Tag Archives: religion

-Ground Zero: NY Says No to Rebuilding a Church Destroyed on 9/11 but Yes to the Mosque?

The ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ controversy keeps on going. President Obama weighed in over the weekend with a few comments that hit the fan so to speak. One observation he made is that Islam should be treated just like any other religion in America and I totally agree. In a previous post I commented that I believed that NY was giving preferential treatment to the Cordoba Mosque project and that I really doubted that a church would ever approved by the city to be built at the same location as the so-called ‘Ground Zero Mosque’. Turns out that I was entirely correct. St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church which stood across the street from the World Trade center was reduced to dust on September 11, 2001. For 9 years the NY Port Authority has refused to let them rebuild their church—a church that was actually destroyed in the attack but plans for a new mosque are approved by the city? It is my view that St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church should be rebuilt. The President talked about private property rights and that the Muslims should be allowed to build on their own property near ‘Ground Zero’. Well, what about the property rights of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church? The church had been there since 1922 but their rights are being totally disregarded. The church that was destroyed in the 9/11 attacks should be rebuilt first before any new project like the Cordoba Mosque is considered. It is obvious to me that the Muslims in this case are receiving better treatment from the city than the church. Here’s an article written by George Demos who is running for Congress in that very area about the Church and the Mosque: “Rebuild the Church at Ground Zero, Not the Mosque” http://answersforthefaith.com/2010/08/17/ground-zero-ny-says-no-to-rebuilding-a-… added by: congoboy

Absurd Media Meme: Ground Zero Mosque Is Fine Because There Are Strip Clubs Nearby

There is a new media meme rearing it’s ugly head in the many discussions of the Ground Zero Mosque. A number of journalists seem to be suggesting that if critics oppose the construction of the Mosque, they should also be incensed by the presence of strip clubs, bars, and an off-track betting location in the area. ” Just How ‘Hallowed’ is the Ground Near Ground Zero? ” asks Time Magazine’s Madison Gray. “New York Doll’s Gentleman’s Club, and the Pussycat Lounge are two strip clubs that sit within a block of Ground Zero, but are not seen as a threat to the land’s hallowed nature,” Gray added. “So it seems to some, freedom of religion might be a problem, but a $10 lap dance is not.” Gee, could it have anything to do with the fact that pole dancers didn’t fly planes into the twin towers? For some, the right to build a mosque and the move’s moral implications are two distinct issues, and $10 lap dances have exactly nothing to do with either. Gray goes on: Then there’s Off Track Betting, where visitors to the sacred neighborhood are able to place bets on the horses without even breaking their solemn focus on the dump trucks and cranes that sit where the Twin Towers once stood. Think about it: where else can you show your reverence while at the same time putting all your faith in Fat Chance Cinnamon or Poco’s Black Charger? Let’s not forget Thunder Lingerie and More, where you can pay your respects to the 9/11 tragedy, then take in a peep show, or pick up a few naughty items for that trip back to the hotel. And most noticeable of anything you could see around this untouchable area are the dozens of street vendors who sit a stone’s throw away from Ground Zero capitalizing on the fact that it is one of New York’s most visited tourist attractions. Possibly millions of dollars change hands every weekend all in the name of capitalist gain and certainly not any reverence for the 2,700 who died in the space right behind them. So deciding exactly how “hallowed” the area near Ground Zero is might be up to the individual visitor. But one thing’s true: those who have already deemed it as such don’t seem to mind the seedy stuff nearby as much as they do a quiet, private house of worship. Surely Gray forgot to add that this particular “private house of worship” is devoted to the same religion in whose name those 2,700 Americans were killed, built where landing gear from one of the planes that hit the towers fell, scheduled to be opened on September 11 of next year, and named after the Islamic Caliphate who conquered much of Medieval (Christian) Spain. I say he must have forgotten to add those details since they would accurately frame the argument against the Ground Zero mosque, and surely he was not trying to intentionally distort that argument. Of course if he were, he would also have to explain why strip clubs have any bearing whatsoever on the sanctity of an historic or prestigious location. There are three strip clubs within a few blocks of the White House . Is Gray suggesting that the White House is not a sacred location? Gray cited a blogger at History Eraser Button, who posted photos of the various locations, and wrote, Look at the photos. This neighborhood is not hallowed. The people who live and work here are not obsessed with 9/11. The blocks around Ground Zero are like every other hard-working neighborhood in New York, where Muslims are just another thread of the city fabric. The Daily Caller’s Jim Treacher handily dismantles that line of argument: Which will come as a shock to the millions of Americans who assumed lower Manhattan was now an open pasture, populated solely by a handful of tonsured monks wandering around solemnly whispering, “Remember… Remember…” This stunning insight into the nature of modern American cities has impressed everyone from Charles Johnson to Roger Ebert. Don’t you see? People are selling stuff. People are buying stuff. People are taking their clothes off for money. Dude, that building they’re turning into a mosque? (Or not-a-mosque, depending on which one helps your argument.) That place was a Burlington Coat Factory! Sure, it shut down for good on the morning of September 11, 2001, when it was hit by wreckage from a plane flown into the World Trade Center, but up until then it was a Burlington Coat Factory. “Hallowed ground”? Ha! Humor aside, even given the astounding irrelevance of establishments at Ground Zero that don’t bear ideological similarity to perhaps the most infamous mass murderers in American history, journalists continue to peddle this nonsense. As Scott Whitlock reported yesterday , ABC’s Dan Harris parroted the line on “Good Morning America,” noting that “Defenders [of the Mosque] point out that also close to Ground Zero are two strip clubs, an adult/lingerie store and an off-track betting parlor.” And as Doug Powers succinctly put it , “This would be a logical rebuttal to Ground Zero mosque critics, provided the Twin Towers had been taken down by nine poll dancers, seven pairs of edible underwear and three bookies.” As it is, the line of argument has no bearing on the moral validity of the project. “It may be sacred ground,” writes Erin Einhorn for the New York Daily News, “but the streets surrounding Ground Zero are also a place where New Yorkers work, eat and buy shampoo.” Stop the presses. New Yorkers buy shampoo near Ground Zero? Amazing. Not that they buy shampoo in the general vicinity of where they live. Amazing that for much of the media, apparently this can actually pass for a valid argument in favor of the Mosque, or at least in opposition to its critics.

