Skip to main content




 President Barack Obama on Friday forcefully endorsed allowing a mosque near ground zero, saying the country's founding principles demanded no less.


"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country," Obama said, weighing in for the first time on a controversy that has riven New York City and the nation.

"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

Obama made the comments at an annual dinner in the White House State Dining Room celebrating the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

The White House had not previously taken a stand on the mosque, which would be part of a $100 million Islamic center two blocks from where nearly 3,000 people perished when hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001. Press secretary Robert Gibbs had insisted it was a local matter.

It was already much more than that, sparking debate around the country as top Republicans including Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich announced their opposition. So did the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights group.

Obama elevated it to a presidential issue Friday without equivocation.

While insisting that the place where the twin towers once stood was indeed "hallowed ground," Obama said that the proper way to honor it was to apply American values.

"Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect towards those who are different from us – and that way of life, that quintessentially American creed, stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today," he said.


Obama harkened back to earlier times when the building of synagogues or Catholic churches also met with opposition. "But time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues, and stay true to our core values and emerge stronger for it," he said. "So it must be and will be today."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent who has been a strong supporter of the mosque, welcomed Obama's words as a "clarion defense of the freedom of religion."

But some Republicans were quick to pounce.

"President Obama is wrong," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. "It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero. While the Muslim community has the right to build the mosque they are abusing that right by needlessly offending so many people who have suffered so much."

Entering the highly charged election-year debate, Obama surely knew that his words would not only make headlines but be heard by Muslims worldwide. The president has made it a point to reach out to the global Muslim community, and the over 100 guests at Friday's dinner included ambassadors and officials from numerous Muslim nations, including Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. Seated around candlelit tables, they listened closely as Obama spoke, then stood and applauded when the president finished his remarks.

While his pronouncement concerning the mosque might find favor in the Muslim world, Obama's stance runs counter to the opinions of the majority of Americans, according to polls. A CNN/Opinion Research poll released this week found that nearly 70 percent of Americans opposed the mosque plan while just 29 percent approved. A number of Democratic politicians have shied away from the controversy.

The group behind the $100 million project, the Cordoba Initiative, describes it as a Muslim-themed community center. Early plans call not only for prayer space but for a swimming pool, culinary school, art studios and other features. Developers envision it as a hub for interfaith interaction, as well as a place for Muslims to bridge some of their faith's own schisms.

Opponents, including some Sept. 11 victims' relatives, see the prospect of a mosque so near the destroyed trade center as an insult to the memory of those killed by Islamic terrorists in the 2001 attacks. Some of the Sept. 11 victims' relatives, however, are in favor.

The mosque has won approval from local planning boards but faces legal challenges, and New York's Conservative Party is planning a television ad campaign to pressure a New York City utility to use its power to block the project.

Obama harkened back to earlier times when the building of synagogues or Catholic churches also met with opposition. "But time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues, and stay true to our core values and emerge stronger for it," he said. "So it must be and will be today."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent who has been a strong supporter of the mosque, welcomed Obama's words as a "clarion defense of the freedom of religion."

But some Republicans were quick to pounce.

"President Obama is wrong," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. "It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero. While the Muslim community has the right to build the mosque they are abusing that right by needlessly offending so many people who have suffered so much."

Entering the highly charged election-year debate, Obama surely knew that his words would not only make headlines but be heard by Muslims worldwide. The president has made it a point to reach out to the global Muslim community, and the over 100 guests at Friday's dinner included ambassadors and officials from numerous Muslim nations, including Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. Seated around candlelit tables, they listened closely as Obama spoke, then stood and applauded when the president finished his remarks.

While his pronouncement concerning the mosque might find favor in the Muslim world, Obama's stance runs counter to the opinions of the majority of Americans, according to polls. A CNN/Opinion Research poll released this week found that nearly 70 percent of Americans opposed the mosque plan while just 29 percent approved. A number of Democratic politicians have shied away from the controversy.

