Re: Question 1:  Yes, it is a Muslim project.  What’s your point?  Putting up a Catholic church is a Catholic project.  I think it is highly irresponsible as a scholar to be responding to something when you don’t have all the facts.  A disclaimer doesn’t absolve you from taking responsibility for your statements.

Relying on hearsay, public opinion, media reporting, politicians are hardly a representation of true scholarship and thus weakens your credibility significantly.  How about the religious guarantees of the Constitution of the United States?  A comprehensive and well-researched response is something we should expect to receive from someone of your position.

Re: Question 2:  “...because radical Muslims are true Muslims”.  What are you saying?  Do you mean that Islam supports terrorism and there is no separation between violent extremism and Islam?

That is the same as saying that Timothy McVeigh is a radical Catholic and thus he is a true Catholic.  The tendency to equate Islam and criminal acts is irresponsible, and we can expect that from politicians and those who’s agenda is hate and intolerance.  But from a Catholic theologian?

“...I think the reaction of Obama was a political one, and not a reasonable, humanist answer even if he tries to present it as that. The answer of the mayor of New York is also a political one…”.  Of course it is.  Any politician who makes a public statement is making a political statement.  You are hardly in position to judge what a person’s motivation and sincerity is just because you disagree with his or her’s position (translation:  you are not God).

Violence in the name of religion is bad, period.  We Catholics do not have such a pristine history when it comes to that now do we?  Unfortunate as it is for those in the Middle East who are using this “pastor’s” Koran burning threat as a motivation for violence… We American’s can’t speak to their laws or security, but yes basic human law says it’s wrong.  But that is not the fault of Islam. 

Is this a fair statement to make: Catholic clergy supports and allows children to be sexually abused because of the fact that it wasn’t about several isolated incidents, rather through a crisis in morality aided and abetted by Catholic bishops?  With your logic professor, you are making correlations with Islam based violence and hatred, which makes statements about Catholic support of priestly molestation true based on your thesis.

So does this mean that the priest child sexual abuse scandal has been happening since the beginning of the the church?  Let’s face it, we can’t account for the previous 1,950 years because the church is professional in its record keeping and cover-ups.  So it is fair to wonder what was going on in the days before the Information Age.

Professor - do everyone a favor and get your facts straight.  Be responsible with what you say and learn what it means to be an American before you cast judgment on what happens in the United States.

Peace be with you.

Q, I can’t answer your question but I will say for every imam who has issued a fatwa or made incendiary statements about the West (and in particular about Americans), there are just as many pastors (àla Jones)  and other right-wing extremists representing Christianity spewing the same sort of hateful nonsense.

Tell me Q, what do you think about this statement: “But what’s the reaction in Pakistan? They destroyed three churches yesterday and say they will destroy more. Why do they not respond differently? “. 

What a glossing over, don’t you think?  Pakistan destroyed three churches, really?  Or did extremists in Pakistan destroy three churches?  I think the latter is correct and for this scholar to make such a ridiculous simplification is beyond me.

And how about:  “Almost every week you have an attack from the Sunni against the Shia, especially against the Shia, or the Shia against the Amadiah. Where do they take this from? They take it from the Muslim tradition.”  Is this guy for real?  The Muslim tradition or is it tribal and political hatred? 

No mainstream theologian can honestly take Father Samir seriously, he is too dangerous.

Louis, Father lives this culture, and my guess is you live in the US.  Islam demands retaliation when offended (burning churches), Christianity forbids it.  Their violence is justified by the Koran.  Do we in the West react w/violence when our religious sensibilities are offended??  No.  Islam does.  Don’t you watch the news?  His examples of their violent reaction to the Regensburg address and this recent threat to burn the Koran are legitimate and TYPICAL.  And because the Koran and tradition teach this, such actions are “truly Muslim”.  Simple logic. Like Fr. says, it’s not the best of Islam, but it is there. And Fr. Samir is absolutely right, building a mosque so near Ground Zero is psychologically wrong, and naive to think it benign.

Louis V obviously knows nothing about history or Islam.
Timothy McVeigh was not catholic and he actually denied the existance of God several times.  He also did not blow up the OK building in the name of Jesus Christ.  Allah is heard every time violence is
perpetrasted by the terrorists.  You are comparing apples and oranges.
Louis v needs to pick up a history book and find out what transpired for several hundred years in the middle east before the Crusades.
Stating that the “church supports”  sexual abuse is always used to fall back on when a true discussion falls short.  In actuality sexual abuse among priests is news because its all about the money and the stats prove that the rate is no greater than other religions or other branches of Christianity and well below the rates for public school teachers.
So lets discuss the mosque, shall we.

lldmrs - What do you call invading Iraq and killing over 100,000 Iraqi Muslims but retaliation for 9/11?

Being against the building on a site that has been used as a community centre and place of prayer for Muslims, and run by a sane, intelligent Imman and is not at Ground 0, and just continuing the hate and intolerance.

Blaming all Muslims for 9/11 is like blaming all Christians on the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan.  Just because one is call terrorism, and the other war, doesn’t change the result.  And just because the US is so militarily powerful is the only reason why the Bush regime isn’t up before an international court being tried for mass murder and treason.

Let’s keep up the stupid war and hatred between Muslims and Christians that has been going on for centuries.  It’s such a good idea and has advanced humanity, hasn’t it? 

There are peace loving Christians, Jews, and Muslims and there are those who use religion to promote violence and hatred.  Which group do you fall into?

It’s easy to lash out and be violent - it takes courage and perseverance to work for peace.

The threat of terrorism has been used by politicians to promote their own agenda.  But that threat is way down the list of the top 10 things that threaten humanity.  How about putting your energy into working on the top three?

Father Samir is right on target. The 9/11 attackers acted in the name of Islam, justified their terrorism with Islamic doctrines. Muslims may disagree with that, and present cogent counterarguments, but the fact remains that the deeds were done by fanatical members of that religion. To set up a magnificent mosque/center within spitting distance of the target—which remains, shamefully, a big pile of dirt—will be interpreted by the jihadists as an abject surrender to the force of their religious faith. And yes, Louis V., they were all true Muslims (members of the Ummah).

a sane, intelligent Imman

A sane, intelligent Imam who will not admit that Hamas is a terrorist organization? One is reminded of Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s celebrated phrase: “defining deviancy down”.

Sandra: Where’s the proposed new Christian/Jewish center in downtown Baghdad? What’s your point, besides getting off topic into another anti-Bush rant?

there are just as many pastors (àla Jones)  and other right-wing extremists representing Christianity spewing the same sort of hateful nonsense.

And the vast majority, like Jones, shepherd small, insignificant churches who attract media attention only because the media enjoys poking Christians in the eye by giving these jokers their 15 minutes of fame.

Yet even Jones, amazingly enough, backpedaled. One cannot say this about imams who encourage violence. They are widely diffused—not merely in the Middle East—and the media tend to ignore them… until the violence reaches a certain dull roar in places like Nigeria, Indonesia, India, and now even in Europe: Theo van Gogh, Kurt Westergaard, Ayaan Hirsi Ali…

I am quite happy to acknowledge that most Muslims are decent, peaceful people. But the refusal to acknowledge that there is an awful, poisonous rot that is widespread in Muslim culture strains credibility, especially when it manifests itself in the refusal to acknowledge that organizations like Hamas engage in terrorist acts.

Well stated, Jack. I’d have to say that the majority of decent, peaceful Muslims are scared out of their wits by the jihadis, whose stock in trade is terror. Terror works, unfortunately. It can only be defeated by people with courage.

Louis, your example of Timothy MvVeigh is a poor one. His actions were motivated by politics, not religion. The 9/11 attacks were indeed motivated by a religious ideology.

I think that they have the right to build that mosque. It’s a terrible idea. I agree with Father Samir in that it will instill fear, not understanding. Terry Jones is an idiot for proposing something like burning the Koran. Unfortunately, he too has the right to be such an idiot. However, I blame the press for giving this idiot a voice. Idiots should be ignored, not put on every major news network.

No one in the Catholic Church condones abuse or is justifying the past abuses. In fact, Christians believe themselves to be sinners and in need of redemption. On the other hand many muslims try to justify the 9/11 attacks and previous and subsequent terrorist activities. They also revere such action and promise eternal reward for such acts. Father Samir is right. Islam does justify such acts of violence against infidels.

President Obama stating yesterday that we are not at war with a religion is ridiculous. If we don’t realize that we are fighting an ideology, we are doomed. We are already pulling out of Iraq way before we should, and we are still half-heartedly fighting in Afghanistan. This is not pointed towards our soldiers, but rather at those of us at home. This supporting our troops, but not the war mentality really needs to stop. We should be rooting them on to victory.

A man of tolerance and peace, this Jesuit does not seem to be.

You forgot to call him an Islamophobe, Cocon. Follow the script.

“it is evident that any normal person will fear it. “

What an outrageous thing to say! “If you don’t agree with me, you aren’t NORMAL! So your views can just be automatically disregarded.”

I was persecuted throughout my schooling for not being “normal”, and I am furious at this arrogant attempt to dodge argument…. anybody who thinks otherwise is just a “freak” or “nut”.

How Christian is this?

Even from a distance from ground zero, the Jesuit knows far more about Islam than his persnickety critics. I would recommend two outstanding books written well before the terrorism began. “Moslems:Their beliefs, practices and politics”, a collection of articles by Gabriel Oussani published in the original Catholic Encyclopedia; and a 63-page essay written in 1936 by Hilaire Belloc; published after Sept 11, 2001, by Roger A. McCaffrey Publishing. The second book I recommend is “The New Jerusallem,” by G.K. Chesterton, written after the First World War, and published by Roman Catholic Books (see BooksforCatholics.com).

Excellent article.  Fr. Samir states the obvious, whether some people can see it, or not.

Hi Sandra,

You described the attack on Iraq as illegal and associated it with religion.

Here is a Wikipedia website to remind you of certain facts:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Before the war, there was a UN resolution followed by a joint resolution by the US Congress and Senate.

The post by Anne about core religious belief is helpful for getting the facts straight.

Catholics like me and Father Samir believe that life is a gift from God, so we find war and violence troubling. In (John 15:20), persecution will come, and I just
want to be know where it is coming from.

Sorry, Sandra,Will, Cocon and Loouis V,
Fr. Samir’s credentials sure seem to be vastly superior to yours.  You all sound like reactionary, head-in-the sand, bleeding-heart liberals who refuse to face the truth.

Timothy McVeigh did not claim to act on behalf of Christianity. In a recorded interview with Time magazine McVeigh professed his belief in “a god”, although he said he had “sort of lost touch with” Catholicism. The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter to them claiming to be an agnostic and that he did not believe in a hell. McVeigh once said that he believed the universe was guided by natural law, energized by some universal higher power that showed each person right from wrong if they paid attention to what was going on inside them. He had also said, “Science is my religion.”

This is leagues away from a Muslim saying clearly “I do this on behalf of Islam.”

Sandra states: “Let’s keep up the stupid war and hatred between Muslims and Christians that has been going on for centuries.  It’s such a good idea and has advanced humanity, hasn’t it?”
Actually Sandra, hundreds of years of ‘talking’, ‘negotiating’, bargaining and self censure (dhimmification) under Islamic conquest resulted in the Crusades.  Islam isn’t interested in bargaining.  Never was.  Never will be.  Read the headlines once in a while.  Ramadan 2010 Body Count = 1,339.  Ramadan 2009 Body Count: 1,260
Nothing measures closely to the bloodletting that takes place on a daily basis in the name of Islam around the globe.

