If the Muslims were interested in peace and good will, they would donate that land to rebuild St Nicholas Orthodox Church that was destroyed on 9/11.  Enough said!  They are disingenuous and deceitful.

Jimmy, I view this whole debate about the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” as a total red herring. I think our Constitutional society is such a monumental factor for us being the most Christian nation in the West. This Constitution protects private property, so you are right that it doesn’t inherently “guarantee the right to build a place of worship anywhere you want.” The important take home point is that this is private property, that as far as we know, has been acquired through legitimate means, and thus they have the guaranteed right to practice their faith and hold their community events in their own property. This idea that this is some sort of victory mosque built on the site of 9/11 is absurd. The actual faith of Islam and 9/11 really have little in common, the hijackers were far from fundamentalist Muslims (they commonly watched pornography, drank heavily at local bars, and went to strip clubs). As explained by bin Laden and others, the attacks were a response to interventionist American foreign policy in the Middle East. So to even come up with the idea that this mosque is some sort of sign of their victory is an incorrect view and to view an Islamic place of worship as some sort of moral outrage is wholly un-Christian in my mind.

Something I saw on EWTN the other night comes to mind. Mr. Kirk, father of Kimberly Hahn, was saying how the Supreme Court had decided that every US city had the right to establish community standards. He was speaking in regard to banning pornography from public places. However, it seems this could extend to the also sensitive matter of locations of mosques in regard to Ground-Zero. This would work hand-in-hand with Jimmy’s point that the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to build a place of worship wherever you want.

It’s a slap in the face to those who died that day and their families. And, yet another example of the majority of Americans being told by their leaders that they are greater than the will of the people. The November elections cant arrive soon enough.

7100-WORD, 17-PAGE RANT DELETED. DO NOT PASTE (OR TYPE) LARGE AMOUNTS OF MATERIAL INTO THE COMBOX OR IT WILL BE DELETED. KEEPING YOUR COMMENTS TO READABLE LENGTH IS A COURTESY TO OTHERS.

The mosque is being built a block away from the site, not right next door.

In fact, there is another mosque a block away from the site that no one is complaining about.

Mosques in New York City: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=google+maps+new+york+city&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq;=&hnear=New+York,+NY&gl=us&ei=_W1qTILTPI32tgPsx9U2&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCIQ8gEwAA

I think the whole mess is just a attempt by the muslim community to further assert their goal of domination in the US by 2050. I think President Obama was not the right choice for president and he will lead us down the path to destruction. He is not a true American and a muslim at heart. Political correctness out the window. Tell it like it is Obama.

I don’t understand what the darker purpose could be.

Jimmy and any others-

The one thing that caught my attention is that President Obama referenced “freedom of religion” whereas he had previously been favoring “freedom of worship.”  IIRC, first things and other sites made a note of that difference previously: worship is a private act apart from the public square whereas religion is the public living out of personal principals.  I thought that was most interesting about his comments.

Unless there is evidence that the people wanting to build it have ulterior motives, then it should be allowed, in my opinion. It should be a matter of our American pride to allow it in accordance with our belief in the freedom of worship.

Speaking of ulterior motives, I think that there is reason to suspect that some people against the building secretly (or openly) equate Muslims with terrorists. Some of them don’t want any mosques built anywhere in America. Allowing the mosque would also be a sign that the U.S. is not against Islam per se.

If the goal truly is to improve Muslim-West relations, the right to build the mosque is not really the issue.  I think the builders need to step back and consider whether this is really going to assist in accomplishing that goal.  If they truly believe it will, explain how they think the building of the mosque will accomplish it.  Has that explanation ever come forth? 

I don’t know enough about Islam to know how contributions work.  I could see the building of the mosque to perhaps have some good if a portion of charitable contributions to the mosque were used to build up something in Western culture.  But I don’t see how it can improve Muslim-West relations if something of the West is destroyed by those claiming to be Muslim (even if it may be a distorted version of Islam) and something Muslim is built nearby. 

Imagine a Jewish synagogue being destroyed by a small group of fanatical fundamentalist Christians and then a Catholic church being built nearby with the stated goal of improving Christian-Jewish relations.  A better gesture would be to help them rebuild their synagogue.

On the other hand, have you heard about the problems the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox community is having to REBUILD their church, which was destroyed during the 9/ll attacks?

The Port Authority wants to limit its height and its footprint. Perhaps President Obama should flip-flop on that issue!

I whole heartedly agree with the recent comments of a Muslim cleric who stated that this Cordoba Mosque is a clear provocation.  Many good Muslims have a similar sentiment.  If the intention was for building bridges between East and West, they would find alternate peaceful solutions such as building elsewhere or an interfaith community building for dialogue.  As the above-mentioned cleric pointed out, there is not even a Muslim community in the area.  It is blatantly clear what their intentions are to those who will see it.  The nondisclosure of information on finances, etc., and the attempt to distract from the real issue, i.e. sensitivity to others, by trumpeting freedom of religion (which everyone agrees with) is simply ludicrous.  How is it that the rebuilding of the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church was denied because it would tower above the 9/11 memorial and the Mosque, which dwarfs the plans for the Cathedral, receives such easy approval.  It is clearly political correctness gone amok and a blatant triumph for Muslim extremists.

Jimmy, You do a great job of pointing out how diametrically different America treats Muslims and how Arab countries treat Christianity.

I think this article was excellent. As for many of the responses, they exhibit the usual self-loathing, even suicidal attitude of many Americans. This attitude dictates that we are SUPPOSED to embrace and encourage a religion (and associated a way of life) foreign to ours. This is not just idiotic, it is self destructive. No. The members of our armed forces have NOT shed their blood to provide the opportunity for these people. Yes, Jesus sacrificed himself for us.  But it is NOT a Christian attitude to immolate our ostensibly Christian nation in the name of tolerance. When are you people going to understand that Islam is no more worthy of admiration and tolerance than any of the other anti-Christian movements of history? An easy case can be made that it is the product of Satanic deception of both good people and those who have given themselves over to evil. For myself, I am not so dense.  I got the message clearly on many dates prior to September 11 and, in spades, on that date.

An excerpt from conservative columnist Ross Douthat, an excellent balanced opinion piece.  Read it at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16douthat.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=homepage

“There’s an America where it doesn’t matter what language you speak, what god you worship, or how deep your New World roots run. An America where allegiance to the Constitution trumps ethnic differences, language barriers and religious divides. An America where the newest arrival to our shores is no less American than the ever-so-great granddaughter of the Pilgrims.

But there’s another America as well, one that understands itself as a distinctive culture, rather than just a set of political propositions. This America speaks English, not Spanish or Chinese or Arabic. It looks back to a particular religious heritage: Protestantism originally, and then a Judeo-Christian consensus that accommodated Jews and Catholics as well. It draws its social norms from the mores of the Anglo-Saxon diaspora — and it expects new arrivals to assimilate themselves to these norms, and quickly.

