versa. And even they can't believe how cold the people are behind this Mosque. Even if they didn't agree with the thousands in NY that are suffering and affected by this, they should move it out of respect.

Edited August 30, 2010 by DonTony

[BJean 16]

Let me ask a question. Why do the Muslims want to build a church or recreation center for themselves there? Why there? Why so close to ground zero? Why is it so important to them? Why has this become such a defining issue for them?

Do you think it is because they are wanting to demonstrate to U.S. citizens and the world that they are proud to be a part of this country which is so hated by Islamic extremists? You think they want to erect a center or church in the United States at that site so that they can show respect for this country and the diversity and understanding and freedom that it stands for? Do you think that is what motivates them? Do you think they just want to become good Americans, with love and tolerance for every individual's beliefs, whether Jew, Christian, atheist, or individuals who don't believe in anything at all?

Do you think there's a chance they are somehow paying tribute to this great country by building a mosque near ground zero? Really?

When it is ever time for America to represent itself? What in the world about OUR identity? Do we even have one?

Or are we just a blob of humanity with no real identity of our own? Sure being a melting pot is a good thing. Respect for others is fantastic. Freedom is what the United States is all about - freedom for all!

But what about those of us who would like to enjoy freedom from the reminders of the hate and mudererous activity of 9/11 on that site - committed by Muslim terrorists?

Are we not due some respect and freedom to enjoy life in our own city without feeling conquered yet again by having a constant reminder of the horrors of 9/11 with a building on that site built by a religion whose fundamentalist extremist faction did the deed and vows to continue to do us harm?

I believe in freedom for all. I believe in this country. I hate discrimination. I do not hate the Muslim religion. I do not hate Muslims. But I have to ask, why build a mosque there? Why right there? Why is that location so important to them? And why is it so unreasonable of us to want them to build it somewhere else, somewhere AWAY from the site of the former World Trade Center?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I have an idea. Why don't the NYC people who are opposed to this mosque start a non-profit foundation - call it the NO-MO (No Mosque) foundation and accept donations from the 65% of Americans who oppose this?*

If we just use the figures that half our population is adults (around 155 million) and 65% oppose the mosque that would be a little over 100 million and if each of those put their money where their mouth is (say $5 each) then this foundation could raise enough money (over $500 million) to buy this building where the mosque is to be built.

Isn't that the American way? Money talks. They say everyone has their price. So why not set up this foundation, collect the donations and then buy out this building? Then the foundation, which would own it, could make it anything it wanted. It would probably have to be a non-profit endeavor - set up so that future sales of the building would go to another non-profit, etc.. So maybe they could make it another christian worship site or another memorial to 9/11 or a free health clinic.

* There probably is already a non-profit 9/11 fund for families of victims that might still be active. I'm sure some savvy attorney could tweak it so that it could do the fundraising for this.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[BJean 16]

Well now you're talking... a free health clinic. That's a great idea! I'd certainly donate $5 for that.

But no attempt to answer my question? Why are the Muslims so intent on building a mosque so close to the World Trade Center rubble? Do you think that it is just coincidental that the location is in such close proximity to ground zero?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Well now you're talking... a free health clinic. That's a great idea! I'd certainly donate $5 for that.

But no attempt to answer my question? Why are the Muslims so intent on building a mosque so close to the World Trade Center rubble? Do you think that it is just coincidental that the location is in such close proximity to ground zero?

I could be wrong but I think they already own this building and have been using it weekly as a mosque already. They just want to expand the building - make it 13 stories to add the other parts - the swimming pool, library, theatre, community center. I don't think they intentionally bought this building (whenever the current owner bought it) to be 2 blocks from ground zero to make any kind of statement. I just think - like most real estate transactions in NYC - it was opportunity meets price.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[LarraineM 6]

I believe the whole thing is being bown out of wack by media sources.Considering that they have so far raised $18,000 dollars I am not too worried about it. Any guess at how many millions they will have to raise to accomplish their goal ? I do not invision it happening for decades.I do truely believe in freedom of worship the Community Center has been a fixture there for many yrs. Realize this too,many muslims also died in the 9/11 attacks also.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I did find this out. File it under my previous comment: Money talks and fox listens.

Fox News shareholder funded ‘Ground Zero mosque’ imam: report

By Raw Story

Saturday, August 21st, 2010 -- 7:02 pm

The second largest shareholder in News Corp. -- the parent company of Fox News -- has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to causes linked to the imam planning to build a Muslim community center and mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan, says a report from Yahoo!

News.According to the report from Yahoo!'s John Cook, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who owns seven percent of News Corp., "has directly funded [imam Feisal Abdul] Rauf's projects to the tune of more than $300,000."

Cook reports that Prince Al-Waleed's personal charity, the Kingdom Foundation, donated $305,000 to Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, a project sponsored by two of Rauf's initiatives, the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative, which is building the Manhattan mosque.

That Fox News' second-largest shareholder, after Rupert Murdoch, has financial links to the "Ground Zero mosque" will be seen as ironic by critics of the news network, who have watched with chagrin as the network's talking heads attempt to link the mosque to radical Islamism.

Last week, Daily Show host Jon Stewart lambasted Fox panelist Eric Bolling's attempt to link the Cordoba Initiative to Hamas and Iran. Stewart used News Corp.'s connections to Prince Al-Waleed, and the prince's connections to the Carlyle Group and Osama bin Laden to make a tongue-in-cheek argument that Fox News may be a "terrorist command center."

Story continues below...

"Stewart didn't need to take all those steps to make the connection," Cook writes.

Cook also reports that Prince Al-Waleed has in the past funded a number of Islamic organizations that have been maligned by Fox News commentators:

Al-Waleed donated $500,000 to the Council on American-Islamic Relations — which has been repeatedly denounced on Fox News's air by Geller and others as a terror group — in 2002. Indeed, Rauf's "numerous ties to CAIR" alone have been cited by the mosque's opponents as a justification for imputing terrorist sympathies to him,

yet few people seem to be asking whether Murdoch's extensive multi-billion business collaboration with the man who funds both Rauf and CAIR merits investigation or concern.

Other beneficiaries of Al-Waleed's largess include the Islamic Development Bank, a project designed to "foster the economic development and social progress of [Muslims] in accordance with the principles of Shari'ah." The IDB funds the construction of mosques around the world, and has been implicated by frequent Fox News guest Stephen Schwartz in an attempt to spread radical Wahhabism (a fundamentalist branch of Islam) throughout the United States.

Cook notes that it was none other than News Corp.'s New York Post that reported on Prince Al-Waleed's donation to Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow. He reports that Fox News had no comment for his article, and emails to the prince's Kingdom Foundation were not returned.

Prince Al-Waleed owns an estimated $2.5-billion-worth of News Corp. Majority shareholder Rupert Murdoch recently took a stake in the prince's Middle East-based media conglomerate, Rotana Group. Murdoch and Prince Al-Waleed are reportedly working on launching an Arabic news network that will compete with existing pan-Arabic networks Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya.

(Editor's note: Original article's headline incorrectly referred to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal as co-owner rather than the second largest shareholder.)

Edited August 30, 2010 by Cleo's Mom