Fr. Samir has it right.  Is it comfortable?  No.  But it’s correct.  Some of the above comments illustrate a weakness in logic, such as in the fallacious comparison re Timothy McVeigh.  Or that reader didn’t correctly read what Fr. Samir said.

That often happens when someone prefers to hew to his own view rather than to see w/ unfettered brain what someone else presents, the facts be damned.

For Louis V. and others. What Father is trying to say is that Koran actually calls for the killing of infidels—Jews and Christians—as a holy act. A good Muslim isn’t allowed to interpret the Koran, merely recite it. A good Muslim would believe in violent conversion of Chrisitians and Jews. A bad Muslim would ignore those parts of the Koran, and be peaceful. Islam is the religion of peace, but peace means “submission” in the Koran. That means the Muslim is at peace with you when you submit to the teachings of the Koran/Sharia law and become a Muslim. If you do not submit, they are required to make war against you. You can find all this out by reading the Koran. It is similar to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who believe that when you open the door and you are not of their faith, you are in the realm of Satan. The Catholic believes that when you open the door, you are to be loved as Jesus Christ. The Catholic believes they are to see and serve the Person of Jesus Christ in their neighbor. ( I have done door-to-door evangelization for the Catholic Church, and each visit is a mini Incarnation. We visit with companions—the Holy Spirit and Mary. The Holy Spirit overshadows the person visited as He overshadowed Mary and we see the Person of Jesus born in the heart of the person visited. This is the polar opposite of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ approach to souls) So too is Christianity the opposite in many ways of Islam. Christ taught us to turn the other cheek when slapped (don’t retaliate). Christ taught us to forgive “not seven times, but seventy times seven (a very large number)” He taught greater love hath no man than he give his life for his friend (this does not involve suicide and murder.) He taught us to love (not kill) our enemies. There is nothing like this in Islam. Therefore if a man professes to be a Christian and kills another in the name of Christ he is a “bad” Christian, not a good Christian. Yet a Muslim kills another in the name of Allah and he is a “good” Muslim. A bad “reformed” Muslim is peaceable, but he is lapsed from his faith. I applaud “bad” Muslims who are peaceable and lapsed from their faith. There are good things in Islam they can latch onto, but they cannot whole heartedly accept their entire faith, or they will be killing Christians and Jews and anyone who burns the Koran. Catholics on the other hand can fundamentally accept the teachings in the Scripture and turn the other cheek, forgive their enemies and love those who hate them, and they will be “good” Catholics.
I think the pastor in Florida is a well-intentioned man, but unfortunately lacking true Christian discernment—except that now he apparently has backed down from the burning of the Korans. Although it bothered me at the time, our beloved late Pope John Paul II did indeed kiss the Koran. I take it as a sign of respect for the people who believe in that book, not the religion itself. And while I feel the religion of Islam is a actually a form of tribulation for its own believers and for the rest of us, the people of Islam are children of the same God the Father that I worship. God is the Father of mankind, not just Christians. This is a true Catholic position. Any Catholic who hated Muslims because of their actions of terrorism in the world are not “good” Catholics. They are Catholics in need of more conversion. Jesus gave all of us Christians, the “Our Father” prayer. He didn’t say “My” Father. He said “Our” Father. The instant consequence of that is that any human being you meet is your brother. Mormans haven’t got that down yet, though I have hope for them. I meet a Morman family at Disneyland, and they were rejoicing about the afterlife that they would spend all together as a family—husband, wife, their genetic children. They had a very exclusvive view of the afterlife. I asked the Morman father, “Is God your Father?” He said, “Yes.” And I told him, “God is my Father too! I am your sister. So I will be with you in the afterlife!” He was surprized, but seemed pleased. That’s the meaning of “Our Father.”

There are between 6 to 8 million Muslims in the United States. They are not our enemies. 

Father Samir has a much higher responsibility to be careful at what he says.  He was not very careful in this interview.  It could be seen as inflammatory given the context of recent events - so why say anything?

Most of these respondents did not interpret my earlier posts properly, and I don’t have time to simplify for those who are incapable of understanding what I wrote.

For Susan Fox, you are incorrect in the saying that 6 to 8 million Muslims are bad Muslims because they are not killing “infidels”.  Shame on you.

The problems with the National Catholic Register is that they are conservative leaning in their political views, which are often in conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Many of the bloggers are irresponsible in their writings.  They are intelligent and thoughtful but only when it suits their political positions.

There are real liberals, just those who think for themselves and then there is everyone else, which you can correctly identify as conservatives.

It may well be true that most Muslims want to live in peace and are truly loving towards this country. But they don’t speak out…nor are they at all effective in eliminating/silencing their terrorist brethren…while in fact the Iman spokesperson for the proposed mosque publically has stated that the Hamas are NOT terrorists! In other words no matter how peaceful you paint the majority of Muslims the Islamic religion is based upon fear…of repraisal for any deviation from the centuries old Qu’an…
and the evidence for that is in the Qu’an…for any and all to read. From
the comments given here I would doubt few have ever read it and yet it is easily found as close as your local library. Among other things stated that fall far from the Christian ideal of love of neighbor..especially the love of enemy…in the Qu’an you will find followers being told not to count Christians or Jews among their friends…and to slaughter the Infidel…i.e. Christians and Jews! Comparing a declared War as in Iraq and Afghanistan to the sneak attack of 9/11 is just plain silly. For over 20 years Saddam Hussein defied the United Nations and continued the wholesale
murder of his own people and was in the process of acquiring weapons of mass destruction just as Ahmajinadab is now in Iran. But the point the Jesuit scholar is making here is not about that…he is making impromtu
remarks to a reporter asking question..not giving a scholarly treatise.
But he speaks about what he believes to be true…and only a fool would find much to argue with here.

Dear Louis V
I never ever said 6 to 8 million muslims are bad Muslims!  I said from the perspective of the Koran, all Muslims ( who do not fight the infidel) are “bad” Muslims. I think they are good, very good children of God! That is the Christian perspective. The Koran does not agree. The word “bad” was in quotes meaning it is not my opinion. Your twisted what I said. God bless you anyway Louis V.

Susan, I appreciate your clarification.  My apologies to you and other readers.

Here’s what Muslims say about themselves (I hope this helps everyone):

Allah:  Just means God in Arabic, the same God we all worship.

jihad:  Often mistranslated “holy war,” especially against the West, the more accurate Arabic meaning is “struggle.”  Jihad is the struggle to control one’s lower instincts.  Jihad also means to use a fair war to give a nation freedom of religion if all other means fail.  Islam’s main proclamation is “No compulsion in religion” Koran 2:255.  The Afghani Mujahideen (those who do jihad) fought against the atheist Russians to keep their freedom of religion. Unfortunately, chaos ensued.

extremism:  “We made you a nation that should take the middle way in all its affairs before all humanity . . .” (2:143)  “God does not love the excessive ones.” (6:141)

suicide “martyrdom”:  “Do not kill yourselves.” (4:29).  Self-killers are condemned to hell.  Even killing oneself to end extreme pain is unacceptable.  Some radical sects, considered non-Muslim by most, view suicide-killing as legitimate.

martyrdom:  A martyr (Arabic shaheed=witness) is somebody who dies as a witness for goodness or a witness against evil.  A martyr testifies before God about the evil-doers that killed him/her and about the goodness his/her death creates in society.

terrorism:  The punishment for those who wreak havoc is extremely harsh (5:33-34).  Terrorism has as little to do with Islam as burning a cross to terrorize a black family has to do with Christianity.  Terrorism is often done by haters of Islam, peace and justice to sabotage good Muslims causes such as peace settlements, democracy movements and modernization. No Islamic teaching supports terrorism.

on killing innocent people:  “And do not kill the soul that God gave sanctity to except by law.” (17:33)  The Koran tells us that killing one person is like killing all humanity.

family values:  Husbands and wives serve each other.  Muslim families cherish traditional family values and close relations with the extended family.  Women may work and own businesses, but the husband alone has the duty to provide for the family.  Children are expected to take care of their parents when they get old.

treatment of women:  Misinformation about this subject has fanned much of the hatred about Muslims.  Here is what we are really taught:  (1) Paradise is under the “feet” of the mother; (2) a good wife is half a man’s religion, (3) men are ordered to “treat them in good ways,” (Koran 4:19) and that, in the words of the Prophet Mohammed in his last sermon, (4) “the best of you is the one that is best to his wife.”

four wives:  Islam was the first religion to limit the number of wives. But the taking of more than one wife was meant to happen only when there was social necessity, such a during war times when there were a large number of widows and orphans.  A husband is required to treat each wife with absolute fairness and equality and to have only one wife if he doubts he can be fair. Polygamy is illegal in America and, according to Islam, Muslims are bound by American law.

scarves for women:  This is based on a verse in the Koran. “And let them spread their scarves over their shirt openings and not show their natural adornment . . .” (24:31)  If Muslim women choose not to cover their head, there is no Islamic law punishing them or coercing them.  Styles of dress are cultural and vary according to culture throughout the Islamic world.

female genital mutilation:  This is found in some African countries and is a very painful tribal practice passed down to the present day.  It is not based on Islamic teaching.  Many Muslim women, such as the wife of the late Anwar Sadat, are working hard to eliminate the practice.

Deviations from the Islamic norm are cultural or political biases not based on Islam.

Minorities should stick together :)

There are real liberals, just those who think for themselves and then there is everyone else, which you can correctly identify as conservatives.

I like it! Or, in other words, intelligent people are those who agree with me. Everyone else is stupid. What excellent critical thinking skills you have there!

Deviations from the Islamic norm are cultural or political biases not based on Islam.

Pray tell, who defines deviations from the Islamic norm? Is there a Muslim version of the Pope I can talk to? I think the closest version is that Shi’a fellow in Iraq, whose name escapes me at the moment. I’m not sure he’d agree very much with this list, though. Or, I suppose, we could go with the religious authorities of Saudia Arabia, who surely should know Islam best of all (seeing as how it was born in their nation). Again, I think they would have some pretty hard issues with your list. They might even say that your list is culturally influenced by American ways of thought, and does not reflect pure Islam.

If Muslim women choose not to cover their head, there is no Islamic law punishing them or coercing them.

Meanwhile, in the real world (well, okay, in Europe anyway) governments have had to pass laws forbidding any sort of religious garments at schools, so as to prevent Muslims (who read the Koran quite differently from what you present) from harassing young Muslim women who would otherwise go without the scarf.

I could go on, but I won’t. Once again, who defines deviations from the Islamic norm? In Islam there is no magisterium, no canon law (unless you want to include Shari’a, which does in fact prescribe headwear), no imam with the authority of final appeal (not even, I’ll bet, the Shi’a fellow in Iraq). Muslim imams, much like Protestant pastors, very often disagree on how to interpret the Koran, and any two of them will often give the listener a different opinion.

These are wise and powerful words from Father Samir, a man who truly understands the soul of Islam.  He knows the significance to Muslims of “putting up something where you destroyed something.”  Our craven politicians would do well to learn from this man.

Louis: “Jihad is the struggle to control one’s lower instincts.” Oh, and also it’s a struggle for Freedom of Religion.