Originally posted here:
Absurd Media Meme: Ground Zero Mosque Is Fine Because There Are Strip Clubs Nearby

CBS: Despite Unpopularity, Obama Still ‘Raking in Millions’ for Dems

While teasing an upcoming report on President Obama campaigning for Democrats on Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, fill-in co-host Chris Wragge touted: “…plunging poll numbers haven’t stopped the President from raking in millions at fund raisers across the country.” Later, White House correspondent Chip Reid observed: “You know, the President’s approval rating is only 44%, but he is still quite popular with the party’s base and he’s using that clout to raise millions of dollars for fellow Democrats.” Reid went on to declare: “President Obama and the Democratic Party are managing to raise big bucks in the hope of retaining control of Congress. The Democratic National Committee is committing $50 million to help candidates in 2010, $20 million in cash, and $30 million to get out the vote.” A campaign sound bite was played of the President attacking Republicans: “We do not fear the future. We shape the future. That’s part of what this election’s about. The other side wants you to be afraid of the future.” Reid concluded: “President Obama is doing six fund-raisers over three days in five states. By week’s end, he’ll have raised over $56 million this campaign season.” Only at the end of his report did Reid briefly notice the money raised by the GOP: “Now, Republicans are also raking in the cash this campaign season. The Republican Governors Association, for example, has brought in $58 million since President Obama came into office.” In addition to the President’s fundraising efforts, the segment also focused on political fallout from the Ground Zero mosque controversy, though only in terms of how the issue would impact the elections. Reid explained how Obama was “now dealing with a split in the party over the issue of religious freedom.” Reid continued: “President Obama’s support of the right to build an Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero is causing a rift within the party.” He noted how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid disagreed with the President’s position and added: “Some in the party fear the controversy will carry over into the midterm campaigns.” Following Reid’s report, fill-in co-host Erica Hill asked Democratic strategist Tanya Acker and Republican strategist Bay Buchanan about the issue. Speaking to Acker, Hill wondered: “President Obama made these remarks and now it’s really forcing a lot of Democrats to choose sides. So moving forward, what’s the best message for Democratic candidates as they tackle this – what’s now become a national issue?” Acker argued: “I think this is an issue about religious freedom and the Constitution….Democrats, and frankly Americans generally, need to understand what this issue is about.” Hill then turned to Buchanan: “Bay, how much of an issue should Republicans make this? Because at the end of the day, for most voters, the real issue here is still the economy.” Buchanan challenged Acker’s assertion: “This has nothing to do with religious freedom. There’s 100 mosques or so in New York City. Nobody’s suggesting we tear them all down. What we’re saying is Americans respect hallowed ground. This is hallowed ground, 9/11 is – Ground Zero is hallowed ground.” Acker shot back at Buchanan: “I’m pleased to know that Bay is not in support of tearing down mosques in the United States of America. I’m glad that that issue is off the table….to suggest that Islam – a faith that billions of people around the world adhere to – is endemically somehow compared to terrorism is just wrong.” Here is a full transcript of the August 17 segment:  7:00AM TEASE CHRIS WRAGGE: In-fighting. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid breaks with President Obama over the proposed Ground Zero mosque. HARRY REID: I think that it’s very obvious that the mosque should be built someplace else. WRAGGE: But the controversy and plunging poll numbers haven’t stopped the President from raking in millions at fund raisers across the country. We’ll have a live report. 7:01AM SEGMENT ERICA HILL: We want to take a look at politics now. It is day two of President Obama’s cross-country campaign-style fund-raisers. Today he will be in Seattle for the first time since he was a candidate. CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid is traveling with the President. He joins us this morning from Los Angeles before heading north. Chip, good morning. CHIP REID: Well good morning, Erica. You know, the President’s approval rating is only 44%, but he is still quite popular with the party’s base and he’s using that clout to raise millions of dollars for fellow Democrats. But at the same time, he’s now dealing with a split in the party over the issue of religious freedom. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Mosque Controversy; Top Dem Breaks Ranks With Obama] President Obama’s support of the right to build an Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero is causing a rift within the party. The latest, the Senate’s top Democrat, Majority Leader Harry Reid, breaking ranks with the President. HARRY REID: The Constitution gives us freedom of religion. I think that it’s very obvious that the mosque should be built someplace else. CHIP REID: Reid’s comments come after the President’s speech Friday night. BARACK OBAMA: But let me be clear. As a citizen and as president, I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. REID: Some in the party fear the controversy will carry over into the midterm campaigns. But so far, President Obama and the Democratic Party are managing to raise big bucks in the hope of retaining control of Congress. The Democratic National Committee is committing $50 million to help candidates in 2010, $20 million in cash, and $30 million to get out the vote. OBAMA: We do not fear the future. We shape the future. That’s part of what this election’s about. The other side wants you to be afraid of the future. REID: President Obama is doing six fund-raisers over three days in five states. By week’s end, he’ll have raised over $56 million this campaign season. UNIDENTIFIED MAN [POLITICAL ANALYST]: People want access to the President. They’re excited to be in the room with the President and if they can get a couple minutes to whisper in his ear, they’ll pay a lot of money for it. REID: Now, Republicans are also raking in the cash this campaign season. The Republican Governors Association, for example, has brought in $58 million since President Obama came into office. Erica. HILL: Chip, thanks. CBS’s Chip Reid in Los Angeles this morning. Also joining us from Los Angeles this morning, Democratic strategist Tanya Acker and in Washington, Republican strategist Bay Buchanan. Good to have both of you with us this morning. BAY BUCHANAN: Thanks, Erica. TANYA ACKER: Good to see you. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Countdown to Midterms; Assessing the Impact of Obama’s Mosque Comments] HILL: Tanya, I want to start with you. Forget the should he, shouldn’t he have said it. It’s been established, President Obama made these remarks and now it’s really forcing a lot of Democrats to choose sides. So moving forward, what’s the best message for Democratic candidates as they tackle this – what’s now become a national issue? ACKER: I think that it’s very important for Democrats, frankly, and look, I would expect – I don’t think this should simply be a partisan issue, I think this is an issue about religious freedom and the Constitution. And I think that whether or not the President should have stepped into this fray – I think he should have – Democrats, and frankly Americans generally, need to understand what this issue is about. And if Democrats lose seats because they took a stance for religious freedom, then we’ve got far bigger problems than simply winning elections, frankly. HILL: Bay, how much of an issue should Republicans make this? Because at the end of the day, for most voters, the real issue here is still the economy.              BUCHANAN: There – well, it’s going to be hard to beat the economy when it comes to the election, but I got to tell you, this is an important issue because it just shows a complete lack of understanding of what is happening here. This has nothing to do with religious freedom. There’s 100 mosques or so in New York City. Nobody’s suggesting we tear them all down. What we’re saying is Americans respect hallowed ground. This is hallowed ground, 9/11 is – Ground Zero is hallowed ground. We don’t want malls built next to Manassas, we don’t want casinos built next to Gettysburg. It has nothing to do with us being against development. What we want is this hallowed ground to be respected. And it does not respect or honor those that died to build a mosque, the very kind of statement to those who died, it’s an insult to them. HILL: But – but how much- ACKER: Well, I’m pleased to know that- HILL: Go ahead, Tanya. ACKER: I’m sorry. HILL: Go ahead. ACKER: I was just going to say, I’m pleased to know that Bay is not in support of tearing down mosques in the United States of America. I’m glad that that issue is off the table. But talking about what this issue really means, of course it’s hallowed ground, but to suggest that Islam – a faith that billions of people around the world adhere to – is endemically somehow compared to terrorism is just wrong. And as Americans, we should not be, we should not be propounding that message. It’s just wrong. So, of course it’s hallowed ground- HILL: Well, we know that this is a debate that will continue, but I do have to move on to this, ladies, before we let you go. We’ve seen so much this primary season, there’s been so much talk about the fact that what Americans really want is a change, that the incumbents are going to be on their way out. Bay, I’ll start with you. Can either party or any one candidate really change the way things are done in Washington? BUCHANAN: One person can change a lot. By just speaking out, being bold. In representing the millions of Americans that are expecting that. But what we’re going to find in November is it’s not just going to be one. We’re going to have dozens upon dozens of new fresh faces coming to Washington with one intent and that is to represent the will of the American people, to be there to fight for them, to stop this outrageous spending and to try to turn the country back to a safe and sound course. That’s where you’ll find real change. HILL: We’re going to have to leave it there. Bay Buchanan, Tanya Acker, always good to have your perspective. Don’t worry, Tanya, I promise you’ll be back. You both will. Thank you.