These two understandings of America, one constitutional and one cultural, have been in tension throughout our history. And they’re in tension again this summer, in the controversy over the Islamic mosque and cultural center scheduled to go up two blocks from ground zero.

The first America, not surprisingly, views the project as the consummate expression of our nation’s high ideals. “This is America,” President Obama intoned last week, “and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.” The construction of the mosque, Mayor Michael Bloomberg told New Yorkers, is as important a test of the principle of religious freedom “as we may see in our lifetimes.”

The second America begs to differ. It sees the project as an affront to the memory of 9/11, and a sign of disrespect for the values of a country where Islam has only recently become part of the public consciousness. And beneath these concerns lurks the darker suspicion that Islam in any form may be incompatible with the American way of life.

This is typical of how these debates usually play out. The first America tends to make the finer-sounding speeches, and the second America often strikes cruder, more xenophobic notes. The first America welcomed the poor, the tired, the huddled masses; the second America demanded that they change their names and drop their native languages, and often threw up hurdles to stop them coming altogether. The first America celebrated religious liberty; the second America persecuted Mormons and discriminated against Catholics…”

Jimmy, you are from the second America.  Chill out.  You hate Obama but that doesn’t make him wrong.

Mosques welcome in NYC.  Christian Churches are not.

Where are the leftists screaming “religious freedom” about the former when they’re NOT speaking in defense of the latter?

Proof of bigotry.

It is not a big thing just to announce that Muslims have rights. What about others?  Will Obama care for the differing ideologies ? Islam is against premarital sex,  abortion,gay marriage.. Same is the case with majority Christians and fully for Catholics. It is easy to permit a stone structure anywhere. But what about the core of faith and its implementation ?  Islam is against immodesty in dress and so they insist on hijab for ladies. Will Obama apply secularism everywhere ?  It is good if the religious values of all religions are cared for and the distance from “church” is maintained by the State.

The people you should ask are the ones whos loved ones are gone.  I belief the overwelming majority of them are screaming no, as well as the majority of there fellow Americans.  It has nothing to do with religon.  It is a statement.

Heather, those who have politicized this are the culprits in this story. 

They are equating Islam with terrorism.  Wrong!

That is as wrong as saying all Catholics are terrorists because of the Irish Republican Army. Or we are guilty of the Holocaust because Hitler was a Catholic.  Stirring up anti-Islamic feelings is much worse than the mosque being close to Ground Zero.

The Glen Beck, Sarah Palin and to a certain extent, Jimmy Akin crusade against this president is just plain bad for America.

Keith,
You are dead center right!!!  It’s time for all of us to stand up and stop being bullied by what we used to call “bleeding-heart liberals” - condescending people who don’t get the full picture but think they do.  Unortunately, these are the people still in charge of our education system - from pre-school to university.

I think that Obama’s speaking in favor of the Mosque was probably an imprudent political move for him. He probably realizes this, hence the backpedaling. I believe it is also an imprudent move on the part of the Muslim congregation to plan a mosque so close to where such an atrocity by Muslims, in the name of Islam was committed. This looks bad, whether or not this particular group of Muslims condones the 9-11 attacks. However, I think it is in the interests of preserving the right to freedom of religion in our country to allow law abiding citizens to build places of worship where they see fit. By opposing free exercise of religion through the building of a place of prayer, we ally ourselves with secularism which is a much more dangerous enemy to the Church than radical Islam.

There are probably more practicing Muslims in NY City than Catholics. So I think a Mosque is a good thing. Muslims have a Mosque at the Dome of the Rock, which once was the most important site for Jews. So it only seems logical to have a Mosque at the center of American capitalism. It must be Allah’s will. People need to get over their insensitivity and cultural bias towards Islam, and embrace the fact that Islam will soon rule the world.

Catholics are so fractured as a result of the priest and bishop scandals in Europe and America that it is doubtful if they could even muster enough unity to put a ‘Catholic’ Starbucks at Ground Zero. The lack of unity, moral decay among clergy, lack of zeal, and general apathy of Catholicism shows it is a religion incapable of being relevant in the 21st century.

Conservative Catholics are too busy on focusing on liberals and liberal Catholics, while we Muslims quietly advance our agenda. So instead of complaining about a Mosque at Ground Zero, see if you can set up your own ‘Catholic Starbucks’ or a statue of one of your popes.

“And he chose to for political reasons—to try to curry favor with the Muslim community.”  - Jimmy Akin

# “We see in Islam a religion that traces its origins back to God’s call on Abraham. We share your belief in God’s justice, and your insistence on man’s moral responsibility. We thank the many Muslim nations who stand with us against terror. Nations that are often victims of terror, themselves.”

President Bush Hosts Iftaar Dinner
Remarks by the President at Iftaar Dinner
State Dining Room

# “Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a great religion.”

Remarks by President George W. Bush on U.S. Humanitarian Aid to Afghanistan
Presidential Hall, Dwight David Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C.
October 11, 2002

And lastly…

“I have assured His Majesty that our war is against evil, not against Islam. There are thousands of Muslims who proudly call themselves Americans, and they know what I know—that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion. The exact opposite of the teachings of the al Qaeda organization, which is based upon evil and hate and destruction.”

Remarks by President George W. Bush and His Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan
The Oval Office, Washington, D.C.
September 28, 2001

Keith, you are just totally off base on your comments, my friend. You miss the point entirely when you start rambling about how anti-Christian or inherently evil the faith of Islam is. The point is that people are upset that an Islamic center is being put up near the 9/11 site. Thus that would require some sort of connection between the faith of Islam and the attacks of 9/11. The evidence simply doesn’t bear it out, the hijackers WERE NOT practicing fundamentalist Muslims, they were freedom fighters tired of decades of American violence and influence in their respective homelands. Our troops, sadly to say, have shed their blood only for the purpose of a neoconservative/neoliberal foreign policy that views a heavy-handed American military presence in the Middle East as the appropriate strategy.

Good call Jimmy. The President’s comments were his own and reflected his desire to be heard on this.  This is the second time he has demonstrated where he comes down on the issue of Islamic terrorism (recall the Ft. Hood attack).  He basically scolded the American people on this issue as though those opposed are bigots. He does this with the intent of showing the muslim world.  He is obviously more concerned with what the muslim world thinks than he is with what the American people think.  This man is woefully unfit for his position.  Unbelievable!