This statement, and your description of conservatives as people who don’t think for themselves and who are in conflict with the Church’s teachings, tells us much more about you than it does about Islamic doctrine.

Again, instead of taking someone else’s version of Islam go to the nearby library and check out the Koran (Qu’an) and read for yourself. One can learn just exactly what the Islamic religion teaches and what it is that those who follow it believe. The five pillars of the faith are clearly spelled out for all to read. Of course there appear to be many Muslims among us who want to live in peace and prosperity just as most of the Christians and Jews. Just how that may be carried out in the Islamic mind and heart is spelled out in the Koran…and it is important as well to look to our history books and see how it has played out in the past. We cannot make decisions without being informed. As for the Christians or those claiming to be adherents to the tenets of that faith there is only one response and that is love…especially toward those who bear you hate
and ill-will. Perhaps most Muslims adhere to the Islamic faith about as well as most Christians…not well at all. God (Allah) be praised!

Shamrock—We can love Muslims and still disagree with what their religion fosters, the “five pillars” not withstanding.  Jesus said by their fruits you shall know them (see 9/11).

Motto of the Muslim Brotherhood:

Allah is our objective.
The Prophet is our leader.
The Qur’an is our law.
Jihad is our way.
Death in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

(Jihad, of course, meaning the struggle against online pornography.)

Hi Michael,
All I’m saying is that Christians criticizing Muslims is the pot calling the kettle black.  If you go over the entire history of that relationship, both sides look pretty black. 

The plan to invade Iraq has been plotted since the Reagan regime, and the shock of 9/11 was exploited to justify that invasion.  And it’s a Muslim nation, so a lot of Muslims interpreted that as an attack on Islam.  And Bush, Cheney, et al cloak themselves in the Christian mantel and talk about good people destroying the evil doers.  The language masks the reality.

If Muslims are judged by the fruit they bear, then it is only fair to judge Christians by the same standards.  Let’s get away from this religious war insanity and start to understand our fellow human beings.  This isn’t gushy liberal talk - the survival of humanity demands it.  It’s enlightened self interest.  The great spiritual (not necessarily religious) thinkers all come to the profound understanding that we are one. 

And with all due respect to Fr. Samir - he’s not the first Jesuit to be wrong.

Sandra—I quote the philospher John McEnroe: You cannot be serious!  Or maybe you are, which really scares me.  Don’t play the moral equivalence game.  Christian culture is so vastly superior to Muslim culture as to make any attempt at comparison almost absurd.  If Muslims can’t destroy us from without, they will do it from within, if we let them.

David T.

Time for you to read some less biased history of Christianity.  And to say it is superior?  Who are you to judge? 

Christianity is superior because it was founded by the son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. No other prophet made this claim..not Buddha nor Mohammed! Does that make Christians superior to people of other faiths?
No,it certainly does not nor would any good Christian hold to that false belief. Have horrendous things been done in the name of religion ...of all stripes and colors? History proves it so…the last two Popes recognized this and made public apology for these heinous crimes committed by the “bad” people in the Church….throughout history. However truth is not altered by the sinful acts of man. Truth is not something..it is Somebody and that Somebody has a name. It is Jesus Christ! Who gave us only two commandments…to love God and to love your neighbor! If one fulfills those two all the other commandments fall into place. Christians must love even their enemies…those who would plot against them even. That does not mean we have to hide our heads in the sand and not defend ourselves when attacked. There are just wars…the greatest is the war against evil of all kinds and in all places…but it must be done according to laws of man which should reflect the justice..and mercy of God! The struggle will go on as long as evil remains un-checked and allowed to grow. prejudice and hatred must not be the motivation of a Christian engaged in the battle
against the evil world. To know the enemy is the first rule of battle engagement. Know the real Devil whom you rail against. Read the Qur’an at
your local library…find the truth in Islam…and the evil there shall be clear. But respect those who hold to these false religions and forgive their ignorance. Many if not most among them are not evil people..they are
simply caught up in the lies of the Devil…pray for them..expecially the Rosary which is our greatest weapon against evil given to us by the Mother of God, Mary Most Holy. Even the Muslims know Mary..she is mentioned in the Koran as the mother of Jesus…and holds great respect among those believers. There is a great commonality among the world’s great religions. We need to think about that and respecting those ideas shared among us could give us the peace we long for in this fragile and broken world.

Love that We’re Number One Mentality.  It’s divisive and small minded.

Sandra: I love that moral equivalence argument of yours. It’s so…multicultural. Open. Diverse. So progressive.

Just one teeny thing wrong with it. It’s wrong. There is no Christian equivalent to the jihad being waged against us. The war we are in is not our fault. We are fighting people whose goal is either our submission or our destruction. And yes, they all have moms & dads, special talents, perhaps a sense or humor or a way with pets. They’re human, too. We know. We also know that your approach—the Jimmy Carter/Barack Obama “let’s open a dialogue, yadda yadda”—is about as effective as throwing peas at a tank.

If your whole point is we can get along with jihadists if we exercise Christian virtue, then it’s no wonder you can’t fathom an Egyptian Jesuit who knows the real deal. I earnestly pray that you are granted a better sense of discernment. I, like other mind-numbed conservative Catholic robots, would rather you woke up to the truth that we must never acquiesce to evil men than you and your family find yourselves face to face with them.

I was going to respond to some the the outrageous things Sandra said, but Phil, Shamrock and others, you summed things up better than I could have!  Well done.

“Time for you to read some less biased history of Christianity.  And to say it is superior?  Who are you to judge?”

Sandra: I have read plenty of Christian history, biased in all different directions. Islam is an oppressive religion and always has been. If the difference between life in a Christian country and life in a Muslim country doesn’t show you which is superior, I don’t know what will. But I do know this: If they get their way, radical Muslims are going to make us all judge which religion is superior. It would be nice if we could all live and let live—as it’s obvious the vast majority of Americans and Europeans wish—but they have made it quite clear that they don’t want to.

Sandra…thanks for the opportunity you have given us all to practice what Jesus Christ our Saviour instructed us to do when we meet adversity…it’s just too sad that we continue on acting as though the commandment to love is for everyone else. We can disagree with charity and love and correct error where we see it without the name-calling, etc. Jesus did’t say this but I think he would agree..“you catch more flies with honey than vinegar!” Actually my grand-mother used to say that to me..and she was the holiest person in my young life…and wise also…if you won’t listen to Jesus…try Grand-ma!

History speaks for itself, and the Church has done much to acknowledge and apologize for it over the recent years.  But Sandra’s points are well taken, if looked at objectively.  There is no need to attack her statements just because you don’t like them. 

My original post does not question Father Samir’s credentials, I acknowledged them BUT because of his authority on the subject and the fact that he is a Catholic priest, I seriously questioned his judgment on the statements he’s made to the interviewer. 

Everyone runs off on a tangent and brings politics into the discussion (me included) and forgets the bigger issue, which is to be tolerant and and accepting of ALL people regardless of their religion.  I think Sandra and Susan Fox has these intentions; I question whether authors on this site (e.g. Jimmy Akin, et al) are disguising their comments as “Phil”, “Questioner”, etc.  I am probably wrong but their writing styles and arguments are make me wonder.

Louis, if you don’t like Sandra’s statements then you should criticize them—that’s what a debate is all about. Otherwise we can all post position statements then go out to dinner, sort of like the UN. Example: you’re wrong (again) when you say that the “bigger issue” is to be tolerant and accepting. It isn’t. The main point of a debate is to clarify understanding of an issue through give-and-take. Convince me that I’m wrong and you’re right. Show me the evidence; give me proofs; use logic and reason.

We are already tolerant and accepting. NYC is full of mosques and Islamic centers. It’s the propriety of putting one right next to the WTC site that is at issue. And whether that center will be put to propaganda use by the enemies of our country, our faith, and our freedoms.

And let the record show that I am not Jimmy Akin or any other blogger here, at least the last time I checked. I hope that puts your mind at rest.

Louis—So anyone who disagrees with you is a religious bigot?  You don’t sound very tolerant to me.

Sandra—your position is wrong.  We are not all one—Christ has no part with Belial.  Fr Samir understands the dangers of Islam because he has studied it and lived among Muslims all his life.  Heed his warning: radical Islam is Islam.

Dear Louis V,
We sincerely respect your efforts to interpret the Koran in a more kindly manner. However, the Koran contains many verses which contradict those you provided.

I have been reading in the Wall Street journal articles from an array of “Moderate Muslims” with some clearly stating that there are troubling verses in the Qur’an which need to be honestly dealt with including:

66:9 “Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate.” 

Who is the true believer and who is the unbeliever?

Qur’an 4: 76 states that “True believers fight for the cause of Allah but the infidels fight for idols.”

Qur’an 49: 15 states that “True believers are those who have faith in Allah and His apostles and never doubt and fight for his cause with their wealth and person.”

Qur’an 5:33 states that “Those who make war against Allah and His apostle who cause corruption in the land shall be put to death or crucified or punished by the amputation of their hands or be banished from the country.”

Are these verses only applicable for Mohammed or are they still applicable today?

Verses which read: 4:92 “It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer except by accident.” are irrelevant unless there is an authoritative definition of the believer apart from the contradictions of the Qur’an.  When the Islamic jihadist flew the planes into the Twin Towers, they had no plans to kill Muslims and as such their death (believers) was by accident. 

The other reason a Muslim may kill another Muslim is found in the Life of Mohammed: “Whoever changes his Islamic Religion, then kill him.”

But what about the 10 Commandments to Moses: “Thou shall not KILL.” And so because the Qur’an says Muslims shall not kill Muslims, the Jew, the Catholic, the Buddhist, the Hindu are supposed to sleep better at night? 

But again 4:95 “The believers who stay at home - apart from those that suffer a grave impediment - are not equal to those who fight for the cause of Allah with their and good and their persons.  Allah has given those that fight with their goods and their persons and higher rank then those who stay at home.”

5:49 “Believers take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. “

5:82 “You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans and those nearest in affection to them are those who say: “We are Christians.”

The tit for tat on Qur’anic verses proves nothing except that a person with a generous heart may be inclined to the softer recitals in the Koran (Qur’an), and the more base person (which is the majority of humanity) may be inclined to the darker statements. 

And this is the crux of the matter.  In a world of 1 billion Muslims there exists a very large pool from which the more base are groomed towards the darker statements.

With the collapse of Catholicism in Western Society, there is a dwindling ability and willingness to make valid distinctions to ideas and actions.

As a result, everything is identical or relevant and a person who opposes such a world view is seen as derisive and divisive.

The most obvious case in point is the inability on the part of the press and the establishment to comprehend the core issues surrounding the plan to build a 13 story Mosque within two blocks of Ground Zero in NY City. 

•      This plan to build the Mosque was a pure provocation or a sign of complete lack of humility on the part of the planners.

•      The Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf identifies radicals in Christianity and politicians as creating this uproar for self-gain and lumps them in with radical Muslims who will in the end burn churches, shoot and behead doctors, missionaries, and Christians if this Mosque is not allowed to be built.  And the press never takes him to task for such arrogance.

•      It would have been reasonable to remind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf that those who flew the planes into the Towers, the Pentagon, and those who attempted the flight towards the Capitol building - but thwarted by brave Americans – were all practicing Muslims who attended Mosques. Timothy McVeigh was a non-practicing Christian, who never repented even at the end of his life when the priest offered him the opportunity to confess.

