I think he would likely be charged with incitement to racial (sic sectarian) hatred here. The signs outside his “church” that Islam is of the devil gives an indication of his sophistication. Picking-up Karen Armstrong’s book on Islam and reading it (or the Qu’ran itself) would be too much to expect of a backward hick.

Before we go throwing abuse however at the 9/11 protests we should remember what happened to the LOVE Ulster parade in Dublin, that the Irish Rugby team did not stand to God Save The Queen in Belfast before the last rugby World cup (unlike northern Protestants who must stand for the Southern anthem) and that only during the week Scottish soccer “fans” booed Liechtenstein’s national anthem because it has the same air as God Save The Queen.

I have just seen a news item in TV where a noted Muslim filmaker received death threats from fellow Muslims – presumably nutters – after he made some film about aspects of Islam. He pointed out that, like him, very many American Muslims actually oppose and are actually embarrassed by the proposed building. He also seemed to imply that the Imam involved in proposing the project may have another agenda as he must have been well aware that his proposal would trigger objections, and step on many sensitivities.

I have also read that the very name of the Muslim organization involved in this project, the Cordoba Institute, derives from Cordoba, the first Christian city/town to have been conquered in the 8th century during the Muslim invasion of Europe. It was in Cordoba that a mosque was built about 50 years later over the original church that was destroyed. Thus the very name “Cordoba” already has a particular association with the Muslim conquest of a Christian land. The current proposal to build a mosque within a cultural centre- close to the area of the 9/11 massacre does reflect insensitivity to the famuilies of most of the 3000 victims who were not Muslim. One wonders what this Imam’s motives are, knowing all of this information would be revealed and certainly be bound to anger a lot of people.

A parallel of sorts, but not a perfect one, might be the following: How the families of the Omagh bombing might respond if a Republican group proposed to build a monument or a social-cultural centre in Omagh close to the place where their relatives were murdered? I somehow think they also would object strongly.

There is also an interesting situation regarding Saudi Arabia’s hypocrisy. In Ireland and Europe Muslim Cultural centres and mosques are being constructed unimpeded in the countires involved. These are largely funded by Saudi Arabia. Yet, get this. Saudi Arabia blankly refuses to permit any other religion, other than Islam to construct its religious place of worship. So, Churches, Bahai Temples, Hindu, Bhuddist temples, etc etc are absolutely prohibited ithere. Even the crucifix and the Bible are confiscated and banned by the Religiosu Police.. In many other Arab countries the authorities are also very restrcitive in this regard. For example, take Egypt: where the Coptic Chucch has great difficulty getting permission to build new churches. On Sky news today a Coptic priest told how he is still waiting for approval after having applied 2 years ago.

Does the claim that Islam is a “a religion of tolerance” not sound to be rather hollow, and basically false. But perhaps it is not Islam that is intolerant, but the people in power who misinterpret it to serve their own ends. Would any any religion really still today prohibit the right of another religion to practice their faith. Surely this is not true of Islam, but rather is the way many Muslim countries are interpreting and practicing it. If so, then I am sure that this would be regarded by Islamic scholars as constituting a great sin against Islam, against its prophet who authored the Koran, and most imporatanly a sin againt Allah.

I undersand also that in Indonesia and Turkey there is greater tolerance of other religions, in stark contrast to the intolerance of the Middle East. Also, in Iran the Bahai religion has suffered persecution for years.

Seems to me that Western countries are generally much more tolerant of the practice of Islam in their countries than many Islamic countries are of the practice of Christianity and other religions in Muslim countries. There needs to be more tolerance shown by Islamic countries to non-Moslems and atheists and agnostics. It can’t be a one-way street forever

Intuition tells me that there was a plan behind this whole “hick preacher” affair in the lead-up to this 11th September 2010, the aim of which was to polarize the raging of warring fundamentalists in virtual reality so that the masses involved might self-reflect on the ridiculousness of it all; and also “the plan” worked to reverse “the threat” (in so far as “the threat” is fundamentally psychological now) so that instead of Americans en masse feeling “the threat” (at this anniversary time) from al-Qa’ida; now, “the threat” is being felt by those fundamentalists who carried out the 9/11 atrocities. You couldn’t make it up…there had to be a plan behind this…nobody could be that “hick”…could they…that preacher had to be an FBI agent in disguise…