Brian,

What color is the sun in your world?  The 911 hijackers were not fundamentalist muslims?!!!  That level of delusion deserves some recognition my friend. If you honestly think those individuals didn’t at least believe they were serving God (given that they all sacrificed themselves in a fiery horrible death), well all I can say is, WOW.  Whether, you agree with their brand of Islam or not is immaterial.  The fact that they professed it and did what they did in the name of it, makes building a mosque at the World Trade Center an example of poor judgment to say the least.  Also, it seems like you respond to comments without considering their context (the article above).  It is as though you did not even read it.

For a Catholic blog, I’m surprised no one has mentioned the time a group of Carmelite nuns wanted to build a convent near Auwtswich (sp?)that Jewish groups protested. Pope John Paul asked them not to, fully understanding the sensitivity of the Jewish people.  Why cannot the Muslim community understand the sensitivity of the American people to this mosque? Because we are expected to be tolerant of Muslims, not the other way around!

Thanks Jimmy!
Something few people talk about is the name of the initiative to build this mosque.
As author David Warren points out at:
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?id=1168
“It is called the Cordoba Initiative, in memory of the grand mosque in Andalusia, erected in the ninth and 10th centuries on the foundations of the demolished grand Visigothic church in that city.
In Islamist, and indeed general Islamic legend, that mosque symbolized the conquest of Christian Spain by Muslim armed forces (later reversed in the “Reconquista” by armed Christian forces).”
The initiative’s name is highly divisive and controversial.
Veronika

Jason, how is it out of context? Jimmy spoke of the mosque being “rotten” and I disagree. I contend that calling it a Muslim attack is really the incorrect way to look at it. I used to think that this was some sort of religious attack (as is espoused on Fox News and MSNBC), but soon came to the realization that this was really an attack on our foreign policy abroad. So, if this is not primarily a religious attack, then why is it offensive to have a religious institute near the site. The hijackers were nominally Muslim, yes, but if that wasn’t the primary motivation, what’s the big deal? Jason, I would ask you, do you think the attack was more about religious dispute or is it about foreign policy (i.e. our overthrowing the Shah in Iran, bombings of Iraq in the 90’s, etc etc)? If you think the former, then I suppose it is offensive, if you believe the latter, then it really shouldn’t be an issue.

Brian, while I disagree with your proposition about the 9/11 attackers, I want to address concerns about this “Ground Zero Mosque”. The Imam did not speak out against Hamas when given the chance and claimed America was complicit in the attacks (apparently your position - so then it is OK to kill thousands of civilians because of their government’s policies?). Further, there are concerns about this mosque promoting Sharia law.

The day a Christian Church may be built in Saudia Arabia, U.A.E, Iran, etc…will be the day I believe in so-called tolerance from members of various Islamic communities.

Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems that conservatives are using emotional appeals to violate their own principals.  (I say this as one who believes in those principals)

If I own property, and I want to build a church there, I don’t care where it is, that should be my personal liberty and the government does not have the legitimate authority to stop me.  It is not within their power.  It SHOULD NOT BE within their power.

Why would it be different for Muslims, Wickans, or worshipers of the flying spaghetti monster? 

Why is 2 blocks a problem?  Would 3 be a problem?  Does someone want to re-draw the zoning maps with the proper mosque-free area’s marked?

Please note, I’m not saying I think it is a good idea.  I just think that giving the government the authority to regulate religion in this manner* is a far worse idea.

*We are saying you cannot publicly worship Alah in a designated area (mosque) within a 2-block radius of ground zero - make no mistake, this is a prohibition of “the free exercise thereof.” (first amendment)

A quite appalling article by Akin again.

Firstly, the Twin Towers of the World Trace Center were not our Kaaba, unless you worship trade, when you’d be a follower of Mammon.

Secondly, I couldn’t care less how Catholics would be treated by Muslims, but only how we’d treat Muslims.  If they are our enemies to some, the more the reason to treat them charitably.

Finally, I don’t care what the 1st Amendment say.  The Church cherishes religious freedom more than the Constitution and if there’s a conflict between them, I’ll side with the Church.  I think, and I’m not positive about this, that Muslims have the right to build a mosque wherever they please, as long as they use legal means.  Shame on the NY governor for meddling in their freedom to legally enter into contracts.

And, let’s be reasonable, a couple of blocks in a dense city as NYC is not the same as a couple of blocks in my suburbanite neighborhood. 

PS: I’d surprised that Obama gets religious freedom, if he hadn’t non-denial denied it.

HeatherNC, I’m not saying its OK to kill thousands at all. For I am a Catholic, and of course it was a tragedy and the perpetrators committed a monumental sin. However, I do think that our foreign policy actions have consequences, what the CIA calls “blowback.” So lets blame the real culprits here, not some NYC Muslims that want to build a mosque. As Dostoyevsky writes in The Brothers Karamazov, “take yourself up, and make yourself responsible for all the sins of men.” If we support this foreign policy, I think we are also morally responsible for its consequences for either the people in Iraq that died, or the people in New York City that died. So, I don’t see the issue with the Imam’s thoughts, of course actions have consequences ... this isn’t a controversial view in my mind.

Unfortunately, there is nothing unconstitutional about this endeavor. This is simply a matter of respect and dignity.

Just ran across this from the Muslim Canadian Congress (no idea how big they are or how influential):
http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/20100809.html

<<<In a letter to Imam Faisal Rauf that will be delivered on Tuesday, August 10 by MCC’s board member Raheel Raza, the MCC says, “Many Muslims suspect that the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the ‘infidel.’ We believe the proposal has been made in bad faith and, in Islamic parlance, is creating ‘fitna,’ meaning ‘mischief-making,’ an act clearly forbidden in the Qur’an.”

“The Qur’an commands us Muslims to, ‘Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book’—i.e., Jews and Christians [chapter 29, verse 46]. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers, is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of “fitna,” the letter added.

The MCC challenges Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf about his claim that building the mosque will increase tolerance for Muslims when the evidence is the exact opposite. “Do you not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox Church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 6,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?” the letter asked.>>>

A rather closer analogy than the Kabba.

Changing topic a bit, folks across the US seem to have a NIMBY attitude toward mosques (and Muslims?) which does smack of intolerance.

Mr. Akin’s title is misleading:  it is not the “Ground Zero Mosque”.  It is a proposed mosque NEAR Ground Zero, not on it.  I believe that the mosque is uncomfortably close to Ground Zero but that should not prevent it from being built.  Granted many Americans are against the building of the mosque (it is currently a dilapidated old Burlington factory building in a rather unremarkable part of Manhattan), the distinction between Al Queda (our real enemy) and Islam (not our enemy) is significant.  Mr. Akin is attempting to blend Islam and Al Queda in order to promote ridiculous un-American sentiments toward one of the world’s great religions.

With all deference to the people in the local area as well as to the victims and their families, Mr. Akin’s viewpoints and politicization only adds to their misery. 

Some relatives of victims of the 9/11 attacks expressed support for the project.