•      Is it reasonable to remind imam Feisal Abdul Rauf that the man who shot and murdered soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood attended a Mosque?.

•      Is it reasonable to remind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf that the young man who left the car in NY Time Square loaded with bombs attended a Mosque and the young man who attempt to blow up the airline over Detroit attended a Mosque?. 

•      Is it reasonable to remind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf that the young Muslims attending Mosque are murdering Christians, Hindus, and fellow Muslims and launching rockets into Israel, blowing up building, trains, discos, in Bali, Madrid, Kenya, Philippines, Ossetia, Albania, Chechnya, Moscow, India, Thailand, Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, Cairo, Sudan, & Somalia?

•      Again because so many people are unable to distinguish right from wrong all actions are the same: Those who lost family members in 9/11 and are upset about the Cordova project – in the view of some Muslims – are no different than the jihadists murdering people around the world.

Pope Benedict at Regensburg brought up a very valid point by quoting the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (or Paleologus) in a 1391 dialogue with an “educated Persian” - which was under Islamic siege. “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only bad and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

The response from the Islamic world was apoplectic. When you read through the various responses from Islamic Heads of State you would think that someone was murdered. Which shows to some degree the issue of jihad is a sensitive issue for the Muslim world. They know that the original meaning and context was to fight against the unbeliever. The concept of a “little jihad” versus the “great jihad” is a false distinction since Mohammed recited these words after killing a number of unbelievers: “I’m leaving my one struggle (war), but going to my greater struggle (spiritual).”  Only a bi-polar person speaks of spiritual renewal in the same breath as killing others.

It should be noted that number translated book into Arabic was the book “Mein Kampf” by Adolph Hitler, which translated means, “My Struggle.” Changing the meaning of the word Jihad from “war” to “struggle” should not be welcome in the Western World.
God bless you.

Sincerely,
Lawrence and Susan Fox
P.S. A good resource material is the book by Mark Gabriel titled “Jesus and Mohammed.”

@ Louis V

Bigot: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed,  belief,  or opinion that differs from one’s own.

I haven’t heard Phil say anything intolerant of our Protestant brothers and sisters.  I haven’t heard him say anything intolerant of Jew’s (our older brothers in faith.) I’ve only heard him speak out against ONE religion who promotes violence as a way to further it’s own religion.  Inarguabley there are at least factions of the Muslim religion for which this is very true.

Here’s a new defintion:  Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

One thing we can all be sure of is that God is merciful.  In his mercy he sent his son Jesus to die for all.  His son established his Church as a means of dispensing his salvation throughout the world.  The Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit to empower the Church and operate through it.  The Holy Spirit is not limited by the Church, but without the Church we would have no Holy Spirit.  Therefore, without the Church, it would be impossible for anyone to be saved.  Q.E.D. extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

David T

Many people and scholars support your position and many people and scholars support mine.  So it’s more useful to say that you believe what you believe is true, not that it is THE truth.  You have your truth - an interpretation of a whole lot of people.  And I have mine, ann interpretation of a whole lot of people.  Your people are big in the RC Church, mine are big outside of that organization (and interestingly enough, some of them inside).  So we disagree, but can explore the reasons for that disagreement and either change our opinions or reconfirm them.  It doesn’t make either one of us absolutely right.  It is the absolutism of some Catholics that gets them into trouble, contradictions, and having to back track. 

I think we should leave it up to God to decide who gets saved and who doesn’t.  Isn’t that what you believe he told us to do?

I don’t think we can judge what Muslims/Jews/Hindus know or don’t know about salvation in the Catholic Church.  There is a veil over the Jews’ eyes for a time placed there by God so that the full number of the Gentiles can enter the Church.  And while it is true that when Muslims go to heaven they do so only through Jesus Christ and his Catholic Church, the New Catholic Catechism states “Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.” (paragraph 1260) Muslims are not allowed to read the Bible. Their religion in a sense holds them hostage. That’s why I feel the religion is a tribulation/a suffering for the people who are born into it.  If they cannot know the words of the Gospel, how can they be judged by God when they are ignorant of the Gospel of Christ. Some of them do indeed seek the truth and do the will of God in accordance with their understanding of it. But woe to us if we do not speak the words of the Gospel when given the opportunity to do so. Silent Catholics are the ones who will be judged!

I went to a 9-day Catholic retreat with my son, and was told, “You are responsible for what you receive at this retreat!” Later I see my son not acting according to what was said at the retreat. I asked him about it, and he said, “Mom I am only responsible for what I received. I did not receive what you received.” It is true God uniquely speaks to each of us. I’ve read passages from the Bible to my son, and asked him what he noticed and invariably it is something different than I noticed. That doesn’t mean we came to a different or non-Catholic understanging of Scripture, but simply that different things in the same passage touched us deeply. The Scripture is a living love letter from God. In every life nothing happens accidentally, everything is gifted providentially. God speaks loudly through the Scripture, but also through the unique experiences of our lives. We but have to sit and listen, and think about what happened to us. But we can’t judge what others hear from God based on what we hear.
God bless you.

Sandra
I believe God chose his Church to take the gospel to the world.  He revealed his truth to us through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of his Son.  The truth, then, is not something we determine for ourselves.  If you have your truth and I have my truth, we will inevitably clash and the stronger will prevail.  But Christ turns the heart toward love of God and neighbor.  This is how we know Islam is false—it does not promote love.

Please forgive me if this small but not minor point has already been made. One commenter urged referring to the writings deemed authoritative by each faith group and for Islam listed the Quran. My understanding is that in Islam the Hadiths (ahadith) have great authority and must also be consulted.

To the Fox’s:

Thank you very much for the research, it was quite detailed and interesting.  I have two copies of the Quran, one at work and one at home.  I say that because both were gifts from local mosques that my daughter’s Catholic middle school had taken them within the last three years.  In spite of the disturbing passages you have pointed out, it was (and has) been brought to mind that a vast majority of imams do not take the words literally, and for obvious reasons.

For example, in the Bible Jesus said that if your eye causes you to sin, then “gouge it out” (Mk. 9:47, one of several interpretations).  “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.” (Matt. 18:8).

Now now Catholic priest would ever take those words literally.  Without being a scholar of Islam, I think it is very safe to say that the passages you state are also not to be taken literally either.  American Muslims have been hear since the 1600’s; they are hardly new to the American religious landscape. 

Here’s a good link on 5 myths about mosques in America: 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605510.html

This was written by a Muslim scholar, by the way.

My whole point was not whether Father Samir was right or wrong on the issue, rather it was speaking as a Catholic Church official and weighing in such a way that it could be presented as anti-Muslim.  Please read my initial posts at the top of this thread.

At any rate, we have thousands of Muslims working for Homeland Security, in local police and government agencies, in defense companies, and in our military fighting in the Middle East.  Their are plenty of Muslim countries fighting against extremists today. 

Please don’t let the rhetoric of the Sarah Palin’s and Sean Hannity’s and all those racist demagogues distort what FREEDOM means for everyone in the United States of America.  I have stated that the opinions of those calling themselves “conservatives”, “republicans”, or “tea party activists” are hypocritical as they proclaim FREEDOM as their primary tenet yet work as hard as possible to prevent freedom for anyone who is neither Christian or white.

Phil,

You said “To set up a magnificent mosque/center within spitting distance of the target…”.  There was a mosque inside of one of the Towers.  Muslims perished on 9/11 too.  There is a strip club on the same street as the proposed Islamic center.  How sacred is the are around Ground Zero?  There is at least four mosques in Manhattan. 

One way to delineate what is truly sacred is to simply identify borders (good old fashioned zoning ordinances) around the site and apply EQUALLY the same rules that would apply to all religions, entertainment clubs, adult bookstores, nude dancing clubs, etc.  Then we don’t have to mess around with the First Amendment. 

What applies to one religion should apply to all.  That is as American of a concept of freedom as you can get. 

PS—I really don’t think you are a religious bigot.  That was not a nice thing to say and I regret it. 

Please accept my apology. 

[My intention was to see if or how you would argue against that.  You have very sharp and insightful responses.  You are correct on many of your points however the fundamental point onthe consistent application of American values and constitutional guarantees are questionable at best.]

While Jesus uses hyperbole to make a point in most of His parables that is not to say that the same is true of the Qur’an…in fact if you look at how those “unsettling” statements within the Qur’an have been carried out in history one would definitely not believe there is the same usage of hyperbole in it as in the NT.
Sandra ....when you speak of truth you infer that it is relative to the believer. Truth is not something, according to the Church. It is somebody and He has a name, Jesus Christ. Truth in its very nature has to be absolute or it is not truth. It remains just opinion.

Dear Louis V,
Thank you very much. The analogy doesn’t work. Historically, have you ever heard of a vast number of Christians cutting out their eyes, their arms or whatever appendage causes them to sin? No, none. Every Christian from the year 33 AD have understood that to be a hyperbole. The emphasis is on the seriousness of the sin. Cut out the sin from your life. We do that alot, but we don’t cut our appendages. But historically, including on 9/11, haven’t there been a significant number of cases of Muslims interpreting those passages we gave you as permission to kill Jews, Christians and any Muslim who convert to Christianity. There are vast numbers of Christians—formerly Muslim—who have suffered death and persecution for changing their religion.

Lawrence and I have both worked with Muslims at the UN for the defense of human life. We have great respect and love for these individuals, who make great sacrifices to protect innocent unborn life. In some cases, it is only us fundmentalist Catholics and Mormons, some Protestants and Muslims who are willing to stand up for the unborn child. Sometimes, even Catholic countries in South America will not support human life, but Egypt will.  In no way do we want Muslims to become like secularized Westerners. We pray for and love our Muslim brothers and sisters.

When you get the chance read the book by Mark Gabriel called “Jesus and Mohammed.” It puts the whole discussion into context. God bless you, Susan and Lawrence Fox

Susan,

The analogy was not meant to be literal.  However, there are passages in the Bible that sound like Jesus is denying his divinity.  The Jehovah’s Witnesses take that literally.  And it says somewhere in the Gospel that “we are all gods”, and I think the Mormon’s distort that passage.  We Catholics get it correctly.  There is no issue with the only true Christian religion on earth.

But religious identity and violence is not just limited to Muslims—look at the Hindus in Kashmir, the Catholics of the Irish Republican Army, etc. etc.  Now I am fully aware that we don’t have Catholic jihadist’s killing in the name of Jesus; we have beat that one to death already (and that ended with the Crusades centuries ago).  But that does not simply condemn Islam because of those wretched criminals who do. 

But I take issue with the suggestion that we make separate applications of our rule of law to suit the current sentiment on AM radio and Fox News (no pun intended). And as you may have recognized by now, I abhor discrimination of any kind.  Catholics have been discriminated in this country’s history, as were women, minorities, physically disabled, the elderly, and others.  We have come along in society but backward looking views are a recipe for disaster.

I don’t think Islam-bashing is serving anyone’s best interests, least of all Catholics who have not been known for following Christ’s example in recent years.

Someone in a previous post mentioned that “all minorities should stick together”.  I don’t really understand what that meant but I think it wasn’t a complement.  All’s I can say to that person is if you aren’t a minority now, you will be soon.  So be nice.

Thanks!

Louis

Louis V,

You said “I don’t think Islam-bashing is serving anyone’s best interest.”

The article is about building a huge mosque/cultural center within “spitting distance,” from where Muslim extremists attacked the twin towers and killed over two thousand innocent people.

