The American Spectator : The Cordoba House Delusion

Text Size

The Cordoba House Delusion

By John Tabin on 8.4.10 @ 6:08AM

It is not the business of government to block its construction, but the story is hardly that simple.

Let us concede that it is not the business of the government to block the construction of Cordoba House, a 13-story Islamic Center and mosque, even if it happens to be two blocks away from Ground Zero. This passage from New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s speech yesterday is largely correct:

The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

That being said, many supporters of the Cordoba House project, who insist that there can be no legitimate objection to a mosque being built in lower Manhattan — that anyone who is uncomfortable with the project is by definition a bigot — are telling themselves a fairytale in lieu of facing up to the realities of the global ideological struggle we’re engaged in.

The fairytale goes like this: Not only do the principles our nation was founded on require us to respect religious freedom, but respecting the religious freedom of American Muslims automatically contributes to victory against Islamic radicalism. Jeffrey Goldberg sums up this view:

We must fight the terrorists with alacrity, but at the same time we must understand that what the terrorists seek is a clash of civilizations. We must do everything possible to avoid giving them propaganda victories in their attempt to create a cosmic war between Judeo-Christian civilization and Muslim civilization. The fight is not between the West and Islam; it is between modernists of all monotheist faiths, on the one hand, and the advocates of a specific strain of medievalist Islam, on the other. If we as a society punish Muslims of good faith, Muslims of good faith will join the other side.

Showing respect and tolerance for minorities is a bedrock value of Western liberalism. The problem that Goldberg and those who think like him are eliding is that the relevant constituency of young Muslim men who may be inclined toward radicalism do not necessarily share the values of Western liberalism. Remember Osama bin Laden’s theory of the political impact of 9/11:

When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse… I heard someone on Islamic radio who owns a school in America say: “We don’t have time to keep up with the demands of those who are asking about Islamic books to learn about Islam.” This event made people think (about true Islam) which benefited Islam greatly.

The notion that the 9/11 attacks improved the standing of Islam in the minds of Americans is, of course, preposterous. But bin Laden’s misunderstanding of American political culture mirrors a pervasive misunderstanding of Arab political culture. The “strong horse” concept really is an important factor in Arab politics, where political legitimacy is all too often won by demonstrating the ability to kill. Lee Smith has written a book on this topic, aptly titled The Strong Horse (you can read an excerpt here).

You cannot understand the ideological struggle that is the central challenge of American foreign policy without understanding Smith’s central insight that Islamic radicalism is an expression of the strong horse politics that have held sway in the Middle East for centuries. It is essential to reform the political culture of the Middle East by strengthening the nascent forces of liberalism, which is why the Obama administration’s reluctance to assert our values in the Middle East is so troubling.

But we should be working toward the goal of liberalization with our eyes open to the difficulty of the task. To people raised in a culture dominated by strong horse politics, a large Islamic Center and mosque near Ground Zero is likely to be interpreted just as bin Laden interpreted American interest in Islam: As a sign that the radicals have a point, and the interests of Islam are advanced when a lot of Americans die.

Some criticism of the Cordoba House project has indeed involved distasteful rhetoric — lumping Muslims en masse into an undifferentiated “they” — but a gut-level distaste for the project is more than understandable. Ironically, the cosmopolitan liberals who dismiss this instinctive distaste as mere bigotry actually have a weaker grasp on the perception of symbolism in the Muslim world than the allegedly benighted and parochial opponents they look down their noses at.

This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t guard our liberty and resist the temptation to curtail religious freedom, but it does mean we shouldn’t delude ourselves — as we do all too often — into thinking there are never trade-offs between liberty and security.

About the Author

John Tabin is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator online.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (154) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

potkas7| 8.4.10 @ 6:40AM

The Trinidad-born writer V.S. Naipual, seeking to understand the underlying reasons for the rage sweeping through Islamic lands, made the following observation. It is one that might prove a useful lens through which to examine the arguments in this controversy :

"...Islam is not simply a matter of conscience or private belief. It makes imperial demands. A convert's worldview alters. His holy places are in Arab lands; his sacred language is Arabic. His idea of history alters. He rejects his own; he becomes, whether he likes it or not, a part of the Arab story. The convert has to turn away from everything that is his. The disturbance for societies is immense, and even after a thousand years can remain unresolved; the turning away has to be done again and again. People develop fantasies about who and what they are; and in the Islam of the converted countries there is an element of neurosis and nihilism. These countries can be easily set on the boil..."

NavyBrat | 8.4.10 @ 9:27AM

potkas7. Thanks for posting this. I'm saving it to a favorites file. This quote is illustrative of the old saying that "there's no zealot like a convert." Ain't THAT the truth?

Charles Martel| 8.4.10 @ 12:43PM

Years ago I dated a Persian girl. She spat fire about mohammedanism and was fiercely proud of Persian culture, which she said died in 651 when the Sassanid Empire fell to the invading Arab bandits. From that time, everything became Arabic and foreign, and she despised it with a zeal that I still recall fondly.

What befell the Sassanids is what awaits us if we do not awaken from our "it's the religion of peace" torpor. Obama, like Bush before him, is keen on reminding all who will listen that the United States is not at war with Islam. What the two of them and those who took/take them seriously fail to acknowledge is that Islam is at war with the West and always has been.

This war will end in only one of two ways: with your descendants subserviently praying toward Mecca or with the koran being read only in Hell.

+++

gunther| 8.14.10 @ 11:58AM

why does this matter when muslims had nothing to do with the attacks on the trade towers?

our own government ran those planes into the trade towers to get the people behind the pre-planned war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....ic_Hit_Man

hello people its time to wake up and do your own research. stop letting media define your thoughts!!!!

sam| 8.16.10 @ 1:32PM

wow. ya wake up and do your own research..... on wikipedia. you my friend are a complete idiot. i would love to be a fly on the wall for one day of your pathetic life...

Ret. Marine| 8.4.10 @ 7:19AM

Why the overall population calls this a religion is at best a deception of a totalatarian mindset. When a so-called religion calls for it's adherents to subjagate, poll tax, or put to death anyone who does not agree with the tenets of this so-called religion, it ceases to be a religion and at this time a matter of a totalatarian social, financial and political mindset. It's called totalatarianism for a reason. STOP calling this a religion and replace it with the true term, a CULT for which the tenets really call for. total submission to allah their moon-god. Without a doubt this debate has no reason or rythem in a religious tone, rather a conqueror's mindset. They have always built a mosque as a symbol of their conquests. What in fact they are saying to the American population is, we beat you at your own game, or like the founders of the terrorist affiliate's, in the holyland foundation trial so spoke and claimed, to "ruin their own house by their own miserable hands." And we are supposed to believ esomehow they have intentions of "healing their own madness" towards others outside of their political system, I think not. I have seen first hand of their works, death to all who refuse to enter their pact with the devil. As somehow this arguement is based upon religious over tones regardin gtheir right under the 1st Amend., stupid, stupid people.
Yeah keep on with this mentality and in the future do not dare utter one word to your children as to how you just sat around and let the heavy lifting to the true patriots of our freedoms, those who put their lives on the line for our personal denial of your obligation to reconize this sorry time in history. I cannot hold my self to account for the madness of others but, know this, when it is stated again "why do they hate us" you had better ask the question as to why those of us who are fighting for your rights are continually spoken of the haters of you and your religious stupidity, why are we now hating and killing you.

R Martin| 8.4.10 @ 10:00AM

You are spot-on. We would find it much easier to deal with the evils of Islam if we did not regard it as a religion and afford it related freedoms. You call Islam a cult; I call it a philosophy. It is a philosopy of intolerance, violence, hatred and repression--sentiments which do not rise to the level of legitimate worship. At some point, leftists and liberals are going to have to face-up to what they should have learned in first grade--you stand up to the bully or he is going to keep pushing you around.

buddha8| 8.4.10 @ 11:50AM

As a professor of comparative religions I
suggest we call Islam what it is: a religion--but
a thoroughly FALSE religion. The irony is
this:Islam is what it most detests:the false
religions of unbelievers(in Islam). Quranic
Islam divides the worlds religions into only two-and-a-half categories(1)the ONE and only true religion(Islam)(2)the TWO fatally flawed
monotheistic religions(Jewish,Christian), and
(3)all false/idolotrous religions(that's all the
rest).

So, let's use this Islamic typology of religions
on Islam itself:Islam is a False Religion; its believers are really unbelievers(in the greatest
religious truths, hope, and way of life). Islam is
neither a cult nor merely a philosophy, but a
Late False religious version of a hybrid of
misunderstood Judaism and Christianity--
the Qur'an claims to be the perfecting of these
two religions; but is their degradation.

Charles Martel| 8.4.10 @ 12:47PM

Mohammedanism is the cult that arose around its founder's mystical justifications for theft, betrayal, and murder: if there was something the psychotic Mohammed wanted, a new "revelation" would come upon him, he would impart it to his bandits, and they would take it for him. Nothing more, nothing less.

+++

Ret. Marine| 8.4.10 @ 3:07PM

I agree with this assesment. I wil point out to you that other than the early periods of the Christian history, none to date "kill" those who refuse to enter their pact with the TRUE God of Iisac, Jacob et.

Radegunda| 8.4.10 @ 10:56PM

It wasn't in the earliest periods of Christianity that any such killing happened. Christianity was pacifistic until it was turned into the imperial religion. There was a relatively short period of imperial persecution of pagans.

Later, there were limited periods when a king (e.g. Charlemagne) went to war for the stated purpose of bringing people into the Christian realm. And there was certainly some roughness toward "heretics" and Jews.

But militancy in Christian history is not remotely comparable to Islam, partly because its origins are not remotely warlike.

chubbz the deputy| 8.22.10 @ 10:37PM

read up about the Teutonic Knights and the wars against the pagans of eastern Europe - not to mention the subjugation of the Inca, Aztec and Maya. Christian forced conversion was (over 500 years ago) perfectly acceptable.

Am not defending Islam, it is clearly the last of the militant faiths, and needs to be neutered.