Herb Ouida, whose son Todd died, said: “To say that we’re going to condemn a religion and castigate a billion people in the world because they’re Muslims, to say that they shouldn’t have the ability to pray near the World Trade Center—I don’t think that’s going to bring people together and cross the divide.”

Marvin Bethea, a former EMS worker who was forced to retire in 2004 because of breathing problems caused by working at the 9/11 site, believes racism is a factor in the controversy, He said “even though my life has changed, I don’t hate the Muslims. Especially being a black man, I know what it’s like to be discriminated against. I’ve lived with that.”

Donna O’Connor, whose pregnant daughter died on 9/11, expressed the opinion that “This building will serve as an emblem for the rest of the world that Americans ... recognize that the evil acts of a few must never damn the innocent.”

Some of the families have organized a group named September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, which supports the center and has said it would be “an emblem for the rest of the world that Americans stand against violence, intolerance, and overt acts of racism and that we recognize that the evil acts of a few must never damn the innocent”.

Terry Rockefeller, whose sister was killed, said: “this doesn’t insult her at all.This celebrates the city she loved living in. It is what makes America what we are.”

Another post in this thread talks about President Bush’s statements regarding the differences between Al Queda and Islam.  I wish America would collectively take a deep breath and try not to make a spectacle that many are doing, especially republicans.

President Obama is (as with his policies) on the wrong side of the issue.  He is correct that they have a right to build the mosque but that is not the issue.  He either doesn’t get it or doesn’t care - sound familiar?  As for me, I think the plan to build there is a purposeful slap in the face to America - in any case it is inappropriate.  Along with rights come responsibilities.  Just because you have a right doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do.  I also have serious doubts that Islam and the beliefs of its followers are not compatible with the constitution and our way of life.  We keep hearing about “moderate” muslims.  How about vociferous, “defending America” muslim Americans showing the way to how one can be muslim/Islamic believer and still be a good American.  To be silent doesn’t cut it.  Several people came on talk shows, claiming to represent the muslim community in America, and refused to address the “sensitivity issue” - they kept changing the subject to “right to build”.  What does that tell you?

Of course he’s going to defend the Muslims…his family on the African side are they.

Besides, I personally would approve a mosque at Ground Zero…a great big huge IF the Muslims are willing to give up the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa mosque so Jews can rebuild their temple back in Israel.

Does it have to be a mosque to be offensive?  What about a Catholic cathedral or a Mormon temple or a Jehovah Witness Kingdom Hall or a Protestant church?

I thought Ground Zero and the immediate surrounding area-I believe 4 blocks in all directions-was going to be one big memorial site?

PS—-

Why are the Muslims wanting to build a mosque at Ground Zero and not near the Pentagon or where the field was in Pennsylvania.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want the mosque build anywhere (how about a multi-religious center instead that would make everybody happy). 

But if I was going to pick a site…IF I was Muslim instead of Catholic, I’d pick that barren field in Pennsylvania instead.

“”“Why are the Muslims wanting to build a mosque at Ground Zero and not near the Pentagon or where the field was in Pennsylvania.”“”

Perhaps because there are more Muslims who live within 2 blocks of ground zero than there are who live near that field?

“”“I don’t want the mosque build anywhere”“”

This thread is really rubbing me the wrong way.  I’m Catholic and proud of it.  It is not an anti-Muslim club.  In fact, we love them so much we want them to have all of God’s revelation. 

Both as a Catholic and as an American, I take freedom of religion very seriously.  That doesn’t mean that all are equally true (the Catholic Faith is the fullness of God’s revelation), right, peaceful, or whatever.  It does mean that they have rights that need to be respected. 

If the state can tell one group that they can’t build a place of worship, there is nothing to stop the state from doing the same to any other group.

It’s quite simple.

Jihadist Muslims (which is to say: Muslims who are orthodox by the standards of historical Islam) have a dogma: Anyplace owned by Muslims may never be sold to non-Muslims; anyplace ruled by Muslims may never be ruled by non-Muslims; any exceptions are the focus of violent jihad until they are won back into Dar al Islam.

This is why Israel is the focus of violence, and would be had Israel granted every Palestinian Muslim a mansion worthy of Beverly Hills and a widescreen television set. (I do not by saying this mean to indicate that the Israelis are absolved from moral culpability for occasions when they have knowingly and willfully mistreated the Palestinian Muslims. I am only indicating that the attitude of jihadist Muslims would be the same either way.) The land inside the borders of Israel was once under the Caliph. For every orthodox Muslim, it must be so again; indeed, were the world to end prior to those lands being returned to sharia, it would falsify Islam entirely. It is thus a religious obligation of Muslims to strive for the restoration of sharia there, and jihadists are merely the most overt about that striving.

This is also why southern Spain was the focus of violence (the Madrid bombings); these lands also were once under sharia and, in the eyes of jihadists, represent the second-highest priority of reconquest. Were Israel to be split between Jordan, Syria, and Egypt today, the Palestinian Muslims would be the same second-class citizens they are today in those countries…but their status would vanish from the world’s radar screen as southern Spain erupted in violence and the Muslim world focused its attention on the injustice of non-Muslim rule in “the lost paradise of Al-Andalus” (the jihadist pet phrase for that area).

Which brings us back to the Ground Zero mosque. It is irrelevant how occidentalized and pacified Muslims—who from the jihadist perspective are contemptible and neutered heretics—view the mosque. They are not the ones funding it, building it, owning it, using it. It is the jihadists—with a thin veneer of verbal formulas intended to appeal to the American left’s love affair with community organizers—who are doing so.

How do THEY view it? They view it as a flag planted which, once planted, can never be removed. They view it as a psychological defeat for the West and a great recruiting tool. They believe it falsifies the notion that Constitutional Democratic Republicanism protecting intrinsic human rights and dignity is superior to sharia and will ultimately win out over sharia. They believe (correctly) that so long as Islam remains in the world, if that space is ever lost by Muslims, Muslims will feel a religious obligation to reconquer it (as with Israel and Andalusia).

And they believe that it solidifies in the Muslim imagination the notion that the fall of the World Trade Center represents not a crime or tragedy, but an advance of Muslim domination: The absorbtion of a small but strategically important corner of Dar al Jihad (“the sphere of war”) into Dar al Islam (“the sphere of submission”).

That is its significance. It is as if World War II were still being waged, and Hitler not yet defeated, and the D-Day invasion yet to be launched…but a particularly daring raid had caused a small Allied fortress to be raised in Berlin itself, and the Allied flags to be raised there, and the Germans had been unable despite their best efforts to wipe it out, and had given up doing so, leaving the Allied flags fluttering insolently over Hitler’s Germany. Imagine how we would feel about that. Imagine how we would think the Nazis would feel about that.

That is what the Ground Zero mosque means.