At the VERY LEAST it is insensitive.

60% of American’s feel that it is not RIGHT or FITTING for there to be a huge Mosque so close to were the attack took place.

Look at the somewhat similar situation where a convent was build near Auschwitz.  The families of people who died there were outraged.  In their opinion it was not right or fitting for the Catholic Convent to be there.  What did the Pope do?  He had the Convent moved.  Was the Pope “Catholic Bashing?”  I hardly think so!

Tolerance is a two-way street.

I’d be most happy to meet with anyone on this blog that wants to chat after we’re dead.  I think that would be a great time to discuss beliefs that were held on this side, and how they coincide (or not) with our experiences there.

NO WHERE does the Catholic Church teach that you have to be an active member of the Catholic Church to be saved. This is where the Feenyites
fell off the wagon..and every living Catholic who professes the Faith should know what the Church says about salvation outside the Church. For the sake of brevity I would first recommend a good solid reading of the Cathechism on this matter before disemminating mis-informations and then to read John Paul II’s Crossing the Threshold of Faith! in which he very clearly states the true position of the Church! In brief what the Church has always and clearly taught is that salvation comes from the graces of the Cross of Jesus Christ, who died on Calvary for all sinners. Those graces continue to flow from the Cross to All believers everywhere covering all time. Where are those graces to be found…in the BELIEF in the Saviour…The Church has no walls..it extends thru time and space…and God in his mercy can save all, even those who never heard of Jesus through His son.That is the Good News…why do we say the Church has
the saving graces? Everyday at every Masss ( and the Mass is being offered almost perpetually around the world at every minute someplace) Calvary is being re-presented so those saving graces continue to flow, from the Catholic Church to all those who accept Jeus’sacrifice. We don’t know how those who never heard of Jesus are saved but that is part of the great mystery of salvation history and God’s goodness. No one who is accepting
of this grace is lost…read Crossing the Threshold which explains it in
much better terms that I can…but no Catholic should be denying these graces to those outside the Church. You who have the Truth are commanded
to share this Truth ...grace flows from our sacramental Church mysteriously
beyond the physical walls of the buildings we call Church…but The Church is universal. This is the significance of every mass you have attended and we should not consider our attendance an obligation but a privilege.

Returning to this thread, I note that it is being driven way off topic by the No Salvation Outside the Church exchanges. This belongs elsewhere, folks. Contact NCR about posting a separate article and comments, because these lengthy diatribes are distracting to the discussion of Fr. Samir on the Ground Zero Mosque.

Louis: Reading your comments addressed to me, if I can find them in the thicket of “You’re a Feenyite!” “Am not!” “Are too!”, I am gratified that you don’t think I’m a bigot. Thanks. But I think I know where that was coming from. I believe you denounced Sarah Palin, Hannity and Fox at one point, and immediately recognized the tell-tale call of catholicus liberalis, whose reaction to being challenged is distinctive across the entire species.

Now can we talk about mosques, jihad, and 9/11?

A pont well taken Phil and one with which I could not agree more but this is what happens I find in most instances of most blogs! Because there are many besides Catholics blogging here there is an obligation to correct the heresies promoted by seemingly knowledgable Catholics. I will just briefly state if you want to know the truth of Catholicism read the Catholic Catechism available in all bookstores on the topic of salvation and disregard the heretical statements offered in great length here. It contains the truth on matters of our faith! Your suggestion about making this a topic for discussion on another blog..excellent!

Sandra…I am sorry to hear your story re leaving the Church…but it is
all too common a tale and one we hear often from ex-Catholics. I hope you are continuing to pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance and to seek past the offenses of the human beings who make up the human part of our Church…and find your Saviour is still there waiting for you in mercy and love. He is the true Shepherd of the Church and its members…and mourns your absence..I think you said you often watched EWTN? If so good…it
presents the real Catholic faith…would especially urge you to watch the
Journey Home show with Marcus Grodi…highly interesting and often has as
guests Catholics who left the Church for similar reasons to yours..and how they worked it out. Pax vobiscum..and I apologize for those who mis-treated you here…as Jesus said from the Cross, “Forgive them Father, they know
not what they do”. In their quest to be “right” they forget not only their manners but also that charity is always reguired and exercised by the true Christian…a good example of this is what we see in the lives of all our saints. God bless!

Again, let’s make an effort to stay on topic here which might require a re-reading of the above article. One’s feelings about the Tea Party, the Right Wing of Conservatism, the failures of the Catholic Church, etc are all worthy topics for another blog and another day….expressions such as these tend to divert from answering the issue at hand. Anger issues tend to contribute to the negativity expressed here…and away from a meaningful debate about the remarks of Father Samir and the building of a Islamic mosque near the hallowed ground of the events surrounding 9/11.
All these other issues seem secondary to the interesting article by Edward
Pentin.

Please add racism and Islamaphobia as expressed by Fr. Samins - shrouded under the guise of “expertise”.

One can reasonably disagree with Father Samir’s opinions stated here…but
where is the racism? the islamaphobia in what he said ( that’s what we are concerned with..his words..not those of the comments given here) Please state the actual words given here by Father Samir you consider either racist and/or islamophobic…I do not see anything remotely either.

Shamrock
“Even if you say this project aims to build a greater understanding and a new dialogue with American Christians and so on, it is evident that any normal person will fear it. Ninety percent of the population will fear this project more than be attracted by it, even if Feisal Abdul Rauf – the imam responsible for the project – says it’s not aggressive. But humanly and sociologically speaking, you are putting up something where you destroyed something; you are putting up a Muslim tower and pretending that this will be a tower of peace and so on. It is psychologically wrong.”

Any normal person will fear it?  Why would he say something like that - first of all, it’s not true.  And secondly, he’s justifying the unfounded fears of many.  This is not helpful, useful.  He’s projecting his own personal phobias on 90% of the population.  And this from a respected expert. 

And there’s more, but I’m bored with it - how about you?

Father Samir continues that quote that he is speaking from a
psychological/sociological viewpoint..thus meaning that 90% of those with a normal outlook (as opposed to an extremist viewpoint such as a racist
or islamophobic) would be understandably unenthused about a mosque being built where an American “icon” of sorts had been destroyed killing thousands. Something like that is never forgotten and a trust has been broken concerning the Islamic faith given all we have learned from our history and the oft-quoted Qur’an. I think we can acknowledge he has a valid point even without agreeing about the propriety of a mosque being built here. It is a reasonable statement and not reflective of racism or phobia. But you are right..this blog has run its useful course. Those who remained toooooooo long at Happy Hour are appearing here…so let’s meet another day! God bless!

It is amazing to me how many people who have eyes and ears can neither see nor hear. Fr. Samir IS a scholar on Islam, has lived in that world, has relationships with Imam’s in the Middle East, and is intellectually and morally honest enough to state the truth. Just because we don’t like to hear something doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Is it better to hide behind a lie?

Let us stop making the mistake of thinking that every culture, race, tradition, etc. wants what we want. Let’s stop ascribing Catholic Christian, or Western Political, social, or moral values to them that they do not possess, want, or value. The Middle East has been a Tinderbox for CENTURIES, if not Millenia, because of some of these fundamental differences and it is not going to change just because we impute to them a righteousness that isn’t there.

I think Jeff you have summerized Father Samir’s comments very well…and
you have correctly stated that while we have a commandment to love all…even our enemies…that does not negate our obligation to discern and state truth as Father Samir has done! The basic truths of the Islamic religion contradict our Christian faith in many ways. Perhaps as the Pope so eloguently reminded us this past weekend in Scotland we must not succumb to the false teachings of relativism even while trying to live and love our neighbor. We must always be about Truth! Even when it is difficult…and may cost us our lives.

Please confine your comments to Edward’s blog entry, and refrain from personal attacks.
—The editors

Thomas,

If that is directed towards me, please let me know where I attacked someone personally and I will be sure to apologize. I did not intend to, and I don’t think I did, attack anyone personally. I thought my statements were pretty general.

Thank you.

Pax Domini Sit Semper Vobiscum

Mia,

Not sure who “Edward” is. This was my 3rd post to this forum. If I am the victim of mistaken identity, then I guess I can see why “The editors” said something.

Thank you.

Pax Domini Sit Semper Vobiscum

Jeff, I am quite certain that the reminder from the editors was in no way intended for you.

If you scroll up several days, you will see off topic rants, and name calling.

Your comment was on topic, and not inflamitory in any way (and by the way, I agree with you 100%!)

“Even if you say this project aims to build a greater understanding and a new dialogue with American Christians and so on, it is evident that any normal person will fear it. Ninety percent of the population will fear this project more than be attracted by it, even if Feisal Abdul Rauf – the imam responsible for the project – says it’s not aggressive.”

I don’t fear it.  I can be a realist about fundamentalist Islam without turning to my neighbor and eyeing him with suspicion and distrust.  As Catholics, especially, we should always be aware of our baser nature, and diligent in confronting it.

I hope that does not mean I have ceased being normal.

The 90% figure is, of course, contrived.  Many polls reflect strong opposition to the center, but I never saw a reputable poll with opposition at 90% (indeed, depending on where you polled, the opposition was significantly lower i.e. Manhattanites).  A good rule of thumb—if you are speaking off the cuff, don’t invent statistics.  I don’t believe the Father was feigning that this was a real number, but just his commonsense appraisal.  In any event Im not sure what the number adds ... when it is inaccurate, as it is though, it only detracts from the reasonableness of his position.

“But humanly and sociologically speaking, you are putting up something where you destroyed something; you are putting up a Muslim tower and pretending that this will be a tower of peace and so on. It is psychologically wrong.”

This is an interesting use of the word “you”.  The Father says “you” are putting up something where “you” destroyed something.

Clearly, the imam and planners of the community center and Mosque didn’t destroy something.

He is essentially asserting that all practitioners of Islam (in any form) share the guilt of 9/11. Here is the rub—among other things, I believe that moderates American-Muslims want to combat, actively, the idea that they and the 9/11 hijackers are a monolithic entity.  Indeed, among other things, they probably welcome a discussion where it is made clear that Islam, radical Islam, moderate Islam, and people acting in the name of Islam may not always be one in the same and, in fact, may not be equatable.

My fear here is that, reading this uncharitably, one might argue that the Father is encouraging such fears [this has as much to do with the questions and the way the article is organized as it does the responses].  I, for one, am unwilling to ratify the fears of those who oppose the mosque, nor will I join the cacophony of voices seeking to silence the practice of religion by my fellow citizens. 

For that reason, I find the article unsettling.

@ JP

You said “I can be a realist about fundamentalist Islam without turning to my neighbor and eyeing him with suspicion and distrust.”

Where do you “get” that Fr. Samir is advocating “eyeing individuals with suspicion and distrust.?”  This is about building a mega mosque where the twin towers stood.  Please show me where he is advocating distrust of individuals.

“nor will I join the cacophony of voices seeking to silence the practice of religion by my fellow citizens.”  Again, where do you find this in this article?  Fr. Samir didn’t say “get all the mosque’s out of the United States.”  He said we don’t want THIS one HERE for THIS reason!  To accuse this Priest of trying to “silence the practice of religion,” is absurd!

Hey, Marty,
The community centre has had Muslims praying there for many years.  And there were two mosques IN the World Trade Centre.  And the community centre is two blocks from the WTC.  Have any of you tried to walk two blocks in Manhatten - they are a country mile long.  So saying that the community centre is being build on the site is a total misrepresentation.

