Mosque at Ground Zero is a "Slap in the Face"

[HERBIE1]

In regards a few pages back about St. Nicholas and the separate issue that there's a mosque already 4 blocks from Ground Zero, can the following comment be made?

There's already several Christian churches in the vicinity around Ground Zero. Why do they need another Christian Church so close? Can't they put it elsewhere?

Are there any polls showing that 70% of New Yorkers are opposed to building another Catholic church there?

[JPINFV]

Are there any polls showing that 70% of New Yorkers are opposed to building another Catholic church there?

I'd say that 70% of New Yorkers are bigots for equating all Muslims to terrorists. If the majority of Muslims weren't considered to be terrorists, then it shouldn't be a problem.

Edited August 20, 2010 by JPINFV

[Lone Star]

So you'd like to retract the following comment then?

"Again, what I find 'odd' here is that the zoning board (or whatever municipal diety is responsible)is throwing every roadblock they can at the Christians, and yet are bending over backwards to accomodate the mosque (which can't even verify it's funding) in the name of 'tolerance and acceptance (and any other politically correct term you can think of)."

After all, the only "road blocks" are really just stipulations on a donation that eventually fell through and the Port Authority isn't really doing, well, any bending either for or against the community center. Apparently they were bending over backwards to support the reconstruction of the church (through money and land), but the church didn't like the requirements that came with otherwise free money and land.

Show me where the church owns the land it was on and that the Port Authority is requiring them to move. If they don't own the land, then they are more than free to go buy a plot nearby and rebuild without the Port Authority's rules. If they want a spot on Port Authority land, then they have to follow the Port Authority's rules. If the Port Authority is preventing them from rebuilding on their own land, then they need to take the Port Authority to court.

Show me where I said that it's alright for the church to have restrictions placed on it's own land. Note: "own land" and "land to be donated by" are two completely different things. Why should I care about any building being taller than the memorial? It's not like the memorial is going to be the tallest structure in New York.

As far as the height, I don't care if either building is taller than the memorial. Last time I checked, there are plenty of buildings larger than either the memoral or the proposed

Explain why it's 'acceptable' for the community center to be as large as it wants, while the Christian church is limited in it's dimensions.

It's not the Port Authority that has any say about the church OR the community center. The approving board from the City of New York is the one that has no authority in granting the zoning for the community center and/or ANY religious matters.

The whole point of the matter is St. Nicholas Church already had a site (right across the street from the WTC). If the only 'roadblocks' were on from the Port Authority, then the church would have rebuilt on the same site it had originally stood.

St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which once sat right across the street from the World Trade Center, was crushed under the weight of the collapse of Tower Two on September 11, 2001. St. Nicholas was the only church to be lost in the attacks, and nine years later, while City of New York officials are busy removing every impediment to the building of the Cordoba mosque two blocks from the site, St. Nicholas’ future remains unclear.₁

Just because the Port Authority offered to donate a new site (not the same site where it originally stood) means nothing. The church already had an 'original location' before the towers were knocked down. They should be able to rebuild right where they were.

Trouble emerged after St. Nicholas announced its plans to build a traditional Greek Orthodox church building, 24,000 square feet in size, topped with a grand dome. Port Authority officials told the church to cut back the size of the building and the height of the proposed dome, limiting it to rising no higher than the World Trade Center memorial. ₂

The community center was approved by the Financial District Committee of Community Board 1:

The Financial District Committee of Community Board 1 seems to have gotten ensnared in a public-relations ploy by mosque-makers. At a May 5 meeting, the committee gave the project an enthusiastic thumbs-up. But boards have zero say over religious institutions. ₃

The whole point is that the City of New York is wholeheartedly welcoming the community center, while ignoring the Christian church that was already there in the first place.

Now, please explain to me why it's more 'appropriate' for the Financial District Committee of Community Board 1 to approve this community center and deny the Christian church to rebuild.

The ONLY part that the Port Authority plays in this whole mess is that they offered to donate a patch of their property over top of an area that was used to screen vehicles coming into the WTC underground garage. The Port authority backed out of the deal when the church officials wanted to see the plans for this 'screening area'.