Brian,

You recently posted the following response to post I made.

“Jason, how is it out of context? Jimmy spoke of the mosque being “rotten” and I disagree. I contend that calling it a Muslim attack is really the incorrect way to look at it. I used to think that this was some sort of religious attack (as is espoused on Fox News and MSNBC), but soon came to the realization that this was really an attack on our foreign policy abroad. So, if this is not primarily a religious attack, then why is it offensive to have a religious institute near the site. The hijackers were nominally Muslim, yes, but if that wasn’t the primary motivation, what’s the big deal? Jason, I would ask you, do you think the attack was more about religious dispute or is it about foreign policy (i.e. our overthrowing the Shah in Iran, bombings of Iraq in the 90’s, etc etc)? If you think the former, then I suppose it is offensive, if you believe the latter, then it really shouldn’t be an issue.”

Frankly, I don’t think this is as much a response to the point I was making as it is a restatement of the original post to which I was responding yesterday.  As such, the discourse here is unappealing.  However, I will attempt to answer in ways that more clearly illustrate what I was attempting to say in brief yesterday.

It always amazes me the degree of pride that those with a leftist mentality demonstrate in making counterintuitive statements.  As if making such a statement is brilliant or illuminating simply by virtue of its counterintuitive nature.  The problem with this is that some things are intuitive precisely because they are obviously true.  One such example is this, “the 911 hijackers were fundamentalist Muslims”.  See how easy that is.  Now you may think it clever to say, “The 911 hijackers are not fundamentalist Muslims”.  However, the fact that this isn’t true and that this is obvious even to five year old children, makes such a declaration, rather than clever or helpful, irrelevant.  To then, further, base the rest of your assertions about the mosque debate on this statement, places such assertions in a context that exists only in your head, not in the world I, or anyone else, lives in.  Hence I asked the question in my original post, “what color is the sun in your world?”  Maybe simply saying your arguments are out of context wasn’t the most accurate way of communicating this but it was, at the time, the kindest language I could think of.  Keeping this mind, I will respond to your questions follows.

1.You ask, “The hijackers were nominally Muslim, yes, but if that wasn’t the primary motivation, what’s the big deal?”
Answer: If it wasn’t the primary motivation (i.e. the 911 hijackers were not practicing Muslims on a self proclaimed jihad against the west), there would be no problem with a mosque.  However, since they were, in fact, Muslims acting in accord with their understanding of Islamic belief and that this was a primary motivation for them, there is a problem with the mosque.

2.You stated, “Jason, I would ask you, do you think the attack was more about religious dispute or is it about foreign policy (i.e. our overthrowing the Shah in Iran, bombings of Iraq in the 90’s, etc etc)? If you think the former, then I suppose it is offensive, if you believe the latter, then it really shouldn’t be an issue.”
Answer:  Asked and answered.

As a closing note, I can only assume that if you accepted the premise that they were Muslims acting for religious reasons your position would be different.  I mean, based on your argument, it would seem that is the sticking point, however ridiculous it may be.

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger [Mohammad], nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth from among the People of the Book [of the Bible], until they pay the tribute tax with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued [by we Muslims].” Koran, Surah 9:29.
That’s why they feel obligated to destroy other religion’s places of worship and replace them with mosques:
1.) The original title of the ground zero mosque was “the Cordoba House,” in honor of how they razed the cathedral in that city and replaced it with a mosque (which was reverted to Cordoba’s cathedral after the reconquista.)
2.) Then there’s what they did to the cathedral of the patriarch of Constaninople, Hagia Sophia.
3.) And they fly into a rage whenever a Jew gets anywhere near the site of the Teemple in Jerusalem.
4.) Finally, the Kaaba in Mecca was originally a pagan shrine.

Oh yes, and despite all the talk about how anyone could build a house of worship anywhere in the US, the local zoning board still won’t let the Greek Orthodox rebuild their church which was destroyed on 9/11.

“President Obama Defends Murray Federal Building Church!”

“Jews, Protestants, Mormons and Muslims have protested the building of a Catholic Church near the Murrah Federal Building site in Oklahoma City.  The site, where hundreds of American citizens including women and children were murdered by Catholic Timothy McVeigh are outraged at the insensitivity of the Catholic Church by building a place of worship (presumably to indoctrinate other Catholics to carry out acts of domestic terrorism against the federal government). 

“President Obama defended the building of the church as a pillar of religious tolerance and freedom guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.  Condemnation of the President’s remarks were quick as protestant activist and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin condemned the church’s move saying that the families and the deceased killed in the Oklahoma City bombing deserved respect, not provocation from Catholics.  Mormon activist and Fox News host Glenn Beck sided with Palin, along with Southern Baptist New Gingrich and other prominent Republican voices.

“We fear another Holocaust.  As you are all aware, the most infamous Catholic Adolf Hitler vowed to kill every Jew on the face of the earth.  Given catholic history of Nazism, the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition, it has been their history to take over the world by any means necessary, including the killing of innocent civilians”.

“Many Catholics have expressed dismay at the public reaction stating that McVeigh’s motivation for murdering Americans was not due to his religious beliefs (he was given Last Rites by a Catholic priest just before his execution, therefore granting him access to heaven according to official Catholic doctrine), but due to the government’s violent and deadly raid at Waco, Texas.

“Many of the peaceful and charitable Catholic organizations, including the clergy and religious, are dismayed and extremely disappointed by the widespread condemnation of the building of the church so close to Murrah.  ‘Catholics have schools and universities that produced some of the finest, law-abiding Americans that this country has ever seen.’  But detractors point to the domestic terrorism campaign in Ireland by the Irish Republican Army as proof that at Catholic Churches the real objective is to emulate the IRA in order to pursue worldwide domination by any means necessary.”

As you can see folks, this parody on Catholics based on the uproar over the mosque near (not on or in) Ground Zero is very offensive.  I can imagine how Muslims in America and around the world must view our country – we are doing a heck of a job distinguishing Islam and terrorism, aren’t we?  Look, we can’t have it both ways:  we must love and tolerate all people of all religions, and the government should protect the rights guaranteed by the first amendment.   

People – please pray for each other and be good Christians.  Jimmy Akin – please set a good example of tolerance and respect by what you tell your readers.

In fact, we Catholics stopped building a convent near Auschwitz on the site of where Hitler—who was NOT a Catholic as an adult (read Mein Kampf)—started rounding up and killing Catholics out of consideration of the feelings of Jews.
Last Saturday was the feast of St. Maximillian Kolbe, remember.

