B.O. Supports Mosque near ground zero.

Hi

It is unfortunate that they did not choose to build a multi faith building, but you cannot tar everyone with the same brush. I was brought up by devout Catholic parents, went to a Catholic boarding school, was a practicing catholic for over 25 years this does not make me an IRA terrorist. Catholic churches could be built in Enniskillen, Birmingham, Warrington, Belfast etc with out anyone batting an eyelid.

The Mosque is not a terrorist; the religion is not a terrorist, evil people are terrorists, we need to separate the two.
 

Pat

Supporter
It appears to me that the consensus (sort of) is that there is the clear "right" to build the mosque but varied concerns about the wisdom to do it. Ironically, last night I received a call from a friend who came to work for me after 9/11 that was actually in the North Tower when the first plane hit. The call was related to a follow up session on some consulting work I did a while back and eventually drifted to the topic of the mosque. Her view was interesting. First some background: Her office was in a lower floor and she was able to evacuate the facility fairly early after impact. And in the confusion she and others stood around on the street below not knowing what was happening when the second plane hit. For the next hour the chaos and panic swept the area until the towers collapsed to what sounded like a series of internal explosions. (que the nut job conspiracy theorists). For her, the worst part was watching poor souls jump to their deaths to escape the flames. Those images still haunt her even after the years and extended therapy. It's also how she came to work for me, she wanted to get out of the city and every year around 9/11, she had a breakdown of sorts that eventually required her to resign as she could no longer bear to work in a high rise building. (The fact that it was near the Tampa airport didn't help either.) For those of us that have been in the military, it's classic post traumatic stress and it will probably be with her to some degree for her life. Her view is that she wants peace with all this. If it were up to her, turn the whole impact area into a national park memorial like Gettysburg and build an interfaith religious facility to bring people together. It seems that the quiet peace of Gettysburg resonates with her-I've never been there. Needles to say, the idea of a mosque alone is not her favorite. Given property values, that will never happen but I thought it an interesting view. For those affected this is a very intense and sensitive issue and I really don't think that any of us who weren't there can fully appreciate their pain.
 
I do think we all agree that the right to build the mosque exists and needs to be defended but that the mosque is offensive.

It has been said that Islam traditionally builds a mosque at the site of an Islamic victory in battle and that this project is a thinly veiled effort to extend a barbaric tradition onto the North American continent. I believe that if you follow the money it will lead you to the Wahabists who are ultimately responsible for this project, and it will be clear that Islamic expansion by jihad is exactly the message they want to send here.

Regarding the thread title, B.O. doesn't know what he supports; he's an empty suit.
 
I do think we all agree that the right to build the mosque exists and needs to be defended but that the mosque is offensive.

It has been said that Islam traditionally builds a mosque at the site of an Islamic victory in battle and that this project is a thinly veiled effort to extend a barbaric tradition onto the North American continent. I believe that if you follow the money it will lead you to the Wahabists who are ultimately responsible for this project, and it will be clear that Islamic expansion by jihad is exactly the message they want to send here.

Regarding the thread title, B.O. doesn't know what he supports; he's an empty suit.

I think that he clearly knows what he supports, having heard his speech in Egypt and others.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Jim, Were the Japanese in Hiroshima against Christian churches being built? I don't see your point.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
Posted by Al

Al, at the end of the war, the Japanese people were not in a position to make any kind of point with the western powers concerning what the liked or did't like. My guess is that many of them resented this symbol of western religion.

My question was aimed at your thoughts.

Do you find the building of western Churches amid the ruins of Heroshima a slap in the face toward the Japanese people?
 

Pat

Supporter
Posted by Al

Al, at the end of the war, the Japanese people were not in a position to make any kind of point with the western powers concerning what the liked or did't like. My guess is that many of them resented this symbol of western religion.

My question was aimed at your thoughts.

Do you find the building of western Churches amid the ruins of Heroshima a slap in the face toward the Japanese people?

