The Canadian Muslim who thinks it’s a bad idea is being threatened:
Muslim opponent of mosque reports threat
OTTAWA – She spoke out against the Ground Zero mosque, now a Canadian Muslim woman says she is being threatened. Raheel Raza, a founding member of the Muslim Canadian Congress, calls the idea of a mosque within 300 metres of Ground Zero “a deliberate provocation.”
Plans to rebuild the Greek Orthodox Church destroyed on 9/11 have been killed by government:
Greek Orthodox leaders trying to rebuild the only church destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attacks expressed shock this week after learning, via Fox News, that government officials had killed a deal to relocate the church.
The St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, once a tiny, four-story building in the shadows of lower Manhattan, was destroyed in 2001 by one of the falling World Trade Center towers. Nobody from the church was hurt in the attack, but the congregation has, for the past eight years, been trying to rebuild its house of worship.
While demanding the right to build a mosque at the site of the mass murder that was inspired by Islam, the Muslim country that is probably financing it won’t even allow non-Muslims into some of its cities: as an act of reciprocity, how would Saudi Arabia respond to a plan to build a cathedral next to Masjid Al Haram, I wonder?
Non-Muslims are barred from entering the cities of Mecca and Medina — not merely barred from building synagogues or churches, but barred, period, because their infidel feet are deemed unfit to touch the ground. This is not an al-Qaeda principle. Nor is it an “Islamist” principle. It is Islam, pure and simple.
“Truly the pagans are unclean,” instructs the Koran’s Sura 9:28, “so let them not . . . approach the Sacred Mosque.” This injunction — and there are plenty of similar ones in Islam’s scriptures — is enforced vigorously not by jihadist terrorists but by the Saudi government. And it is enforced not because of some eccentric sense of Saudi nationalism. The only law of Saudi Arabia is sharia, the law of Islam.
Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi wants to investigate groups who have made this a “political issue”. Obviously they are deranged conspiracy theorists: how could a flag-planting exercise by an ideology whose dominant aim is to subdue everyone who disagrees with it possibly have anything to do with politics?
Nancy Pelosi wants some answers.
The house speaker is calling for an investigation into groups protesting the building of the Ground Zero mosque.
“There is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some,” she told San Francisco’s KCBS radio on Tuesday.
Still, at least we have Mr. “Change You Can Believe In” providing unswerving, consistent leadership.
The last word must go to Kathleen Parker who has this unusual puritanical approach to urban planning:if you don’t want something built, then obviously you should build it.
The mosque should be built precisely because we don’t like the idea very much. We don’t need constitutional protections to be agreeable, after all.
Hit me again Barack, it hurts, so it must be good for me.
I’ve stayed out of this one, but it just gets grimmer and grimmer….
There are several misconceptions going around about the so-called Ground Zero Mosque.
First, it’s not a mosque, it’s a community centre. Community activities cannot take place in a mosque which can only be used for religious activities.
There is NO DEMAND to build a MOSQUE at the site of the mass murder and frankly, it was American politics fueled by religion that led to 9/11 – not JUST Islam.
Second there has been a Muslim prayer room in that area since before the Twin Towers were opened in 1970 and no one ever complained.
Now they want to tear down the old Burlington Coat factory building, that was destroyed by falling debris on 9/11 and has sat empty and deteriorating for 9 years, to create a community center which includes a culinary school, sports facility and yes, even an area for prayer that will accommodate more than the current one which is very small.
Third, it’s not at Ground Zero, cannot be seen from the 9/11 site and will never be able to be seen from it. It is two blocks away from the northeast corner of the World Trade Center site. From the planned location of the Sept. 11 memorial it is more like four or even five blocks.
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38730223/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/)
Across the Street is St Paul’s Chapel which has been there since 1776 and even closer to the 9/11 site is the Church of St. Peter, NY’s oldest Roman Catholic parish.
Regarding the rebuilding of the Orthodox church: according to the FOX news piece quoted above, the Port Authority has said “the church can still proceed on its own if it wishes. St. Nicholas Orthodox Church has always had and will continue to have the right to rebuild on its original location.”
It cannot in anyway logically be construed then, that the Muslims are trying to replace Christian places of worship with a Mosque.