The group behind the $100 million project, the Cordoba Initiative, describes it as a Muslim-themed community center. Early plans call not only for prayer space but for a swimming pool, culinary school, art studios and other features. Developers envision it as a hub for interfaith interaction, as well as a place for Muslims to bridge some of their faith's own schisms.

Opponents, including some Sept. 11 victims' relatives, see the prospect of a mosque so near the destroyed trade center as an insult to the memory of those killed by Islamic terrorists in the 2001 attacks. Some of the Sept. 11 victims' relatives, however, are in favor.

The mosque has won approval from local planning boards but faces legal challenges, and New York's Conservative Party is planning a television ad campaign to pressure a New York City utility to use its power to block the project.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...mosque_n_682064.html

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

  I know my President is being diplomatic...but!  This is one instance I totally disagree with him. Although I completely understand why he is saying this...and it's true we do have to have religious tolerance.  However, I think it is still too soon and I know that some extremist groups will have the lead way to do this again by having this safe haven.  On the other hand, since the muslim community knows that everyone will be WATCHING them...closely, it may be an interesting way to bring neighborhoods together.   Still, personally I think the mosque should be built away from ground zero.  But!  I'm  just sayin
Well ... I can definitely understand the fear and uneasiness behind the prospect of building that mosque in that particular place ... but, I have to agree with the President 100%!!

Being on the receiving end of having my rights and values and authenticity as an American questioned simply because I'm a BLACK American ... which somehow is supposed to limit my validity as such .... I can completely relate to the American Muslim community's feelings on this matter.

"Extremism" is not limited to the Muslim religion ... and, in fact, there's plenty of "extremist" Christians, Catholics, Jews, Atheists and every other religion all over this country!!  I don't see these same White people all up in front of the KKK camps ... protesting their religion-based hatred and violence. 

These same people that are telling ME that I can't be Black AND American at the same time are saying the same thing to Muslims ... but not to Jews, over-zealous evangelicals, crazy ass White Supremacists, Asians or any other racial/ethnic group that THEY deem acceptable.  And who the hell are THEY to determine anybody else's level or degree of citizenship?? 

"America" made the rules.  Now it has to play by them.  As a 'terror threat' that mosque and the people who attend it should be investigated and monitored just like any other suspected 'threat'.  If everything is above-board, they should be cleared of any suspected wrongdoing (as the feds are doing with everybody else in this country ... privacy laws be damned!).  And if they're doing wrong stuff ... or fraternizing with the 'wrong element', then they need to be busted and prosecuted.

But ... IMO, they have every right to put a Mosque there .... just the same as if it was Christians who wanted to build a church in that same spot, as well.  Preconceived notions, unfounded judgments and misconceptions are nothing you can build a solid case on. 

I was watching a news report last night on the White girl oil clean-up worker who is claiming she was raped by her Black supervisor after she accepted a ride home from him after she became ill.  The man has a previous conviction as a sex offender and failed to register himself as such with the local police.  He has been arrested, is already presumed to be guilty by the media and the public, will most probably be convicted and sent to jail for a long time ... but, he says that the sex was consensual.

He may or may not actually be guilty.  And since it's his word against hers, it's unlikely that anybody but those two will ever know the truth for sure.  Because of the way that the news story was framed, I figured him for guilty ... all the way until the end .... when the next story they ran was the one about the man who was just released from prison after spending 27 years incarcerated for a RAPE that DNA evidence has found that he DID NOT commit

The person that wants to build that mosque there and worship is just as much an American as anybody else.  And right or wrong, he has a RIGHT of American citizenship to do just that. Whether or not people like it or not is a whole different issue.  But those are the rules. And changing the game in the middle of should simply not be allowed.

Partial list of M
uslims who died during the 9/11 attacks

In Lower Manhattan, 2 Mosques Have Firm Roots
-- i.e. Masjid Manhattan, founded in 1970, is four blocks from ground zero;  Masjid al-Farah moved to its present location, about 12 blocks from ground zero, in 1985.

