Is this a point in which we Christians may end up disagreeing with others since we approach the issue on different grounds than do the rest? And if such is the case, to what extent do we think we can impose our view on others? How does that work out theologically?
That being said, I do tend to agree with President Obama’s thoughts on this. I think America ends up compromising and undermining its stance if it withholds this right.
But if the shoe was on our foot, would we want to build a church or Christian organization building near such a spot in another country ravaged in the same way, by those who name Christ? And have we listened well to the thoughts of the Islamic folks who wish to do so in Manhattan?

I think forgiveness and loving our “enemies” is great and admirable. However, I don’t think that is what this is all about. Does this mosque really need to built right at this location? Considering how this section of real estate was made “available” it is hardly neutral ground. Especially for the families of those who had their loved ones killed there. It is wonderful to show respect and acceptance to others. It just seems that this shows great disrespect for the innocents who died on 9/11.

@Dan
Important to note that at least a handful of the 9/11 victims were Muslims, no?
Here’s a potential parallel: Should a gun-rights or libertarian group be prohibited or discouraged from building a facility near the site of the Oklahoma City bombing because Timothy McVeigh was motivated by those kinds of beliefs, taken to a violent extreme?

I guess I don’t see the issue. I don’t think that 8-10 (??) Muslim terrorists define all of Islam.
Perhaps, it’s a bit insensitive on the part of the Cordoba Institute, but I guess I’m just not bothered by this.

Dan (#2),
How does this show disrespect? The terrorists who committed the terrible acts of murder and hate are not the same people who want to build an Islamic Center. It seems that people are joining the two together and this is unfair.

There already is a mosque 4 blocks from ground zero…does it really matter if another is built 2 blocks away?

IMO, it all comes down to whether you see the whole of Islam as a religion of evil and the perpetrator of 9/11 or if it was a relatively small number of extremist who did terrible things in the name of their religion. From all the talk I’ve heard from both sides this is an issue which is seen through completely different lens. I personally don’t credit the whole of Islam or American Muslims with what happened at 9/11 but all of the objectors I’ve heard from (people I know not the pundits) very easily lump them all together with Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. Side note don’t bring this up with your conservative Christian friends unless you don’t mind insults and being told you need to get saved, true story.

I don’t know why progressive Christians have to try to make people who oppose the Manhattan Muslim Mosque appear to be unforgiving and unchristian. I’m a conservative, and I just don’t trust the Muslim leaders who want to build this as a monument to their great victory on Sept. 11, 2001, and a memorial to the Muslims in the planes and on the ground who lost their lives. My distrust seems like commonsense to me, not unforgiveness or lack of a Christ-like spirit. Besides, do you think King Jesus is going to approve of a Muslim mosque in his Millennial Kingdom?
NEVERTHELESS, I think the Muslim leaders who I distrust should be able to go ahead and build the mosque for these reasons:
1. The First Amendment.
2. The city government finds no zoning problems. Presumably, the construction plans meet with city codes.
3. The residents of New York have not en masse protested. In fact, it seems most of them favor the mosque.
4. Many, perhaps most, of the survivors and relatives of the victims of the World Trade Center destruction either support the construction of the mosque or have no opinion. Few seem to oppose it, or oppose it enough to speak loudly.
5. I’m afraid of the slippery slope you progressives laugh at; nevertheless, I maintain that if we deny this religion a Constitutional right, the precedent will be set to deny conservative Christians our rights to evangelize.
So let them build the mosque as memorial and monument. They have the right.
Do you think the Muslims, the city, the liberals, mainline Christians, post-modernists and post-evangelicals and progressives will support conservative Christians’ right to stand on public property in front of the mosque and hand out gospel tracts and preach Jesus, crucified and resurrected?
Now, let me add that I live in Southern Missouri, and if in the future, after the Manhattan mosque is built, Silver Dollar City or the Arch or the Missouri Capitol is bombed and the planning is traced back to the Manhattan mosque, I’ll really be pissed.

It amazes me that Christians are confused about this. What better statement of solidarity with the Muslim community than saying, “We will not hold the crimes of a few against you. You are welcome here. Worship as you please.” America purportedly champions the highest ideals of humanity, religious freedom being just one. Let it be what it claims it is now, and let the Christians of America champion it as a victory of love over hate, forgiveness over resentment, welcome over contempt.

I will be in favor of allowing them to build a mosque in NY when they allow us to build a Christian Church in Mecca.

But Doug, we believe in religious freedom. Why suggest their political laws shape what we do?

@Doug. It’s hard to see how what you said squares with the logic of the gospel; i.e., “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” and all of the social ramifications the New Testament clearly spells out for us. Care to explain?

Why does forgiveness have anything to do with this? A small group of terrorists attacked our country, not the religion of Islam. Who is it that we need to forgive? The innocent for simply belonging to the same religion as the terrorists?
That is what scares me about this whole thing is how apparent it is that many Americans actually blame all Muslims for 9/11. Getting over that lie and standing for the truth should be the goal of Christians who claim to care about such things, but instead we insist on spreading misinformation and fear based segregation. That is disturbing.