Fourth, the Imam who is involved has been used by the FBI and the US government to help fight terrorism. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/685071) But this doesn’t stop the radical right from branding him a terrorist even though the Bush Administration and the FBI have made it clear he is not.
It’s August. The radical right has to come up with more falsehoods to keep the pot stirred up, for gullible people who never bother to do their own research. They did the same thing last year with death panels, “Obama is a Communist, socialist, fascist” rhetoric etc.
The thing is, if you’re going to base your country’s philosophy on freedom of religion, then you cannot discriminate against any religion.
True, the Koran teaches about the Islamacization of the world when taken literally. And yes, in the Islamic world Sharia law is supreme and horrendous.
However, if Christians actually followed the Bible, as we seem to expect that most Muslims follow the Koran- then we’d be poking people’s eyes out, cutting off their hands and stoning them as required in the Old Testament. It’s written there, but Christians don’t do it. Jesus didn’t do it. Not even the Israelis do it. Most Muslims don’t follow those parts of the Koran either. Just the radical fundamentalist Muslims do and they aren’t praying anywhere near Ground Zero.
One last thing. For the past 7 years Americans have been fighting for and dying for the fundamental right to freedom of Muslims. That was the Bush mantra: providing freedom for the people in Iraq.
The US has blown the budget into the $Trillions to guarantee the right to freedom of worship to Muslims but can’t allow them to have a place to gather and maintain their culture freely in America?
How does this make sense?
It’s an Islamic community center that would include a mosque.
I’d agree that there is no legitimate demand for a mosque – which makes the intent to build one all the more perverse. I supposed American politics provoked Pearl Harbour too?
Yes, 2 blocks away – but it was hit and partly destroyed by the 9/11 attack.
No, I wasn’t trying to imply that in this instance, rather that the government bends over backwards to accommodate Muslims while doing the opposite for Christians.
Imam Feisal also wants to bring sharia law to America.
I do my best.
Yes, terrible, isn’t it, there are only 200 mosques in Manhattan – how do they manage.
Not in the West, perhaps, but Muslims in Islamist countries do just that – it is naïve to think it would be otherwise in North America if Islam became dominant.
Not interested in spin, sarcasm or rhetoric.
Christians can tell the truth and do not have to stoop to right wing politics for God to be honored.
I spoke the truth… and am not engaging in an argument for the sake of argument.
Bless you.
Pingback: A few good links | eChurch Christian Blog
Sounds to me like Maribeth is a typical “fiberal”. She will go on and on telling what she “knows”, but is not interested in hearing anyone pointing out that her “facts” are not facts at all. Such a rebuttal is after all just simply “engaging in an argument”, which she has no interest in. But why should she be interested in engaging in an argument that she can’t win? After all, she “spoke the truth”, and just like all “fiberal” she expects all of us to simply accept what she says as the truth and not even question it. The she says that she “spoke the truth” is proof enough. This reminds me of the most enlightening this Jean Createn ever said:
“A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It’s a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it’s because it’s proven.”
Is that an insult this word, “fiberal”?
I’m quite happy to be called a liberal in the American sense- not necessarily the Canadian. I am an American and vote Democrat. I don’t usually vote liberal in Canada but vote according to issues.
I proved my facts. It isn’t a mosque. There will be prayer rooms but not a mosque which is a holy place for worship only where no community activites can take place.
It cannot be seen from Ground Zero nor ever will be able to be seen from it, there has been a prayer room there since before the Twin Towers Opened, and terrorists do not pray there. I gave my sources, and you can go online and find them all again.
None of my facts were rebutted except that David wants to call a prayer room a mosque.
I didn’t say the Feisal doesn’t want Sharia law. However that’s irrelevant. There is religious freedom in America and if it’s a freedom of all Americans then it has to be a freedom for Muslim Americans.
For Sharia law to be effective in the US it would have to be legislated and that’s not going to happen any time soon. Could it happen eventually? Sure. If Christians don’t want to have large families and Muslims do, they will soon outnumber the Christians. I think it’s estimated that will happen in 20 years or so. If Christians don’t want that to happen they need to make some major choices and changes but none of that has anything to do with a cultural center in NYC.
Good grief, Canada nearly gave the Muslims here Sharia law were it not for educated Muslim women here who objected.