R Martin| 8.4.10 @ 4:20PM

My book learnin does not compare with yours, and I've always found professor-speak opaque and sometimes difficult to understand. Still, I do understand the meaning of the word "false". A false pregnancy test means you're not pregnant. A false alarm means there is no fire. A falsehood is untrue, and a false religion not a religion. My view of Islam has not changed.

SIRJASON | 8.4.10 @ 12:17PM

The 'Ground Zero Mosque' would be an announcement to the world that Islam "CONQUERED" New York! This procedure has been used since sand by the Muslims in every country they have conquered, i.e. Jerusalem where the Muslims erected a Mosque on ISRAEL'S most sacred ground, Soloman's Temple, to show Islam is superior to all other religions and that Allah is the only G_d! STOP THE GZM!

Every other human being on earth is an infidel marked for death for those who do NOT submit to Islam.
The Apostates who leave Islam and their quest of world dominion caliphate will also be killed.

Muslims have infiltrated every aspect of American governance from the community level to Obama Czars! Some European countries have all but surrendered to these barbarians!

According to the Muslim’s Quar`an…a Muslim, is a Muslim, is a Muslim! Conservative, Liberal or Moderate Muslims do NOT exist in Islam! Either you is or you ain’t a…Muslim!
http://blutube.policeone.com/m.....eing-shot/

rocoll| 8.19.10 @ 9:27AM

you know that christianity is based upon sun worship. and christians never had any problem building churches and erecting crosses in the name of conquest and defeat of other people who believe differently than them. i could worship a dog and if i believe that sacrificing small animals connects me with my dog then that is my religion however "wrong" it may be. do you forget the inquisition, when christians were torturing and killing people if they did not convert. do you then disregard the beliefs of all christians based upon one groups choice to do the wrong thing. you my friend are the stupid one.

Darin| 8.4.10 @ 7:21AM

Building a Muslim facility at a site where Muslims murdered 3,000 people is just plain wrong. And given Islam's history of building over conquered lands, the intended message is clear.

A good way to handle this is to look at how the Catholic church handled Auswitz after WW II. Nuns set up a site at the camp so they could pray for the families of those killed. This didn't sit will with the Jewish community as it was perceived as an affront to their religious beliefs. The Pope said the feelings were very understandable and had the nuns move.

pending_unemployment| 8.4.10 @ 8:49AM

Please accept this comment with the acknowledgement that my detailed awareness of the entire issue is decidedly weak, but I'm afraid I don't fully get it. Do I think that this mosque's location is beyond inappropriate? Yes. Do I think that the hubris demonstrated by the Islamic leadership is ripe for schadenfreude? Oh, you betcha. Do I reject the notion that the Islamic faith is one of peace, harmony, and acceptance as we are instructed to believe by our leadership? With every fiber of my being I do.

BUT!

I also believe that it is my duty as an American to fight and if necessary bleed for the right of my greatest enemy to scream from the mountain everything I despise most. I am obligated to defend those who lawfully undertake actions I find reprehensible. I am resigned that neither I nor anyone else has the right to prevent this monstrous temple to a false God in support of an excrementious faith that shrouds evil and encourages fear based control over those most in need of grace.

I cannot find in constitutional document, in precedent, or in reason any cause to prevent Mohammad's dogs to peacably gather in any way they see fit provided they do so lawfully.

Granted, I also reject the notion that anyone opposed to this is racist or bigoted simply because of their opinion. I further reject the concept that a community has no right to influence the membership of the community, again provided it is done in a lawful way.

While I essentially agree with 'Doctor Right' on this issue, I just also believe that justice is blind, that our laws should be equally interpreted, and that regardless of the seditious tactic used by anyone (including the cult of allah), our constitution is strong enough and wise enough to survive this attack.

Can someone please explain to me why this isn't the case?

John Navratil| 8.4.10 @ 9:07AM

You will know it when the knife slits the throat you use to preach tolerance.

pending_unemployment| 8.4.10 @ 9:18AM

Just as my faith in God prevents me from killing my neighbor for the money I need to support my family, my faith in my country prevents me from sacrificing my Constitution for the sake of my comfort and sense of social propriety.

John Navratil| 8.4.10 @ 10:25AM

Your faith is not their faith. Your (our) faith says "Thou shalt not kill". Theirs says "Thou shalt kill the infidel". Open your eyes. No don't need for me to tell you what to see. Read a bit of history.

As had been said before, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

DRed| 8.4.10 @ 11:14AM

Your faith says 'thou shalt not murder' and you can cherry pick all sorts of verses out of the old testament to show that Christianity is a religion which relishes in the killing of infidels. You're talking nonsense.

John Navratil| 8.4.10 @ 11:26AM

I am a Christian -- that's the New Testament. There is no such dogma in my religion. There is in theirs -- read the Koran. My religion recognizes that the books of the Canon were written by, divinely inspired, men. Their claims that Gabriel dictated the Koran to Mohammed and may not be altered in any way. The claim is even made that it must be read in Arabic.

Cherry-pick away!

No, have you actually lived in and among Muslims? Do you have any real-world experience seeing exactly how their religion informs their entire life. If you ask, would you like a hamburger or a hot-dog and question whether or not free will is at play you will here "well of course I can choose, but it is still the will of Allah".

You are talking the nonsense borne of Western ignorance.

DRed| 8.4.10 @ 12:18PM

I actually do live among muslims. About half my apartment building are Yemeni immigrants.

You are obviously not a Christian extremist, but there are many Christians sects that believe the entire bible is the innerant word of God, no? There are plenty of nutty Muslims out there, no doubt, but there around a billion of them, and saying that they all believe the same thing is pure nonsense.

John Navratil| 8.4.10 @ 12:47PM

You go out and talk to these young Yemeni's. If you can find any divergence in their views on Islam, your last clause is true. I suspect you will find it is not. Give it a try!

I know of no one who believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Only the stone tablets are. I can accept your point that there are fundamentalists who believe every word is correct and is the will of God. However it IS a precept of Islam.

There are nuts all around, as you say. And correcting for the larger population of Muslims, what are the comparative rates of suicide bombers? How many Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindi, Taoist, .... mothers strap suicide vests to their children? Which religion has said that as we love life they love death? I could go on.

Please do not hide behind moral relativism. You do not have to "believe" to believe this is abhorrent.

When the believer combines the view that everything one does is the will of Allah with the obligation to always do Allah's will, you get the dangerous view that anything anyone does to counter the believer is an act against God. Not healthy! Go talk to those Yemenis.

Stephanie| 8.4.10 @ 12:49PM

"I actually do live among muslims. About half my apartment building are Yemeni immigrants."
So sorry for your bad luck dude.

pending_unemployment| 8.4.10 @ 1:10PM

I like to think I'm fair dinkum at history, and my faith for that matter. What another man's faith may say is no concern of mine. That is the strength of both my God and my Constitution- that I may disagree with another and let them pass. I'm sure there's no need for me to tell you the risk of sacrificing our own morality for our immediate benefit. That is neither the American way nor is it the path of the Lord. Laws are absolute, and for good reason.

I share the opinion that their faith is one of violence and hatred, but the fact remains that I am bound by the laws of God and Country, and I cannot violate them for this. They've done nothing wrong, and I'm sorry but the potential for sin or lawbreaking is insufficient cause to attack another. Defense and punishment are not pre-emptive.

I agree with you on the Constitution notbeing a suicide pact, but I disagree with your inference that one must be entirely pacifist to be Christian. The truth in fact is that the earliest translations of the Bible do NOT say "Thou shalt not kill", they in fact say "Thou shalt not MURDER". If my life is actually at risk I may defend myself, as is the law of both God and Country.

Until someone holds that literal, and not figurative, knife to my throat I'm bound by my word to God and Country. Even if I hate the idea of this mosque so much it makes me want to puke.

I do however agree most strongly with Silver Streak though- let them build their mosque themselves. Let no Christian lift a hammer, and let no patriotic American participate. That's excercising our rights under the law while also remaining morally uncorrupted as you would prefer.

John Navratil| 8.4.10 @ 1:36PM

Excuse me. "Thou shalt not MURDER". Just what do you think they are doing?

A thought experiment... We have seen Muslim riots across the world after a firebrand speech at the mosque. We have seen Theo Van Gogh MURDERED (although I suppose he was killed, too). Now, and I know it is a hypothetical, just how are you going to think of your fair-mindedness when a riot in Manhattan claims more lives. It is not far-fetched. Ask Mr. Van Gogh who lived in tolerant Holland.

Then, what will stop all the faithful Muslims from building it themselves? And what kind of shrine will it be then? An inclusive, inter-faith shrine? I don't think so.

pending_unemployment| 8.4.10 @ 2:00PM

I'm afraid you're suffering from a linear logic inconsistency. Their act of murder does not give me the right to reciprocate. I may defend myself, but I cannot attack.

The fun thing about thought experiments is that they are alot like dreams- they are a sort of mental training we undergo in a safe place that has absolutely no relevance in the real world. Hypothetically, if in fact there is a riot in Manhattan and lives are lost, I will mourn all that died and do what I can within the law and my faith to prevent it in the future. In terms of my fair-mindedness, I'll be quite comforted that I did not exacerbate it with double standards and pre-emptive punishment. I'll also be comforted in the knowledge that I did absolutely nothing to encourage it by building the mosque or welcoming the cult to the USA.

I'm sorry that any Islamic victims died anywhere, but ultimately it is not within the scope of my authority to prosecute those crimes.

As to what will stop them from building it themselves? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. At least as long as they do so within the law. You know the funny thing about something you build with your own hands though? You value it more. You protect it. You do what you can to ensure that you don't do anything to jeopardize it. So, if rather than handing a truck full of cash to the unions and coming back a few months later to a truly beautiful facility that they have absolutely no attachment to, they are forced to build it with their own hands, to sweat and bleed for months to make their "dream" come true, so be it. I bet that they won't cause as many waves, they will keep to code, and they will pay their taxes, etc. At that point they'll value it too much to have it shut down or seized.

Again, a logical inconsistency- how many Seders are held at the Cathedral Basilica in St. Louis, and how many Easter Masses are held at the Touro Synagogue in Newport? None, I'd imagine, and none I'd expect. And that's okay too.