If someone already believes that Obama isn’t a citizen or that he’s the anti-Christ of some sort, this is just further “proof.” The people / Christians who are disturbed by this would in no way be voting for him anyway. I’m glad to see some spine – finally. Now if he’d just end these awful wars.

Julie (#13),
Ah, Julie, what is disturbing is that you would even question the need for forgiveness. I believe that forgiveness is at the heart of this whole issue for Christians. Of course we don’t blame all Muslims for the terrorists’ actions. Islam as a religion, however, took a hit for what the terrorists did just as Christians take a hit when Pat Robertson says something and many Christians cringe.
But forgiveness is at the heart of this issue no matter what side of the mosque debate we land on.

Here’s how I would see Christian forgiveness at work: it is a proactive demonstration of grace as a means of creating shalom rather than a simple ledger transfer. By this we would be saying to the Muslim community that we, as Christians, want to extend grace in order to overcome the vitriol of the terrorists and the consequent damage to the Islam community. Instead of harboring suspicions, a Christian doctrine of proactive grace, of which forgiveness is one part, we want offer the sign of peace.

Extending grace to people we have no reason to fear or hate is yes, unfortunately necessary. But to frame this discussion as one of forgiveness promotes the wrong thinking that it is based in. Christians need to learn to love and act like Jesus here, not offer forgiveness to people who did nothing wrong. We should be asking forgiveness of them for believing lies about them and hurting them with our prejudices. Offering forgiveness puts us in a position of power and superiority, asking for forgiveness would be an act of humility. One cannot create shalom from a position of power, it has to come from a willingness to serve the other.

Scott,
Let me begin by saying a love your blog and, as I’ve mentioned before, read it daily. I think your very short def of forgiveness (comment above) is beautiful.
However, I think framing this issue in theological terms is not useful (nor are many other comments I’ve read and heard this past week). I think the comment by Newt Gingrich about not allowing any more mosque until we can build churches in Saudi Arabia was (perhaps) the worst. We should use the laws and practices of Saudi Arabia as the standard by which we evaluate our behavior?? Again, I wonder if any responsible Republican/conservative, etc. leader does not speak up against such incredible ideas!
The issue is really one of property rights and constitutional rights.
I don’t think this should be a partisan or ideological debate, but how is that so many people almost “worship” American real property law (I think your blog, in fact, tried to equate it with biblical teaching. I will concede maybe I was reading too much into that discussion), but now they decry people’s use of their private property? This Muslim organization/group has owned this site for years.
Its also worth noting that the leader of the organization is an outspoken critic of Muslim “extremism” and politicizing Islam. Shouldn’t we be supporting his efforts?
There is also the small issue of the 1st Amend. We should never allow emotions to derail our support and defense of the 1st Amend. America would not be America without the 1st Amend!
Scott, let me also say in a loving way (I hope) – and I do love your work, your spirit, everything I know about you (unfortunately I don’t know you personally) – I think your snide remark about Obama is not helpful. Nobody has to agree with Obama, but what is wrong with a thoughtful person taking time to think threw issues, dialogue with others, and consider how best to articulate their beliefs/thoughts/views? I know many liked the seat-of-your-pants kind of leadership that was on display during the last administration, but thinking things through is not a bad idea. (Also – for another blog post – the reason American’s like football more than soccer can be analyzed with the logic you used to criticize Obama. American’s, as a rule, don’t like contemplative/thoughtful-ness.)
Looking forward to the new look.
Blessings

Jim H,
Thanks. I did not mean to frame the whole discussion through forgiveness but said it is one thing that could be raised and it is a theme few are addressing. On property rights etc, yes, I agree and that is why I said it is not about legality in the discussion. It has become a culture war, and I think Christians need to be reminded that grace is how we approach such issues (and I do think there’s an element of forgiveness involved).
On Obama … I’ve said it before and I will probably say it again. I think he takes too long to weigh in on discussions of paramount importance. It’s not snide, so I hope, but fact and my own critique of his delays.

Asking for forgiveness has nothing to do with whether one is in a position of power or in a position of humility (no. 17) or somewhere in between. Jesus was mighty powerful as well as humble. Forgiveness is for all, no matter what position one finds herself in. And it certainly applies in this situation.

The Ground Zero Mosque is neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero…unless we are generally referring to NYC as Ground Zero the way my parents refer to their particular suburb in Cook County as “Chicago”…but I don’t know if that’s really here nor there.
While I agree with Julie’s point, I also do think this is about forgiveness in relation to 9/11 too. We have an obligation to even forgive Mohammed Atta (one of the hijackers) for the events of 9/11.
So while we may compound injustice by our attitudes/actions, as Julie points out, we still have yet to speak clearly about the Christian response to the events of 9/11 itself…because it is on the basis of that tragedy that people are responding to the Cordoba Center.
In the days after 9/11 i remember a street interview where someone asked a man about forgiveness and he basically said: “Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and there’ll never be enough eyes or teeth for this one.” My blood ran cold…
As far as critics go, you can’t claim to be the only people who care about the constitution, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum ad infinitum (think media figures/political demagogues), and then be willing to trash it when it suits your purposes or offends your sensibilities.