100 Mosques- in the nearly 20 million people in NYC! I don’t see how we can ever allow that. And how many churches? There’s already 2 Christian churches and if the Orthodox people go ahead and rebuild will be 3, closer to the site- outnumbering the Muslim buildings 3 to 1. However, as I said before, the people using the cultural center are not terrorists.
I am well aware of what goes on in Muslim countries and that if they could they would make it happen here too- but that’s not the issue. The issue is that unless Americans change the constitution to give freedom of religion to only some religions, the freedom of Muslims to build cultural centers cannot be legislated away. It’s not an issue of religious fervor but of law.
Besides, Jesus didn’t go and preach against the Pagan temples- no he just offered salvation and healing to whoever would come.
I don’t know what evoked such vitriolic comments from AMP .I have as much right to my opinions as you do. Insults do nothing to foster dialogue.
I just didn’t want to get into a slagging match. I have no idea what argument he things I can’t win and am insulted by his sarcasm. However, because I’m a Christian, I’ll have to forgive him. For now I’ll ask Jesus to until I can find it in my heart to.
So what are the facts that I don’t want to offer proof of? Really? I went through both David’s post and mine, and I don’t see them.
I get it that he doesn’t like Nancy Pelosi or Obama. That has nothing to do with facts- it’s part of his politics and has nothing to do with what I was addressing.
However, political views aside, I wrote my post because I simply don’t think there is any excuse at all for those who call themselves by the name of Jesus Christ who loves the entire world, not just Christians, to be slagging people for whom he died, because they are deceived and worship false gods and we don’t like their sin. There are people out there loving Muslims and leading them to Jesus. However, I can guarantee that those who are screaming bigotry in their faces only prove that what the terrorists say about American Christians is true.
Furthermore, scripture requires us to respect, submit to and pray for our leaders. I do not see the Christian Right’s penchant for slagging Obama coming close to obedience. I’ve read and heard his testimony on how he became a Christian, have you? He is a brother in the Lord.
As I wrote and researched, I realized that many of the original comments come word for word from Fox News and if that’s your source we have absolutely nothing more to talk about. I don’t get my information from a political machine. My proof that Fox is a political machine is that this week it gave $1Million to the Republican party.
In conclusion, Christians should stand for truth and justice and love not David’s “I do my best” to stir the pot of lies, spin and hypocrisy of the political right in the US. The so called Christian right was created by some Christians who wanted power (Frank Schaeffer, Crazy for God) but has nearly nothing to do with the real Republican agenda. Republicans adopted Ayn Rand as their patron saint. (http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/adrianbiblestudents/jesusvsrand.html)What Christian, if they are awake, actually wants to agree that altruism is evil?
We are to be salt and light.
Maribeth you indicated that you believed that it was possible that twenty years from now that Sharia Law may come to America. As an American, do you think that before that day arrives America may go through another Civil War?
Or do you think that it may be possible for this to come about as part of a peaceful legislative process.
I think that there could very well be civil war in America but I don’t think it will be between Muslims and Christians.
I think that as they are doing in Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota ((http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/04/more_sharia_law.php) that Muslims will just move in and start having babies.
I saw a thing some time ago which, in a few minutes I wasn’t able to find, but I thought it had merit. It compared the birth rate of Christians and Muslims and posited that within a generation or so, Muslims in the First world would outnumber Christians. All they need to do is be able to get the majority of votes. There is already one Muslim Senator.
Sharia law says that land owned by Muslims becomes Muslim in perpetuity and they are buying up land like crazy. For example, here in the 15 years we’ve lived in Hamilton, our neighbourhood has been bought up by them.
I think it’s a huge issue- I just don’t think that accusing Muslims of being terrorists and bombing mosques etc is the way to deal with it. If/when they implement Sharia law, there will be huge ramifications.
Frankly, I don’t think anything can stop this except perhaps full scale revival such as the Welsh Revival- or the Hebrides- where the Nation turns back to God.
That there will be a great tribulation over this is a fact accepted by many, myself included. Part of the consequence of the religious strife will probably be the outright banning of all “fundamental” religions by the secular/humanist world government in order “to keep the peace”. Perhaps they will control all this by marking the “acceptable” people with a sign on their hand or even their forehead? Having asked the average typical unchurched person on the street if they think this would be a good idea I have found many agree with it. So unfolds the world.