My point remains simply this- our opinion of any faith is irrelevant to their rights as provided under the Constitution and the local laws. Until they violate those laws, there is nothing that can or should be done but let them be.

John Navratil| 8.4.10 @ 7:48PM

And the contradiction in my argument demonstrating the linear logic inconsistency is precisely where?

I won't convince you and you won't convince me. History, alone, will tell us who is wrong.

Average Infidel| 8.4.10 @ 3:12PM

go back abnd read Ret. Marine's comments and start doing a little research on your own, open your eyes before you are a statistic to the "religion of pieces."

pending_unemployment| 8.4.10 @ 3:35PM

With respect to both you and Ret. Marine, I do agree with his comments. Where we diverge I suspect is in relation to this particular issue. Under the laws he (and I) so passionately defend these people have, as yet done nothing illegal. They are perpetrating an act of unmitigated social gall and proposing a blight on what is now safely considered a monumental location, but there is nothing we can do to prevent it if they do it lawfully.

I've been researching it, and I have yet to find any lawful reason to prevent this from happening. That's why I commented, asking for guidance.

As to becoming a statistic, I would rather fall as one with integrity than kneel as Judas.

This is, so far, a question of the lawful occupation of a dwelling. Not a referendum on whether we get the warm fuzzies from our local Imam.

L. Ross| 8.4.10 @ 11:58AM

The Constutution of the United States is not a suicide pact. 'Nough Said!

Jim McLaughlin| 8.4.10 @ 11:35AM

The way to handle it is to let them build it, and then trace the money. Sue to get the building to compensate victims of muslim terrorists. The loss of the building would be a reverse of their actions like was done in Spain. Cordova house indeed.

William Wallace| 8.4.10 @ 12:19PM

I like the way you think McLaughlin. That's the best solution I've heard proposed yet. It doesn't violate our commitment to allow unpopular, even vulgar ideas to be expressed, respects private property, and utilizes good 'ol Yankee ingenuity and, for once, puts the tort bar to good use.

I agree with other sentiments expressed here. The constitution is not a suicide pact. These medieval sodomizers of animals and children would see the construction of that mosque just as we do: a monumnet to the murder of 3000 of our citizens.

Of course, if the lawsuit tactic doesn't bear fruit, remember what the old cowboy said: "we haven't played cowboys and muslims yet."

Vaemar| 8.4.10 @ 7:25AM

Moslems of good faith who wish peace between the religions should recognise that the project is a provocation and themselves be the first to oppose it.

Doctor Right| 8.4.10 @ 8:20AM

And exactly who are these "Moslems of good faith"?

And where are they?

Don't hold your breath.

martin j smith| 8.4.10 @ 8:01AM

I strongly suspect that the support of politicians such as Bloomberg and Cuomo are a result of directive straight from the Oval Office itself.
The arguments used to attack opponents are the exact same kind of arguments related to oppostion to Obamna Care,Obama Immigration care,Obama Cap and trade Care, and Obama Tarp Care etc.
You are a "racist" a 'hater" a "bigot" etc etc. But, people are not buying anymore. I am one them.
Let me offer one example of a real issue: Why, if the isse is religious tolerance would a Islamic Organization insist ( Demand ) that a Mosque be built in a site where there would be so much opposition? My answer--it is done purposefully to create social division and our politicans noted above are playing their part in this theatre.

Doctor Right| 8.4.10 @ 8:16AM

The story is actually as simple as this:

1. The USA is at war with Islam. Not "radical Islam" - all Islam is radical. We have been in this war since 1979, but very few politicians have dared to notice, and fewer to speak out about it.

2. The goal of the Islamists is to destroy Western Civilization. Since the USA is the bulwark of western civ, their goal is to destroy us.

3. Since they don't have the muscle to destroy us militarily, they will attempt to do so from within.

4. Islam is a pestilence that breeds trouble. Wherever you have large concentrations of Muslims in the western world, you will eventually have trouble and violence. It is an unavoidable fact.

5. Islam is antithetical to the US Constitution. They cannot coexist. Islam is pro-slavery, anti-women (violently), anti-gay (violently), and anti-freedom. They do not recognize the freedom of individuals to worship as they please.

6. Muslims are purposefully sent forth (read the Koran) to infiltrate the lands of the infidel, adopt the ways of the infidel, and prepare to strike when called upon to do so. 9/11 was the most glaring example of this philosophy; WHY don't people understand this?

7. The placement of this Mosque is provocative, and intentionally so. The Muslim world is trying to use our own freedoms against us, and idiots like Mike Bloomberg are letting them. This is NOT a 1st amendment issue, it is a common-sense issue. Let them build their Mosque on the upper East Side.

8. The Muslim world is laughing at us - LAUGHING! - over this issue. We look weak, and frankly, we're acting weak. This will only invite more trouble.

9. We must stand firm against the inevitable cries of racism and xenophobia that will result from this controversy. Point-of-fact, I AM "Islamophobic". I do not like Islam, and I do not trust it's adherents. This is not an irrational conclusion. It is based on almost 40+ years of observing the violence spread by Muslims around the world.

10. This situation is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, especially with a man in the White House who genuflects to the Islamic world (and who may be a secret Muslim himself...one day, we'll know the truth).

There. Does that clear it up for you?

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.4.10 @ 9:13AM

Doctor Right,
Pretty good darned answer to the man's question.

The only civilized Muslim is a lapsed Muslim. I lived in the middle east. I know.

RacerJim| 8.4.10 @ 10:11AM

Bravo Doctor Right!
Ken, you (Old Texican) you,
Nice way to say the only good Islamics/Muslims are dead Islamics/Muslims.
Ready,
Aim,
Fire!

L. Ross| 8.4.10 @ 12:00PM

Personally, I could not agree more.

DRed| 8.4.10 @ 10:16AM

The story is even simpler. They have the consitutional and legal right to build this thing on private property. That's pretty much it.

John Navratil| 8.4.10 @ 10:32AM

Yes they do. But the only reason we are free to do everything we wish to do is that we do not do everything we CAN do. It is the ongoing confusion of liberty and license.

Doctor Right| 8.4.10 @ 10:33AM

DRED:

100%, totally, completely WRONG.

This is NOT a Constitutional issue; this is a ZONING issue.

Religious groups around the country are REPEATEDLY denied building permits by local zoning boards.

The Constitution does NOT entitle one to build anything they want, anywhere they want to build it.

If you think it does, do yourself a favor, and read it.

DRed| 8.4.10 @ 10:37AM

You'll notice I said 'and legal'. Can you point out the applicable zoning regulations that prohibit this project from going through?

Doctor Right| 8.4.10 @ 11:46AM

Sure.

The zoning board has the right to deny permits.

They can simply stamp the application "DENIED".

Is that simple enough for ya'?

John Navratil| 8.4.10 @ 11:51AM

That may be true in NYC, but down here in Houston the Planning Commission has no right to deny a permit to anything that meets regulation. While there are delaying games which can be played, the commission is compelled by law to issue a permit.

Stephanie| 8.4.10 @ 12:54PM

Ahh come one John, local government, just like the nasties in DC can find a reason to deny a permit or anything else for that mater.
Make one up for God's sake!

John Navratil| 8.4.10 @ 1:39PM

Having spent $25,000 fighting Houston against a mid-rise in my neighborhood, I can attest from painful experience that it cannot be done.

An another front in Houston, visit http://www.stopashbyhighrise.org/
an see the fight which has not yet played out. Wishing it were so isn't the same as it being so.

Bo| 8.4.10 @ 4:51PM

Yep, John is right. If it's legal by zoning, it's legal. You can't stop it. It doesn't matter how right or wrong it is. Instead of repeatedly making the same irrelevant argument, maybe somebody should look into whether mosques are allowed on this site. Otherwise, we're no better than the liberals when they distort laws to allow things they just have to have.

John Navratil| 8.4.10 @ 10:53AM

The Constitution is silent on the issue of who can build what. The Declaration did say the Life, Liberty and Pursiont of Happiness were inalienable rights. One might presume the founders expected one to largely be able to do what they wanted. At least, by its silence, the Constitution deferred to the states and the people.

Unfortunately, the state (NY) has, as far as I know, ruled the mosque may proceed. Perhaps DRed overstated the constitutional portion of his response, and indeed a "legal right" is something of an oxymoron. The "legal license" appears to have been granted much to the chagrin of the people.

The imam behind this may wish to be careful what he wishes for. Much as Nancy Pelosi won by cramming Obamacare on the people, so may this imam. Unfortunately, even a Phyrric victory in the U.S. will be seen as the slaying of Goliath in other corners of the world. That is the problem.

Average Infidel| 8.4.10 @ 3:18PM

And we have a moral right to destroy said building, we are just about at the stage of provocation over this and these dem's (traitors to this Republic one and all, bloomshiter, caumohomo) are all over this for political pennies and will be the first of their kind to suffer at the hands of these head loppers.

JimE| 8.4.10 @ 5:56PM

Ask the people in conn. about private property.
I can't remember seeing a chruch when I was in Saudi Arabia. DR please continue to grovel at the islamic anus.

Mimi| 8.4.10 @ 12:43PM

Great post DOC: Let this be a warning...It is their first step, leading the enemy from within to bring this country to SHARIA LAW. Message to all women through-out this country...Quick, run..To buy your BLACK material [before the price goes up] to make your BURKA!! Where is RUDY ?
He told them to take their 20 million and " STICK IT " back in 2001...A BRAVE LEADER.
Whoa be to the N.Y. pols who support this monument/to victory on SACRED land....FOOLS!!

Mimi| 8.4.10 @ 12:49PM

And oh Yeah...All this while we have our young soldiers in the field...Fighting and DYING over WHAT??? The outrageous attack on 911 on the SACRED LAND!!!...Are we nuts or what?

stephanie| 8.4.10 @ 12:55PM

I'm with you gal. Well said.