There are two overlapping groups who ought to affirm the freedom for this mosque to be built. The first is all Americans and the second is all evangelical Christians.
As Americans we ought to affirm the right for our fellow Americans who happen to be Muslim to build this mosque if they meet all local regulations. If we Americans wish to demonstrate to the Muslim nations the values of freedom and democracy, then one of the most important values is freedom of religion. What more powerful message could we send than this: near a place where a radical fringe of Muslims perpetrated a great evil upon us, we allow this mosque to be constructed. Let us remember that some who died in that terrorist attack were themselves Muslim.
For evangelical Christians, it is, in my view, even more obvious that we ought to refrain from opposing the building of this mosque. It is a sad truth that in many Muslim majority nations the construction of Christian churches is either severely restricted or prohibited. Let us rise above that and show that we true followers of Christ have no fear of any mosque for we hold to this truth: ?Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children? (Rev 21:7). Nothing, including the construction of a mosque, can stop this from taking place for our God is sovereign. Let us demonstrate grace by allowing this.

Forgiveness is wonderful; but then again Satan can appear to be something else too! Part of being a Christian is thinking about how something will affect others … no one seems to be thinking about that in any of these comments. There are lots of other places this mosque can be built so why push it down the throats of survivors of the Twin Towers, those families who lost loved ones and not to mention all the numerous other folks who worked so very hard to help, including fire & police personnel.
Christians have stood on the sideline long enough to have prayer removed from schools, not to mention our rights to pray. So, now we are to turn the other cheek one more time! Why do you think this Country is where it is today — Christ is no longer a part of our visible daily lives. If you are a true Christian, stand up for your rights. Bring Christ and prayer back into our daily lives in schools, organizaitons and meals, then this Country will be a much better place.

“Why does forgiveness have anything to do with this?”
Agreed. I opposed the construction of the mosque because it is brazenly insensitive, not because I haven’t forgiven anyone.
“That is what scares me about this whole thing is how apparent it is that many Americans actually blame all Muslims for 9/11.”
This is not at all apparent, nor is it the case. The World Trade Center bombings were carried out in the name of Islam. For most Americans, it seems appropriate, then, to especially construct an Islamic place of worship in the rubble.
“Getting over that lie and standing for the truth should be the goal of Christians who claim to care about such things, but instead we insist on spreading misinformation and fear based segregation.”
Introducing segregation is flatly inflammatory. Christians are frequently forbidden from building churches in certain zones for tax reasons. Are we segregating religion, therefore, in any meaningful sense of the word?
my captcha is upside-down… That’s apropos.

“As far as critics go, you can’t claim to be the only people who care about the constitution, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum ad infinitum (think media figures/political demagogues), and then be willing to trash it when it suits your purposes or offends your sensibilities.”
It is well within the Constitutional purview of local authorities to make decisions about what institutions may have a presence at landmarks. This has always been the case.

It might be useful to note there are two mosques within blocks (one within 4) of the WTC that have been there for years, and which routinely turn people away because they are too small.
The idea that this is a new Islamic intrusion is just not true. If you don’t want this one to be built, you first have to explain why we’ve tolerated the others for so long.
Where is it illegal for any child to pray at any time in a school? As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in schools. Forcing kids to pray a Christian prayer or look stupid is another thing entirely.
Sometimes I really do think many Christians want the US to be the Christian version of Saudi Arabia, with mandatory prayer, stoning of adulterous women and flogging people who drink.

@kevin S
“This is not at all apparent, nor is it the case. The World Trade Center bombings were carried out in the name of Islam. For most Americans, it seems appropriate, then, to especially construct an Islamic place of worship in the rubble.”
The Cordoba Center is being built 2 blocks from Ground Zero in an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory building, hardly part of the “rubble”. I may be wrong, but I don’t think you can see the proposed site from Ground Zero. For those who may be not familiar,two blocks in NYC can be like 2 miles elsewhere. The tall buildings make large boundaries.
When Fred Phelps and his merry group of protesters from Westboro aptist Church has signs that state that “God Hates Fags”, it is being done in the name of Christ and the Christian church. Do they represent all of Christianity or an extremely small part? Better yet, would you want to be judged by what Fred Phelps says? I know I don’t.