Thank you, Maribeth, for presenting a reasonable case without rhetoric. I agree with most of what you say. Nowhere mentioned in this thread is the fact that the Imam behind the “ground zero mosque” is the sort of moderate Muslim that many on the conservative right claim they want to see more of. It appears that political leaders who he helped in the past in the “war against terror” are now willing to “throw him under the bus” to score political points.
Although perhaps less ideologically fanatical than some and although he likes to portray himself as a peace-builder, I’m not so sure that Imam Feisal is a “moderate” Muslim: He doesn’t seem to believe that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, believes that the US – at least partly – brought 9/11 upon itself and would like to slide sharia law into the West.
Why would a self-styled peace maker be so determined to do something that is guaranteed to be inflammatory?
Is the goal complete capitulation? What does a moderate Muslim look like? What image must he conform to to pass the test? Does religious freedom mean anything?
Maybe I’m more senisitive to it because I’m temporarily living on the US side of the border, but there seems to be a significant percentage of the population who are eagerly looking for any pretence to become inflamed – and a media that is happy to feed their appetite. I see this as another manifestation of the victim mentality. If those who are in this group, and who claim to be followers of Christ, would become even half as excited about the things that are of God’s kingdom as they are about the things that are of the kingdom of man, we might see real transformation in our society; and the sort of revival that Maribeth made reference to.
Sorry to be tautological, but, to start with, one who admits that Hamas is a terrorist group and that the US didn’t partly cause 9/11. Actually, I have a suspicion that the category of moderate Muslims contains as many Muslims as the equivalent category of moderate Christians – zero.
I presume you mean to imply by this that if religious freedom does mean anything, it must include the freedom for Muslims to build the Park51 building where they wish to build it and that to deny that freedom means the US does not have “religious freedom”. I would put to you that no freedom is unlimited – indeed, many have the aura of illusion – and that imposing a limit that does not allow this particular building would not justify saying that the US does not have “religious freedom”. There are, after all, 200 other mosques in Manhattan; if a move were being made to close them all, you might have a point.
Well, yes – same could be said about a Christian’s enthusiasm for almost anything in the kingdom of man: cars: golf; lawns; football; baseball……
What is truth?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/nyregion/22imamfacts.html
Many want Muslims to conform to a standard that, if applied to themselves, they would object to vigorously as unfair and infringing on their “rights.” My Christian world view is seen by some as as great a threat to Western Society as Islam. With God’s help I hope I can respond in a Christlike manner towards such people, but should I denounce or publically attack more militant Christians who are acting within their legal rights?
Warren, I appreciate your cool head and reasonable comments.
I so wish I knew how to differentiate between what I’m quoting and what I’m saying but guess I’m just not techie literate enough to know how…So when I’m expressing my own opinions I’ll preface with “Me”
“Me” A moderate Muslim would be a man like the Imam. Read his own words below. If that’s not ‘moderate’ I don’t know what is.
And I would argue that there are also many ‘moderate’ Christians. It’s possible to disagree and still get along. Moderate Christians try to do that. Beating others over the head with one’s own beliefs gains few converts and many antagonists. It’s just so unnecessary.
In Christianity, if Holy Spirit isn’t doing the convicting and drawing of people to Yeshua, in reality it’s not happening. Nothing a human can do will accomplish this. We are to be light and life and to share the ‘good news’ but nowhere are we required to even try to coerce people into the Kingdom of Yaweh. People are drawn to the Kingdom by love not rhetoric.
“Me” Warren, thanx for the excellent NY Times article.
Not sure everyone will go to it so am quoting it somewhat:
Quoting:
“In his book “What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America,” Mr. Abdul Rauf writes:
“The truth is that killing innocent people is always wrong — and no argument or excuse, no matter how deeply believed, can ever make it right. No religion on earth condones the killing of innocent people, no faith tradition tolerates the random killing of our brothers and sisters on this earth. … Islamic law is clearly against terrorism, against any kind of deliberate killing of civilians or similar ‘collateral damage.’ ”
The book also includes a copy of the fatwa, a religious ruling, issued by senior Middle Eastern Muslim clerics that called the 9/11 attacks un-Islamic. The ruling, requested by the United States military’s top Muslim chaplain, gave permission to Muslims in the United States armed forces to fight in the war in Afghanistan.