The arrogance of our western culture is the thought that democracy will be the cure for what ails the middle-east.  We have a tendency to forget that neither democracy or what stands as western culture in today’s society is good for either east or west.  We have been so tolerant of the political ideologies wrought by radicals, that we have embraced the idea if we “simply are nice” and “let them do their own thing” they will leave us be. Our culture has been transformed into a culture rooted in tolerating everythink that we no longer share common decency, common courtesy or common sense.  Democracy is the salvation of neither east nor west, Jesus Christ is.  I wonder how easy it would be to get lost in a thirteen story mosque?

Don, you are 100% right regarding Hitler, especially the fact that he did seek out and kill Catholics.  He was by no means a Catholic in any sense as you correctly state.

You have shown some excellent defense of the Church, citing specific historical clarifications and viewpoints.  These are the same issues confronting Islam and the relationship between this Islam, this proposed mosque and terrorism.

Did you know that more Muslims have been killed by Al Queda and other terrorist groups than any other religious affiliation? 

When some people (such as Jimmy Akin) paint a very broad stroke by not distinguishing differences between peaceful and law abiding Muslims (including millions of Muslim Americans) and the terrorist acts of 9/11, you can see how this will foment anger, resentment and humiliation if you happen to be a member of the Muslim faith.

@Jimmy’s Conscience

I find your moniker to be in rather bad taste.

Personally, I think they should avoid building Catholic churches near schools, especially considering that the U.S. bishops have reported receiving allegations of abuse by 5,600 priests in 1950-2008, or 5.1% of the 109,694 U.S. priests active since 1950.

Source: The sources for these numbers are The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests and Deacons, by Karen Terry et al., prepared by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice (Washington DC: USCCB, 2004), with the annual implementation reports issued by the USCCB for 2004,  2005,  2006,  2007, and 2008.

Catholic priests have a higher molestation rate than any type of Muslim violence.

READ THIS BOOKGoodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church

The book exposes the deliberate infiltration by those who wish to change the doctrines, disciplines and mission of the Catholic Church. This radical subculture and its liberal mindset-one that accepts homosexuality and sexual promiscuity in many seminaries-threatens the future of the Catholic Church.
The gay subculture is so prominent at certain seminaries that they have earned nicknames such as: “Pink Palace” (St. Mary’s Seminary in Baltimore), “Notre Flame” (Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans), and “Theological Closet” (Theological College at the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC). At these and several other seminaries, Rose found shocking examples of how, time and time again, chaste heterosexual seminarians are dismissed as unfit for the priesthood, while promiscuous homosexuals, and even those who have harassed, molested, or even raped other seminarians, are protected or promoted.
For anyone who has asked how pedophiles or predatory homosexual priests could possibly have been tolerated-here is the answer, in the most explosive book on the Catholic Church in a generation.

honestly, here’s exactly what i think:
http://alterpolus.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/confederate-flag-placed-on-mlks-assasination-site/

it says it all.

Jason, obviously we aren’t going to convince eachother one way or the other on this. I want to respond to you, though, however pointless it is. First off, I am not a leftist. Second, you essentially make the point that this is a struggle between the West and radical Islam (even going as far as making the absurd point that I am the only person in the world that sees it differently). Bin Laden himself spoke of the primary reason for the attack being American influence in the Middle East. So your absolutism is unwarranted. I doubt you will look much into this, but try reading some books such as Imperial Hubris by Michael Scheuer, The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul, The New American Militarism by Andrew Bacevich and Blowback by Chalmers Johnson. Then you may be convinced that some others have a differing point of view not influenced by media conglomerates that are financed by large multi-national corporation that profit from war.

My current understanding is that the Mosque to be built is of the Sufi order - which has traditionally been on the outside of Muslim society being the more mystical branch of Islam….Their reluctance to decry Hamas has more to do with the reluctance to put down fellow Muslims than any political motivation…the Sufi order has never been involved in violence that I know of…They are not supporters of terrorism - that said the question of the prudence of building the Mosque may still be asked….

I find it amazing that the “left”, and the ACLU are suddenly for “freedom of worship” and freedom of religion, something that they seem to spent more time trying to suppress rather than support. Also, some years ago, there was an outcry from some Jewish and other groups over some Carmelite sisters converting an abandoned building into a convent at Auschwitz. Pope John Paul II counseled, and when he realized the Carmelites presence was doing more harm than good, he asked them to move.Isn’t that what a true religious leader would do to promote understanding and peace? Read about it here: http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704271804575405330350430368.html

Great article.  I sure miss the Holy Father John Paul II.

The article is weak in comparison (and I don’t mean the content) with the Ground Zero mosque for several key reasons:

1.  “For Jews, Auschwitz is a symbol of the Shoah, and the presence of a convent looked like an effort to Christianize a place of Jewish suffering. Suspicions were further aroused by a fund-raising brochure from an outside Catholic group, which referred to the convent as a “guarantee of the conversion of strayed brothers.”

This is very provocative and offensive to Jews.  It is conflict between religious beliefs; the nuns, in spite of their good intentions, failed to recognize or adhere to the Jewish position.  In a nut shell, it was their fault and the Pope had no choice but to ask them to leave.

2.  This is occurred in Poland, and not the U.S.  There is no 1st Amendment controversy and the Muslims near Ground Zero are not directly provoking survivors and the memories of the victims in any way.

3.  The nuns were physically at Auschwitz and were actively performing a non-Jewish activity (Catholic prayers) to the souls of the survivors.  There are no Muslims praying for the conversion of the souls to Islam at Ground Zero.

Mr. McGurn’s article is overlooking these issues and focusing entirely on the parallels between the sensitivities at both sites.  But when you get right down to the substance of his thesis, it is like comparing apples and oranges.

Oh, one other point Mr. Smith.  The ACLU has always sued for the separation of church and state, not for prohibiting religious beliefs.  In another irony, this conservative swelling of the populace (think tea party) is heavily into literal constitutional interpretation.  Which means that conservatives believe that the government should never interfere BUT protect the freedom to practice religious worship, regardless of faith affiliation. 

President Obama was doing what conservatives claim that he never does, that is lift the government off the backs of its citizens.  If that isn’t freedom in practice, I don’t know what is.

After reading through world history, and the history of Islam, I find it very hard to believe that this isn’t just exactly what it looks like.

Really, really hard to believe.

to jc:
As a matter of fact, the site that the nuns choose to pray at was the site were the first Catholics that Hitler rounded up were executed.  (Did you know that Hitler killed more Christians than Jews—7 million, which was not a greater percentage but a greater number)?
And if it’s true that you can build any house of worship anywhere in the US, when is the zoning board going to allow the Greek Orthodox to rebuild their church which was destroyed on 9/11?

And Melinda T:
If the Sufis are the branch of Islam that are going to build the 9/11 mosque, and they only refuse to condemn Hamas and other terrorist groups out of consideration of their fellow Muslims, what makes you think that they won’t allow terrorists to operate out of the 9/11 mosque?