Two reasons why this uproar is ridiculous. Add to that the outrageous "no mosque" protests in other places in the country and you have all the reasons needed for statements against this "zero (religious) tolerance" movement even bolder than the president's.
Obama's Ground Zero Mosque Comments: President Recalibrates (VIDEO).


Weighing his words carefully on a fiery political issue, President Barack Obama said Saturday that Muslims have the right to build a mosque near New York's ground zero, but he did not say whether he believes it is a good idea to do so.

Obama commented during a trip to Florida, where he expanded on a Friday night White House speech asserting that Muslims have the same right to freedom of religion as everyone else in America.

The president's statements thrust him squarely into a debate that he had skirted for weeks and could put Democrats on the spot three months before midterm elections where they already were nervous about holding control of the House and maybe even the Senate. Until Friday, the White House had asserted that it did not want to get involved in local decision-making.

Obama told CNN's Ed Henry Saturday that he supported the developers' right to build:

My intention was to simply let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country, we treat everybody equally in accordance with the law. Regardless of race. Regardless of religion. I was not commenting on and will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country's about and I think it's very important that as difficult as some of these issues are, we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about.

 

WATCH: Obama talks about "the right" to build mosque

 

The White House quickly followed up on Obama's latest comments on the matter, with Obama spokesman Bill Burton saying that the president wasn't backing off in any way from the remarks he made Friday.

"What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque," Burton said.


New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent who has been a strong supporter of the mosque, welcomed Obama's White House speech as a "clarion defense of the freedom of religion."

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who was among those who met with Obama on Saturday, lauded the president's position. Crist is running for the U.S. Senate as an independent.
"I think he's right -- I mean you know we're a country that in my view stands for freedom of religion and respect for others," Crist said after the Florida meeting with Obama and other officials. "I know there are sensitivities and I understand them. This is a place where you're supposed to be able to practice your religion without the government telling you you can't."

Others were quick to pounce on Obama's statements.

In a statement Saturday, House Minority Leader John Boehner said the decision to build the mosque wasn't an issue of religious freedom, but a matter of respect.
"The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do," Boehner said. "That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding."

Added Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.: "President Obama is wrong. It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero."
Democratic Senate candidate Jeff Greene of Florida took Obama's Friday speech to mean the president supports the construction.

"President Obama has this all wrong and I strongly oppose his support for building a mosque near ground zero especially since Islamic terrorists have bragged and celebrated destroying the Twin Towers and killing nearly 3,000 Americans," said Greene. "Freedom of religion might provide the right to build the mosque in the shadow of ground zero, but common sense and respect for those who lost their lives and loved ones gives sensible reason to build the mosque someplace else."

The mosque would be part of a $100 million Islamic community center two blocks from where nearly 3,000 people perished when hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001.

The proposed construction has sparked debate around the country that has included opposition from top Republicans including Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich as well as the Jewish civil rights group the Anti-Defamation League.

Obama's Friday comment was taken by some to mean that he strongly supports the building of an Islamic center near the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, something he never said.

Speaking to a gathering at the White House Friday evening to observe the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, Obama said that he believes "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country."

"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

Some relatives of people killed in the Sept. 11 attacks supported Obama's comments.

The mosque is "in many ways ... a fitting tribute," said Colleen Kelly of the Bronx, who lost her brother Bill Kelly Jr. in the attacks.

"This is the voice of Islam that I believe needs a wider audience," said Kelly, who is Catholic. "This is what moderate Islam is all about."

Opinions are mixed among family members.

Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was killed at the World Trade Center, has said the president's comments show "a gross lack of sensitivity to the 9/11 families and to the people who were lost."

"Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see," said Debra Burlingame, a spokeswoman for some Sept. 11 victims' families and the sister of one of the pilots killed in the attacks.

Building the mosque at ground zero, she said, "is a deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah."

Obama surely knew that his words Friday night at a White House dinner marking the holy month of Ramadan not only would make headlines, but be heard by Muslims worldwide. The president has made it a point to reach out to the global Muslim community, and the more than 100 guests at Friday's dinner included ambassadors and officials from numerous nations where Islam is observed, including Saudi Arabia and Indonesia.