Fr. Samins article is a sophisticated way of feeding into Islamaphobia.  He’s feeding into fears and prejudices.  Both Christians and Muslims have many sins to answer for, going back centuries.  The progressive imman of this proposed Muslim centre is trying to build bridges towards understanding and ultimately peace. 

I sent money in support of the centre, and was inspired by Fr. Samins article to try to make up for his smooth and supposedly reasoned attitude.

Hey, Sandra,
Fr. Samir is a respected scholer on Islam.  He know’s what he’s talking about, even if you don’t like to hear it.

“The progressive imman of this proposed Muslim centre is trying to build bridges towards understanding and ultimately peace.” 

You don’t build bridges with a slap in the face.

Marty,
Respected scholars can be wrong.  There are a whole lot of people who respect Osama Bin Laden, that doesn’t make him right.  If he was truly aware of how easy it is to inflame people’s fear about Islam, he would have done us all a favor and not commented on something that he admitted he didn’t have the facts about.  And saying that 90% of people will fear this project is irresponsible at best.  Because he is seen as an expert and respected by a certain number of people means that he needs to be more judicious about what he says.  He must know what he’s feeding into, and if he doesn’t, he needs to become more aware.

JP - thank you, thank you, thank you - an articulate, educated voice of sanity!

Marty, let me do my best to clarify my position.

(1) I do not assert that Father Samir’s intention was to advocate for “eyeing individuals with suspicion and distrust.”  Indeed, I used this phrase to describe why I, particularly, am not afraid, not to describe the Father’s position.  My disagreement with Father Samir is not that he is advocating distrust and suspicion, but that he suspects fear is a natural reaction to the Community Center/Mosque.  In describing my own position, I meant to be clear that my conclusions on fundamentalist Islam are distinct from my conclusions on the religious expression of American Muslims.  As a result, I described myself as unafraid of the Center/Mosque and hoped that there were others who shared this sentiment.  Sadly, I believe that Father Samir’s observation of fear is, nonetheless, spot-on for many. My gripe is Father Samir fails to challenge Catholics to confront this fear.  That was extremely disappointing.

(2) I do think that Father Samir was less than exact in selecting his words.  As a priest, he certainly has an obligation to realize that people are listening and taking guidance from him.  I already raised the issue that he used the word “you” to indistinguishably describe the 9/11 terrorists and a man who has been selected by 2 different Presidents to conduct outreach to the Islamic world on behalf of America.  This immediately caught my attention because it makes me concerned that if the Imam is able to be conflated with the terrorists, what Muslim American is not subject to such a caricature?  But he also made other statements that are not constructive.  For example, Father Samir said that the Imam would be “putting up a Muslim tower and pretending that this will be a tower of peace and so on.”  On its face, at least to an uncharitable reading, it implies that the Community Center/Mosque is something far more deviant (and potentially violent) than what it is purported to be.  Once again, there are many that may take this as an endorsement that we should be wary of the stated intentions of American Muslims (as they are the ones purporting to build the Community Center/Mosque, and not Al Qaeda).

Indeed, such fears have been a key part of the opposition to the Community Center/Mosque: i.e., falsehoods that the Community Center/Mosque was named Cordoba as a symbol of conquest by Islam over the West, the falsehood that the Community Center was slated to be opened on 9/11, and politicians calling for inquiries into the funding of the Community Center/Mosque, among others.  People haven’t just argued it is insensitive to open the Community Center/Mosque, Americans have also made arguments that Muslim Americans want to build the center as a celebration of the events of 9/11, symbolizing the triumph of Islamic culture. 
At its root, the basic presupposition seems to be that Islam should be blamed for the attacks, and its adherents (of any persuasion, from the most liberal to the most conservative), never mind if they are Americans, should not worship within a proscribed radius around the locus of Islam’s attack. 

(2) As pointed out, you erred in stating the Community Center/Mosque is not at the WTC site.  Since most floors will not be dedicated as mosque, I think calling it a “mega-mosque” is not quite accurate.  It has always been designed as a community center built in the style of the Jewish Y here in NYC (mostly a community gathering space, but with a mosque as part of the structure - 2 floors it appears). 

(3) I did not accuse the Father of trying to silence the practice of all religion.  I’m not even accusing him of having an uber-strong position on the Community Center/Mosque—if anything, I think a fair reading is he just thinks it’s a thick-headed idea (whatever its intention).  At the same time, I am taking aim at those who oppose the Community Center/Mosque with the “not here, not now” mantra.  I will not be a part of that crowd.  It seems too convenient, and too dangerous, a rallying cry.

P.S. Thanks Sandra (and sry for the long posts everyone)

JP
I feel our discussion here has gone full circle, and we are merely re-stating arguments addressed earlier on this thread.
Thank you for taking the time to clarify your earlier comments.  At least now they don’t seem QUITE so far fetched to me.  (Still not accurate, but at least I can understand a little better where you are coming from.)
Your points have, for the most part, already been addressed.  I’ll just copy and paste what has already been contributed…
1)  We shouldn’t fear American Muslims, and Fr. Samir did not confront this fear.
Jeff said “It is amazing to me how many people who have eyes and ears can neither see nor hear. Fr. Samir IS a scholar on Islam, has lived in that world, has relationships with Imam’s in the Middle East, and is intellectually and morally honest enough to state the truth. Just because we don’t like to hear something doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Is it better to hide behind a lie?
Let us stop making the mistake of thinking that every culture, race, tradition, etc. wants what we want. Let’s stop ascribing Catholic Christian, or Western Political, social, or moral values to them that they do not possess, want, or value. The Middle East has been a Tinderbox for CENTURIES, if not Millenia, because of some of these fundamental differences and it is not going to change just because we impute to them a righteousness that isn’t there.
2)  I do think that Father Samir was less than exact in selecting his words.
Shamrock said: Father Samir continues that quote that he is speaking from a
psychological/sociological viewpoint..thus meaning that 90% of those with a normal outlook (as opposed to an extremist viewpoint such as a racist or islamophobic) would be understandably unenthused about a mosque being built where an American “icon” of sorts had been destroyed killing thousands. Something like that is never forgotten and a trust has been broken concerning the Islamic faith given all we have learned from our history and the oft-quoted Qur’an. I think we can acknowledge he has a valid point even without agreeing about the propriety of a mosque being built here. It is a reasonable statement and not reflective of racism or phobia”
Phil said “If your whole point is we can get along with jihadists if we exercise Christian virtue, then it’s no wonder you can’t fathom an Egyptian Jesuit who knows the real deal. I earnestly pray that you are granted a better sense of discernment”
3)  I did not accuse the Father of trying to silence the practice of religion.
You DID say “one might argue that the Father is encouraging such fears [this has as much to do with the questions and the way the article is organized as it does the responses].  I, for one, am unwilling to ratify the fears of those who oppose the mosque, nor will I join the cacophony of voices seeking to silence the practice of religion by my fellow citizens. “  And MY response was “Fr. Samir didn’t say “get all the mosque’s out of the United States.”  He said we don’t want THIS one HERE for THIS reason!”
And, Shamrock summed it up very well when he said “It may well be true that most Muslims want to live in peace and are truly loving towards this country. But they don’t speak out…nor are they at all effective in eliminating/silencing their terrorist brethren…while in fact the Iman spokesperson for the proposed mosque publically has stated that the Hamas are NOT terrorists! In other words no matter how peaceful you paint the majority of Muslims the Islamic religion is based upon fear…of repraisal for any deviation from the centuries old Qu’an…and the evidence for that is in the Qu’an…for any and all to read. From
the comments given here I would doubt few have ever read it and yet it is easily found as close as your local library. Among other things stated that fall far from the Christian ideal of love of neighbor..especially the love of enemy…in the Qu’an you will find followers being told not to count Christians or Jews among their friends…and to slaughter the Infidel…i.e. Christians and Jews! Comparing a declared War as in Iraq and Afghanistan to the sneak attack of 9/11 is just plain silly. For over 20 years Saddam Hussein defied the United Nations and continued the wholesale
murder of his own people and was in the process of acquiring weapons of mass destruction just as Ahmajinadab is now in Iran. But the point the Jesuit scholar is making here is not about that…he is making impromptu remarks to a reporter asking question..not giving a scholarly treatise.
But he speaks about what he believes to be true…

I think JP, you are looking at the world with rose colored glasses.  I wish it were so, but we won’t find our “Pollyana” life this side of heaven.

Guess that makes Jesus a Pollyanna

Sandra,
Please, show me where Jesus taught it’s better to hide behind a lie, than to “appear” intolerant?

Marty,

Thanks for your response.  Let me be frank in addressing your last point.

This idea that I am approaching the world with rose-colored glasses is complete tripe.  I am quite aware of what is going on in the world.  Too often, this argument of “rose-colored glasses” is made to discredit anyone who does not take aggressive, cynical and even warlike stances on a host of political issues.  My position is based upon thinking about what I see and hear (not merely reacting to it, unfiltered).

Of course, I can respond in kind and say it requires rose-colored glasses to dismiss that there is a strain of opposition to this Mosque that is based on the basest prejudices in American society.  But that gets us nowhere.  Each side has bad apples, so to speak.  I want to reach out to those who approach the issue in good faith and with genuine thought.  This is why belittling my position as “rose-colored” is neither appreciated, accurate or constructive.

As to your others, I will take them 1 by 1.  That said, they can be summed up quickly: the posts you select, by and large, confirm my fear.  That Americans opposition to the Mosque is not its insensitivity to the victims of 9/11, it’s the idea that terrorism highlights the basic proposition that Islam (as evidenced by the Koran), in any form, is fundamentally incompatible with Western and Christian ideals and uniquely able to incite violence and fundamentalism among its adherents ... THEREFORE, the motivations, loyalties and patriotism of American Muslims is immediately suspect, whether it be a Mosque in downtown Manhattan, in Northern Floria or in Tennessee.

1 - You are unwittingly making my point here.  I said we shouldn’t fear American Muslims.  To contradict that, you cite Jeff who talks about Father Samir speaking from experience on how Muslims act or react to world events - when Father Samir is describing the actions of non-American Muslims.  So, in essence, because Muslims riot in Pakistan, the mosques of American Muslims should be scrutinized. 

You then go on to say “Let us stop making the mistake of thinking that every culture, race, tradition, etc. wants what we want. Let’s stop ascribing Catholic Christian, or Western Political, social, or moral values to them that they do not possess, want, or value. The Middle East has been a Tinderbox for CENTURIES, if not Millenia, because of some of these fundamental differences and it is not going to change just because we impute to them a righteousness that isn’t there.”

Why should I believe AMERICAN Muslims don’t share AMERICAN values, don’t have Western values????????  This controversy is about a Mosque in America, not one in the Middle East.  The only one imputing anything is you.  You are essentially imputing that American Muslims, heck American Muslims who work in downtown Manhattan no less, differ significantly from the American population at large in their world views, and have views more akin to people in Saudi Arabia.  Apparently, I am to believe there views are so radically divorced from the views of ordinary Americans that they [pose a threat]/[should be ostracized]/[should recognize their place as representives of terrorists in American society]/[are not acceptably Western]/[cannot worship in downtown Manhattan]/[fill in the blank]

2—I never accused the Father of being phobic.  And yes, I am concerned that his words can be taken out of context.  There are many non-Catholics who read about these statements as well.  I always try to provide a speaker the benefit of the doubt, especially a priest (absent a compelling reason not to).  So, when the Father basically indicates that he doesn’t think the Mosque has a peaceful purpose, I ascribe that to poor phrasing.  I worry that inartful phrasing, and simply poor statements, may be used to discredit and inflame, especially by those not so committed to fairly reading these statements.