The rest is here:
CBS: Despite Unpopularity, Obama Still ‘Raking in Millions’ for Dems

Olbermann Hints Moral Equivalence Between U.S. & Islamic Empire, Blocking Mosque May Be First Step to New Holocaust

On Monday’s Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann delivered a “Special Comment” in which he invoked Nazi Germany and suggested that blocking construction of a mosque near Ground Zero could be the first of a “thousand steps” toward another holocaust. He also suggested a moral equivalence between the Islamic Empire’s conquests and America’s expansion into the lands of Native Americans as he attempted to discredit former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s concerns about the choice of “Cordoba House” as the original name planned for the mosque as being intentionally symbolic of a Muslim victory at Ground Zero. After starting his “Special Comment” by quoting Pastor Martin Niemoller’s famous words about the Holocaust of World War II, he at first tried to make his rant sound more moderate and not really a comparison to the Holocaust: “I make no direct comparison between the attempts to suppress the building of a Muslim religious center in downtown Manhattan and the unimaginable nightmare of the Holocaust.” He added: “Such a comparison is ludicrous – at least, it is now.” But the Countdown host was still alarmist enough to fear the mosque controversy could lead in that horrific direction: “Niemoller was not warning of the Holocaust. He was warning of the thousand steps before a holocaust became inevitable. If we are at merely the first of those steps again today, it is one step too close.” Citing Gingrich’s contention that members of the Islamic Empire historically engaged in a practice of building large mosques on the holy sites of their conquests as monuments to their victories – citing the mosque that was built in Cordoba, Spain, as an example – Olbermann at first argued that, because Cordoba was eventually recaptured by Christians, Gingrich’s concerns are somehow undermined. The MSNBC host even sounded as if he were defending the Muslim expansion into Spain as he recounted that Christians continued to fight even though the Muslim conquerors built “multicultural, nondenominational institutions of learning.” Olbermann: Those Muslim conquerors are a figment of Gingrich’s lurid imagination. In Spain, in Cordoba, though the Muslims established multicultural, nondenominational institutions of learning, they were under constant attack from Christian armies and from a series of internal all-Muslim civil wars. The Muslims lost Cordoba and the Christian church they transformed into the world’s third largest mosque complex, that was turned back into a Christian cathedral in the 13th century, and it has been one ever since. But moments later, Olbermann seemed to contradict himself by acknowledging that Gingrich was correct in his reasoning about the historical significance of the name “Cordoba” being provocative, as the MSNBC host gave the Muslim group credit for changing the name in response to the former House Speaker’s criticism. Olbermann: “When the historical implications of Cordoba were made clear to the backers of this project, the property developer, Sharif Gamal, changed the name. They’ve already compromised.” Olbermann did not theorize about why the Muslim group was motivated to choose this provocative name in the first place. The Countdown host also suggested a moral equivalence between America’s history of confiscating land from Native Americans and the Islamic Empire’s conquests. Olbermann: “And is there not a logical extension to Mr. Gingrich’s conclusions about Cordoba and triumphalism? Virtually every church, virtually every synagogue, every mosque built on this continent stands where a Native American lived or died or was buried or saw his world – his religions included – wiped out, by us. What are we, then, Mr. Gingrich?” But, unlike many predominantly Muslim countries, the United States provides full citizenship rights to Native Americans, who are now even greater in number than when Christopher Columbus first visited the New World. By contrast, not only do many countries that are successors to the Islamic Empire sharply restrict the rights of their citizens, but, as recently as the period between 1948 and 1975, in many predominantly Muslim nations, Jewish residents faced so much persecution in the form of violence and confiscation of property that the number of Jewish refugees who fled Muslim countries is estimated to be greater than the number of Palestinian refugees who fled Israel after the Arab states invaded the tiny nation in 1948. Some estimate that the land confiscated from Jewish residents by governments in Muslim countries amounts to several times the total area of the state of Israel. After recounting the story of a mosque that was bombed in Jacksonville, Florida, Olbermann also declared that Muslims in America are more likely to be targeted by terrorism than non-Muslims: “As the Jacksonville mosque bombing shows, since 9/11, Muslims have been at far greater risk of being victims of terrorism in the United States than have non-Muslims.” Below is a complete transcript of the “Special Comment” portion of the Monday, August 16, Countdown show on MSNBC, with critical portions in bold : KEITH OLBERMANN: Finally, tonight, as promised, a “Special Comment” on the inaccurately described “Ground Zero mosque.” “They came first for the communists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. And then they came for me and by that time, no one was left to speak up.” Pastor Martin Niemoller’s words are well known, but their context is not well understood. Niemoller was not speaking abstractly. He witnessed persecution; he acquiesced to it. He ultimately fell victim to it. He had been a German World War I hero, then a conservative who welcomed the fall of German democracy and the rise of Hitler, and he had few qualms about the beginning of the Holocaust until he himself was arrested for supporting it insufficiently. Niemoller’s confessional warning came first in a speech in Frankfurt in January 1946 – eight months after he had been liberated by American troops. He had been detained at Tyrol, Sachsen-hausen, and Dachau for seven years. He survived the death camps. In quoting him, I make no direct comparison between the attempts to suppress the building of a Muslim religious center in downtown Manhattan and the unimaginable nightmare of the Holocaust. Such a comparison is ludicrous – at least, it is now. But Niemoller was not warning of the Holocaust, he was warning of the willingness of a seemingly rational society to condone the gradual stoking of enmity towards an ethnic or religious group or more than one, warning of the building up of a collective pool of fear and hate, warning of the moment in which the need to purge outstrips the parameters of the original scapegoating, when new victims are needed because a country has begun to run on a horrible field of hatred – magnified, amplified and multiplied by politicians and zealots within government and without. Niemoller was not warning of the Holocaust. He was warning of the thousand steps before a holocaust became inevitable. If we are at merely the first of those steps again today, it is one step too close. Yet in a country dedicated to freedom, forces have gathered to blow out of all proportion the construction of a minor community center to transform it into a training ground for terrorists and an insult to the victims of 9/11 and a tribute to Medieval Muslim subjugation of the West. There is no training ground for terrorists. There