Charles Martel| 8.4.10 @ 12:57PM

Obama is not a secret Muslim, for if it had been a secret, he blurted it out in that 2008 interview with George Stephanopoulos in which he commended the McCain campaign for not having made an issue "of my Muslim faith". He said this without flinching or evasion. Stephanopoulos had to help him out by correcting him, reminding him that he surely meant to say that he was a Christian. Look it up on youtube.

When was the last time you got the name of your own religion wrong?

+++

grzmlyk| 8.4.10 @ 4:22PM

Doctor Right, what you said should be the end of the argument.

But of course, the liberals who take pride in being blind, deaf and dumb pull out the one word that is kryptonite to our political class as well as a popular culture that, instead of having the courage to face reality, has become positively drunk on vanity and addicted to self-flattery:

And so with great self-satisfaction they shout the word: "BIGOT!"

And the mainstream media will look at Dr. Right's well-reasoned litany of reasons, and at the charge of "bigot," and conclude that the name-callers have won the argument.

A nation state that won't protect its borders and will not defend itself - indeed, will gleefuly place its own head on the chopping block as a result of fetishizing the constitution is a nation state that is too fucking stupid to survive and does not deserve to do so.

I have an idea: Maybe if we're just a little nicer to those who want to kill us, they won't want to kill us anymore. Whatcha think, folks, is that a great idea or what?

Patricia| 9.21.10 @ 3:57PM

Excellent!

vb| 8.4.10 @ 8:30AM

We can control the narrative about this mosque:

Some in the Moslem world will see this mosque as a victory in their jihad. Others will see it as a place where non-Moslems will learn to understand them and their faith. But, in fact, Americans will see a symbol of people who are insensitive to the grief of others, who fail to appreciate the opportunities offered by our country, and who do not respect their fellow citizens. If you think it is worth millions to send this message, go ahead. It will hurt you more than it hurts us.

JP| 8.4.10 @ 9:04AM

The idea of the "moderate Muslim" is fiction. Thier religion is pretty clear about that. And yes, there are different strands of Islam; some more accomodating than others. But Islamic minorities here in the US aren't stupid. They're not about to go off the deep end like they do in other parts of the world. However, polling of Muslims in North American, Europe, and Austrailia are pretty clear. Most Muslims prefer Sharia Law over civic law. And if they had control of things, Sharia would be the order of the day. That is one of the well kept secrets to this entire affair. Muslims are quite willing to obey the laws of infidels, but once they are in power they are not bashfull in implementing thier religious view of things. One only need to read up on what occurs in the so-called "No-Go Zones" of Europe. Within these Islamic enclaves Sharia Law reigns supreme. Local authorities do not patrol these neighborhoods, nor do they adjucate civil law. Everything from the prohibition to usury, to the enforcement of proper female dress, to Islamic divorce laws are imposed. These places are called No-Go zones for the simple fact that infidels are not welcome. No Go Zones are well marked out, as to warn foreigners to stay out. There are over 800 of them in Europe. And they didn't sprout up overnight. Accomodating and weak willed politicians allowed them to grow. Europeans simply gave up imposing "thier laws and viewpoints" on Muslims. Afterall, what right do Europeans have in imposing thier views on anyone?

We see the same mindset with the New York elites. Yes, this is about religious freedom. In Lower Manhatten in a decade or so there will be only one religion -Islam. And like the women of London, New York women who work in the financial district will wear the hijab under the brooding eyes of the religious police.

davelnaf| 8.4.10 @ 9:41AM

JP, you got it exactly right. The “No Go” zones in Europe are a manifestation of nothing more than Islamic intolerance, if not hatred, for the West. Without a doubt the existence of these enclaves troubles Europeans and they know they will have to do something about them sooner rather than later. Until then, they will pretend in public to tolerate them. But, make no mistake about it, many Euros are looking forward to the day when the Islamists get too far outside any of these 800 boxes and provoke a release of what is now being suppressed.

SIlver Streake| 8.4.10 @ 9:08AM

We may not be able to stop the building of the mosque because our laws and Constitution outline our tolerance of others.

So, I challenge the trade unions of NYC. Are you people going to build this monstrous insult to the memory of those who died? Is the paycheck you get for pouring concrete, laying bricks, riveting steel and installing electricity and plumbing worth what this building represents?

NYC is a union town; nothing on this scale gets built by non-union contractors. There are many stories of non-union subs having their work destroyed when they do work on a union project. The thugs of the union won't stand for non-union people.

Now let's see those same thugs and patriotic union tradesman stand up for this country and help stop this madness. There will be plenty of work when Obama is out of office and business no longer has to be concerned about being taxed into oblivion.

pending_unemployment| 8.4.10 @ 9:20AM

This is exactly the kind of ingenuity I'm talking about. Let them build their mosque... themselves!

John Navratil| 8.4.10 @ 10:37AM

I like the thought. It's kind hard to contemplate that liberty depends on union thuggery, though.

davelnaf| 8.4.10 @ 9:11AM

Good article. Eventually, the Ground Zero mosque controversy will die down to a simmering memory. But the central irony highlighted by its proposed construction, which is Islam’s lack of appeal and the need to force it on unwilling people, will remain.

Yet, it is the strongly held belief among Muslims that Islam is flat out irresistible and needs only to be introduced to infidels in sufficient quantities. To most Americans this belief is beyond zany. Most glaringly it fails to take into account why the vast majority of Christians or Jews do not have a high regard for Islam. The build-more-mosques-and-they-will-come theory needs serious revision.

The problem with Islam is not its quantities but its qualities. Even if Arabic translates rather badly into English the ideas and concepts in the Koran are a major turn off. Good, high minded ideas could, theoretically, get Americans through the door, but in this regard the Koran falls way short. It is such a bad read that one has to wonder what is going on in the minds of Islam’s few converts here. The most that any objective person can say about the Koran is that it is very mediocre theology. It isn’t rocket science to see why Islam had to be forced on people.

Just like the Ground Zero mosque.

JP| 8.4.10 @ 10:24AM

Dave,
You seriously misunderstand Islam. What is crazy is that we have thier blueprint right in front of us -Europe.

When I visited London some 21 years ago, most of the minority neighborhoods were filled with people from Sri Lanka, Jaimaca, and India. Today, most of the urban nieghborhoods are Islamic. Through hook and crook they forced the other minorities out. And today, I dare not step a foot in these "No Go" zones. Amsterdam now has a majority of Muslims. And all of a sudden life isn't so easy for the gays who live there. One of the more famous gay freindly hotels in Amsterdam recently changed its name to the Mohammed Inn. And I can safely say, the patrons there are not any longer of the homosexual persausion. Ditto for Amsterdam's once liberal and tolerant drug culture. The heroin dens are closing and the junkies must go elsewhere. It seems that Muslims can do what Western liberals are unwilling to do. BTW, you don't want to be a Dutch women walking the streets of Amsterdam without her hijab.

Muslims never evangelized through reason. Go to Nigeria and Somalia and Sudan, not to mention Thailand to see how successfull they are. Where reason fails, intimidation succeeds. And the imans are patient, yet relentless. Once the mosque is built, all pretense of "outreach" will go away. The mosques are more than centers of worship. The people of Manhatten haven't a clue what kind of Pandora's Box they've opened up.

In the next several decades, Manhatten will steadily be Islamafied. And like London, the Jews and other infidels of Manhatten will find life will become intolerable.

doubleplusgood| 8.14.10 @ 5:27AM

JP,
Do you seriously believe what you just wrote? That Amsterdam is a majority Muslim city? That Dutch women have to wear hijab? Are you freakin' kidding me?!
And you say that Muslims pushed out all other minorities in London? I was in London a few months ago and its more diverse than ever.

Did you know that there is already a mosque in Manhattan which can hold 1,000 people . Its been there since 1991. Its in the upper-east side on 96th and 3rd, or thereabouts. So if your incredibly elaborate conspiracy theory were true, wouldn't this mosque have caused "Islamification" of Manhattan by now? Why is the Park51 building going to be any more effective at this great evil conspiracy than the existing building?

Satans mosque| 8.4.10 @ 11:11AM

Muslims follow a satanic leader, mohammed. He is of satan, trying to copy cat Jesus. This one little mosque will bring them only one step closer to having mecca destroyed permenantly.

JeMeRappelle| 8.4.10 @ 11:20AM

Has anyone made the connection between the successful attack on Septemtember 11, 2001 and the successful installation of the new regime? President Bush's decision to fight back gave America's fifth column what it had been waiting for: a powerful weapon to wield against America. Never ending, inescapable slanders and libels against President Bush and the War on Terror accomplished the unimaginable: the election of a would-be dictator and dedicated Marxist, complete with a matching Politburo.

JeMeRappelle| 8.4.10 @ 11:22AM

I forgot to add to my earlier post: the Islamists won.

Dixie Pixie| 8.4.10 @ 11:32AM

Muslims build a Mosque atop their conquests to demonstrate who conquered whom. The Muslims like to symbolize their victory over the infidel with a permanent monument and a base for further conquests. This act demonstrates to all that Islam has the power and will to annihilate the occupied peoples culture and impose a Islamic Arabian culture.

By agreeing to have a Mosque near the World Trade Center site, Islam is demonstrating it won a great victory over the USA. A victory further magnified by the fact the World Trade Center was never rebuilt.

By not rebuilding the WTC and letting a Mosque be built, the people of New York City is acknowledging that Islam is the superior culture. Once that acknowledgment is embedded into the minds of the people then they are ready to be conquered and occupied.

By allowing a Mosque to be built , NYC is conceding defeat in a battle of cultures. This act is certain to further embolden Islam to take the next steps in their methodology of conquest.

In short, by this act, Mayor Bloomberg is buying war not peace.

DRed| 8.4.10 @ 12:30PM

What happened to the great mosque of Cordoba? Oh, that's right, it's a Catholic Cathedral. I guess Christians like to symbolize victory over the infidel with a permanent monument and a base for futher conquests.

Yes, the world trade center has not been rebuilt, and that's embarrassing. But you do know it is being rebuilt, right?

JP| 8.4.10 @ 1:13PM

"What happened to the great mosque of Cordoba? Oh, that's right, it's a Catholic Cathedral"

The original mosque was built over the ruins of a Catholic Cathedral(which the Muslims destroyed). In case you didn't know it, Christians lived in Iberia since the 1st century.