“The Cordoba Center is being built 2 blocks from Ground Zero in an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory building, hardly part of the “rubble”.
It was hit by one of the planes, and so a decision has to made as to how we should utilize it going forward.
If the proposed Mosque is sufficiently distanced from the WTC, and is more or less redundant, why not simply locate it elsewhere? That argument cuts both ways.
“When Fred Phelps and his merry group of protesters from Westboro aptist Church has signs that state that “God Hates Fags”, it is being done in the name of Christ and the Christian church. Do they represent all of Christianity or an extremely small part?”
Small part. If they were to go ahead and bomb a gay nightclub, and a Christian church wanted to rebuild that location, I think a city would be within it’s rights to ask it to do otherwise. This would not be a bigoted position, in my view, and I’m quite sure the gay community would insist upon it, and use landmark status questions to aid their battle.
@YourName
“The idea that this is a new Islamic intrusion is just not true. If you don’t want this one to be built, you first have to explain why we’ve tolerated the others for so long.”
Legally: Zoning rules apply differently.
Ethically: Part of the plane hit the building. To my knowledge, part of the plane did not hit those buildings.
Preferentially: Can we can it with copying and pasting talking points verbatim?
“Sometimes I really do think many Christians want the US to be the Christian version of Saudi Arabia, with mandatory prayer, stoning of adulterous women and flogging people who drink.”
Well, I’d turn the irony radar back on if I were you.

“If you are a true Christian, stand up for your rights.”
No, that is precisely the opposite of being a true Christian. Jesus is our example. And where He is pointed to in the New Testament as our example, it is almost always in connection to the Cross. Jesus was crucified despite both Pilate and Herod not finding any fault in Him, I believe the Scriptures say. Besides His death being the result of a blatant miscarriage of justice, He was God—and therefore, if anyone ever had the right to not die a horrible painful humiliating miscarriage-of-justice death, it was Him. But He still died.
You seem to be implying that we have a Lord and example who should have claimed his rights as a citizen and pulled out his .38 in self-defense. After all, we take self-defense to be a right, don’t we?
“If you are a true American, stand up for your rights. If you are a true Christian, turn the other cheek just as your Lord did. It’s His example you follow; not Nathan Hale’s.”

@David Johnson
Fair enough, but Jesus certainly didn’t stand up for the rights of those who expressly denied him, nor did he call us to do the same. Since that’s what this debate is about, perhaps you would like to explain why we should.

I think it’s clear what we Christians should be doing in this circumstance. We should be about seeing love, forgiveness, and the gospel triumphing over evil. Does the construction of this mosque/Islamic center push the gospel forward? I think a little bit yes, and a whole lot no. Yes, because it shows that America (which is roughly 75% Christian) can forgive. No, because Islam is opposed to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
But that’s just the theological side of the issue. The real complication is the political side. Does America stand for religious freedom? Yes. Does America stand for property rights? Yes. But the most devastating attack on U.S. soil in nearly 200 years, by those who were primarily identified by their particular brand of Islamic faith, was carried out near the spot in question less than 10 years ago. Should this Muslim group (who, as far as I know, don’t share the offending brand of faith) be allowed to build their building? Yes. Is it too soon? I think so.
The relations between Americans (who are not Muslim) and Muslims would grow substantially, I believe, if this organization came out and said something like, “While we denounce the actions of these terrorists and do not share their fanaticism, we recognize that the pain of 9/11 is still raw for many Americans, particularly New Yorkers. Therefore, we will not proceed with plans to construct this mosque so close to Ground Zero at this time.” Maybe you disagree, but I think that would be refreshing?
For me, this isn’t a theological issue, or a political issue. It’s an issue of common sense and propriety. This group has every right to build their mosque, but I would hope that they would recognize that now may not be the right time. It’s just too soon.

If we can change our national practices because of concern over South Africa’s racial discrimination, why couldn’t we change our national practices because of concern over Muslim nations’ religious discrimination?
I’m not advocating banning mosque-building in the U.S. Just responding to those who said we don’t allow practices of other countries to control ours.
What should we do to advocate for freedom of religion in Muslim nations?

It appears that it is too soon based on the reaction of many in this country. I am saddened that that is the case and think it would be better if people were able to control themselves better, but I also understand that many can’t.
I think it would be a great act of Shalom to encourage them to build it there and have the country rally together behind that thought to show we are the country we desire to be. I think that would be a wonderful act to take to the world and help to improve our reputation. But it is obvious that we are not that country and instead are petty and unable to rise above to be an example for others. I wish we were able to do this.
For those who feel it should not be built, I say I do understand that view. It is a difficult thing to rise above, that’s what would make it such an important statement

@ kevin s
“It was hit by one of the planes, and so a decision has to made as to how we should utilize it going forward.”
The pictures that I have seen of the building do not indicate any major damage from plane parts. The description is “airplane debris” Frankly, even though a part of the plane hit the building, it was not the intended target. Using your logic, most of lower Manhattan would be considered hit by the plane.
“Small part. If they were to go ahead and bomb a gay nightclub, and a Christian church wanted to rebuild that location, I think a city would be within it’s rights to ask it to do otherwise. This would not be a bigoted position, in my view, and I’m quite sure the gay community would insist upon it, and use landmark status questions to aid their battle.”
Since the community center is not on the site of the bombing, your example doesn’t fit. My point simply put is that as Fred Phelps does not represent the vast majority of Christians in his hatred and expression of hatred towards homosexuals, Al Quiada doesn’t represent the vast majority of Muslims.
“Legally: Zoning rules apply differently.”
To my knowledge, this passes local zoning muster. Maybe, just maybe this should be a decision that is made by the neighborhood and the city.
Ethically, the building was not the target. We simply can’t take all of the area that was affected by the WTC bombing and turn it into a “sacred” zone.
As I wrote before, this is a local issue. Let the residents decide.