is no insult to the victims of 9/11. There is no tribute to Medieval Muslim subjugation of the West. There is, in fact, no “Ground Zero mosque.” It is not mosque. A mosque, technically, is a Muslim holy place in which only worship can be conducted. What is planned for 45 Park Place, New York City, is a community center. It’s supposed to include a basketball court and a culinary school. It is to be 13 stories tall, and the top two stories will be a Muslim prayer space. What a cauldron of terrorism that will be. Terrorist chefs and terrorist point guards. And truly those who will use the center have more to fear from us than us from them, for there has been terrorism connected to a mosque in this country, in this year. May 10, Jacksonville, Florida, a pipe bomb at the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida. The FBI thinks the man in this surveillance video could be the bomber. The bomb went off during evening prayers and it was powerful enough to send shrapnel flying 100 yards. Fortunately, the bomber didn’t know where to place it, so the 60 Muslim worshipers were uninjured. If he had put it inside and not outside, they had been dead and you probably would have heard about it on the news. Or maybe not. Maybe those exploiting 45 Park Place would still shake their fists and decry terrorism by extremists who happen to be Muslim and never faced the shameful truth about our country. As the Jacksonville mosque bombing shows, since 9/11, Muslims have been at far greater risk of being victims of terrorism in the United States than have non-Muslims . But back to this Islamic center. Its name, Cordoba House, is not a tribute to the Medieval Muslim subjugation of Spain. Newt Gingrich has been pushing that nonsense that Cordoba is dog whistle for triumphalism : “It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third largest mosque complex. Today, some of the mosque’s backers insist this term is being used to ‘symbolize interfaith cooperation’ when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest.” Those Muslim conquerors are a figment of Gingrich’s lurid imagination. In Spain, in Cordoba, though the Muslims established multicultural, nondenominational institutions of learning, they were under constant attack from Christian armies and from a series of internal all-Muslim civil wars. The Muslims lost Cordoba and the Christian church they transformed into the world’s third largest mosque complex, that was turned back into a Christian cathedral in the 13th century, and it has been one ever since. And is there not a logical extension to Mr. Gingrich’s conclusions about Cordoba and triumphalism? Virtually every church, virtually every synagogue, every mosque built on this continent stands where a Native American lived or died or was buried or saw his world – his religions included – wiped out, by us. What are we, then, Mr. Gingrich? And by the way, a point Mr. Gingrich has not even whispered as he has shouted fire in a crowded theater: When the historical implications of Cordoba were made clear to the backers of this project, the property developer, Sharif Gamal, changed the name. They’re already compromised. “We are calling it Park 51 because of the backlash to the name Cordoba House,” he told the Financial Times. “It will be a place open to all New Yorkers, and that is a very New York name.” A very New York name. Like Ground Zero. Except that this place, Park 51, is not even at Ground Zero. Not even right across the street. Even the description of it being two blocks away is generous. It is two blocks away from the Northeast corner of the World Trade Center site. From the planned location of the 9/11 memorial, it’s more like four or five blocks, even. You know what is right across the street, though? I went there yesterday to refresh my sense of the World Trade Center, in which I worked nearly 30 years ago. At Church and Veezy Street so close that the barbed wire of Ground Zero obscures its spire is St. Paul’s Chapel. Been there since 1766, where Washington went the day he was inaugurated, where the first responders came for relief nine years ago. You know what’s also closer to Ground Zero than this Muslim community center will be? Church of St. Peter, at Church and Barclay Streets. As the sign says, “New York’s Oldest Catholic parish.” People hear “Ground Zero mosque” and they think Mecca in the backyard and the loud call to prayer and they take umbrage. “We’ve got no more than a few inches of skin and a couple pieces of bone. Ground Zero is the burial place of my son,” said Joyce Boland at the public hearing about this center. “I don’t want to go there and see an overwhelming mosque looking down at me.” I honor her pain and her fear, but Mrs. Boland has nothing to worry about. Unless she walks directly over to it, several blocks away, she’ll never see the thing. This is what you see from where the center will be. Another nondescript building is across the street. This building and others like it would block views of the Trade Center and views from the Trade Center. The community center certainly will stand out on the north side of Park Place, but amid the canyons of lower Manhattan, it will just be a distinctive building that, if you happen to wander down a side street near the Trade Center, you might see it. You know what you’ll see there now? This. The Burlington coat factory, abandoned since 2001, when the landing gear from one of the planes fell 90 stories and went through the roof. For nine years, nobody’s been willing to buy that building, just to knock it down and build a new one. It sold for $4,850,000. In New York City real estate, that is spare change. And you know why it’s spare change? Because walk around Ground Zero any day of the week and it’s packed with tourists and our version of pilgrims. But walk two and three blocks away, and not so packed. Not packed at all. Empty stores, boarded up windows, nine years later, and two and three blocks from the action, it’s a ghost town. What was that about government not getting in the way of private business? What was that about letting the private sector spur new jobs in blighted areas? Oh, and what was that about Iraq? Why did we go into Iraq again? I don’t mean the real versions or the naked vengeful blindness that enabled the forging of a nonexistent connection between Iraq and 9/11, I mean, the official explanation. To free the world, and especially Iraq’s citizens, of the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. That’s its supporters’ defense of the Iraq invasion to this hour. Well, who lives in Iraq? Muslims. I hate to reveal this to anybody on the right who did not know this, but when they say Iraq is 65 percent Shia and 32 percent Sunni, you do know that Shia and Sunni are both forms of the Muslim religion, right? We sacrificed 4,415 of our military personnel in Iraq to save Muslims, and there are thousands of us still here tonight to protect Muslims, but we don’t want Muslims to open a combination culinary school and prayer space in Manhattan? From the beginning of this nation, we have fought prejudice and religious intolerance and our greatest enemy, stupidity, exploited by rapacious politicians. It is only 50 years now, this month, since Americans publicly and urgently warned their countrymen not to support a presidential candidate because he was a Roman Catholic. He would bow to the will, not of the American people, but of the Pope. He would be a papist. He would be the agent of a foreign state! His name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Newsweek Defends Obama’s Leisure But Mocked Bush’s Working Vacations at Texas Ranch