3 - Virtually all the rest of the arguments you quote from broadbrush all Muslims.  This is a problem in and of itself.  It is exactly what I was saying is problematic about opposition to the Mosque.  It’s not about sensitivity ... it’s about saying Muslims in America aren’t suitably American because their very religion precludes them from being so.  I reject that argument so strongly it is difficult to put into words.

Europe and America are not the same.  We don’t have hoardes of poor, uneducated, Muslims streaming in from former colonies at a breathtaking rate, isolating them from the process of assimilation and fomenting ever more radical Islamic practices.  In truth, that really hasn’t been the case in the U.S.  In general, we attract far more “westernized” Muslims, that have better economic prospects here than, in say, France, and it seems they are more readily integrated into American society.

I would invite you to really study what Shamrock wrote.  Really read it ... it confirms what I am saying: the acts of terrorists and violent jihadists are now the basis upon which to say all Islam is a fundamentally violent religion, irreconcilable with Western and Christian values and, therefore, muslims in American themselves are fundamentally suspect.  Boil it down - that’s what it is.  Is that the “truth”?

@JP
You make it sound like Fr. Samir, and all “anti-ground zero megga mosque/cultural center” responders here want peaceful, non-radical muslims rounded up in camps.  NO ONE here has stated that.  NO ONE has said “get all the mosques out of the United States,” but that type of though is what you are responding to.

Can you imagine a person who says “Homosexual union is wrong,” but doesn’t plan on beating up gays?  One doesn’t equate the other.  Yes, there are some that are that deranged, but you can’t lump all anti-gay union people with the radical “beat them up” people.  That seems to be what you are doing here.

I respect others religions as well as mine is also respected but what I can’t agree with, is no tolerance for my religious beliefs in the name of any other way to approach God.

What’s the point about a Mosque to be built close enough to where the “Twin Towers” were destroyed so it can create so much controversy? We can’t distract ourselves from the long lines of unemployed workers.

What’s the reason the Mosque “must be there” ?

Isn’t there any other place in the United States or in the rest of the world?

We can’t pretend to ignore the facts that move the Muslims people to that Mosque without respect for our suffering regarding that coward attack.

I think that this is about attracting attention so more money can flow to their coffins to plan more attacks.

If we don’t stop this even our religions beliefs can be damaged.

Why Muslims must gathered together in that area so close to the Twin Towers?

Isn’t there another more confortable and healthy place for that Mosque?

We have freedoms of religions in the U.S that we can share as long as we are permanent residents or American Citizens but we need to protect them.I have nothing against Muslims people they are also victims of the extremist Muslims so we can work together to stop the growing influence of the extremist islam which doesn’t bring nothing more than religion repression to the World.

Sincerely,

Julio Gonzalez Jr.

@jp
Thank you for your thoughtful, diligent and respectful posts.  You are a model for civilized discourse. 

What I hear you saying is that playing on people’s fears encourages those who commit violent acts against hated minority.  And that someone who is given the authority and respect that Fr. Samins enjoys needs to be more careful about what he says, and what it may be encouraging. 

We all need to be careful that we don’t make our children fearful and intolerant.  And they hear our discussions.  That is why I want mine to know that I will continue to live fearlessly, and promote tolerance and respect.

lest we forget - there were Muslims who died in the attack on the World Trade Center.  The mayor of Manhatten, a Jew who knows how easily it is for fear to turn to hatred, has been an outspoken supporter of the Muslim Community Centre.  People who live in Manhatten have shown more support than for the center than people living in the rest of the country.  If there was justification for the reaction to the center, they were be the ones with the most easily defensible position.

Kathy,

My intent is not to demonize anyone.  I completely concur that reasonable people can disagree on almost anything.  What I am attempting to clarify is the faulty reasoning that underlies certain of this opposition, and sadly sometimes the baser nature that plays a part in such opposition.

I agree with you that most, if not virtually all, the people opposed to the Community Center/Mosque would be outraged by the idea of rounding up Muslims in camps.

However, I do think that very often there are subtle subtexts in our positions, sometimes unconscious and sometimes not recognized for how pernicious they are.  In this controversy, one of the subtexts that is being played out is that Western Christian and American values and Islamic values are incompatible ... just read many of the posts above.  I think there is some sensibility to this position when we extend it to many existing parts of the Muslim world ... but I am unsure why it should be extended to people who want to build this Community Center/Mosque. 
I certainly understand the emotion surrounding 9/11, but NY is a diverse place, and downtown is not off limits to my fellow Muslim citizens.  And so, it can’t be off limits to their places of worship.  Least of all for a Community Center/Mosque that will be built roughly a decade after 9/11.  That’s the point in a nutshell. 
And when I see a more generalized opposition to radical Islam being inserted into the argument about the placement of this Community Center/Mosque, I am concerned.  Especially when that opposition is now seamlessly and unquestioningly being applied to fellow Muslim Americans.  It has no place here, and I am disturbed by the near seamless way in which our rightful fears of radical Muslim terrorists can so easily be applied here.
Sandra, thanks for your kind words.  I agree - in many ways, we create the world we live in and help mold the next generation.  We should always be conscientious of the world we are building, and the minds we are shaping.  As a “Manhattanite” myself, I can say that much of the *most vocal* opposition is not coming from here.

The debate is not over whether we should tolerate Muslims, or allow mosques to be built, etc. There is no debate there, unless you’re only interested in demolishing strawmen—which is the Left’s stock in trade these days. The outrage over GZM has to do with the symbolism.

For our militant radical Islamist enemies, the destruction of the World Trade Center was a great victory. The erection of a Muslim house of worship right next to it symbolizes not only the defeat of the infidel but his capitulation. Note that the Imam (whose statements should be much more of an issue than Fr. Samir’s) has named this the “Cordoba Project,” supposedly to honor the wonderful multicultural community of Al-Andalus. This Golden Age of Tolerant Muslim Spain is, of course, pure myth. The Cordoba mosque was a Christian church taken over when Muslim armies conquered Spain by force and rebuilt as a mosque. In Al-Andalus, Christians and Jews were second-class citizens subject to formal subordination and even humiliation or suppression at the whim of the local rulers…sort of like today in hardline Islamist countries. They had no freedom of religion beyond a carefully regulated ability to remain Christian or Jewish. 

JP, I am glad to hear your civilized tone, absent from this thread the last time I visited it. But you’re as wrong as wrong can be. You see a difference between the jihadists and Imam Rauf; fine. Now think about how the fact of this mosque will be used by our enemies against us regardless of whether the Muslims who go there are “moderate” or not.

Make believe it’s 1950. Some community leaders in Hawaii propose building a Japanese-American cultural center (which will include a Shinto shrine) to improve communication and understanding between Japan and America. They call it “The Cherry Blossom Project,” using a positive image associated with Japan. Authorization is obtained to begin construction but then a groundswell of opposition begins to rise.

Because, you see, the location for the center is in Pearl Harbor, in fact only a few hundred yards from the rusting hulk of the Arizona. Veteran groups and survivors of those lost nine years earlier are outraged. The CBP leader responds that he wants to help heal the wounds of almost a decade earlier and stresses that the Japanese people are now overwhelmingly opposed to the militarists who ruled Japan in WWII. Only peaceful ideals will be promoted in the center. As the controversy grows, it turns out that a large Rising Sun flag will wave alongside the Stars and Stripes at the entrance. Some Navy veterans point out that “cherry blossom” was what the kamikaze pilots called themselves. And there will be a portrait of the emperor inside. And that fifteen years prior the leader of the project said ...well, you fill in the rest.

The Governor of the Territory approves the project. For downtown Honolulu, miles from Battleship Row.

@JP
I understand your point, and agree there is some basis for concern.  I certainly wouldn’t want to see any moderate Muslim’s harassed (or worse) in any way.
HOWEVER, while you think my “pendulum” has swung to far one way, I think your “pendulum” has swung too far the other way. All Muslim AMERICAN’s can’t be lumped together.  There are (of course) American Muslims that have embraised Western culture.  I’m sure there is NO ONE here on this thread that has any issue with them.
But, you must realize that there are also American Muslims demanding Sharia law in their communities HERE IN THE USA.  When Shamrock says there are *some* muslim’s who do not want our way of life, he is correct! It’s a fact, even if it is uncomfortable to those who would choose not to believe it.

Back to the issue at hand.  The article is about building a huge mosque/cultural center within “spitting distance,” from where Muslim extremists attacked the twin towers and killed over two thousand innocent people.

At the VERY LEAST it is insensitive.

60% of American’s feel that it is not RIGHT or FITTING for there to be a huge Mosque so close to were the attack took place.

Look at the somewhat similar situation where a convent was built near Auschwitz.  The families of people who died there were outraged.  In their opinion it was not right or fitting for the Catholic Convent to be there.  What did the Pope do?  He had the Convent moved.  (And Catholic’s did not perpetrate the crimes there!)  But because it was insensitive, it was moved.

Tolerance is a two-way street.

Phil,

1 - Oddly, it seems you have constructed a strawman.  I never argued that the mainstream opponents to the Mosque think it should be illegal—I have argued that much of the rhetoric is based on a position not of “insensitivity” but fear, or an even larger position that Islam (in any form) is incompatible with Western values.  Indeed, one of the reasons the article bothered me is that Father Samir doesn’t talk about people being insulted or simply upset by the Mosque, he talks of them being afraid of the Mosque.  Could this fear be used more broadly to attack the building of Mosques in other areas - of course, and not surprisingly, there has been several reported incidents of protests or attacks against Mosques or proposed Mosques since this controversy arose.

2 - Symoblism.  I’m glad you raised this.  You are worried that those who attacked us may view this as the capitulation of the West.  While I think that is a stretch, given we still have troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I am more disturbed by the concept that my view of this Community Center/Mosque should be determined by what terrorists think of it.  Nevermind that I think either result of this controversy would be spun by terrorists—the moving of the Center/Mosque being evidence that America is waging an escalating war against Islam, or the allowance of the Mosque being the folly, weakness and even “capitulation” of the West as you put it [between those two, the better recruiting tool is clearly the former, rather than the latter].  The debate on an American political issue should rest on the views and values of Americans NOT on the views and values of their attackers.
If you want to say Americans should view this Community Center/Mosque as a slap in the face, fine.  I don’t agree with it, but I don’t think it’s outlandish.  As you can see, I take a different tack.  I think the Mosque going forward is a much stronger statement to the world about America, and especially to more moderate Islamic voices out there.  It speaks to America’s commitment to freedom of worship, tolerance, pluralism and its commitment to the rule of law, and undercuts this concept that America is waging a war against Islam itself, when America allows its citizens to build a community center and mosque smack in downtown Manhattan.
Either way, the terms of the discussion should be between the values you and I share or disagree on, and not the views and values of the lunatic fringe.
How will the Mosque be used against us?  I couldn’t imagine a better way than this “controversy”.  An amalgamation of outrage and fear directed at what appears to be a community center with 2 floors of worship space/mosque that is getting people (not posters here) hysterical—with fear, indignation or a combination of both.
Kathy - I don’t think the nuns should have been moved.
In the end, I wonder why, for me included, these types of genuine non-events are so important to us.  I mean, few disagree that the Imam has the legal right to build it.  If he can raise the money, it will be built. If he can’t, it won’t. Building it or not building will not change the events of 9/11 - nor will it change a thing for those who were lost - nor will it have some dramatic impact on the many important events of the day.  For all the outrage on both sides, this is not the turning point, the focal point, or even an important or notable point in the “War on Terror” or America’s commitment to its constitutional principles.  The Mosque/Community Center makes us neither more or less safe.  Freedom of worship probably isn’t going out the door anytime soon because some people are offended by the Mosque’s placement and want to exercise their right to protest.  It is, as Shakespeare would say, much a do about nothing.  And both sides are to blame for that.
my prayers to you all.