“What should we do to advocate for freedom of religion in Muslim nations?”
Pray

Yes, pray. Is that “all” we should have done for the South Africans suffering apartheid, too?

It’s neither (1) a mosque nor (2) located at Ground Zero. It’s a cultural center and it’s two blocks away (which is the equivalent of 2 miles in other modern, post automobile era cities).
The charge that this is a “provocation” is based on (a) the act is inseparable from the 9/11 tragedy and (b) the location is inseparable from 9/11. From my study of this, it seems that this group to be the total antithesis to the 9/11 attacker mentality. The opposition to this cultural center is akin to tarring all Christians as Timothy McVeigh or Fred Phelps devotees.
While it’s not surprising to me that there is outrage (even from many Christians), I can’t help but see xenophobia and bigotry (or to be more charitable, irrational fear of “the other”).

“Yes, pray. Is that “all” we should have done for the South Africans suffering apartheid, too?”
Apartheid was a political issue and a poor parallel example. Think more about Communist China better example. Bibles were smuggled in and a lot of prayer went into opening up China.
There are missionaries in many Muslim countries right now doing exactly what was done when China was closed.
Captcha: reestent Politburo

“The pictures that I have seen of the building do not indicate any major damage from plane parts.”
It was hit by the landing gear. They are demolishing the building.
“Using your logic, most of lower Manhattan would be considered hit by the plane.”
No. My logic is that whatever was hit by the plane and damaged by the plane would be considered hit by the plane.
“Since the community center is not on the site of the bombing, your example doesn’t fit.”
It counters the religious freedom argument that many here are making.
“To my knowledge, this passes local zoning muster. Maybe, just maybe this should be a decision that is made by the neighborhood and the city.”
They are making the decision. I am arguing that they have the right and, I think, the obligation to decide against building the Mosque.
I think it is entirely reasonable to weigh national opinion on issues related to 9/11 (like Obama did), but I agree it is the neighborhood’s decision.
“Apartheid was a political issue and a poor parallel example.”
The question of whether to allow churches in Saudi Arabia is a political issue.

“It’s neither (1) a mosque”
It is a mosque. That it is also a cultural center is unlikely to change anyone’s mind about the issue.
“nor (2) located at Ground Zero.”
It was two blocks away, and also hit by the landing gear from one of the planes. Again, I don’t think this distinction will, or should, change any perceptions.
“It’s a cultural center and it’s two blocks away (which is the equivalent of 2 miles in other modern, post automobile era cities).”
How is two blocks the equivalent of two miles? This is a bizarre assertion.
“The opposition to this cultural center is akin to tarring all Christians as Timothy McVeigh or Fred Phelps devotees.”
Seriously, is there a PR group sending out templates for blog comments? I’ve seen the ABC format, with the following
-It’s not a mosque/it’s not on ground zero
-Timothy McVeigh
-Mention of xenophobia
reiterated a few times on this comment thread. What gives?
“I can’t help but see xenophobia and bigotry (or to be more charitable, irrational fear of “the other”).”
The fact that you can’t help but label those with whom you disagree as irrational does nothing to add credibility to your position, or to persuade me that your “research” on this issue was done with any vigor or open-mindedness.
I mean, on immigration, you feel that people who use the term “illegal” are “denigrating”, dehumanizing and reducing people to “vermin”.
You have a cartoon on your blog suggesting Republicans are insane.
You don’t like it when people disagree with you. I get that. It doesn’t make me xenophobic, insane, or eliminationist. I simply don’t think it’s appropriate to approve the constructions of a gigantic mosque two blocks from ground zero for the reason that the 9/11 attacks were carried out in the name of of Islam.

“I simply don’t think it’s appropriate to approve the constructions of a gigantic mosque two blocks from ground zero for the reason that the 9/11 attacks were carried out in the name of of Islam.”
9/11 was not carried out in name of Islam any more than Jonestown mass suicide/homicide, lynchings, etc. was carried out in “name of Christianity”?
“You have a cartoon on your blog suggesting Republicans are insane.”
Since you went there, let me state for the record, despite being a former card-carrying conservative registered Republican, I pledge allegiance to no political party now. The cartoon in question laments the truth (in hyperbolic fashion, as most all editorial cartoons do) that according to polls, a majority of Republicans believe (a) Obama not born in U.S., (b) Obama is Muslim (57%), (c) deny prevailing scientific consensus (to the state that

Somehow previous comment truncated one of the paragraphs — should have finished “to the state less than (maybe “less than” character was culprit) 3% of scientists are Republican now. Don’t know that any polling about “terror baby” sentiment has been recorded yet, so that might be an unfair designation for the plurality of registered Republicans.