While Newsweek’s David Graham is hard at work defending President Obama’s summertime leisure — “A Short History of Presidential Vacation Outrage” — by insisting that the press corps always complains about any president’s vacation habits, it’s instructive that he failed to indict his own magazine. “War on terrorism stalled, economy on precipice, time for a month on the Crawford ranch.” Accompanied by a disapproving down arrow, that’s how the August 5, 2002 Newsweek feature “Conventional Wisdom” derided President Bush’s working vacation a mere three months before midterm elections in his first term. Elsewhere in Newsweek’s coverage at the time, writers put the term working vacation into derisive quote marks, and otherwise presented President Bush’s time away from Washington, including a quasi-campaign swing called the “Heartland Tour,” as a nakedly political move to bolster his sagging approval numbers. From Martha Brant’s August 7 “Web exclusive” entitled “Look Who’s Back”: The White House went on the defensive: aides whipped up a WESTERN WHITE HOUSE logo to tack up behind the podium at the makeshift briefing room at the Crawford Elementary School. They cut his vacation short a few days, apparently so it wouldn’t be the longest on record (which is held by Richard Nixon at 31 days). The Republican National Committee did a focus group on the president’s vacation. Pollsters found that most people believe that the president is never really on vacation. That’s the line they’re sticking with this year. The president, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer explained the other day, “is going to bring the White House with him to Crawford.” But all their efforts didn’t stop Letterman from making fun of Bush’s vacation again this year. The other night he gave the “Top Ten Signs President Bush Needs A Vacation.” No. 7: It’s been, what, two weeks since he went fishing? Late-night comedy and the RNC focus group agree on one thing: Bush needs to remain proactive on vacation, especially now with the Iraq situation bubbling up and the economy flagging. This month Bush will meet with his defense secretary as well as the president of Mexico. He will host an economic forum at Baylor University in Waco. And he will visit at least 15 cities, spending about half his vacation time on public events in politically significant states. At least once a week, he’ll attend a so-called “political activity” (read: fund-raiser). But the main thrust of August is what the White House bills as Bush’s “Home to the Heartland” return tour. This is Hughes’s specialty: keeping Bush in touch with average people and their issues. He’ll appear at events with “real Americans,” as one top aide explained, and talk to them about their economic “concerns.” There’s nothing like a photo op with a prize-winning pig at the Iowa State Fair to get out the message: I’m not from Washington, D.C., where pork has a whole different meaning. A year earlier and prior to the 9/11 attacks, Anna Quindlen took a different tack, calling on President Bush in an August 27, 2001 piece to push for European-style August vacations for everyone: Mandate the closing of everything else in the country during the month. The liberals would love the energy savings, the lights off in office buildings, the fossil fuels unburned. Conservationists would be thrilled as national parks and forests revive without the tramp-tramp-tramp of millions of tourists. Health-care professionals would breathe a sigh of relief as Americans walked to the homes of friends, elevating their heart rates and, in the process, seeing people they’ve been meaning to get together with for ages. Republicans could tout the family-values aspect of four weeks in which parents would be more or less forced to stay home and talk to their children. And talk about community activism! Instead of government programs or even nonprofit organizations taking meals to the homebound by van, ordinary Americans could find it in their hearts to carry a nice plate of pasta next door. Newspapers and news magazines would close, too, and television could run previously shown programs. (Whoops! I guess someone already took care of that one!) George W could mash his finger without any snide Gerald Ford comments, and he could take his vacation without any editorializing. No press, no mail, no bills, no sweat. The stock market would have a much-needed timeout; so would Major League Baseball, especially those Tampa Bay Devil Rays. Sure, there would be opposition from conservatives who object to big government’s interfering with the right to develop blocked arteries and sleep difficulties. But research on work habits, as well as observation of the typical American tourist ripping though a European cathedral in record time, suggest that there’s a deep-seated inability to relax in the U.S. of Type A. Each president brings to the job his own ethos, his own character, his own karma. George W. Bush has it in him to become the Vacation President, to lead a grateful and very tired nation to a place in which its citizens can stop and smell the onion rings.  Fast forward nine years to President Obama’s second year in office, and Newsweek’s David Graham all but sighs at the supposed pettiness in the media when it comes to criticizing any president’s vacation habits: Despite White House spokesman Bill Burton’s suggestion that the Obamas are being harassed with unprecedented attack for their recent leisure travels, this is nothing new. As Kenneth Walsh says , criticizing the president’s cottage destination has become a cottage industry in D.C.: “No matter who is the president, the opposition party delights in criticizing him for taking time off, billing it as insensitive to the problems of struggling Americans, demonstrating aristocratic excess, or betraying some hedonistic character flaw.” The only thing new are the creative methods of finding fault with taking time off. Ironically what Newsweek is attempting to do is defend an approval rating-challenged liberal president by capitalizing on the public’s low approval of the press corps. This is further amusing given the magazine’s complaint in the February 1 “Conventional Wisdom” feature that Obama was too docile, not “fighting” hard enough. “Yo, professor: CW wanted someone to fight for us. Not lead a bloodless seminar,” Newsweek huffed as it lamented that “Obama celebrates first year [in office] by losing Kennedy seat to GOP. Will he finally take the gloves off?” Perhaps Newsweek is now convinced that the more pugilistic Obama sounds ahead of the midterms, the more damage he’s likely to do for his allies in Congress. 