When Obama first took office, Muslim leaders had high hopes from his presidency, even as he kept his distance from them during the campaign and rebutted false rumors that he was Muslim.

Their expectations were raised further after a June 2009 speech in Cairo, where Obama said he wanted to forge a relationship between the U.S. and Muslims based on respect and parterships with the private sector and civil society.

But many leaders have since become disappointed in the president, believing he has mostly kept his outreach to their community behind the scenes. Many Muslims had also hoped he would reverse several Bush administration policies they felt unfairly targeted them after the Sept. 11 attacks, such as no-fly lists and the Patriot Act.
___

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent who has been a strong supporter of the mosque, welcomed Obama's White House speech as a "clarion defense of the freedom of religion."

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who was among those who met with Obama on Saturday, lauded the president's position. Crist is running for the U.S. Senate as an independent.
"I think he's right -- I mean you know we're a country that in my view stands for freedom of religion and respect for others," Crist said after the Florida meeting with Obama and other officials. "I know there are sensitivities and I understand them. This is a place where you're supposed to be able to practice your religion without the government telling you you can't."

Others were quick to pounce on Obama's statements.

In a statement Saturday, House Minority Leader John Boehner said the decision to build the mosque wasn't an issue of religious freedom, but a matter of respect.
"The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do," Boehner said. "That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding."

Added Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.: "President Obama is wrong. It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero."
Democratic Senate candidate Jeff Greene of Florida took Obama's Friday speech to mean the president supports the construction.

"President Obama has this all wrong and I strongly oppose his support for building a mosque near ground zero especially since Islamic terrorists have bragged and celebrated destroying the Twin Towers and killing nearly 3,000 Americans," said Greene. "Freedom of religion might provide the right to build the mosque in the shadow of ground zero, but common sense and respect for those who lost their lives and loved ones gives sensible reason to build the mosque someplace else."

The mosque would be part of a $100 million Islamic community center two blocks from where nearly 3,000 people perished when hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001.

The proposed construction has sparked debate around the country that has included opposition from top Republicans including Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich as well as the Jewish civil rights group the Anti-Defamation League.

Obama's Friday comment was taken by some to mean that he strongly supports the building of an Islamic center near the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, something he never said.

Speaking to a gathering at the White House Friday evening to observe the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, Obama said that he believes "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country."

"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

Some relatives of people killed in the Sept. 11 attacks supported Obama's comments.

The mosque is "in many ways ... a fitting tribute," said Colleen Kelly of the Bronx, who lost her brother Bill Kelly Jr. in the attacks.

"This is the voice of Islam that I believe needs a wider audience," said Kelly, who is Catholic. "This is what moderate Islam is all about."

Opinions are mixed among family members.

Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was killed at the World Trade Center, has said the president's comments show "a gross lack of sensitivity to the 9/11 families and to the people who were lost."

"Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see," said Debra Burlingame, a spokeswoman for some Sept. 11 victims' families and the sister of one of the pilots killed in the attacks.

Building the mosque at ground zero, she said, "is a deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah."

Obama surely knew that his words Friday night at a White House dinner marking the holy month of Ramadan not only would make headlines, but be heard by Muslims worldwide. The president has made it a point to reach out to the global Muslim community, and the more than 100 guests at Friday's dinner included ambassadors and officials from numerous nations where Islam is observed, including Saudi Arabia and Indonesia.

When Obama first took office, Muslim leaders had high hopes from his presidency, even as he kept his distance from them during the campaign and rebutted false rumors that he was Muslim.

Their expectations were raised further after a June 2009 speech in Cairo, where Obama said he wanted to forge a relationship between the U.S. and Muslims based on respect and parterships with the private sector and civil society.