You may be seeing less of a meaningful debate in NCRegister from now on.  The editors have imposed IP address blocking to eliminate certain contributors, especially those who take exception to the bloggers’ postings. 

Many of the blogger’s stories are solid and insightful.  But some of the more egregious bloggers (such as Jimmy Akin) are irresponsible at best, and primarily anti-Catholic at their worst.

So if you are a right-winger, you are safe.  Anyone else dare challenge the bloggers with the truth, beware.

Oh my goodness, Louis V.  One outlandish thing after another.  PLEASE cite a piece Jimmy Akin has contributed that is “anti-Catholic.”

JP, here’s the problem in your reasoning. When you characterize Fr. Samir’s or commenters’ fears or apprehensions about the mosque as misdirected, you are demolishing a strawman. No one is saying that the majority of Muslims represent a threat. (Well, some do in fact believe that Islam is a malevolent ideology, but they are not posting here as far as I can tell. Go to Jihad Watch and read the comments there for a taste of the position that “Islam is evil and must be destroyed.”)

The argument against GZM is altogether different. It is a symbol. Its location makes it very symbolic and guarantees notoriety. It is inappropriate in that location, for the simple and incontrovertible reason that the WTC was destroyed in the name of Islam. The fact that the majority or even the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject the terrorism of the jihadists is of no relevance here. They are all Muslims.

The salient fact is that we are at war with militant radical Islam. Our enemies are Muslims who may have certain fundamentalist views at odds with the faithful at large but cannot be considered as anything other than Muslim as far as religion is concerned. Indeed, they are zealous in their supposed orthodoxy. If I want to pray at GZM as a Muslim who wants the obliteration of Israel and the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Mideast, as well as the eventual conversion of America to Islam under Sharia law, I cannot be denied my place on the prayer rug. I’ll go even a step further. If I believe that what happened in 2001 just down the block from my sparkling new super-mosque was justified or a legitimate part of the struggle against the infidel, I won’t be denied entrance to communal prayer. Don’t believe me? Happens every day across the country. And the worst of it is that there are Imams who think that way as well.

“In the end, I wonder why, for me included, these types of genuine non-events are so important to us.”

JP, if this is a “GENUINE NON-EVENT” then what is “an EVENT?”

Almost 3,000 innocent people lost their lives.  That is what this whole issue is about!  That is not a “non-event” to me!

Also, I am glad that Pope John Paul took the high road, and moved the nuns.  In his wisdom, he chose not to kick the Jew’s when they were down, so to speak.  He could see how, (although wrongly,) it could be viewed as an attempt at a power grab.  Better to keep peace. 

And, just for reflection, Catholics did not inflict the atrocities at Auchwietz.  And, Catholics were also brutally victimized there.

In contrast, Muslims DID inflict the atrocities on the people at ground zero!

Check out the deeds of the Vatican during WWII if you want a real eye-opener.

And Christians inflicted the atrocities by killing 100,000 innocent Muslims in Iraq, and they had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.  If you’re keeping score.

Kathy—the non-event is not 9/11, it is the building of a community center/mosque.  Nothing that can happen, or will happen, changes the reality of 9.11.  Repeat ... nothing, including building this center.  You are upset by it ... you think it’s disrespectful.  There are those who feel exactly the same way about your opposition to it.  Ultimately, beyond people’s emotion, I doubt there is a real practical impact to this Community Center/Mosque being built (although I understand Phil and many others feel differently).

Phil—I’m not asserting a strawman.  A strawman is an argument not made, and conveniently created, to make a predetermined point - regardless of what has been said. 
Fr. Samir specifically talks about the reasonable fear this Mosque is creating.  I have been rebutting both the argument that it should create fear, and why (especially) that fear is not reasonable.  Further, I have attempted (as well as possible) to rebut the points made by posters - often in point by point format. The point I have focused on has been the more global condemnation of Islam as fundamentally incompatibility with Western Values and therefore the “reasonableness” of fear generated by the building of this Mosque, and my concerns about how this plays about between Muslim and non-Muslim Americans.  Variations of this point have been made by several posters (and I have quoted below).  I know it’s a good technique to assert someone is arguing a strawman, but that assertion must actually be accurate, or else it itself is just a strawman or a red herring.

I understand your primary issue is with the Mosque’s symbolism.  I have directly addressed this point in my post: (1) as I directly said above, the more important symbolism to me is the symbolism it should have here in America, not by the lunatic fringe and we should not allow there takes on its symbolism to control our decisions with respect thereto; (2) in any event, moving the Mosque has as much negative and dangerous symbolism to the lunatic fringe as allowing it to be built, as I also raised before.  Indeed, you yourself above describe “jihad” as relating to “freedom of religion”.  Well, if Americans exert public pressure to require this Community Center/Mosque to move from legally purchased land, I assume the lunatic fringe has some credible evidence to advance the theory that Muslims in America are not truly free and thus jihad is justified.

As I noted, various other posters, though, in various exchanges, have more broadly indicted the worldviews of Muslims and the text of the Qu’ran itself to justify having Americans open there eyes to what this Community Center/Mosque is.  Heck, even Father Samir even describes the Mosque as being built under the guise of peaceful purposes.  For example:

Marty (in reply to me):  Let us stop making the mistake of thinking that every culture, race, tradition, etc. wants what we want. Let’s stop ascribing Catholic Christian, or Western Political, social, or moral values to them that they do not possess, want, or value. The Middle East has been a Tinderbox for CENTURIES, if not Millenia, because of some of these fundamental differences and it is not going to change just because we impute to them a righteousness that isn’t there.

Susan in reply to Louis V: For Louis V. and others. What Father is trying to say is that Koran actually calls for the killing of infidels—Jews and Christians—as a holy act. A good Muslim isn’t allowed to interpret the Koran, merely recite it. A good Muslim would believe in violent conversion of Chrisitians and Jews. A bad Muslim would ignore those parts of the Koran, and be peaceful. Islam is the religion of peace, but peace means “submission” in the Koran. That means the Muslim is at peace with you when you submit to the teachings of the Koran/Sharia law and become a Muslim. If you do not submit, they are required to make war against you.

David T. to Sandara: Don’t play the moral equivalence game.  Christian culture is so vastly superior to Muslim culture as to make any attempt at comparison almost absurd.  If Muslims can’t destroy us from without, they will do it from within, if we let them.

Shamrock as quoted in an exchange above:  Something like that is never forgotten and a trust has been broken concerning the Islamic faith given all we have learned from our history and the oft-quoted Qur’an.

I can continue quoting—the point is many posters clearly have made the point that it is Islam writ-large and not simply a violent minority sect that is the problem. This may not be the posting board of Jihad Watch but that does not mean similar sentiments don’t strongly influence posters here.

Phil—you keep describing the GZM as a super-mosque when the reality is it will be a 13 story building with two floors dedicated to the Community Center/Mosque.  First, it is not at Ground Zero—so calling it the Ground Zero Mosque (or GZM) is simulatenously inaccurate and disingeuous because it’s meant to specifically bias people against supporting the building - not your intent perhaps, but almost certainly the intent of those who coined and relentlessly use the term.  Second, in NYC, 13 stories doesn’t count as a super-anything.  And 2 floors dedicated to prayer space, or a Mosque, doesn’t a super-mosque make.  Heck, there are several buildings on the same side of this very short street (Park Place) that are 13 stories or higher(if not slighly bigger).

Do I understand the idea it may attract radicals?  I think that is a reasonable fear.  On the flip side, one might say that a radical is less likely to join and be a part of such a Mosque (1) because its run by moderates, who they probably view as anathema - imams sponsored by the evil west sent to corrupt other Muslims that democracy and capitalism are consistent with the Muslim worldview; and (2) it’s profile is far too high and they would be worried of exposing themselves.

Of course, there is another legitimate symbolism to the Mosque.  As someone concerned with what the Muslim community worldwide thinks of America, it probably makes sense to consider how pushing to move the Mosque squares with our supposed position that Muslims are not second-class citizens in America.  Ultimately, our best security is in generating support (as opposed to antipathy) among moderate Muslims.  Working effectively with Muslims is critical to both the long-term stability of Iraq and Afghanistan and the U.S. needs all the public relations boosts it can have.
And then there is the symbolism here—about a practical (even when difficult) commitment to a broad and free society.

In any event, I have said my peace on the matter.  I will formally agree to disagree with you.

Mia, I don’t understand the purpose of your last post but it seems as if it was in bad taste.  There are many posters on here that likely share your position, and it may be helpful to view how they have discussed those views.

Folks, please refrain from personal attacks and keep the level of debate constructive. Thanks.

“Many New Yorkers were suspicious of the newcomers’ plans to build a house of worship in Manhattan. Some feared the project was being underwritten by foreigners. Others said the strangers’ beliefs were incompatible with democratic principles.

Concerned residents staged demonstrations, some of which turned bitter.

But cooler heads eventually prevailed; the project proceeded to completion. And this week, St. Peter’s Roman Catholic Church in Lower Manhattan —  the locus of all that controversy two centuries ago and now the oldest Catholic church in New York State — is celebrating the 225th anniversary of the laying of its cornerstone.

The Rev. Kevin V. Madigan, who is the pastor of St. Peter’s, said that when he began reading about the history of his church early this year in preparation for the Oct. 5 anniversary, he was not initially struck by the parallels between the opposition it had faced and what present-day Muslims have encountered in proposing a community center and mosque near ground zero.

“There was no controversy when they first proposed it, and we were just pleased to have a new neighbor,” said Father Madigan, whose church, at Barclay and Church Streets, sits two blocks from 51 Park Place, the site of the proposed Islamic center. Both are roughly equidistant from the construction zone at ground zero.

But as an uproar enveloped the Islamic project over the summer, the priest said he was startled by how closely the arguments and parries of the project’s opponents mirrored those brought against St. Peter’s in 1785.

Father Madigan detailed those similarities in a letter to parishioners over the summer, in two sermons he delivered at an interfaith gathering last month and at a special Mass last Sunday marking the church’s anniversary.

For starters, he said, there was the effort to move the church project somewhere else.

City officials in 18th-century New York urged project organizers to change the church’s initial location, on Broad Street, in what was then the heart of the city, to a site outside the city limits, at Barclay and Church. Unlike the organizers of Park51, who have resisted suggestions they move the project to avoid having a mosque so close to the killing field of ground zero, the Catholics complied. “

Read the rest at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/nyregion/08zero.html?_r=1&hp;

Extremely interesting interview. Thank you!