@ kevin s
“”Since the community center is not on the site of the bombing, your example doesn’t fit.”
It counters the religious freedom argument that many here are making.”
No, it doesn’t. It’s an attempt by Jay Sekulow and the ACLJ to form the basis of a law suit. I’m sure that there are other buildings that have been damaged by plane parts. Are all of those sacred as well? Like I said, you’d have to claim that the bulk of lower Manhattan is sacred ground.
“The question of whether to allow churches in Saudi Arabia is a political issue.”
Only because Newt decided it should be. Making our religious freedom policies dependent on whether or not Saudi Arabia allows for religious freedom runs against our Constitution.
“Seriously, is there a PR group sending out templates for blog comments? I’ve seen the ABC format, with the following
-It’s not a mosque/it’s not on ground zero
-Timothy McVeigh
-Mention of xenophobia
reiterated a few times on this comment thread. What gives?”
Actually, I could ask the same question.
BTW, the Community Center would be something like the 92nd Street “Y”. A cultural center that is affiliated with a religion.
Ultimately, if there is a court ruling against the center on religious grounds it could become a real danger for some churches who build community centers as a bridge into an area. You really need to think about the unintended consequences in situations like this. It could boomerang really fast.
An online poll at the NY Daily News says that 68% of those who responded are not against the (as they call it) mosque. Ot has already passed the Landmarks Preservation panel. Hint: NO ONE believes that an old Burlington Coat Factory store is a landmark. Even with landing gear from a plane happened to hit it.

“”How is two blocks the equivalent of two miles? This is a bizarre assertion.”
Do you not perceive the difference in “city blocks” between old urban centers compared to newer cities predominately grown/expanded post automobile age? In my hometown (Phoenix metro area), city “blocks” are a mile apart, and two blocks away can encompass, just like in NYC, vast disparate swaths of culture and demographics.”
NYC neighborhoods can actually change within1 block. One side is in one neighborhood the other side would be in a different neighborhood. If you aren’t familiar with the areas in NYC, it’s hard to imagine.

@ Naum
“9/11 was not carried out in name of Islam any more than Jonestown mass suicide/homicide, lynchings, etc. was carried out in “name of Christianity”"
Not true. The 9/11 bombers did cite the Koran. Jim Jones was a communist who left the church because it did not adhere to his social beliefs. He expressly rejected the Bible.
While we’re at it, since Timothy McVeigh and Fred Phelps have been introduced here for some reason…
McVeigh wasn’t at all a Christian, but agnostic. There is no evidence of any religious motive, and his only recorded religious affiliation was that he was raised nominally Catholic.
Fred Phelps’s crew does claim to be Christian, but they have yet to bomb anyone. You can’t just evoke them in defense of your argument as though they have.
“In my hometown (Phoenix metro area), city “blocks” are a mile apart, and two blocks away can encompass, just like in NYC, vast disparate swaths of culture and demographics.”
This is absurd. Have you been to that area of NYC? There is not a different culture right around the corner. Drastically different neighborhoods separated by two blocks are the product of civic engineering, like building a highway, low-income housing… Or okaying 13 story cultural centers devoted to a religion.

“I’m sure that there are other buildings that have been damaged by plane parts. Are all of those sacred as well? Like I said, you’d have to claim that the bulk of lower Manhattan is sacred ground.”
Not sacred, just bad places to put a Young Men’s Muslim Association, or whichever euphemism you prefer. I did some research on the buildings damaged by the debris. There were 45 total, with only 22 closed for extended periods of time. Hardly the bulk of lower Manhattan.
So how about that as a baseline? You can build a Mosque anywhere but the 22 buildings that were closed by damage caused by the 9/11 attacks.
“Ultimately, if there is a court ruling against the center on religious grounds it could become a real danger for some churches who build community centers as a bridge into an area.”
I don’t want a court ruling. I want Bloomberg to work with the board responsible for this decision to make a more responsible decision.
“An online poll at the NY Daily News says that 68% of those who responded are not against the (as they call it) mosque.”
That online poll is embedded in an article citing a professionally conducted poll that gives nearly the opposite result. Online polls are notoriously unreliable, and no paper would use them to measure public opinion.

It really all boils down to whether you associate the Islamic religion with the hijackers. I don’t.
It pains me that time after time we find Christians engaged in the business of persecuting, repressing or just generally not liking minority groups, whether they be Muslims, Undocumented Immigrants, Gays, Atheists, Scientists, Europeans, liberals or what have you.
Without this constant flow of people to use as enemies, I suspect Christianity would dry up and disappear. It is ironic that a religion that is supposed to boil down to loving God and neighbor spends the bulk of its energy not liking anyone different.

“Yes, pray. Is that “all” we should have done for the South Africans suffering apartheid, too?”
Apartheid was a political issue and a poor parallel example. Think more about Communist China better example. Bibles were smuggled in and a lot of prayer went into opening up China.
There are missionaries in many Muslim countries right now doing exactly what was done when China was closed.

Roger: He’s saying that we can’t just toss aside our Constitution to stick it to the Muslims. Imposing sanctions on South Africa and participating in boycotts is a whole lot different from basically suspending the first amendment.