But many leaders have since become disappointed in the president, believing he has mostly kept his outreach to their community behind the scenes. Many Muslims had also hoped he would reverse several Bush administration policies they felt unfairly targeted them after the Sept. 11 attacks, such as no-fly lists and the Patriot Act.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...mosque_n_682377.html





Sharif El-Gamal, CEO of SoHo Properties, the developer of Park51 says the group is interested in hearing more about Gov. Paterson's proposal but has always been focused on lower Manhattan



UPDATE: Mosque Developers Open To Relocation Offer



SoHo properties, developer of Park51 mosque near Ground Zero, willing to talk about moving



Sponsors of the proposed mosque near Ground Zero are not slamming the door on Gov. Paterson's idea to build the center someplace else.

"We are open to a conversation to find out more on what the governor has in mind," the center, Park51, said in a Twitter post yesterday.

While mosque opponents charge the chosen site is insensitive to 9/11 victims, Paterson doesn't oppose the planned location.

He suggested earlier this week it might ease tensions if the center was further away from Ground Zero, and raised the possibility of offering state-owned land.

"I would hope that whatever spirituality exists would compel the developers to sit down and have this conversation," Paterson said on WOR's "The John Gambling Show" yesterday.

Mosque developer Sharif El-Gamal has said the group is interested in hearing from Paterson but added that "this has always been about serving lower Manhattan."

He did not return calls and emails yesterday.

Meanwhile, in another Twitter post, Park51 attacked GOP gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio, a fervent mosque critic, as "islamiphobic."

Lazio spokesman Barney Keller rejected the claim.

"Rick Lazio has made it very clear from day one that this isn't about religion. It's about transparency and this mosque and this imam," Keller said.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_...e.html#ixzz0wgTSRmxu



Sponsors of the proposed mosque near Ground Zero are not slamming the door on Gov. Paterson's idea to build the center someplace else.

"We are open to a conversation to find out more on what the governor has in mind," the center, Park51, said in a Twitter post yesterday.

While mosque opponents charge the chosen site is insensitive to 9/11 victims, Paterson doesn't oppose the planned location.

He suggested earlier this week it might ease tensions if the center was further away from Ground Zero, and raised the possibility of offering state-owned land.

"I would hope that whatever spirituality exists would compel the developers to sit down and have this conversation," Paterson said on WOR's "The John Gambling Show" yesterday.

Mosque developer Sharif El-Gamal has said the group is interested in hearing from Paterson but added that "this has always been about serving lower Manhattan."

He did not return calls and emails yesterday.

Meanwhile, in another Twitter post, Park51 attacked GOP gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio, a fervent mosque critic, as "islamiphobic."

Lazio spokesman Barney Keller rejected the claim.

"Rick Lazio has made it very clear from day one that this isn't about religion. It's about transparency and this mosque and this imam," Keller said.



http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_...move_sez_mosque.html
Reference:
 Well ... I can definitely understand the fear and uneasiness behind the prospect of building that mosque in that particular place ... but, I have to agree with the President 100%!!


 Being on the receiving end of having my rights and values and authenticity as an American questioned simply because I'm a BLACK American ... which somehow is supposed to limit my validity as such .... I can completely relate to the American Muslim community's feelings on this matter. "Extremism" is not limited to the Muslim religion ... and, in fact, there's plenty of "extremist" Christians, Catholics, Jews, Atheists and every other religion all over this country!! I don't see these same White people all up in front of the KKK camps ... protesting their religion-based hatred and violence. These same people that are telling ME that I can't be Black AND American at the same time are saying the same thing to Muslims ... but not to Jews, over-zealous evangelicals, crazy ass White Supremacists, Asians or any other racial/ethnic group that THEY deem acceptable. And who the hell are THEY to determine anybody else's level or degree of citizenship?? "America" made the rules. Now it has to play by them.