And to Haddad:
Did you know that surveys indicate that Catholic priests are no morelikely to be accused of sexual ab use than ministeers or rabbis? (“Priests and Pedophiles” by Philip Jenkins, Oxford University Press)  And that the US Department of Education estimated in 2004 that the problem in the public schools is at least “100 times worse” in the public schools? (Charol Shakeshaft)
As for the Muslim treatment of little boys, in Iran the government pays for their sex-change opertions so that they don’t think of it as homosexuality, and (in honor of their pedophile prophet Mohammad) the age of consent for girls is 9.

” Bin Laden himself spoke of the primary reason for the attack being American influence in the Middle East.”

Bin Laden was mad that there were US troops on Saudi soil—US troops that were invited there by the Saudi government to protect them from Saddam.  If Bin Laden didn’t like that, that is tough.  It doesn’t excuse murdering 3,000 people.

“Why is 2 blocks a problem?  Would 3 be a problem?  Does someone want to re-draw the zoning maps with the proper mosque-free area’s marked?”

The building was hit by the landing gear from one of the planes, so this idea that it is not linked directly with Ground Zero is simply untrue.

“Posted by Don Schenk on Thursday, Aug 19, 2010 8:24 AM (EST):

And Melinda T:
If the Sufis are the branch of Islam that are going to build the 9/11 mosque, and they only refuse to condemn Hamas and other terrorist groups out of consideration of their fellow Muslims, what makes you think that they won’t allow terrorists to operate out of the 9/11 mosque? “

Of course that is a valid concern - and I don’t know how to answer it - I pray that is not the case…they are in the spotlight now and hopefully those who have charge of our security and NYC in particular will be keeping a close eye on these concerns…For what its worth the State Department seems to have confidence in their legitimacy at this point…

At the end of the Day, one cannot be seeking Peace while refusing to condemn terrorism, simultaneously.

While you may have your uncharitable, unchristian, and unfortunate reasons for hating another religion, you should not try to turn this country into some sort of police state where the authorities start picking and choosing which religions we’ll allow to practice here. I think you’d be happier in Saudi Arabia. There have been plenty of Christian sinners doing the most heinous things against fellow humans, but that doesn’t make Christianity bad.

I hate the idea of a mosque at Ground Zero.  I view it as a slap in the face to all Americans.  Maybe that seems a little strong, but lets put it another way.  If they had respect or even empathy for the families of those killed at ground zero, they probably would not be trying to build a shrine to the muslims that committed the act of mass murder.  And no matter what they call it, that is exactly what it is.  To the folks that say it is a seperation of church and state issue, then I say that we build a Catholic Church, a Pentacostal Church, a Scientology Church, a Baptist Church and every other type of religious building that can be built there, forget having anything else, lets just make it the religious destination for NY.  I bet that wouldn’t go over too well either.  If they want a Mosque they have had not trouble building them everywhere else, but why pick the one place that it is bound to start a problem?

Renae

Renae,

There is no mosque ON ground zero.  This is a proposed Islamic cultural center with a prayer space included.  There are currently at least four mosques in Manhattan, the closest is within 4 blocks of ground zero.  It has been used as a mosque for the last two years without an issue. 

It was only when an anti-Islamic group got a news article written about it in the New York Post that this became a national issue.  The news cycle is extremely slow in August so this has filled the void of sensationalist news coverage by our hyped-up media. 

Islam is not the same as Al Queda.  Islam is not an enemy of the United States.  My understanding is that there are thousands of Muslim Americans serving in the armed forces and are as loyal as white Christian Americans.  They are recruited heavily for obvious reasons.

Don’t react to Fox News, Sarah Palin, Jimmy Akins and the rest of the bloggers on this site;  go out and get informed.

Peace.

I personally find it interesting that our liberal friends have taken a break from tearing down the crosses on war memorials, ripping up the Ten Commandments in courthouses, forcing Catholics to pay for abortions, and condemning Christian groups at public schools in order to proclaim that Muslims have the right to freely practice their religion in whatever way they see fit.

Let them build their mosque, and let someone build a “Hooters” on one side of it and a “Famous Dave’s BBQ” on the other side.  After all, since we have the freedom to do so, we must insult each other as much as humanly possible.  It is the American way!

Oh, and I especially like that the first Muslim Miss USA, Rima Fakih, is AGAINST this mosque being built so close to Ground Zero.  I guess she’s just a hateful member of the “Bigot Brigade”!  Did Palin and Beck get to her???

As a matter of fact, landing gear from one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center DID crash into the Burlington Coat Factory, so it IS part of Ground Zero.
While there may be Muslims who condemn terrorists groups such as Hamas, the people who want to build this victory mosque—it was originally called “Cordoba House,” after a mosque that replaced a church in that Spanish city after the Muslim conquest—refuse to.

And once again, if religious groups have the right to build any house of worship anywhere they want to, when is the New York City zoning board (which rushed to approve ““Cordoba House”) going to approve the rebuilding of the Greek Orthodox church that was destroyed on 9/11?

“Oh, and I especially like that the first Muslim Miss USA, Rima Fakih, is AGAINST this mosque being built so close to Ground Zero.  I guess she’s just a hateful member of the “Bigot Brigade”!  Did Palin and Beck get to her???”

What Rima Fakih says doesn’t make any difference!  It’s what WE do that is important, and if we Catholics cannot “walk the talk,” we have a LONG way to go to redemption.

I believe Mosab Yousef, the son of one of the founding members of Hamas, when he says there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. The agenda of Islam is a worldwide Caliph, that is a global theocracy. Jihad is the pursuit of this agenda, through conquest if possible, violence where necessary, and through stealth where violence or conquest is not yet possible.
Religious freedom only exists where Islam is weak. When Islam is strong sharì‘a, that is Islamic Law holds sway and there is only the weak religious freedom that allows second class citizens to worship in private and prohibits Evangelization, the mission that Christians are called to by God.
The name of the proposed “cultural center” is Cordoba. The Great Mosque of Cordoba was built on the ruins of the Visgoth built St. Vincent Church in Spain. When Spain was freed by Ferdinand and Isabella a new cathedral was built there.
Hagia Sophia was the largest cathedral in the world, until Constantinople was conquered by Mehmed II, whereupon it was turned into a Mosque.
Do I even need to mention the Great temple and the Dome of the Rock?
Who could possibly believe that it is not the intention of the builders of this “cultural center” not to build a victory mosque at the site of their victory over America’s “religion”, capitalism?

To read a book by someone who is less biased against Catholics, reaqd “The Myhth of HItler’s Pope” by Rabbi David G. Dalin.  And the present Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes the Roman Catechism of 1566 on who was responsible for the crucifixion—we are.
Isn’t it amazing that he doesn’t know about these documents?