Andy, 31, thank you for this:
The relations between Americans (who are not Muslim) and Muslims would grow substantially, I believe, if this organization came out and said something like, “While we denounce the actions of these terrorists and do not share their fanaticism, we recognize that the pain of 9/11 is still raw for many Americans, particularly New Yorkers. Therefore, we will not proceed with plans to construct this mosque so close to Ground Zero at this time.” Maybe you disagree, but I think that would be refreshing?
Yes, yes, yes. Give time for raw emotions to heal.
Christine

@Christine
I agree, and for this reason frankly suspect the motives of those who are looking to build a giant paean to Islam as close as possible to ground zero.
@Jeremy
If that’s what he is saying, then he doesn’t understand the first amendment. There is no first amendment right to build anything. It is not an act of speech or expression.
If a Muslim group wants to build a Mosque with a 600 ft. spire in D.C., they are out of luck. George Washington and his monument trump your right to build what you want.
If a church wants to take over an abandoned K-Mart in a struggling suburb, no dice. The city is going to want the tax revenue that comes with a Walmart.
Own a church that happens to meet in a former K-Mart? Depending on what state you live in, you had better hope that Walmart doesn’t want it. The government can decide that it would prefer a Walmart, and kick you out, so long as it justly (snicker) compensates you for the property.
Want to build a synagogue near a cemetery in a predominantly Muslim community? Sure, you can present that plan, just as soon as the council can suppress laughter. Wait… Okay, we’re read… Charles, stop making that face… Sorry, Charles is making me laugh again… Okay, now, seriously, what is it you want?
The government has the right and, with it, the responsibility to make wise decisions about what gets built. Religious freedom is extremely important, and should be factored into any decision, but to deny the construction of a religious building in a single instance is not a denial of the first amendment. At all.

@ 30
“Fair enough, but Jesus certainly didn’t stand up for the rights of those who expressly denied him, nor did he call us to do the same. Since that’s what this debate is about, perhaps you would like to explain why we should.”
I’m assuming you’re keying in on the “rights” language and not expressly denying that Jesus died for a world that denied him, including his closest disciples…
Jesus seemed to interact pretty humanely toward the Romans that were occupying Israel unjustly, contrary to other popular Jewish movements of the day. His followers chose the same path after the resurrection.

“So racism is a political issue but religious persecution is not!? And political issues with other countries warrant “more” than prayer on our part, but religious freedom issues don’t? Why does one permit more response than the other? They both involve great injustice and persecution.
I understand this is a side issue on this thread–just trying to understand the comment that we can’t let the laws of other countries shape our policies.”
1- South Africa was one country. There are a few Muslim countries that have repressive religious rules. Saudi Arabia is only one of them.
2- South Africa had no natural resources that we needed. Saudi Arabia and other Middle East/Muslim countries send us oil. Politically, what do we do to leverage that won’t boomerang on us?
3- Asking for religious freedom doesn’t guarantee that Christianity gets a shot. Right now there are missionaries in many Muslim countries working to spread the Gospel. Drawing attention to religious freedom as a political issue can risk their work.
4- Not everything has a political solution. We didn’t push religious freedom as a political issue in Communist China. However, we prayed,sent bibles and missionaries in. When the time was right, there were underground churches and believers.
There re some who really need to read up on recent church history. It can be very instructive.

“So how about that as a baseline? You can build a Mosque anywhere but the 22 buildings that were closed by damage caused by the 9/11 attacks.”
Just because the building gets hit by debris from the plane doesn’t/shouldn’t give it some kind of special status. I could understand if there were victims in the building, but you aren’t arguing that. You’re saying that any building damaged by plane should be off limits. I’m sorry, I don’t believe in special treatment for buildings that get hit by debris.
“I don’t want a court ruling. I want Bloomberg to work with the board responsible for this decision to make a more responsible decision.”
Bloomburg likes the idea of the Cultural Center and has endorsed it in public.
“If a Muslim group wants to build a Mosque with a 600 ft. spire in D.C., they are out of luck. George Washington and his monument trump your right to build what you want.
If a church wants to take over an abandoned K-Mart in a struggling suburb, no dice. The city is going to want the tax revenue that comes with a Walmart.
…”
The commission that governs this has already voted on this and passed it. The only way would be for the commission to rescind its vote or a court case.
All of the examples that you cite are zoning issues.
Except for those who have had family that were lost, I haven’t heard one valid legal reason for stopping the mosque. Frankly, most people who are against it don’t have a dog in the fight. There’s a lot of demagoguery without much true substance.