In the book, the imam also elaborates on an argument that may make some Americans uncomfortable but has been put forward by many mainstream American analysts: that terrorism is viewed differently by different populations and that understanding those various views, whether or not one agrees with them, is central to resolving disputes.
“In the West,” he writes:
“Terrorism is usually defined by the acting party’s intent to harm innocent people. If a suicide bomber intentionally takes the lives of innocent people, he is obviously guilty of terrorism. By contrast, if the United States and its coalition forces drop bombs on the wrong buildings in Baghdad (or any other city) and the bombs kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people, including many women and children, we define this as collateral damage, not terrorism. We draw this distinction because we had no intent to kill civilians. …“By contrast, however, many Muslims in the Middle East look primarily at the result of our actions. … The result is a common view in the Middle East that the U.S. is perfectly willing to kill innocent civilians when it suits America’s goals.”
The imam applies the same analysis to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
“Israel points to the intentional repeated killing of innocent civilians as obvious proof that the Palestinians are guilty of terrorism — and the horrible images of bomb victims cannot be denied. Palestinians, however, counter that the overall number of civilians killed is higher on their side, and they rage with equal passion against Israeli terrorism.’ ”
United States Policies
Perhaps the most often quoted statement used to portray Mr. Abdul Rauf as a “terrorist sympathizer,” as the New York gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio calls him in a campaign advertisement, is this, from “60 Minutes” on Sept. 30, 2001:
“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”
Mr. Abdul Rauf’s supporters say he was expressing a view common among American policy advisers: that dissatisfaction with American policies is one, if not the only, driver of anti-American sentiment and attacks.
Following are portions of a transcript dealing with this issue:
ED BRADLEY: How — how do you feel as a Muslim knowing that people of your faith committed this act that resulted in the loss of probably 6,000 lives?
MR. ABDUL RAUF: It’s painful. But when this thing first happened, everybody in the community said, “Oh, God, let this not be a person from our faith, tradition or from our background.”
MR. BRADLEY: What would you say to — to people in this country, who, looking at what happens in the Middle East, would associate Islam with fanaticism, with terrorism?
MR. ABDUL RAUF: Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam. That’s — that’s just as absurd as associating Hitler with Christianity or — or David Koresh with Christianity. There are always people who will — who will do peculiar things and think that they are doing things in the name of their religion. But — but the Koran — you know, God says in the Koran that they think that they’re doing right, but they’re doing wrong. …
MR. BRADLEY (voiceover): And throughout the Muslim world, there is also strong opposition to America’s foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, because of its support of Israel and economic sanctions against Iraq.
MR. ABDUL RAUF: It is a reaction against the policies of the U.S. government, politically, where we espouse principles of democracy and human rights and where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.
MR. BRADLEY: Are — are — are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?
MR. ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.
MR. BRADLEY: O.K. You say that we’re an accessory?
MR. ABDUL RAUF: Yes.
MR. BRADLEY: How?
MR. ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A. …
The Cordoba Initiative elaborates: “The ‘60 Minutes’ piece was completely incorrect, as the statement was edited out of context. In the full interview, Imam Feisal describes the mistake the C.I.A. made in the 1980s by financing Osama bin Laden and strengthening the Taliban. This view is widely shared within the U.S. and the U.S. government today, and Imam Feisal underlines the importance of not supporting ‘friends of convenience’ who may in the future become our enemies.
“Imam Feisal is an American who takes his role as a citizen-ambassador very seriously. He is frequently requested by the U.S. State Department to tour Muslim majority and Western countries to speak about the merits of American ideals and Muslim integration into Western society. At the request of the F.B.I. after 9/11, he provided cultural training to hundreds of F.B.I. agents.”
Hamas
Mr. Abdul Rauf is often described as having refused to call Hamas — the Palestinian group that pioneered suicide bombings in Israel, prevailed in Palestinian elections in 2006 and now controls the Gaza Strip — a terrorist organization.
On 77 WABC radio on June 18, the talk radio host Aaron Klein asked him, “Do you believe that the State Department is correct in designating Hamas as a terrorist organization?”