Dixie Pixie| 8.4.10 @ 1:37PM

Greetings DRed

You have a rare talent for proving my point while thinking you are disproving it.
Specifiably the Great Mosque of Cordoba was originally the Christian Visigothic Church of St. Vincent. When the Muslims conquered the area, the church was torn down and replaced with a mosque, just as I noted in my above post.

The fact the Visigoths were annihilated as a people by the Muslims and therefor not around to reestablish their church, further reinforces my point. Converting the Great Mosque to a Christian Church is just simple justice.

As to your second rebuttal point, even Larry Silverstein has admitted the attempt to rebuild WTC is a national disgrace. Over 7 Billion dollars have been spent and all the City has to show for it is a empty hole. The expected completion date has been estimated by the Port Authority to be 2037.

As long as the memory of 9/11 can be converted to cash through corrupt politics, the the WTC will not be rebuilt, only pretended to be rebuilt. Currently the WTC as a empty hole is a cash cow.

DRed| 8.4.10 @ 2:09PM

There's also some evidence suggesting the muslims actually bought the church of st. vincent before they tore it down. But it doesn't really matter. Building over the religious buildings of a conquered territory is hardly unique to Islam. Maybe we should find a roman pagan and let him tear down the cathedral and put up a temple to janus. Simple justice, no?

And of course, this 'mosque' isn't actually at ground zero. Have you ever been there? You can't see two blocks away. It's in Manhattan.

Dixie Pixie| 8.4.10 @ 3:07PM

DRed – You are right.
It was a forced sale between the conquered and conquerors.
Just what was your point anyway.

DRed| 8.4.10 @ 3:31PM

My point is that christians build churches on the religious monuments of peoples that they have conquered. So do a bunch of other religions. That's point one.

Point two. This so called mosque isn't at ground zero. You can't see it from ground zero. If you go to ground zero, you won't be forced to look at a muslim cultural center proclaiming the dominance and victory of islam over America. Because it won't be there.

Dixie Pixie| 8.4.10 @ 6:02PM

Greetings DRed.

So your point is it is all right for the Muslims to build a Mosque as a tribute to their victory on 9/11 as the Christians have done the same. Besides the Mosque is not actually on the site but only close to it.

Have I got your position right?

DRed| 8.4.10 @ 6:36PM

No, not quite. My point is that building religious buildings on the site of a religious building in a conquered territory is hardly a uniquely Muslim action. I thought that's what you were trying to say, and if I was right about that, than I think you're mistaken.

Seperately, this building is not a triumphant celebration of any sort of victory, and is not actually at ground zero. There's already some sort of muslim prayer center near ground zero that's too small-it makes sense to me that muslims would want a bigger place in downtown manhattan. It would be impossible to build any sort of muslim building in the financial district that isn't close to ground zero. I'd say that it's a sign that there's a growing Muslim presence in NY, but it's a celebration of victory and a prelude to our conquest.

DRed| 8.4.10 @ 6:36PM

Sorry-I meant to write 'it's not a celebration of victory'

Dixie Pixie| 8.4.10 @ 7:39PM

Did I observe a classic Freudian slip – DRed.

For the record, a few years ago the Saudi’s were trying to build a Mosque in a neighboring town. After a year of controversy, the permit to build was denied.

During the debate it was noted the Saudi's were targeting the more liberal areas. The Saudi's were not trying to convert the conservatives area as they know it is the conservatives which will resist conversion.

Muslims have never been known for tolerance but will take advantage of liberal foolishness.

Radegunda| 8.4.10 @ 11:12PM

What is your evidence for pronouncing that the mosque is not a celebration of Islamic victory? Do you simply take the word of the promoters, even though they have lied about where the funding is coming from? Even though Muslims take pride in their ability to deceive infidels so as to advance Islamic dominance over us?

Bob Miller| 8.4.10 @ 11:33AM

What is this plot of land zoned to allow?

John II| 8.4.10 @ 11:57AM

The appropriate analogy for Bloomberg's sophomoric reasoning is the ACLU's defense several years ago of the "right" of a group of American Neo-Nazis to march in a Jewish neighborhood.

This asinine "tolerance" of what amounts to a public gesture of contempt is high school libertarianism run amok. American Muslims have the right to their own religious profession; no American has the right to impose his own symbolism on others.

John II| 8.4.10 @ 12:06PM

Right--positive feelings of conquest over a decadent West.

Charles Martel| 8.4.10 @ 1:07PM

It is traditional for mosques to be built on the site of mohammedan victories. Yes, it is terribly insensitive of us to resist that, but what are you going to do? Throw another temper tantrum? Try it and see if we care.

If the mosque is completed, I, for one, will do all that I am capable of to see that it is destroyed. You will not be permitted to celebrate over the charred and crushed corpses of the 9/11 dead. You will not.

+++

Mimi| 8.4.10 @ 1:09PM

I truly hope it won't ! There are NO positive feelings in the Muslim world. Why then are we still at war with them? Why? Let them put down their arms and create peace in this world. Let them at long last start speaking out against the terrorist in their midst. Do they not know right from wrong? SHOW THIS COUNTRY PEACE!!!

Radegunda| 8.4.10 @ 11:19PM

Muslims regularly show a stunning lack of gratitude for the nice things that infidels do for them. Being nice to Muslims at best emboldens them to demand more from us.

And why should we care about "positive feelings in the Muslim world" when Muslims obviously care nothing about the feelings of the Americans they are insulting?

If it does make "the Muslim world" have positive feelings, it's only because they will see the mosque as a sign of Islamic conquest and dominance.

We're not all as ignorant as you think.

supernaut| 8.4.10 @ 12:05PM

Liberalism always generates the complete oppisite of what it was intended

doubleplusgood| 8.14.10 @ 5:35AM

Yeah, like giving women voting rights, and ending segregation in the south. Those damn liberals ruined everything!
Oh and don't forget the constitution of the USA, a VERY liberal document written by "intellectuals" in their "ivory towers". Fools!

Ned| 8.4.10 @ 12:15PM

Hey, I say we allow them to build this thing, with
construction beginning the day AFTER the completion of a Christian church two blocks from the center of Mecca, and on the same building schedule as a synagogue within site of the Kaaba...
that's the little building in the center of the central mosque in Mecca... oh, wait! It's AGAINST THE LAW even BE a Christian, let alone a Jew, in Mecca! And what do you suppose would happen to anyone with the temerity to enter either of these impossible structures? Why, the adherents to the "religon of peace" would beat them to death, of course...

so, no churches in Saudi Arabia = no mosque near ground zero... that wasn't tough, was it?

DRed| 8.4.10 @ 12:21PM

Thankfully we're a better country than Saudi Arabia.

John II| 8.4.10 @ 12:37PM

DReddie! Good to hear from you again (with "again" pronounced to rhyme British-style with "a-pain")! We are indeed a better country than Saudi Arabia, balanced and tasteful.

And it IS a matter of balance and taste, DReddie. Balance: no public Christian creches on Christmas (note the alliterative cadence: ready for printing on a lefty bumper sticker). Taste: no public celebration of sworn enemies. After all, one shouldn't expect a statue of Hitler in Times Square, even 65 years after World War II--it's just bad form, don't you know.

DRed| 8.4.10 @ 12:48PM

Building a cultural center, two blocks away, where it won't even be seen, doesn't bother me at all. It's not at ground zero.

I wasn't aware that you weren't allowed to put up a creche on private property in America. I'll have to tell my parents to take theirs down this year.

John II| 8.4.10 @ 12:59PM

1. Okay. De gustibus non disputandum est.

2. Good for your folks--and you'll do no such a thing, you smugly ironic liberal. If I had a horse, I should have you horsewhipped. The very idea!

And now back to my summer viewing of old Don Winslow serials.

JP| 8.4.10 @ 1:16PM

If you really want to call it a cultural center, well then you are as niave as Mayor Bloomberg. Wherever Islam goes, Islam dominates. There will be Islamic "outreach" all right. The Muslims will be running Lower Manhatten in 2-3 decades, if not sooner.

Matt Morehouse| 8.4.10 @ 12:20PM

Sabotage anyone?

I for one cannot believe the tradesmen of New York, many of whom have friends and relatives lost on 9/11, will properly construct this edifice to Islam. I suspect even the building inspectors might look the other way over small and not so small infractions of the building code.

If this monstrosity does finally rise I wouldn't want to take an elevator to the top floor.

David Williams| 8.4.10 @ 12:53PM

And I wouldn't expect the FDNY to respond to a fire which might start, accidentally of course.

Charles Martel| 8.4.10 @ 1:08PM

Of course.

Radegunda| 8.4.10 @ 11:22PM

Remember that the muzzies will have plenty of Saudi oil money to fund lawsuits, argued by treacherous leftist lawyers.

John II| 8.4.10 @ 1:15PM

Here's a thoughtful editorial on the topic, from today's NRO. Libertarians, take note, if you can follow the argument.

Not at Ground Zero

The story of the proposed mosque at the site of the World Trade Center has been thoroughly misrepresented, as have the parties behind the project. They present themselves as ambassadors of moderate Islam. Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, says the project aims to put the Muslim community “at the front and center to start the healing.”

Ms. Khan knows better, because she is also Mrs. Feisal Abdul Rauf, the wife of the main Islamic cleric behind the project. Rauf is no moderate. He presents himself as a peacemaking Islamic Gandhi, but he is in fact an apologist for the terrorist outfit Hamas, which he refuses even to identify as a terrorist organization. Nor is Rauf exactly full-throated in his rejection of terrorism, offering only this: “The issue of terrorism is a very complex question.” While he cannot quite bring himself to blame the terrorists for being terrorists, he finds it easy to blame the United States for being a victim of terrorism: “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”

As National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy has documented, Rauf’s book, published in the West as What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America, had a significantly different title abroad: A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11. “Dawa” means Islamic proselytizing, a process that ends in the imposition of sharia. The book was published abroad with the assistance of the Islamic Society of North America and the International Institute of Islamic Thought, which are two appendages of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization behind much of the world’s murderous Islamic terrorism. The Islamic Society of North America was identified as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism case. The co-founder and president of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Awani, was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Sami al-Arian terrorism case.