“Just because the building gets hit by debris from the plane doesn’t/shouldn’t give it some kind of special status. I could understand if there were victims in the building, but you aren’t arguing that.”
I don’t think it matters whether or not victims were in the building. The terrorists hit the building, and certainly would have liked it had people died.
“You’re saying that any building damaged by plane should be off limits. I’m sorry, I don’t believe in special treatment for buildings that get hit by debris.”
Okay. But the development of ground zero is about buildings that were hit by debris, as you define “debris”. Very few people agree that this area doesn’t deserve special treatment.
“Bloomburg likes the idea of the Cultural Center and has endorsed it in public.”
Right. I would like him to endorse differently. That’s my point.
“The commission that governs this has already voted on this and passed it. The only way would be for the commission to rescind its vote or a court case.”
Correct. This is a terrible decision. The title of this post is “Mosque Near Ground Zero”. I am opposed.
“Except for those who have had family that were lost, I haven’t heard one valid legal reason for stopping the mosque.”
Those whose families were lost in 9/11 oppose this mosque. I am arguing that this is sufficient.
“Frankly, most people who are against it don’t have a dog in the fight. There’s a lot of demagoguery without much true substance.”
Given that the most patently false arguments on this comment thread are the McVeigh thing and your argument that New Yorkers support the building of the mosque, I don’t think you are in a position to discern what constitutes demagoguery.
I do, however, have a dog in this fight. New York is the financial capital of our country. Islamic terrorists sought to destroy it. Muslims now want to build a mosque as close as possible to the event.
That is problematic to me. That our president thinks it is a good idea, more so.

Just as buildings have air space (air rights) above them, Ground Zero should have a 1-mile radius of “space rights” within which mosques cannot be built out of respect for the victims, the victims’ families and out of respect for America. The mosque should not be built near Ground Zero. It’s a slap in the face to do so. It’s an insult. Not because Muslims were responsible for 911, they weren’t, Al-Queda was. But because their attire and culture in general reminds us all of Osama Bin Laden who is a Muslim and is responsible for 911. So what is there to think about? We’re not saying the mosque cannot be built. It can. Just NOT ANYWHERE NEAR Ground Zero.

I’m not sure if the source is reliable, but it looks like they may be backing down from building the mosque/community center on that site, partly for the reason I hoped for in #31.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/muslim-leaders-to-abandon-plans-for-ground-zero-community-center-1.308426

If we want to be fair about it, we’d let an Islamic army occupy New York in exchange for our occupation of Afghanistan.
Of course, to be really fair, they’d have to kill enough New Yorkers to equate to the number of women and children and non-combatants we’ve killed in Iran and Afghanistan.
We shouldn’t be arguing. We should be repenting our massive, repeated sins. We are a hateful nation that doesn’t hesitate to bankrupt itself in order to make the rest of the world do what we say. The most secular nation in the world is more Christian than the U.S.

“I don’t think it matters whether or not victims were in the building. The terrorists hit the building, and certainly would have liked it had people died.
Okay. But the development of ground zero is about buildings that were hit by debris, as you define “debris”. Very few people agree that this area doesn’t deserve special treatment.”
First, Ground Zero is considered the area where WTC complex stood. This area included the twin towers and several other buildings that were all interconnected. I’ve been to that area pre-9/11. The complex was unbelievably huge. It is that complex that is being rebuilt and is considered Ground Zero. Anything outside of the WTC complex is not considered part of Ground Zero.
“”Bloomburg likes the idea of the Cultural Center and has endorsed it in public.”
Right. I would like him to endorse differently. That’s my point.
“The commission that governs this has already voted on this and passed it. The only way would be for the commission to rescind its vote or a court case.”
Correct. This is a terrible decision. The title of this post is “Mosque Near Ground Zero”. I am opposed.”
Unless, you live in NYC, the best that you can do is comment. Actually, the decision was pretty good considering all of the factors.
“”Except for those who have had family that were lost, I haven’t heard one valid legal reason for stopping the mosque.”
Those whose families were lost in 9/11 oppose this mosque. I am arguing that this is sufficient.”
Actually, the families are split about 50/50. There were also Muslims who worked in the building as well.
“Given that the most patently false arguments on this comment thread are the McVeigh thing and your argument that New Yorkers support the building of the mosque, I don’t think you are in a position to discern what constitutes demagoguery.”
There are plenty of New Yorkers that support the Community Center. I have friends who live in that area of NYC, who are not at all happy with what should have been a local issue being blown out of proportion by people who are not, never have been, nor ever will be a part of their community.
“I do, however, have a dog in this fight. New York is the financial capital of our country. Islamic terrorists sought to destroy it. Muslims now want to build a mosque as close as possible to the event.”
Whether or not that Center goes into that spot will not change your life one bit.
One blog (not mine) posted some actual street scenes around the area of the proposed center http://daryllang.com/blog/4421 I particularly like the “Gentlemen’s Club”.

The rule in this situation is clear: No Mosque should be permitted to exist unless it is at least 60,000 miles from the World Trade Center remains.

Carl Medearis just wrote a blog post on the Mosque. He raises some interesting points…
See: http://www.carlmedearis.com/blog/2010/08/a-new-york-city-jesus-mosque/

It makes me wonder why? 1. is this guy wanting to build a mosque near ground zero? It’s apparantly causing conflict with Americans, but also Muslims. It is disrespectful and totally disregards his own Mulim faith. This is definitely putting more pressure onto the Muslim communities. Why? A good intended, spiritual man, would not do such harm, especially to his own community. Wake up America! This man has a plan, he doesn’t even have respect for the Muslims’ who had gone through horrific times during 911. There’s an agenda and a plan.