As a 'terror threat' that mosque and the people who attend it should be investigated and monitored just like any other suspected 'threat'. If everything is above-board, they should be cleared of any suspected wrongdoing (as the feds are doing with everybody else in this country ... privacy laws be damned!). And if they're doing wrong stuff ... or fraternizing with the 'wrong element', then they need to be busted and prosecuted. But ... IMO, they have every right to put a Mosque there .... just the same as if it was Christians who wanted to build a church in that same spot, as well. Preconceived notions, unfounded judgments and misconceptions are nothing you can build a solid case on. I was watching a news report last night on the White girl oil clean-up worker who is claiming she was raped by her Black supervisor after she accepted a ride home from him after she became ill. The man has a previous conviction as a sex offender and failed to register himself as such with the local police. He has been arrested, is already presumed to be guilty by the media and the public, will most probably be convicted and sent to jail for a long time ... but, he says that the sex was consensual. He may or may not actually be guilty. And since it's his word against hers, it's unlikely that anybody but those two will ever know the truth for sure. Because of the way that the news story was framed, I figured him for guilty ... all the way until the end .... when the next story they ran was the one about the man who was just released from prison after spending 27 years incarcerated for a RAPE that DNA evidence has found that he DID NOT commit. The person that wants to build that mosque there and worship is just as much an American as anybody else. And right or wrong, he has a RIGHT of American citizenship to do just that. Whether or not people like it or not is a whole different issue. But those are the rules. And changing the game in the middle of should simply not be allowed.

My sista I agree with EVERYTHING you said.  But!  I am still apprehensive about the location since A LOT of people DIED at that site.  But hey!  That's just me.  It took me a LONG time to pass the street where my son was murdered.  In fact, it took years.  My son was among three black men KILLED within a 12 hour spin.  He was the last to have his life taken.  My body would literally shake if I went 2 miles within the area, so I am totally compassionate as to how the people who lost their loved ones feel.  And I have to ask the question to the Muslims....why there?  And turned it around on them...."are yall being insensitive of what happened and don't care?  Cuz it was MUSLIMS who did this.  So as fellow Americans, wouldn't the right thang[not the legal thang but the conscious  thing] to do would be honor and understand why this may not be the right place to worship and to build elsewhere?"  To me this is a legitimate question/concern and the denial of appropriate and shall I say human answers will continue to cause division in diverse religions cuz in this case they are turning a  "blind" eye regarding the most horrific bloody event to occur in our nation in current history by doing the unmentionable.    So in that I feel it's both ways....the muslims are being and seemingly unaffected and remorseful by their counterpart Americans lost.  Otherwise, why would they wanna do it.....there?  You can say you're an AMERICAN....but!  The proof is in the pudding...and if you are an American, why would you want to knowing HURT other Americans...cuz why?  You can?  That's like building on a scared grounds.  And knowing its sacred and doing it anyway.  In this it seems like Americans are becoming more and more inverted in terms of their wants despite what this want may do to their neighbors.  Just like in most religions....their view is the correct and ONLY view as they kill other HUMAN beings to protect  this view in an bloody effort to pass it on generally-by whatever means necessary.  So having said that,  I just project chaos in the immediate future regarding this issue.  Cuz I know I couldn't walk pass the site without thinking about those unsuspecting Americans who lost their lives....and the psychological and social affect this has had on the nation....again I think it's a bit arrogant.  And I'm not saying they don't have the legal right to do it...I think the arrogance of knowing what has happened and still moving forward troubles me. We  have to remember 9/11....otherwise we are setting oursevles up.  And once you placed a building over the tragedy, somehow that tragedy vanishes over the years.  And people forget.  We can't afford to let that happen.  Ever!


But!  My sista you did cover your point well....might I say your covered it in an excellent presentation.  And I will be your side 250 percent except for this nagging "been in their shoes" kinda thang....but!  I'm just sayin
Reference:
My sista I agree with EVERYTHING you said.  But!  I am still apprehensive about the location since A LOT of people DIED at that site.

Including Muslims...  Which makes this "insensitivity" rationale DOA.  But maybe you and other people opposed to the project are genuinely concerned about Muslims being insensitive to Muslims...  


Reference:
if you are an American, why would you want to knowing HURT other Americans

With the Dr. Laura fiasco (amongst many others), not to mention all the post-9/11 ways non-muslim Americans didn't give a sh*t about the feelings of Muslims (profiling, anyone?)... I'm calling BS on this line of reasoning as well.  This kind of "hurt" people are feeling is racism/xenophobia by any other name.  