The deal fell apart for goodin March 2009, when the Port Authority abruptly ended the talks after refusing to allow church officials to review plans for the garage and screening area underneath. Sixteen months later, the two sides have still not met to resume negotiations₄

Again, I will ask you to justify why the church HAS to accept any offer, when they already had a site of their own? This isn't some newly planned church...it was already established prior to 9/11.

As far as you not liking the writing style of the source, I challenge you to find another source that contradicts it. Until then, it is what it is.

As it stands, there are one set of 'rules' for the community center, and one for the church. This is NOT how 'tolerance and understanding' are fostered. If these restrictions are placed on the church because of it's proximity to the WTC memeorial, then the same restrictions should be placed on the community center as well! Since I have provided sources that support my original statement, I see no need to retract any statements I've made to this point.

1. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=38462

2. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=38462

3. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mosque_madness_at_ground_zero_OQ34EB0MWS0lXuAnQau5uL/0#ixzz0x7ZjuYRG

4. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=38462

[JPINFV]

Now, please explain to me why it's more 'appropriate' for the Financial District Committee of Community Board 1 to approve this community center and deny the Christian church to rebuild.

Again, show me where the Community Board said anything about the church. Here's your sources:

Trouble emerged after St. Nicholas announced its plans to build a traditional Greek Orthodox church building, 24,000 square feet in size, topped with a grand dome. Port Authority officials told the church to cut back the size of the building and the height of the proposed dome, limiting it to rising no higher than the World Trade Center memorial.

Port Authority: Mentioned.

Community Board: Not mentioned.

The Financial District Committee of Community Board 1 seems to have gotten ensnared in a public-relations ploy by mosque-makers. At a May 5 meeting, the committee gave the project an enthusiastic thumbs-up. But boards have zero say over religious institutions. 3

Port Authority: Not mentioned.

Community Board: Mentioned.

So... um... yea. Different entities have different jurisdictions and different rules. Furthermore, since apparently the community board had no jurisdiction over new religious buildings, then I agree that it should have abstained. Of course it abstaining would have not changed the current situation at all, which really makes the community board a non-issue since their ruling either way was legally irrelevant.

Additionally, you're missing a very important part of your source. The Port Authority is telling them to limit the size if built on their parcel. A proper quote regarding the limitation would be:

The Port Authority agreed to give the church a parcel of land at Liberty and Greenwich Streets, and contribute $20 million toward construction of a new sanctuary. The Port Authority also agreed to build an explosion-proof platform and foundation for the new church building, which would sit on top of a screening area for cars and trucks entering the underground garages at the new World Trade Center.

Trouble emerged after St. Nicholas announced its plans to build a traditional Greek Orthodox church building, 24,000 square feet in size, topped with a grand dome. Port Authority officials told the church to cut back the size of the building and the height of the proposed dome, limiting it to rising no higher than the World Trade Center memorial. The deal fell apart for goodin March 2009, when the Port Authority abruptly ended the talks after refusing to allow church officials to review plans for the garage and screening area underneath. Sixteen months later, the two sides have still not met to resume negotiations.

Emphasis added.

Sequence of events according to your article.

Port Authority offers land and money.

Church submits plans.

Port Authority denies plans to build on Port Authority land because they don't like the size of the church in relation to other structures planned for the site.

Deal eventually falls apart.

What your saying is:

Church wants to rebuild on it's own property.

Port Authority says "No"

Your sequence of events is not supported by your source nor does it support that the Port Authority is telling the church what to do on the church's land.

Again, I will ask you to justify why the church HAS to accept any offer, when they already had a site of their own? This isn't some newly planned church...it was already established prior to 9/11.

If they own the land that they were originally on, then they need to take New York to court for denial of due process.

As far as you not liking the writing style of the source, I challenge you to find another source that contradicts it. Until then, it is what it is.

Are you saying that all sources are the same? So anyone who posts anything online is automatically correct until proven otherwise? Is the National Enquirer and the Wall Street Journal equals?