I'm confused by your question and would like some clarification. Christianity for example has been in Japan since the 16th century (albeit a minority). However, during World War II, the government forced every subject to practice State Shinto and admit that the Emperor was divine. Those who opposed the Imperial cult were persecuted. Separation of religion and the state was mandated by the occupation of Japan because of the role of State Shinto in furthering Japan's military aggression in Asia before and during World War II.
Are you suggesting that it was inappropriate for the allies to have stopped this practice during the occupation? Are you implying that those wishing to practice other religions should not have been allowed to rebuild their places of worship after the war? Are you further implying that "western religion" had the same role in dropping the atomic bomb that Islam did with the 9/11 attacks? Seems like an absurd comparison.
 
Posted by Al

Al, at the end of the war, the Japanese people were not in a position to make any kind of point with the western powers concerning what the liked or did't like. My guess is that many of them resented this symbol of western religion.

My question was aimed at your thoughts.

Do you find the building of western Churches amid the ruins of Heroshima a slap in the face toward the Japanese people?

I'm not going to answer for Al but I don't think the anaolgy rings true as the war and bombing of Hiroshima was not done as an expression of religious views/extremeism in the way 9/11 was
 

Ron Earp

Admin
I'm not going to answer for Al but I don't think the anaolgy rings true as the war and bombing of Hiroshima was not done as an expression of religious views/extremeism in the way 9/11 was

Correct. And, were the churches built "in the ruins" of Hiroshima? My quick search turned up little on Christian churches in Japan but my guess is the churches were built in the 60s, 70s, 80s when many Christian churches had outreach programs to Asian counties and the Pacific Rim.

Currently the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't have a outpost in Hiroshima as beer and pirates aren't too popular in Japan. But that is changing!
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Tim,

Several areas of this analogy are different, obviously WW2 was a much larger conflict, with unsimilar causes and effects. But in the end what you have is an area devistated by an act of war with the few remaining citizens more than a little sensitive to what was done to their city.

Then you have western religions, coming in and setting up houses of whorship in this devistated area. I have no doubt that they came in peace with a hope that their religous values would help to ease their suffering and give a better understanding of how others feel, in the hope of preventing such devistation in the future.

I'm just wondering what your feelings are toward this church building process.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Pehaps you have heard of the Crusades?

Obviously this was long ago, but I guarantee you the people in the Middle East remember them.
 
Last edited:
It appears to me that the consensus (sort of) is that there is the clear "right" to build the mosque but varied concerns about the wisdom to do it. Ironically, last night I received a call from a friend who came to work for me after 9/11 that was actually in the North Tower when the first plane hit. The call was related to a follow up session on some consulting work I did a while back and eventually drifted to the topic of the mosque. Her view was interesting. First some background: Her office was in a lower floor and she was able to evacuate the facility fairly early after impact. And in the confusion she and others stood around on the street below not knowing what was happening when the second plane hit. For the next hour the chaos and panic swept the area until the towers collapsed to what sounded like a series of internal explosions. (que the nut job conspiracy theorists). For her, the worst part was watching poor souls jump to their deaths to escape the flames. Those images still haunt her even after the years and extended therapy. It's also how she came to work for me, she wanted to get out of the city and every year around 9/11, she had a breakdown of sorts that eventually required her to resign as she could no longer bear to work in a high rise building. (The fact that it was near the Tampa airport didn't help either.) For those of us that have been in the military, it's classic post traumatic stress and it will probably be with her to some degree for her life. Her view is that she wants peace with all this. If it were up to her, turn the whole impact area into a national park memorial like Gettysburg and build an interfaith religious facility to bring people together. It seems that the quiet peace of Gettysburg resonates with her-I've never been there. Needles to say, the idea of a mosque alone is not her favorite. Given property values, that will never happen but I thought it an interesting view. For those affected this is a very intense and sensitive issue and I really don't think that any of us who weren't there can fully appreciate their pain.

I've held back on commenting on this thread, but as some of you may recall (at least, those who were members of the original iteration of GT40s.com pre 9/11), my cousin Jeff, one of my first cousins whom I was very close to, lost his life at the WTC.

Stating that, I totally agree with Veek's friend - that a more serene and park-like memorial would be a better choice, with a multicultural/interfaith center so that like minded people can come together and better understand each other, each others' beliefs, the scope of what happened that day, and foster better relations and tolerance. There are extremists in every religion, to blame all Muslims for what happened is misguided.