There is NO reason why any and all Muslims should have to do anything to ease the racist feelings of other Americans since all Muslims did not participate in the 9/11 attacks and there are A LOT of dead Muslims that prove it.
Didn't the "pilgrims" come to this country initially in search of religious freedom.  Separation of church and state required by our constitution dictates that the government should not be interfering with people's abilities to practice their religions.  Wouldn't any interception by the government be in violation of our constitution anyway?  Should all Christians be viewed and judged by the actions of the Ku Klux Klan, whom are Christians?

That being said, personally I think that this (and others) Mosque is going to be under so much surveillance until it isn't funny (whether our government will admit it publicly or not).  And while I do believe in our constitution when it comes to freedom of religion, I personally don't trust governments of the so-call middle east any more than I would trust middle eastern terrorists and their true or eventual intentions where America(ns) are concerned.  

So, in America everyone should be able to practice their own religion and be able to build their own houses of worship, however, anyone of ANY religion found to commit or to be attempting to commit any act of terrorism, violence or war against the United States and/or its citizens should be sought out and swiftly brought to justice, no matter what their religion is or where they may happen to worship.
Reference:
My sista I agree with EVERYTHING you said.  But!  I am still apprehensive about the location since A LOT of people DIED at that site.

Including Muslims...  Which makes this "insensitivity" rationale DOA.  But maybe you and other people opposed to the project are genuinely concerned about Muslims being insensitive to Muslims...  



Huh?  I'm not quite sure what you're tryin' to say my brotha?  That there were muslims who also died at Ground zero?  Well if that's what your saying.... then to me that's all the more REASON not to place a building there.  Cuz apparently and EVIDENTLY those fellow muslims who DID this cared less for their American muslim counterparts?  BTW  Just like christians have a HISTORY of being cruel and mean to other human beings whose religion  differ from them....so have MUSLIMS!  And then we have these same geniuses who fight/kill each other. But!  We know that....right?


Reference:
if you are an American, why would you want to knowing HURT other Americans

With the Dr. Laura fiasco (amongst many others), not to mention all the post-9/11 ways non-muslim Americans didn't give a sh*t about the feelings of Muslims (profiling, anyone?)... I'm calling BS on this line of reasoning as well.  This kind of "hurt" people are feeling is racism/xenophobia by any other name.  


Hey!  Call it whateva YOU want my brotha!  It IS what it IS.  Bottom line.  Don't have to defend my position on this to YOU or anyone else.  The thing is when TRUTH is unveiled there are those who have a problem with it.  But the truth has a question.   WHY in the HELL would anyone[including muslims] build a temple/church where there was a mass murder...no matter WHO was responsible for it? It should be sacred.  Cuz by any other name my brotha....it is STILL insensitive whateva title you wanna put on it.  My opinion, of course  And I know Americans hurt other Americans....all...the...time!  And is why it is all the more important to set the RIGHT and appropriate stage not only for tolerance but for sensitivity as well.   This whole thing reminds of gangs fighting over territory.  Gangs will come into a "turf" and kill someone as a mark to claim the street or block...the same street or block someone was KILLED on.  The gang don't care....they will claim "their street turf" and proceed with their destructive behavior.  So a non-violent former gang member [who once belonged to the gang that took over the street] comes on the scene and decides he's gonna build a center to neutralize the violence(not  the same as a prayer temper...but stay with me here].  What happens? The center is daily riddled with bullets by the other gang or it becomes a "hang out" place for the gang who feels the center belongs to them.  Cuz why?  We know why.   It's the same principal except for the obvious distinctions.  But it's a reality nonetheless!



There is NO reason why any and all Muslims should have to do anything to ease the racist tfeelings of other Americans since all Muslims did not participate in the 9/11 attacks and there are A LOT of dead Muslims that prove it.