This dispute has been presented as a question of whether an Islamic center and mosque should be built in proximity to the scene of the worst act of Islamic terrorism — and the worst act of political violence — ever committed on U.S. soil. But at least as germane to the dispute is the question of whether these particular parties ought to be doing so. The fact that an apologist for terrorists and an associate of terrorist-allied organizations is proceeding with this provocation is indecent. We have thousands of mosques in theUnited States, and who knows how many Islamic cultural centers in New York City. We do not need this one, in this place, built by these people. We’re all stocked up on Hamas apologists, thanks very much.

The libertarians among us are wrong to take a blasé attitude toward this, asking, “If their permit applications are in order, why not?” Here is why not: because this is not just a zoning dispute. The World Trade Center is, in effect, the gravesite of 3,000 Americans who died at the hands of Islamist radicals, and to build a mosque on this site — particularly a mosque with Muslim Brotherhood connections — would be extraordinarily unseemly. We will not appeal to the official powers to use the machinery of government to stop this project. We appeal, instead, to the sense of decency of the American Muslim community, and to its patriotism.

Beyond that, Americans should make their displeasure with this project felt economically and socially: No contractor, construction company, or building-trades union that accepts a dime of the Cordoba Initiative’s money should be given a free pass—nobody who sells them so much as a nail, or a hammer to drive it in with. This is an occasion for boycotts and vigorous protests — and, above all, for bringing down a well-deserved shower of shame upon those involved with this project, and on those politicians who have meekly gone along with it. It is an indecent proposal and an intentional provocation.

Jeremiah| 8.4.10 @ 1:22PM

If there is any institutionally 'moderate' branch of Islam it needs to step up and stop this.

We are reaching the point where we will need to cease to consider Islam a religion and regard it as a hostile power with which we are at war. The institutionally moderate faction of Islam is like the Loch Ness monster: discussed constantly and never seen. If they are there they need to step up now.

The rest of Islam is in a war to the death with western civilization. They know it while we keep trying to persuade ourselves it is something else. A minority of their warriors attack us with hard power - terrorism and military action. The majority of their warriors attack us with soft power; corrosion of our cultural infrastructure, attempts to legitimize sharia law and have it supercede US law. Most Islamic countries won't allow a Christian Church to be built anywhere. Yet we are supposed to welcome a mosque at the site where over 3,000 Americans were murdered by Islamic warriors in the name of Islam? Get real.

A part of me hopes this mosque is built. That way, when we get a leader who orders that it be blown to smithereens, we will know we finally have a leader who is serious about defending western civilization and American freedom.

doubleplusgood| 8.14.10 @ 5:40AM

So you believe that 1.5 billion people, most of them extremely poor and living in places like Africa and Indonesia, India and Bangladesh, are all part of some huge global conspiracy to come to New York to build a mosque and destroy the US constitution?

Anneke| 8.4.10 @ 1:40PM

"Let us concede that it is not the business of the government to block the construction of Cordoba House...."

In a perfect world, maybe. But, the fact is that cities and counties make zoning decisions every day that prevent property owners from doing whatever they want to do with their property. The question is: why isn't NYC intervening in this case?

The city that I live in (San Leandro, CA) has refused to allow a local church to build a new sanctuary on a piece of property they own in the city's industrial area. A US District Court judge has upheld the City's decision. Why is stifling the building of a controversial mosque suppressing freedom of religion when stifling the building of a Christian church is good city planning?

Joe D.| 8.4.10 @ 2:42PM

If this were an ordinary site. I might agree. If this were an ordinary branch of Islam. I might agree. If Islam was an ordinary religion and tolerance was actually part of their religion/World view. I might agree. However, since all 3 are the oposite of reality. I disagree with you, Jeffrey Goldberg and Mr. Wimp Bloomberg.

The connections this man has to the fundamentalist side of Islam and the name he wishes to use for the mosac "Cordoba" tells the story.

Matt| 8.4.10 @ 2:50PM

I think this mosque is an opportunity. A non-Muslim believer would become a hero by blowing up a symbol of Muslim imperialism. The irony would be greatly appreciated.

DRed| 8.4.10 @ 2:58PM

Matt, that's a brilliant idea. We can show fundamentalist muslim terrorists how much better we are than them by acting just like them.

John II| 8.4.10 @ 3:26PM

The term "fundamentalist" is a Christian misnomer when attached to the term "muslim," DReddie. The former term designates a certain stripe of Christianity dating back to a movement in the early 20th century, the details of which I shan't bore you with.

To carry the term over into Islam bespeaks an ignorance of Christianity and Islam both, which is understandable in a secularized westerner whose worldview is shaped by CNN and newsmagazines. What is intolerable is the redundancy lurking in the expression "fundamentalist muslim."

Furthermore, "Muslim" should be capitalized and your first "them" should be "they." I intend to raise this issue with your parents when I'm reviewing your next report card. Meanwhile, I suggest you enjoy the car keys while you still have them.

DRed| 8.4.10 @ 3:45PM

I'm a New York liberal. You think I drive?

John II| 8.4.10 @ 4:53PM

Oh. Well . . . in that case, enjoy your bicycle and your long-term transit ticket while you can.

DRed| 8.4.10 @ 5:20PM

Thank you. Should I use 'extremist' instead?

John II| 8.4.10 @ 6:01PM

Certainly not. Extremist Muslim terrorist?

On the other hand, I suppose Mayor Bloomberg would consider Imam Rauf to be a moderate Muslim terrorist.

"Oh, sometimes I think I shall just go mad." [Groucho Marx quoting Greta Garbo, 1929]

DRed| 8.4.10 @ 6:16PM

Should I even bother saying terrorist, or should I just say Muslim?

Is there any other proof that Imam Rauf is a terrorist? I mean, Andy McCarthy can play six degrees of Osama bin Laden and make anyone look like one.

John II| 8.4.10 @ 9:57PM

"Is there any other proof that Imam Rauf is a terrorist?"

Other? Gosh. How many "proofs" do you need?
Let's see where we can carry this. The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Now, let's just suppose, for the sake of argument, that Euclid does indeed offer a demonstrative proof of the aforementioned proposition.

What, then, would it mean to ask, "Are there any other proofs?" And if there were, wouldn't they be conceptually redundant?

In response to your first question, I am inclined to believe that most Muslims, like most Christians, are probably nominally so. They've never thought about it very deeply, they were born into it, they'd just as soon be left alone.

The problem, DReddie, is that I have had to study the Qur'an closely enough to teach it--so that I am not particularly surprised by the results of polls taken in one or another of the 57 Muslim nations: fully 25 to 30 percent (depending on the polls) support the terrorists.

That makes sense to me. I doubt that more than 25 or 30 percent of the Christian world is serious about its Christianity. Too bad for the world.

But for 25 or 30 percent of the Muslim world to be serious about Islam is a tad disconcerting. (Hey--just read the Qur'an, okay?) In other words, there are some 300,000,000 Muslims in the world who are sympathetic to Islamic terrorism. Not just the slippery Professor Rauf.

Now I know this is hard for your enlightened liberal mind, DReddie, but I am asking you to put aside your Enlightenment long enough to exercise your God-given moral imagination. What does it MEAN to be sympathetic to the practice of deliberately murdering innocent men, woman, and children in pursuit of a cause?

Yes, yes, I know I am asking a lot. But just go ahead and exercise that ol' moral imagination.

And now back to reruns of "Hogan's Heroes."

DRed| 8.5.10 @ 2:29PM

I should have said I found Andy's proof very unpersuasive. Non existent would be most accurate.

You're not actually asking a lot, as we both know. You're just being condescending. However, you raise some interesting points. First, I have not studied the Qur'an. I gave it a shot once, some years ago, and it bored me to tears.

You mention some polls you've read suggesting that 25 or 30 percent of people who live in predominantly muslim countries support 'the terrorists'. That's more than a tad disconcerting. It doesn't tell us why they support the terrorists, though, does it? You suggest it's because the are serious about Islam, but that doesn't follow logically. Is it because of the Qur'an? Because they feel threatened? Because America kills lots of muslims (many of whom are innocent) and they're filled with impotent rage? Is it a result of propaganda telling them that America hates muslims? Is it possible to change their minds? Or do we have to kill 300,000,000 muslims to be safe?

There are also polls showing that in some muslim countries support for the terrorists was falling-in some cases drastically . What does that suggest?

Hope you enjoyed your Hogan's Heros.

Radegunda| 8.4.10 @ 11:28PM

DRed, buy a clue. Muslims are not very impressed when we bend over backward to be nice to them. They're not impressed by displays of tolerance and compliance. They despise that as weakness. They see it as an opening to make more inroads in their slow, deliberate conquest.

You really need to learn a little more about how Muslims actually think---not just what they tell gullible leftist infidels.

stop2think| 8.4.10 @ 3:24PM

It's amazing how the Mayor suddenly finds the Constitution as something to uphold, he of "no salt" NY. I agree the government should not be involved in this issue and I think unions should refuse to work on the project. Having said that, the government should not be involved in many things such as what kids eat at school (banning sodas), whether restaurants should prepare food with salt, minimum wage, and whether I must join a union to feed my family. But, libs like the Mayor run rough shod over the Constitution everyday when it suits their needs. Only when a decision requires them to grow a pair do they hide their naked bodies behind the Constitution.

Andy Krow| 8.4.10 @ 3:35PM

The ultimate come-uppance??

If this monstrosity is built, you'll get a terminally ill patriot who has his pilot's license and he'll fly a good-sized plane into it one night... Radar and F-18's notwithstanding...

Brian| 8.4.10 @ 4:20PM

If someone else has mentioned this, I apologize; but if this thing gets built, maybe the best thing to do would be to put in a strip club, liquor store, sex toy store, and t-shirt store featuring t-shirts with mohammed images right next to it.