Here is the original post:
Newsweek Defends Obama’s Leisure But Mocked Bush’s Working Vacations at Texas Ranch

ABC’s Amanpour Takes Dig at Bush: Relations w/ Muslim World ‘Devastatingly Damaged Over the Previous Eight Years’

It’s one thing to acknowledge that the Muslim world has had a negative reaction to America ‘s war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq, but, when one starts referring to “the previous eight years” before the Obama administration, it starts to sound like partisan Democratic talking points. As ABC’s Christiane Amanpour appeared on Sunday’s Good Morning America to talk about President Obama’s predicament regarding his speech on the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, Amanpour at one point recounted that relations with the Muslim world had suffered during the “previous eight years” before Obama became President. After host John Berman queried as to “how is this playing in the Muslim world,” Amanpour at one point asserted: “But clearly President Obama from the very beginning went out of his way to try to repair relations with the Islamic world which had been so devastatingly damaged over the previous eight years.” The war in Afghanistan was only seven years old when Obama took office, so her “previous eight years” crack could only be interpreted as a reference to the entire Bush presidency rather than the war itself. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Sunday, August 15, Good Morning America: JOHN BERMAN: There is, of course, another audience here, the international audience, how is this playing in the Muslim world? CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Well, all of this will inevitably play. How precisely these last two days of comments and change in comments will play, we’ll wait to see. But clearly President Obama from the very beginning went out of his way to try to repair relations with the Islamic world which had been so devastatingly damaged over the previous eight years . He not only mentioned that in his inauguration speech, in his first interviews, but also with that big speech in Cairo, and obviously, talking about trying to get moderate Muslims also to stand up for their faith and to stand against extremism. And, in fact, the people who are in charge of building this have spoken out against 9/11, have condemned terrorism and are viewed as those in the moderate community. So it’s clearly something that has come a cropper, if you like, since they were able to build this and protests have started. But the question, is vital. What does it actually mean, how far away is suitable? Can a mosque be built there? There are other mosques in that general area. What does it precisely mean when you strip it all down, this political furor that’s been started over this?

Read more:
ABC’s Amanpour Takes Dig at Bush: Relations w/ Muslim World ‘Devastatingly Damaged Over the Previous Eight Years’

Fox News Watch: Jim Pinkerton Cites CMI Piece on Ground Zero Mosque

Jim Pinkerton on Saturday cited a Culture and Media Institute article about the hypocritical reporting of the proposed Ground Zero mosque. On Thursday, CMI’s Alana Goodman noted in a piece cross-posted at sister site NewsBusters: Ground Zero mosque organizer Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has been described by the media as a “moderate” and a “bridge-builder.” But not too long ago, the same news outlets gave identical labels to a radical Virginia mosque that has been linked to some of the most infamous Islamic terrorist attacks in recent years.  When the discussion on Saturday’s “Fox News Watch” moved to the Ground Zero mosque, Pinkerton brought this up (video follows with transcript):  JON SCOTT, HOST: Jim, the host of “Red Eye” here on Fox, Greg Gutfeld, kind of a comedy show, says he wants to open a gay bar across the street from this Islamic mosque and promote positive dialog. Now, a spokesman for the Islamic center said this, this plan does not consider the sensibilities of Muslims. Did the mainstream media pick up on the irony there? JIM PINKERTON: I don’t think so, but I think the reason, Andrea, why they don’t have to write their own op-eds is because they got the New York Times shilling for them every, every morning. And the media are remarkably uncurious about the nature of this mosque. Alana Goodman, who writes for the Culture and Media Institute, went back and looked up that Abdul Rauf, you now, about he’s a moderate, he’s thoughtful, and all of this good stuff, they were using literally the same language about the mosque in Northern Virginia that Anwar Al Awlaki, the Yemen, the guy who’s now in Yemen teaching killing Americans and the inspiration to this underwear bomber, and the Times Square bomber, they used the exact same words then that they’re using now to describe this guy.

Read the original post:
Fox News Watch: Jim Pinkerton Cites CMI Piece on Ground Zero Mosque

Open Thread: Three Things You Should Know About Islam

Via the Right Scoop . Thoughts?

Read this article:
Open Thread: Three Things You Should Know About Islam

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria Returns ADL Award in Protest to Position on Ground Zero Mosque