There ensued a long conversation with many interruptions, in which Mr. Abdul Rauf said:
“Well, I’m not a politician. … The issue of terrorism is a very complex question. … I am a bridge builder. My work is … I do not want to be placed nor will I accept a position where I am the target of one side or another. My attempt is to see a peace in Israel. … Targeting of civilians is wrong. It’s a sin in our religion, whoever does it. … I am a supporter of the State of Israel.”
The Cordoba Initiative’s Web site elaborates:
“Imam Feisal has always condemned terrorism (see his … hundreds of speeches). Hamas is both a political movement and a terrorist organization. Hamas commits atrocious acts of terror. Imam Feisal has forcefully and consistently condemned all forms of terrorism, including those committed by Hamas, as un-Islamic.”
The Cordoba Initiative elaborates: “The ‘60 Minutes’ piece was completely incorrect, as the statement was edited out of context. In the full interview, Imam Feisal describes the mistake the C.I.A. made in the 1980s by financing Osama bin Laden and strengthening the Taliban. This view is widely shared within the U.S. and the U.S. government today, and Imam Feisal underlines the importance of not supporting ‘friends of convenience’ who may in the future become our enemies.
“Imam Feisal is an American who takes his role as a citizen-ambassador very seriously. He is frequently requested by the U.S. State Department to tour Muslim majority and Western countries to speak about the merits of American ideals and Muslim integration into Western society. At the request of the F.B.I. after 9/11, he provided cultural training to hundreds of F.B.I. agents.”
Hamas
Mr. Abdul Rauf is often described as having refused to call Hamas — the Palestinian group that pioneered suicide bombings in Israel, prevailed in Palestinian elections in 2006 and now controls the Gaza Strip — a terrorist organization.
On 77 WABC radio on June 18, the talk radio host Aaron Klein asked him, “Do you believe that the State Department is correct in designating Hamas as a terrorist organization?”
There ensued a long conversation with many interruptions, in which Mr. Abdul Rauf said:
“Well, I’m not a politician. … The issue of terrorism is a very complex question. … I am a bridge builder. My work is … I do not want to be placed nor will I accept a position where I am the target of one side or another. My attempt is to see a peace in Israel. … Targeting of civilians is wrong. It’s a sin in our religion, whoever does it. … I am a supporter of the State of Israel.”
The Cordoba Initiative’s Web site elaborates:
“Imam Feisal has always condemned terrorism (see his … hundreds of speeches). Hamas is both a political movement and a terrorist organization. Hamas commits atrocious acts of terror. Imam Feisal has forcefully and consistently condemned all forms of terrorism, including those committed by Hamas, as un-Islamic.”
“Me” We can choose to believe the Imam and his wife when they speak to the issues for themselves or we can continue to judge them by our own predispositions.
Either you believe he is a sleeper terrorist and that the cultural centre is a place to train extremists or believe him when he decries senseless killing by anyone.
I actually agree with him re American policies. Had the US continued it’s support in the 80’s after they helped the Taliban repel the Russians, none of this would be going on now in Afghanistan. Instead they hid in secrecy and young Afghans have never known the place they had in America’s heart. Charlie Wilson’s War said it all then. It’s more complicated than that but America’s arrogance especially under Bush has done more damage to itself in the world than 9/11 or any terrorists have done.
“So virulent is the Islamophobic hysteria of the neocon and Fox News right… that it has also rendered Gen. David Petraeus’s last-ditch counterinsurgency strategy for fighting the war inoperative. How do you win Muslim hearts and minds in Kandahar when you are calling Muslims every filthy name in the book in New York?”
( http://frank-schaeffer.blogspot.com/2010/08/republican-fear-mongers-endanger-our.html )
There really is no need to vilify people who don’t believe as we do. God gives them a choice, why can’t we?
Having been raised in a fundamentalist pastor’s home where he was right no matter the facts and no matter the damage to the psyche’s of those he steamrolled over, I didn’t even know til I was nearly 50 that 2 people could disagree and still remain friends. What a light that brought into my life!
So having said that, don’t you think we’ve spent enough words and time on this issue and can put it to bed now?
For me, ’nuff said.
I’ve only skimmed the comments, but would like to point out that the Orthodox church is not being prevented from rebuilding. They have only been denied public money to do so. Is the mosque getting public money? If not, then it isn’t really a valid comparison.