David Williams| 8.4.10 @ 4:26PM

Apparently you have not seen Muslims in London. The shop next door would do a booming business with Muslim clientele, with the possible exception of the t-shirts. Hypocracy is also part of Islam.

Havoc| 8.4.10 @ 5:20PM

Yes, it is the business of government to block the construction of the ground-zero mosque. It's part of defending America -- legitimate government work.

Nancy in NC| 8.4.10 @ 5:26PM

We must how tolerance fr the intolerant? Anyone with a wit of common sense know this is a bad idea, and a way for the Muslims to give the US the finger.

Th original Cordoba House was build in southern Spain when the Muslims invaded that country. How ironic!

keyboard jockey | 8.4.10 @ 5:42PM

Gov Mike Huckabee this morning's guest on Imus In The Morning. They discussed the Afghan war strategy and the need for clarity of our
mission in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has swallowed up armies before VIdeo.
I didn't know Gov Huckabee had such a good sense of humor. Gov Huckabee, Afghanistan looks like the land of the Flintstones....Bedrockistan ;)

He also weighed in on the plans to build a
mosque so close to ground zero.

I was interested in Gov Huckabee's opinion of the mosque being built so close to ground zero he is also a Baptist Minister. Bloomberg on the other hand is just a wealthy guy who buys elections, and changes political parties like he is putting on whatever is the latest political fashion.

http://youhavetobethistalltogo.....kabee.html

Maybe we will prevail in Afghanistan, after the Soviets and their 15 year civil war softened them up for us.

CalMark| 8.4.10 @ 7:46PM

In this manifestation, Islam is not a religion. It is a radical, hate-filled, violent ideology that seeks to force conformance and destroy non-conformers.

Islam, as symbolized by the Ground Zero Mosque, is a subversive ideology no different in its aims than Communism. The only difference is that Communism openly rejects religion, while radical Islam exploits religion as a disguise.

Becky| 8.4.10 @ 8:39PM

After reading this article, I have just two words to respond to it. One is bull. I think you know what the other one is. Please, don't waste our time with this bleeding heart...we can't be this way, freedom of religion, and all we stand for will be compromised, and 'they' have their rights. They DO NOT, REPEAT, DO NOT, have a right to come here and insult us with this mosque. We all know why they are doing it. I be damned if I will ever accept the Muslims or their hate for America. They can say they don't hate us, but they do. They would not be pushing this mosque if they had any respect for Americans. They knew it would cause outrage. I do not think it caused enough outrage. NYC needs to stop this mosque from being built. We should go to Mecca and start building Synagogues, Baptist Churches, and other Christian Churches...How do you think that will go over with the peace loving Muslims? Americans need to learn quickly who their enemies are.

Long Ben| 8.4.10 @ 8:47PM

The primary evil of Mohammedanism is that it deflects precious people from finding the Way , the Truth and the Life that are available to all, only in the person of Yeshua Ha'Mashiach .

Wilfred| 8.4.10 @ 9:55PM

If New Yorkers allow the building of the mosque on this site, they might as well call it the Osama Mosque, and change the name of New York City to New Mecca.

Pathetic.

John II| 8.4.10 @ 10:30PM

Well--as I think I've suggested before, what sites are likely to be the targets of future Islamic terror attacks in the USA? Fresno, California? Eugene, Oregon? Ogden, Utah? Pensacola, Florida? Buffalo, New York?

San Francisco? Los Angeles? Chicago? New York City?

If you choose the latter, perhaps you can understand why the blue-state liberal types are eager to suck up to the terrorists.

And why the red-state types are the ones fighting them. Ah, the ironies of being American.

sunshine| 8.4.10 @ 11:27PM

good post!thanks you share!But I think religion should be free.

Radegunda| 8.4.10 @ 11:31PM

So I assume you'll be eager to go out and persuade Muslims around the world to stop attacking non-Muslims just because they're not Muslim.

Jim Hlavac | 8.5.10 @ 1:22AM

If the mosque builders were all about religious tolerance they would have long ago said:

"We want a Jewish Synagogue and a Christian Church to join us in this multi-religion statement of peace and harmony against terrorism, just as we allow in Mecca."

Until then, it's not good. It's got to be stopped, and if built, herds of pigs roamed around in front of the "welcome center." you know, for the religious tolerance they preach. For all are welcome, as they doth proclaim. So where's the synagogue incorporated to the mosque?

So until then, NO!

Until then: no mosque

Sam| 8.5.10 @ 1:55AM

My ancestors, Sicilians, were invaded and ruled for over 300 years by Muslims. They were considered "dhimis", second class citizens and subservient to their "guests", because they wouldn't adopt their faith. They were allowed to live a life of rules that hemmed them in on all sides. They couldn't practice their faith out in the open; not weddings, funerals, holy days, etc. in public or they would have the church destroyed or turned into a mosque and the offenders would be disciplined. No RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY OR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. I don't give a damn about feel good, politically correct missives. No mosque on that site and until these people show some respect for our religious and cultural heritage, I will look upon them as suspect. Sound could? No, just realistic.

Bigmo| 8.5.10 @ 4:15AM

looks like the Talmud firsters did a great job on you all.

Goyim

Mimi| 8.5.10 @ 9:31AM

BIGMO or BIGOT: While we are still at WAR with Islamist in this country , at great sacrifice of our men and women over-seas because of what happene d at GROUND ZERO we must not allow
a VICTORY MONUMENT. Why ???...because we do not trust the intentions of those who propose it. The American people deserve more respect. Mr, BIGMO : AMERICA SUPPORTS ISRAEL and it always will..forever.

luis| 8.19.10 @ 10:49PM

how long must America tolerate latently xenophobic jackasses like you?

Texas Liz| 8.6.10 @ 2:48PM

Obviously the construction cannot be halted by governmental action, but we should make it clear that we understand their motives of cultural infiltration and symbolic triumphalism. We are not fooled by their drivel about "reconciliation" and we fully understand the symbolism of naming the installation "Cordoba House". They may build their trojan horse "community center" but we will be watching their funding, their clergy, and the message propagated there with care, much as we watched the Soviet embassy during the cold war.

Macintology| 8.14.10 @ 12:26PM

I'm still waiting for someone to give an actual *good* *logical* reason for the Cordoba House to not be built.

Augusta| 9.5.11 @ 2:04PM

You're not 'waiting' for good reasons - you're ignoring them. Try reading. Not satisfied? Try Google.

Observer| 8.14.10 @ 2:54PM

hey Macintology-
man do not live by reason alone.

Observer| 8.14.10 @ 2:58PM

And man do not live by logic (nor the Law) alone either

Viva| 8.16.10 @ 10:54AM

From Faithfreedom.org:
On 9/11 2001, Muslim jihadists butchered 3000 Americans. Nine years later, a Muslim Imam wants to build a 13 story monument two blocks away from the site of that carnage.
Many Americans, particularly the New Yorkers and the families of the victims of that tragedy are outraged at the insensitivity, bordering arrogance of Faisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind this project. Rauf says it is not a mosque but an Islamic center. The name does not change anything. Whatever you call it, it is of extreme poor judgment.
In 2004, Rauf published a book calling it “What is Right with Islam is What is Right with America.” In that book he argued “The American political structure is Sharia compliant. For America to score even higher on the ‘Islamic’ or ‘Sharia compliance’ scale America would need to do two things. Invite the voices of all religions in shaping the nations’ practical life, and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws.”
The truth is that the American constitution and the Sharia law are opposite of each other. It is interesting however, how Rauf composed his statement. He did not say that the Sharia is in compliance with the US constitution, but the other way round. By doing so he wanted to establish the superiority of the Sharia over the US constitution.
The fact is that the American Constitution and the Sharia differ fundamentally. For example, the Sharia does not recognize
Freedom of speech,
Freedom of conscience
Equality of all people before the law
Equality of the rights of women with men

Of course, as an Imam he can’t reject the Sharia. He will reject the constitution when not in compliance with the Sharia.
There is nothing in the constitution of the USA that is in agreement with the Sharia law. You cannot find two documents more diametrically opposed to each other.
Think about stoning the adulterers, killing the apostates, hanging or beheading the homosexuals, chopping the hands of the thief, imposing a dress code on people and flogging them for consuming alcohol. These are all part of the Sharia law and against the Constitution. You can’t serve two masters. Muslims will have to either submit to the Sharia law or to the US constitution. If they submit to one, they are in violation of the other.
But the disturbing part in Rauf’s statement is the fact that he compares Islamic laws with the secular laws of America. This is proof that his goal is to supplant the latter with the former. Statements such as this make it clear that the ambition of Muslims in America is political.
Rauf ignores the fact the in the USA religion and state are kept apart. When he says “America would need invite the voices of all religions in shaping the nations’ practical life, and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws,” he is not talking about Jews, Christians or other religions. In fact adherents of these faiths want to keep state and religion separate. Rauf wants these rights solely for Muslims. He aspires to convert America into an Islamic theocracy.
The Sharia law does not just regulate the rights of the Muslims but also the non-Muslims must submit to it. How is that going to work according to this imam? Well that part will have to wait until Muslims become the majority and convert America into a Sharia compliant state, like Saudi Arabia. Then no one has any right anymore.
As far as Muslims are concerned the Sharia law is from God and it supersedes all constitutions that are written by men.
The implication is grave. It means that Muslims who uphold the Sharia law are a subversive group whose aim is to destroy our system of government. Muslims present Islam as a religion whereas their agenda is political and subversive.
When in 2007, Rauf published his book in the Muslims world, he did not call it What is Right with America is What is Right with Islam. He called it A Call to Prayer from the WTC rubbles: Islamic Da’wa from the Heart of America Post 9/11.
This is the kind of talk that resonates in Muslim world. The message that Rauf wants to send to Americans is that the Sharia is very similar to their constitution and hence they should not fear Islam. But his message to his fellow coreligionists is different. To them he is announcing that a da’wa is being issued to Americans from the rubbles of 9/11.
What is Da’wa? Da’wa means invitations to submit to Islam. Jihad has two phases. The first phase is the invitation. Disbelievers are to be warned first and given a chance to submit. If they refuse the next stage is qital (fighting). Da’wa and qital are integral parts of jihad.
The Cordova House will be the ultimatum, a line drawn in the sand for the Americans. After the da’wa is issued, Americans will have two choices: They must either submit to Islam or face more terrorism.