At the top of his eponymous program yesterday, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria took drastic action to protest the Anti-Defamation League’s opposition to the proposed Ground Zero mosque. Zakaria, who was honored by the ADL in 2005 with the Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize, gave back his award because he was “deeply saddened” by the group’s respect for the families of 9/11 victims who oppose the construction of a mosque just two blocks from Ground Zero. “Given the position that they have taken on a core issue of religious freedom in America, I cannot in good conscience keep that award,” lamented Zakaria, who hoped that distancing himself from the ADL would compel the organization to realize its “mistake” and reverse its position. In his lengthy monologue, Zakaria vigorously defended Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s constitutional right to erect the mosque: “If this community center were being built anywhere else in the world, chances are the U.S. government would be funding it.” While Zakaria was correct to point out that strengthening ties between moderate Muslims and non-Muslims is a central focus of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he failed to realize the reason so many Americans oppose the construction of a mosque so close to Ground Zero is precisely because of its proximity to the 9/11 attacks committed by Islamic radicals. Displaying stock footage of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich speaking at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference earlier in the year, Zakaria condemned “politicians who have shamelessly and shamefully capitalized on the public’s wariness” about the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero. Zakaria, eager to omit the most controversial details of the proposed construction project, uttered the word “mosque” only once is his screed, preferring the innocuous term “community center.” The Newsweek columnist proceeded to paradoxically bemoan the “disinformation about this center.”                                      A full transcript of “Fareed’s Take” on the August 8 “Fareed Zakaria GPS” can be found below: You know that ever since 9/11, the United States has been trying to engage in a battle of ideas against radical Islam. Now, America can’t really get involved in a debate within Islam, so that means finding and supporting moderate Muslims. This is a cultural struggle that has been warmly supported by liberals and conservatives. In fact, many conservatives have argued that we should be engaged in a much more extensive and expensive effort to fund moderates and de-legitimize radical and violent Islam. Under both the Bush and Obama administrations, there have been active efforts worldwide to support Muslims who are trying to rescue their religion from extremists, fundamentalists, and jihadists. And this has meant funding mosques, Islamic centers, imams, and community leaders who share a peaceful and pluralistic vision of Islam, except, it turns out, if they are in our own back yard. The debate over the proposed community center to be built a few blocks away from the World Trade Center has missed this fundamentally important point. If this community center were being built anywhere else in the world, chances are the U.S. government would be funding it. The man behind it, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, has spent years trying to offer a liberal interpretation of Islam. His most recent book, “What’s Right With Islam is What’s Right With America,” argues that America is actually what an ideal Islamic society would look like because it is peaceful, tolerant, and pluralistic. His vision for Islam, in other words, is Osama bin Laden’s nightmare – we should be encouraging such an Islamic center, not demonizing it. Now, there is of course the much more fundamental issue, freedom of religion in America, which is a founding principle of this country. The most eloquent and intelligent defense of that principle came last week from New York’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, in an address that should be required reading in every civics class in America. There have, on the other hand, been politicians who have shamelessly and shamefully capitalized on the public’s wariness. The public is wary understandably because there has been so much disinformation about this center. But perhaps the most puzzling stand was taken by the Anti- Defamation League, which was founded to support the freedom of religion. The director of the ADL, Abraham Foxman, explained that the victims of 9/11 had feelings on this matter that should be respected even if they were irrational. First of all, there were many dozens of victims of 9/11 who were Muslim. Do their feelings count? More important, are irrational feelings, prejudices, hatreds OK because those expressing them are victims or see themselves as victims? Will the ADL defend the rights of Palestinian “victims” to be anti-Semites? I have to say I was personally deeply saddened by the ADL’s stand, because five years ago the organization honored me with its Hubert Humphrey Award for First Amendment freedoms. Given the position that they have taken on a core issue of religious freedom in America, I cannot in good conscience keep that award. So this week I’m going to return to the ADL the handsome medal and the generous honorarium that came with it. I hope this might spur them to see that they have made a mistake, and to return to their historic, robust defense of freedom of religion in America, something they have subscribed to for decades and which I honor them for.

See more here:
CNN’s Fareed Zakaria Returns ADL Award in Protest to Position on Ground Zero Mosque

Liberal Talk Show Host Thom Hartmann Says It’s Time for Gay ‘Reparations’

It’s one thing to have liberal guilt, but this is taking it way too far.  In a video posted to YouTube on Aug. 5 , popular liberal talk host Thom Hartmann, identified what he considered was the appropriate way to cope with this guilt type, specifically that of which came with the issue of LGBT rights. Hartmann hails himself as “the 10th most important talk show host in America, and the No. 1 most important progressive host, in their ‘Heavy Hundred’ ranking” according to Talkers Magazine . Hartmann laid out the reasoning chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker used in an Aug. 4 ruling that overturn California’s Proposition 8 gay marriage ban, a ballot initiative approved by over 7 million voters in 2008 . Then he added his own unique solution. “Well yesterday, Judge Vaughn Walker, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, ruled that California’s Proposition 8, which said that it was illegal for gays to get married in that state, was unconstitutional,” Hartmann said. “He said that he based his ruling, although the right-wing is all over him for being gay himself – he said he based his ruling on the preponderance of scientific evidence that was presented to him in court, which indicated that the children of families of gay couples grew up every bit as normal, and in fact in some studies more normal and healthy, psychologically healthy, as the children of straight families and that gay couples and their relationships are every bit as psychologically, and socially, and economically significant and legitimate as are straight couples.” Hartmann, with his psychological expertise in hand, alluded to the reasoning in Walker’s ruling, added that the only basis for such a ban, despite the approval of those people, were “moral and religious views.” “He said that the evidence conclusively shows that moral and religious views form the only basis for the belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples,” Hartmann said. “Very, very interesting.” To rectify this situation – Hartmann made the incredible call for reparations, singling out the Mormon Church to pay for gay weddings in the California for the next years. “You know, I – gay people in this country have a long history of discrimination, of hatred, of murder,” he continued. “Matthew Shepard, you know – tortured, dragged, dragged you know dragged at the end of a truck, tied to a fence post left to die in the desert sun for example. I think that we should have reparations for gays. I think that the Mormon Church, which contributed a large chunk, maybe as much half of the money or maybe members of the Mormon church, as much as half of the money from out-of-state to fund Prop 8 for the next 10 years should have to pay for every gay wedding in the state of California.” The next step of this case is for it to be heard by the left-leaning Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then would likely be heard by the Supreme Court to determine whether it violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection” and “due process.”

See the original post here:
Liberal Talk Show Host Thom Hartmann Says It’s Time for Gay ‘Reparations’