Sorry for the followup comment.
Christians are not called upon to be tolerant of other religions. We are called upon to evangelize. As the old saying goes error has no rights. We are prohibited from forcing others to convert. We have no responsibility to defend their right to continue in error.
The religious freedom guaranteed in the Constitution is good for Catholics because it prevents others from persecuting us, but it is at its heart a Christian Protestant concept. The traditional Catholic stand on the relationship of government and religion is actually closer to the Islamic stand than to the modern Protestant one. That is in a perfect world God’s law is the law and a Christian ruler would enforce God’s law. A Christian nation enforces laws in concordance with natural law and the moral law set forth by Scripture and the Church.
So you can claim that being intolerant of Muslims is at variance with American practice vis a vis the Constitution, but you’re stretching to claim it is a variance with Christian belief or practice.

No more mosques. Deport all foreign-born Muslims, and destroy the mosqes they have built!

“No more mosques. Deport all foreign-born Muslims, and destroy the mosques they have built!”

some folks who have posted comments on this piece by Jimmy Aiken desperately need our prayers, the above quote being a good example of the type of commenter to which I am referring…and honestly I need prayer too:) I am not trying to single out people…I just think that we get so caught up in our culture wars that we forget WHO is really running the show - God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - remember Him???? So if you want to see justice and compassion, charity and clarity in your community and in the world then devotion to ACTUAL prayer without ceasing is the way to accomplish this and all the internet chatter, posting, posturing and opinionating is worth a big net zero by comparison….

To those who share Steve Dalton’s sentiments in the above quote as well as to those who hold the opposite view my paltry advice is go to Mass everyday, and let the Eucharist purify and strengthen your walk with Christ - otherwise we’re just spitting in the wind and the blow-back is eternal..any examination of the lives of the saints teaches this….The most important relationship is the one we have with Christ but the more we shoot off our mouths the less time we have for Him…end of story…

And I should add I’m done shooting off my mouth:) have a blessed day…

Mohammed - Is his Testimony Credible?

By St. Thomas Aquanis

“He (Mohammed) seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected; he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.

He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the Contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms - which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning (1). Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his follower’s by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimony of the Old and the New Testaments by making them into a fabrication of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place faith in his words believe foolishly”

- Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 16, Art. 4.

Footnote:

1. Sura 21:5, Sura 44:14; Sura 16:103, Sura 37:36

Melinda, the Muslims have an active hatred of or faith and our country. They don’t belong here if they are trying to overthrow our way of life. Why do you think spain had to expell all their Muslims in the late 16th century? They couldn’t be trusted, thats why. Please read some history and get back to me when you understand reality.

Seems nobody would care if a catholic church was built near the Oklahoma federal building bombing site..why is that?????

Funny thing about that “Muslims hate our way of life ” thing , Steve, but me thinks you don’t know ANY Muslims who live in this country cause the ones I know who have lived here for, oh,FIFTY YEARS, do in fact love this country and hate the terrorists….hmmm…could they gave been lying to me all this time???? Somehow I doubt it and my grasp on reality is quite firm…so Steve, that is why I say:

Less braying
More praying

Melinda, the Koran allows a Muslim to lie to you. Also, Muslim history is a history of violence toward the infidel, Christian, and Jew. Please read some real history, and pray more. As for the Muzzies who have lived here fifty years or more, if Islam becomes more influencal in this country, your Muslim friends just might start start acting in ways that will shock you. So be alert Melinda, and watch out!

Okay Steve - but the fact is I have read the history to which you refer and the Quran - I appreciate your concern for me, I really do and if my last post was a bit flippant I apologize - wasn’t the best tone for this forum which is already polarized…but that is precisely why I kept emphasizing prayer because there are many Muslims like my friend, who is from Afghanistan by the way, and while he keeps some of the feast days for his family - which is huge - he is not a devout Muslim and just made it out of Afghanistan with his skin intact many long years ago….Please know that there are good people among our Muslim citizens regardless of their religious affilations…We must pray for them and each other with a pure heart…not with fear…In the Bible there are many many times where we are exhorted to “Fear not”....and its good advice..doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be wise as serpents but it does mean that our trust is in the Lord..I hope that clarifies my point of view.

Melinda, I learned a very valuable piece of wise advice years ago, when I was a Lutheran. That advice was: you judge a person’s religion by the creed(s) he/she confesses, not by how nice a person they are. The Koran is a hatefull book. He can be assumed that those who follow it will be hatefull. I’ve seen nothing since 9/11 that would change my views of the greater Muslim community. Yes, I pray for the Muslim, I just don’t want these fanatics in our country. Look at the mess France and Germany is in now because they wanted cheap labor.

Where was Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf when the young girl was being stoned to death by the Muslim community???

This is the equivalent of Muslims spitting on the graves of 9/11 victims and their families. Worse, it is an attempt to reopen a deep wound in order to exacerbate (and revel in) the original pain and suffering caused by their attacks on innocent civilians .  The idea of having what amounts to a Muslim grave stone over ground zero sickens anyone with even the slightest modicum of decency.

There are a myriad of opinions about the Mosque at ground zero.  In formulating yours, please consider the following;
1.  Islam has a history or building Mosques on conquered ground.
2.  Why there?
3.  Why open on the anniversary of 9/11?
4.  Why has the Imam refused to denounce Hamas?
5.  Why has that Imam had such a checkered past?
6.  Is it really a question of religious freedom? Aren’t they able to practice their religion anywhere else?  Or is it just a matter of building a monument celebrating a victorious moment in Islamic history?
Lou Peterson
MyLiveWords.com

If these people really want to help east-west relations,they should help in the financeing of the memorial at the site in the first place, since there must have been people that were Muslim working there that day as well.

Did you know that there was a prayer room (a mosque) inside one of the Twin Towers?  There were Muslims inside praying when the plane hit the building.

It appears more and more that Barrack Obama is committing Taqyiah (The Deception). This is a muslim practice of hiding one’s faith from others in order to defend one’s self from an unjust aggressor. In the Muslim mind, that aggressor is the United States.

Perhaps, a person could say that Obama is just muslim-friendly. However, one could also argue that this is all deliberate. He wants to ruin the United States for what he perceives to be crimes by the American people.

History will show that Obama is a freakin’ Muslim.  Taqyiah indeed.  He could really do nothing less in this situation.

We can always prove hoe open-minded we are as Americans and/or New Yorkers by allowing the Orthodox Christians to rebuild the church that was damaged on the site on 9/11.  But no, they keep on coming up with excuses to deny the Orthodox a permit.
And there’s the cross that was formed on 9/11.  Anti-Christian hate groups are suing against any public display of that cross.
Let’s show how tolerant we are by allowing Christians their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.

INCOMPETENT POLITICAL JERK!!!  PLEASE LEAVE SOON!