RRB1412

According to that logic that disregards due sensitivity to the families of the 3000 victms, then all those those opposed to the building of the mosque would have the perfect right to collect the necessary funds from Americans to purchse the property that surrounds the proposed mosque and construct two huge towering churches on both sides of the mosque. These churches could ring out their bells every day in memory of the victims. A very fitting response I would say.

dave- Either the guarantees of freedom of religion contained in the Ist Amendment to the US Constitution apply to all in the US or they apply to none. Your choice, dave; or would you prefer that Muslims in the US be denied the protection of the 1st Amendment? That might raise 14th Amendment concerns about due process and equal protection, but “insensitive” Muslims aren’t entitled to such protection, are they?

BTW, not all of the families of the 2,752 victims oppose the building of the mosque/community center 2 1/2 blocks north of Ground Zero.

Your suggestion that those opposed to the mosque might raise funds to “…construct two huge towering churches on boith sides of the mosque” is interesting. Any recognized religious group has the right to do so, and I support that right. But, like the proposed mosque/community center, it would be subject to local land-use and zoning laws, so “huge” and “towering” might be a problem.

Do you have any information which indicates that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf or any of his supporters had any role in the attacks which occurred on 9/11/01? If not, is it your position that all Muslims bear responsibility for the attacks, regardless of any lack of knowledge or involvement?

BTW

1. What was 1 block away from the 9/11 ground Zero site has become 2 blocks, and now 2 and a half blocks – seems to be increasing all the time –

Point is: 2 blocks or 3, is a very short walk, and is within easy view from some the site. 10 blocks puts it out of view and away from visual field of visitors.

2. The total number of victims was 2997, for all three attack sites on 9-11. As far as I undersantd it, the Ground Zero commemorative anniverseries include ALL 2997 victims, and not merely the New York ones. .

RRB1412

I note that Obama has repeatedly refused to answer the question concerning whether it was wise to propose such a project at that location. I think his silence on the wisdom of this act speaks more volubly than all the legal rights involved.

Laws are not immutable and are as most things in a state of evolution Also, victim impact statements do have an impact on the sentencing outcome. Similarly, I think it possible that were a legal appeal to made challenging this project, it could very well succeed after taking into account the unnecessay further suffering that the families might suffer. Victims have a right not to be further hurt. People count more than concrete. I hope. Just a thought.

RRB1412

I could kick myself for not seeing that your argument re the Constitution is in fact totally false. I had been hung up solely on the sensibilities argument, and failed to see the fatal flaw in your Constitution defence. This is as follows:

You say that “Given that Obama has sworn to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, how could he not defend the rights of the supporters of the mosque/community center?” You then go on describe those who have objected as acting against the Constitution.

So, why is it when Obama and most of America objected to the Koran burning – they didn’t get criticised for wanting to act unconstitutionally, as Koran burning as far as I understand it is not unconstitutional.

Consequently, I now realise that you yourself pick and choose when you want to use the Constitution for your argument. Iif this isn’t a clear example of double standards and selective use of the American Constitution then I don’t know what is.

Accordingly, the whole basis for your argument simply crumbles, unless you now want to deny Terry Jones the protection of the Constitution? Surely all citizens – Muslims, nutty sects, neo Nazis, illiterate Bible thumping and shtumping preachers with 20 partners, whoever – have equal rights under the Constitution

You are correct. You never descibed those objectors to the mosque as acting aginst the constitution. My aplogoy.

Rather, it was all those, Obama included, who objected loudly and repeatedly to Jones’ costitutional right to burn Korans (because it would be offensive to Muslims, and would lead to violence against Americans) and who in their public beseeching of him not to do so were completely disregarding his right to do so, whilst in the same breath they were saying that the Imam had a constitutional right to build his mosque wherever he wished to, and this means he would have the right to build it right adjacent or opposite to the site if he was able to acquire the land. It is this double standard that I am referring to, which to be fair you did not support. But at the same time the vaat majority of Americans are applying these same double standards. The Jones and the Imam are being treated very differently, the former to save lives, the latter to disregard sensitivies.