Obama supports Mosque at Ground Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bottesini said:
But in the second paragraph it is lower case. It seems just like poor editing to me.
Click to expand...

She is referring to the released statement

"Just to be clear, the President is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night. It is not his role as President to pass judgment on every local project. But it is his responsibility to stand up for the Constitutional principle of religious freedom and equal treatment for all Americans. What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that If a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a Mosque...."
Click to expand...
 
netrox said:
Sarah Palin twitters pestering Obama to clarify on his position... I mean , what a dumb noob she is.. it does NOT matter HOW SHE FEELS, the Constitution makes it clear, the government has no business to butt in someone's religious rights. She apparently wants to trample someone's religious freedom.

Sarah Palin Twitters, Asks Obama To Answer 'Ground Zero' Mosque Questions

Seriously, no matter how hated Islam is in America, no courts will EVER allow Americans to dictate which religion a person should not have.

God, I really LOVE the Constitution!
Click to expand...

lol, that why I hate Sarah Palin and she is one of them on my most moron ever list.
 
its poor editing.... there are several capitalizations, not just Mosque... If, Church, Constitutionally, etc.
 
muslims have no tolerance:

"A popular Saudi holiday sitcom has drawn the ire of conservative clerics over an episode portraying Arab Christians in a positive light after the kingdom sought to sell itself as a leader of dialogue between faiths."

NewsDaily: Saudi sitcom row tests tolerance toward Christians

They are going to have a serious problem here in America. And I mean major time.
 
Has Obama said anything about this?

Mosque Moves Forward, Yet Church in Limbo
by Mark Impomeni
Posted 08/09/2010 ET
Updated 08/10/2010 ET

The battle raging over the Ground Zero mosque is bringing new attention to another, less publicized controversy involving a house of worship in Lower Manhattan.

St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which once sat right across the street from the World Trade Center, was crushed under the weight of the collapse of Tower Two on September 11, 2001. St. Nicholas was the only church to be lost in the attacks, and nine years later, while City of New York officials are busy removing every impediment to the building of the Cordoba mosque two blocks from the site, St. Nicholas’ future remains unclear.

The last bit of hopeful news for St. Nicholas came two years ago, in July 2008, when church officials and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey announced a deal which would have allowed the church to be rebuilt about two blocks from its original location.

The Port Authority agreed to give the church a parcel of land at Liberty and Greenwich Streets, and contribute $20 million toward construction of a new sanctuary. The Port Authority also agreed to build an explosion-proof platform and foundation for the new church building, which would sit on top of a screening area for cars and trucks entering the underground garages at the new World Trade Center.

Trouble emerged after St. Nicholas announced its plans to build a traditional Greek Orthodox church building, 24,000 square feet in size, topped with a grand dome. Port Authority officials told the church to cut back the size of the building and the height of the proposed dome, limiting it to rising no higher than the World Trade Center memorial. The deal fell apart for good in March 2009, when the Port Authority abruptly ended the talks after refusing to allow church officials to review plans for the garage and screening area underneath. Sixteen months later, the two sides have still not met to resume negotiations.

St. Nicholas Church’s difficulty in getting approvals to rebuild stands in stark contrast to the treatment that the developers of the proposed Cordoba mosque have received. New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, state Atty. Gen. Andrew Cuomo, and a raft of city officials have all come out publicly in favor of building the mosque, and the city’s Landmarks and Preservation Commission recently voted unanimously to deny protection to the building currently occupying the site where the mosque is to be built.

The mosque is proposed to rise 13 stories, far above the height of the World Trade Center memorial, with no height restrictions imposed.

...For its part, the Port Authority says it had no choice but to break off negotiations with the church to avoid delaying the World Trade Center project any longer. The authority said that the church retains the right to rebuild on its own at its original location. “We made an extraordinarily generous offer to resolve this issue and spent eight months trying to finalize that offer, and the church wanted even more on top of that,” Stephen Sigmund, a spokesman for the Port Authority said last year. “They have now given us no choice but to move on to ensure the site is not delayed. The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original site, and we will pay fair market value for the underground space beneath that building.”

Demos said it is the church that has been unjustly delayed. “One place of worship was destroyed in the attacks. That should be the first thing on that board’s agenda. That should be the first priority,” he said. “There were actually relics of St. Nicholas in that church that were lost in the attacks. Why is it that the same government officials who are so ferverently fighting for the mosque’s right to be built aren’t also fighting for the church to be rebuilt....”
Click to expand...
Ground Zero Islamic Mosque Moves Forward, Christian Church in Limbo - HUMAN EVENTS
 
Reba said:
Has Obama said anything about this?