Again, I'd love to know who their source is and why no one has picked up on that aspect of the story. I'm not going to apologize for not giving weight to a columnist (not a reporter) for posting a date that she hasn't sourced. It's the equivalent of using an online blog as a source and then asking for evidence contrary to a conspiracy theory. The fact that absolutely zero news articles (as in not a columnist) actually report that date alone should prove something.

Edited August 20, 2010 by JPINFV

[tniuqs]

I'd say that 70% of New Yorkers are bigots for equating all Muslims to terrorists. If the majority of Muslims weren't considered to be terrorists, then it shouldn't be a problem.

I would say this is exactly what the civil rights lawyers are attempting to suggest, got to love the "BIGOT" card played whenever the remotest trace of a perceived violation of a rights issue.

Taking that just one baby step further is that the polls are saying than New Yorkers (70 % of all denominations) are Bigots then ?

Quoting Chief Billy Goldfeder:

"It's not a religious freedom issue, but one of deep respect."

http://www.ems1.com/ems-news/869057-religious-freedom-and-dying-responders/

I think a poll should be taken in the moderate Muslim community sans influence from their Iman and ask if they believe this move is supportive in their goal of acceptance and tolerance ?

Oh yea maybe not as that would could "mob rule" again ? <sheesh>

Here is a link to what occurs when a dispute occurs when the respects of others are disregarded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_Crisis

link to pics http://www.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=oka+conflict&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=gbhuTL6dLcm1ngeIofjbCA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CDgQsAQwAw&biw=1280&bih=640

Edited August 20, 2010 by tniuqs

[JPINFV]

Blog with some interesting pictures of what else is on "Hallowed Ground."

http://daryllang.com/blog/4421

So right after the 'Muslim terrorists' get done praying and playing basketball, they can go to the near-by Burger King, strip club, bar, or off track betting facility. Oh, don't forget to pick up some tacky souvenir crud while you're at it. After all, what point is it being hallowed ground if you can't turn a dollar while you're at it.

Edit:

Finally found a picture I've been meaning to post for a while.

Edited August 20, 2010 by JPINFV

[Just Plain Ruff]

I can't believe I'm going to partially agree with Olberman but he had some really good points.

What Olberman did not point out other than pointing out that the hate against the muslims and their mosque puts them in more danger than those who disagree wiht the mosque

What we all are also forgetting is that this mosque is not being built on ground zero ground, it's two blocks away from the edge of ground zero.

It's also not truly a mosque.... Yep that's right. It's 13 stories with a community center background, a culinary school, a fitness center and the top two stories will be a prayer area. It includes a place to pray to allah but for it to be considered a mosque it needs to only be set up for a mosque and not anything else. To have the culinary school and fitness center does not in the muslim terms make it a mosque

I spent an hour outside my hotel room next to the pool discussing this very thing with 3 muslim new Yorkers. All three thought that the organizers were nuts in trying to put it there, they said it was inconsiderate and rude but they said that the organizers have every right to build what they want to build. They said the ground zero was hallowed ground and the place the mosque(?) was being built was in an area that had a strip club in the general vicinity.

Yes they say that potential placement was a terrible idea but if you keep them from building there then you run the risk of keeping a christian church, or serbian church, or synagogue or whatever else from being built on private property. We cannot take the right of private property away.

We got even further into this discussion but the bottom line for these guys was let them build it.

[HERBIE1]

All I have to say is that this country is truly FUBAR. I simply cannot believe we are debating the relative merits and values of putting a mosque near ground zero.

Like with many things in this country(as in sleazy politicians who get reelected for decades), some of us have incredibly short memories.

For the sake of this country's future, I do not think November can come soon enough.

[JPINFV]

Like with many things in this country(as in sleazy politicians who get reelected for decades), some of us have incredibly short memories.

Alternatively, some of us don't believe in compromising the Constitution in the name of fear mongering.

[JPINFV]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homeland-edition

Daily Show once again hits the nail on the head. The excepts from Charlton Heston's speech at the 1999 NRA Convention are amazingly appropriate.