It is troubling to me that the imam spearheading this mosque has associated himself with some of the more radical Islamic causes, and that he has said US policy is partially to blame for what happened. But, legally, and with the full support of the beliefs the US was built on, building a mosque and Islamic center two blocks away from Ground Zero is within those rights and beliefs. If we should be upset with anyone, it is the corporation that currently owns that land.

As far as Muslim's building mosques as signs of conquest - the same happened during the Crusades. And the colonization of the US. And, a christian religion that advocates the destruction/elimination of another religion? Yes, that has happened in the past. Religion is often used to that end. And, I am not pointing a finger at Islam and Christianity alone - almost all religions have done so. Now, this is a "misguided" practice, but then again, many believe that the radicals who have declared jihad against the US and Western Civilization are just as misguided.

And, Ron - the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should have no problem establishing a foothold in Japan. Beer may not be as popular as sake (or, Nihonshu as it really should be called, which is brewed more like beer than fermented like wine), but brands like Asahi, Sapporo, Suntori and Kirin are pretty popular.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Are you suggesting that it was inappropriate for the allies to have stopped this practice during the occupation? Are you implying that those wishing to practice other religions should not have been allowed to rebuild their places of worship after the war? Are you further implying that "western religion" had the same role in dropping the atomic bomb that Islam did with the 9/11 attacks? Seems like an absurd comparison.<!-- google_ad_section_end --> <!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->
Posted by Veek

Veek, I have no problem with their rebuilding or building new houses of worship. On the contrary, I think it is a good idea to foster a greater understanding. I'm suggesting that it is/was appropriate. So why not now?
 
I'm not a fan of Islam because its so strong that they can push people into scary things...

anyway did U heard that good that there already is a small Mosque around there?

and what even more surprised me that I've heard that they also have a small mosque in the Pentagon...

thats not good me thinks...Islam is to strong and they can use followers to press them to do things...

Mosque's in their homeland its their problem, let not makes that ours...
you can pray everywhere you like even on the toilet or in the bar when you want, so to speak, God is everywhere ;)

but thinking about that...they pray in a certain way...towards mekka or so? to Mohammed? that guy isn't a God but a murderer in his days...hm, oke if my post is to much you can delete it.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
How do you all feel about building Catholic Churches next to grammar schools, with their past history involving childeren?
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
and what even more surprised me that I've heard that they also have a small mosque in the Pentagon...

I can imagine that.....figure SOMEBODY must have been convinced it was "necessary" in order to make sure those pentagon employees who practice Islam would not be deprived of their right to engage in whatever worship practices are consistent with their religion (don't they pray 5 times a day, facing east???), in accordance with our freedom to worship provisions in our constitution.

If it's true, though, I'd call "Bulls**t"...sounds like PC gone wild again. I don't know of any religion that requires that their worship practices take place in a special building or structure....why are we so afraid of the possibility that we might just insult someone who has different beliefs from us, especially when the Islamic jihadists are quoting those very beliefs to justify their acts of terrorism?

I just don't get it...when did America lose its cajones? I am a firm believer in compassion for those who are not as fortunate as I am, practice random acts of kindness on a regular basis, and believe in my heart that those who say Islam does not support acts of terrorism actually believe in their heart that is accurate.....but actions speak louder than words, and if we allow a mosque to be built on this site it will be just like screaming "Come on, it's OK to mess with us!!!".

I'd rather my actions said something different.....but we all have the right to our own opinions, that's just my preference.

Doug
 
I believe they started already in the Pentagon in 2006...enough from that on the web...they Infiltrate slowly in almost every height in society, not that all Muslims are bad ofcorse, but ist not just a hobby.

here some nice video

YouTube - WHAT ISLAM IS NOT

if you act to slow and are to friendly its easily to misuse the system for?? and there are some sleeping cells or how do you call that in English...
don't forget, they want to rule the world, one step at the time...and one the moment they are the fastest growing on the planet.
 
No time to read every reply but I do have to say this... everything Obama has said I agree with. In principal it is 100% spot on. What bugs me the most is that people expect the president to make a personal judgement call on this matter in the public eye. I do not believe that any leader should offer any opinion over a matter like this. To hold him to that, no matter what you think he should say is a bit naive to me.
 
Back
Top