Ground Zero Islamic Mosque Moves Forward, Christian Church in Limbo - HUMAN EVENTS
Click to expand...

Not sure what the problem is. It's pretty clear to me: One proposed building is following along the rules and building codes for the area, the other is not. One group is being greedy and wants more on top of what's been given to them, while the other is funding everything privately. Both groups are getting what they deserve.

Sorry, but I don't see an issue here.
 
...The president has fundamentally misunderstood the stakes and the sentiments of the American people. Opposition to a mammoth Islamic center near Ground Zero is not about religious freedom, it is about the significance of Ground Zero to the American psyche.

The president's admonishment on religious freedom will play on Islamist media as a lecture to the American people. With almost 70 percent of Americans opposing this center, his focus has directly fed the false Islamist narrative that most Americans want a war against Islam and Muslims.

The reality is that the impression many leading American Muslim groups leave of Islam can only be described as narcissistic spirituality. They obsess about what "we need," "I want," or what "you are doing to us." It's about what others should do for them, underlined by a demand for political correctness.

They seem to be indifferent to the feelings and needs of the majority of America, Muslim or non-Muslim.

The president is just parroting that rather than leading.

Many major Muslim groups deny any responsibility for the reforms needed to stop radicals. Instead, they obsess on victimization, make belligerent demands, and wrap themselves in the First Amendment.

This $100 million political structure is a demand that is wrong in many ways, but especially for Muslims in America.

Our spiritual journey of Ramadan is about admitting that we want equality, not special privileges. It is now that we refocus our children on what it means to put our needs a distant third to God and to those who need us, like our nation.

Our priorities need to be self-repair and humble spirituality. Introspection and humility are the only way to treat America's perception of Islam.

Islam taught me to focus on "my responsibilities," "my role as an American" and "my moral and Islamic obligations to reform" and separate mosque and state.

Denial is the tool of the narcissist. Islamists insist that they are misunderstood. But it is they who misunderstand America and ignore the pre-modern ideologies that permeate many interpretations of Islam.

So this Ramadan, I propose we focus on some core humanitarian values. Let us spend a week on each. First, we need to lift up the principles of the U.S. Constitution and its Establishment Clause over any other legal system, including Shariah.

Second, we need to celebrate our devotion to American nationalism and its universal equality "under God."

Third, let us celebrate modernity and the Enlightenment and the hard work we have yet to do to bring Islamic thought into this era.

Last, let us focus on Quranic scripture and realize passages that need reinterpretation.

Our major holiday at the end of Ramadan will fall the day before the ninth anniversary of 9/11. May the lessons of Ramadan this year end with every imam asking Muslims to step away from tribal whims and demands and step towards genuine reform and the separation of mosque and state.
Click to expand...
Divisive debate on Ground Zero

M. Zuhdi Jasser is founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix.

Read more: Divisive debate on Ground Zero
 
`Tent' Church at Ground Zero

By VERENA DOBNIK
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 7, 2006; 10:50 AM

NEW YORK -- A church rose up for a day inside a white tent at ground zero.

Hundreds of faithful from the tiny St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which was destroyed along with the World Trade Center, gathered in a makeshift canvas sanctuary on Wednesday, where they marked St. Nicholas Day and the 90th anniversary of their parish.

"We have constructed a church for a day," said Peter Drakoulias, a church board member, before the afternoon service that drew worshippers from Boston, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

As part of the ceremony, Archbishop Demetrios, the head of the Greek Orthodox Church in America, read the names of some Greek-Americans who died in the 2001 terror attacks.

Among them was John K. Katsimatides, an employee of the Cantor Fitzgerald bond brokerage.

"Once a week, my brother used to stop by this church, light a candle and pray," said his sister, Anthoula Katsimatides.

The Sept. 11 attack decimated the landmark church that was once a refuge for everyone from Wall Street traders on their lunch break to Greek sailors who believed St. Nicholas, their patron saint, would keep their ships from sinking.

The church, with barely enough seating for 100 people, also drew some of the world's rich and famous, including shipping magnate Aristotle Onassis and "Kojak" actor Telly Savalas.

Parishioners have raised more than $4 million to rebuild the house of worship at or near its original site, an area just south of the one-time trade center location.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the 16 acres of the World Trade Center site, has yet to approve a final plan for rebuilding St. Nicholas.