What is in the name?
The choice of the name is also significant. Cordova House may mean nothing to Americans, but for Muslims it is fraught with meaning.
Cordova is a city in south Spain. Muslims armies invaded Spain in 711, massacring countless people. Then they converted the biggest church in Cordova into a mosque.
Building mosques over churches, synagogues and temples of the conquered people began during the life of Muhammad who converted the temple of the Arabs in Mecca into an Islamic mosque.
Muslims have been doing the same ever since. Numerous Hindu temples, churches, synagogues and Zoroastrian temples were converted into mosques. The objective is twofold” To humiliate the defeated people and to establish the supremacy of Islam.
The mosque over the temple of Solomon in Jerusalem is one example. When Muslims conquered the Byzantine Empire they converted the biggest church in the Christian empire into a mosque. In India over 2000 mosques are built on Hindu temples.
A mosque, a place from which da’wa is issued, built over the rubbles of the WTC is a hint to Muslims that jihad is on the march and that Islam is advancing and conquering new territories. The conquest of Cordova ushered Muslims into an era of opulence, the so called Golden Age of Islam. It is therefore a symbol of Islamic conquest and supremacy, which Muslims recall nostalgically.

Who is Faisal Abdul Rauf?
Imam Rauf tries to present himself as a moderate Muslim. Far from it! He has made statements that show he has very radical views. Right after 9/11 Rauf blamed the victims and said, “United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened on 9/11.”
He also said “We [Americans] have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laded was made in the USA.”
Rauf supports Muslim Brotherhood, the same group that wants to destroy America from within, and has nerve condemned Hezbollah or Hamas terrorist organizations.
In October 2009, the Former Muslims United sent Rauf and his wife the Pledge of Freedom that states Muslims should not be killed if they choose to leave Islam. The couple refused to sign it. So much for their tolerance! Also he has never made it public where the $100 million dollars financing comes from.
There are 2300 mosques in the USA and over 200 in New York. There is no need for another one, especially in the proximity of where Muslims massacred thousands of Americans. Why this place? The choice of the Ground Zero is no accident. Muslims have chosen this spot to a) thumb their nose at Americans and at the families of the victims and b) send a message to Muslim world announcing Islam’s victory over the “Great Satan.”
The Cordova House will have a huge symbolic significance for Muslims and it encourages them to enlist in jihad and make the ultimate objective of Islam, which is world domination come true.
Rauf is not a man of peace. He has made very inflammatory comments, such as “one man’s terrorist is another man’s hero.”
In an article entitled, “Sharing the Essence of Our Beliefs,” published in the Al-Ghad Newspaper in Jordan, 5/9/2009, translated by Walid Shoebat, Rauf wrote:
If someone in the Middle East cries out, “where is the law”, he knows that the law exists. The only law that the Muslim needs exists already in the Koran and the Hadith.
People asked me right after the 9/11 attack as to why do movements with political agendas carry [Islamic] religious names? Why call it ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ or ‘Hezbollah (Party of Allah)’ or ‘Hamas’ or ‘Islamic Resistance Movement’? I answer them this—that the trend towards Islamic law and justice begins in religious movements, because secularism has failed to deliver what the Muslim wants, which is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Rauf is not talking about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all the people. According to Islam these rights belong only to Muslims. The non-Muslims must suffer defeat, ignominy and dhimmitude.
Follow the Money Trail
Why would Mayor Bloomberg and the majority of the council members of the New York City support such an offensive project? The answer is, follow the money trail.
I am not accusing anyone, but my hunch tells me to be suspicious of anyone who strongly defends Islamic interests over the interests of his own country.
The Saudi and the Iranian regimes spend large sums of money buying the loyalty of politicians and the academicians in the west. The western supporters of Islam are not often mere useful idiots. In many cases they are well paid traitors.
An example that comes to mind is the US congressman Mark D. Siljander who began his career as a zealous evangelical Christian and then went on to write a book, A Deadly Misunderstanding, to “bridge the Muslim-Christian divide.” He argued that Christian and Muslim religious texts are surprisingly compatible, when studied in their original languages. This is of course a blatant lie. The truth came out on July 7, 2010, when Siljander pleaded guilty to two counts of receiving money from Muslims and supporting Muslim terrorists. He was indicted in January 2008 on charges of money laundering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
Throughout the history, Islamic forces have deceived their victims, making them think Islam and Muslims are peace-loving, only later to find the opposite. Another example of this deception/treason happened in A.D. 635 when Damascus fell to Muslims because they deceived and bribed its Bishop who opened the city gates at night.
Anytime a politician defends Islam under the guise of “tolerance” and “community cohesion,” I think about money. Chances are you’ll find a skeleton in their closet. I am not accusing anyone in particular. I don’t know the facts. But I won’t be surprised if one day we find out that the politicians who defend the construction of this Islam Trojan horse on Ground Zero were paid for their support.
Mayor Bloomberg calls patriotic Americans who don’t want this mosque, “un-American.” He should know that it is very American to defend the American constitution against any creeping alien ideology whose adherents do not hide their intention to bring down America and “sabotage its miserable house from within.” What is un-American is to open the gates of the country to its sworn enemies. Whether the Mayor is bribed, or he is merely a useful idiot is not for me to decide. It is one or the other and in either case he is not qualfied to be the mayor of New York. But one thing is certain and that is his support for Islamists against the interests of America is very un-American.

rocoll| 8.19.10 @ 9:44AM

man, all of you people have such a narrow minded view. if you are a true christian. you realize that any man can do anything that he wants. i as an individual have no right to tell that man what he can or can't do. if what he does is sinful then he will be judged when that time comes. fighting about something that you have no control over is pointless. look at what is happening right here. we are fighting amongst ourselves. that is what the evils of the world want. satan's only true power is to deceive, we have all been deceived. we fight while evil sits by and laughs at us. rather than people of this country coming together to improve our way of life, health, education, technology, etc. we argue and bicker over where someone is going to build a building. we could be using this passion and energy for good. but all we're doing is feeding into the negative energy that has been created by an outside source. think about it...

Augusta| 9.5.11 @ 2:02PM

A dominant theme of the Holy Bible is to fight evil. Conversely, your message appears to be 'fighting is evil'. And no, 'any man' cannot 'do whatever he wants' - wherever did you get that idea? We have laws, traditions and values in this country that require protection in order to remain a strong society. I understand that you are well intentioned and only wish to promote unity, but that is not necessarily everyone's motive dear. Some people, all across the globe, seek only to demoralize, corrupt and destroy. Allowing such people to do so is not a Judeo-Christian value, but the opposite. "Turn the other cheek" does not mean, 'please hurt me'. No one has a right to build anything anywhere - that's why we have zoning laws and permits and fees. Heck, you can't even build a gazebo in your own yard without a government permit. All sorts of structures are barred from building everyday in America for various reasons. Communities do have some say over what they want in their towns. Businesses and Christian churches are disallowed from erecting structures all the time, and we hear not one peep of protest from the media about it. Even now, the Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed on 9/11 is drowning in red tape, while the Mosque was given instant approval. Is that fair? Does that sound like people are allowed to do 'whatever they want'? I appreciate your sentiment, but I think you are uninformed about the various facets of this issue, and are perhaps a bit naive as well.

luis | 8.19.10 @ 10:35PM

"It is essential to reform the political culture of the Middle East by strengthening the nascent forces of liberalism..."

The West has been trying to do this for years. As far as i can tell, it hasn't worked. The Muslim world adopts liberalism when and where it is convenient (e.g. makes them money) and otherwise mostly ignores it.

I won't lie and say I don't agree with Goldberg. But even if i disagreed, I'd still have to face the fact that bringing Western liberalism to the Muslim world is an exercise in futility. We should support peaceful Islamic republics instead of making the absurd attempt at bringing "democracy" to the Middle East (to the extent that the Middle East is Muslim).

SimplyPut| 9.9.10 @ 11:17AM

Americans understandably reject the idea of the Cordoba House for some very simple reasons. #1 is the location. #2 is the name. #3 is calling it a Mosque then waffling to opposition and calling it a "cultural center". If it is truly a "cultural center" or "community center" then it is not protected by "separation of church and state" tenants of our constitution.

Augusta| 9.5.11 @ 1:18PM

Let's all pretend that the Cordoba Group, now renamed something innocuous, has no triumphal motive whatsoever. Let's convince ourselves that they're promoting 'dialogue' between Muslims & ~~Infidels~~ non-Muslims. Let's assure ourselves that this mega-mosque will not attract radicals regardless of the purported purity of the builders' motives. Let's ignore the long standing Muslim tradition of building Mosques upon the sacred ground of Hindus, Buddhists, Christians & Jews. Pay no attention to the bureaucratic nightmare the Greek Orthodox Church, a structure there before the attacks, is embroiled in to get government permission to rebuild. Listen not to the voices of truth from the truly moderate Muslim community who have publicly denounced the Cordoba Mosque. And Nevermind that leftist zealots are permitted to run businesses out of towns and cities across the nation via frivolous litigation on a weekly basis for no other reason than class warfare bigotry. Let us pretend this is about 'religious freedom' even though there are dozens of Mosques across NYC, and many more throughout the country. And whatever you do, do not research the history of the name 'Cordoba', or the Arabic writings of the founders of the Cordoba Initiative or their connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. Do not fret over their endorsements of Hamas & Hezbollah. Further, let us create a new American tradition of allowing the profane to usurp the sacred. For our next project, perhaps we should erect a monument to the Southern Confederacy adjacent to a known safe house stop on the Underground Railroad. Why not. Community morale be damned.

Augusta| 9.5.11 @ 2:18PM

Christians In Indonesia Can’t Build Church In Muslim Neighborhood; Hold Services On The Sidewalk. LINK:

http://bigpeace.com/elcid/2011.....-sidewalk/

The American Spectator

Live From New York