"We're just a little church, a small piece of the reconstruction, and we're being patient," said Drakoulias.
Click to expand...
`Tent' Church at Ground Zero - washingtonpost.com
 
"...The president has fundamentally misunderstood the stakes and the sentiments of the American people. Opposition to a mammoth Islamic center near Ground Zero is not about religious freedom, it is about the significance of Ground Zero to the American psyche."

No, he doesn't. It's the writer that fundamentally misunderstands the whole issue. The Constitution makes it clear that the government has NO right to infringe a person's practice of religion. It does NOT matter HOW the majority feels. It doesn't even matter HOW the minority feels. Muslims are often Islamic and want to see their government to be based on Islamic laws, just like Christians do with Judeo-Christian laws.

But the truth is that the Constitution does NOT allow religion in government. The author of our founding fathers made it clear.

To see that people even 200 years later still don't get it is really sad.
 
netrox said:
"...The president has fundamentally misunderstood the stakes and the sentiments of the American people. Opposition to a mammoth Islamic center near Ground Zero is not about religious freedom, it is about the significance of Ground Zero to the American psyche."

No, he doesn't. It's the writer that fundamentally misunderstands the whole issue. The Constitution makes it clear that the government has NO right to infringe a person's practice of religion. It does NOT matter HOW the majority feels. It doesn't even matter HOW the minority feels. Muslims are often Islamic and want to see their government to be based on Islamic laws, just like Christians do with Judeo-Christian laws.

But the truth is that the Constitution does NOT allow religion in government. The author of our founding fathers made it clear.

To see that people even 200 years later still don't get it is really sad.
Click to expand...
If I understand you right, it seems that you profoundly misunderstand the Constitution. It says that Congress may not set up a national religion or restrict freedom of religion. It does not say laws cannot be based on Judeo-Christian principles or Islamic principles or any other set of principles, as long as they adhere to the rest of the Constitution. Such a restriction would itself be a restriction on of freedom of religion.

Also, about the mosque, from what I've read and heard, most people opposing the mosque agree it's inappropriate for the government to use its power to stop it. They don't dispute that the builders have a legal and constitutional right to build it. Rather, they're using their first amendment rights to discourage and dissuade the developers from moving ahead with the project. Even those those that are appealing to government are doing so because they want the building to receive landmark status (having suffered major damage from a landing gear on 9/11 and all).
 
" It says that Congress may not set up a national religion or restrict freedom of religion. It does not say laws cannot be based on Judeo-Christian principles or Islamic principles or any other set of principles, as long as they adhere to the rest of the Constitution."

Are you sure you know what you're saying?

Many Christians and Muslims advocate the idea of having theocratic governments. Our founding fathers make sure it won't happen and outlined it clearly in the Constitution. Even made sure that no religious test shall be required.

Again, it boils down to this simple truth - you cannot deny others the same freedom no matter HOW you personally feel.
 
netrox said:
" It says that Congress may not set up a national religion or restrict freedom of religion. It does not say laws cannot be based on Judeo-Christian principles or Islamic principles or any other set of principles, as long as they adhere to the rest of the Constitution."

Are you sure you know what you're saying?

Many Christians and Muslims advocate the idea of having theocratic governments. Our founding fathers make sure it won't happen and outlined it clearly in the Constitution. Even made sure that no religious test shall be required.

Again, it boils down to this simple truth - you cannot deny others the same freedom no matter HOW you personally feel.
Click to expand...

Actually you can.

Freedom of speech is denied to those who wish to yell fire in a theater. Gun rights are taken from felons...ect ect ect

Public safety is the out. The ground zero mosque could certain be seen as a threat to the safety of the neighbors. :)
 
TXgolfer said:
Actually you can.

Freedom of speech is denied to those who wish to yell fire in a theater. Gun rights are taken from felons...ect ect ect

Public safety is the out. The ground zero mosque could certain be seen as a threat to the safety of the neighbors. :)
Click to expand...

If i could speak, I would yell out Fire just to see what happens.
 
TXgolfer said:
Actually you can.

Freedom of speech is denied to those who wish to yell fire in a theater. Gun rights are taken from felons...ect ect ect

Public safety is the out. The ground zero mosque could certain be seen as a threat to the safety of the neighbors. :)
Click to expand...

The mosque is not a threat to anyone. The threat comes from those who feel threatened by its presence and are therefore inclined to do something stupid in protest.
 
jillio said:
The mosque is not a threat to anyone. The threat comes from those who feel threatened by its presence and are therefore inclined to do something stupid in protest.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A "public safety" limitation on freedom cannot be applied in this sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top