Nope!  That's where you're WRONG and unreasonable.  Cuz there has ALWAYS been suspicion in regards to the muslim world[remember the Crusades...my brotha?  This is a historic rivalry]  Especially and including those who live in this country...but America tries hard not to be a HYPROCRITE(profess religious tolerance)...America tries to show face that the country is NOT RACIST(that's a joke)....AND!  In each category America has failed...miserably.  Doesn't take a genius, my brotha to know that not ALL muslim took part in 9/11...we know this.  And we are aware that many died there too.  For me, if we are to move forward we GOT TO KNOW that it will be a lot better for ALL Americans[including muslims] not to build a temple on Ground Zero.  Cuz if it does happen, I project a lotta bombings targeted there[from massa and his boys]...similar to the church bombings that plagued African Americans throughout history...so.  I'm just tellin ya what I know about human behavior....not what I don't know but! 
Koco Reference:
Cuz if it does happen, I project a lotta bombings targeted there[from massa and his boys]...similar to the church bombings that plagued African Americans throughout history...
I think that too.  Some hyped up right wing radio listener/Fox news watcher will not be able to resist "the call" to destroy this building and some muslim lives in the process.  The president had moral right on his side as he defended the principle of religious tolerance.  Americans need to be reminded from time to time that this country isn't a christian-only club.  Muslims are americans too.


So my initial question upon hearing it was why would they even want to put a building there knowing billy bob and bubba jack nem will engage in saltine jihad to destroy it?...But then again, fear isn't really a reason not to build.  Where would we be if MLK or Malcolm or Mandela or millions of our ancestors let fear stop them?  Perhaps American muslims feel the same way.
Last edited by NSpirit
Where would we be if MLK or Malcolm or Mandela or millions of our ancestors let fear stop them?  Perhaps American muslims feel the same way.


Yep this is true.  However...  there has been a lot BLOODSHED unnecessarily historically.  And although these gentlemen were paramount to our rights today here and aboard....they STILL weren't able to stop the violence or the killings.  It ended over time.  And as a result, many died.  How many more have to die[in this case]  before we look at the bigger picture?  Americans aren't there yet...when I say Americans...I mean primarily white America.  Yes, there are muslims here....in fact there are a lot of diverse religious groups here who proclaim themselves to be Americans.  But again.  Why continue to fuel this knowing full well...it ain't over with massa? That's the reality of it.  Although American muslims may feel that "fear" shouldn't be in the equation.....but it is! Not "their"  fear but massa's fear.   And the question remains....  At what cost?  At whose life/lives?[We are already losing lives due to the stupid wars currently...but]  I know massa's [violent] history.  I know what he is capable of.  He's a vicious COWARD.  So folks got to die just to make a point?  To me, this is totally unreasonable even though I do understand where the muslim community is coming from.  And in that, I still see it as an insensitive move on their part.  It is tooo soon.  Just cuz the stick is on someone else's shoulders, doesn't mean you have to knock it down.  Which is how I see this[New York is such a big city...lots of other options] but! Your point is well taken and received, my sista.  I just hope this issue doesn't fall out and turn into a castrophe[sp]....which is what I project will happen.  But!
Last edited by Kocolicious
Reference:
I was surprised and tickled, given his penchant for tip-toeing/backtracking in other "controversial" situations.

I know, and what's so impressive about it is that speaking up on this particular issue as FAR more potentially damaging than speaking up on things he's refrained from talking about.  

I mean look, I agree with him on this issue.  None of the reasons I've heard against the mosque make any logical sense to me.  But avoiding black issues the way he has looks especially cowardly to me, now that he's piping up on behalf of the mosque.


 Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.



"Ground Zero Mosque" Imam Helped FBI With Counterterrorism Efforts.



So "Radical" that he's FBI approved.

In March 2003, federal officials were being criticized for disrespecting the rights of Arab-Americans in their efforts to crack down on domestic security threats in the post-9/11 environment. Hoping to calm the growing tempers, FBI officials in New York hosted a forum on ways to deal with Muslim and Arab-Americans without exacerbating social tensions. The bureau wanted to provide agents with "a clear picture," said Kevin Donovan, director of the FBI's New York office.

Brought in to speak that morning -- at the office building located just blocks from Ground Zero -- was one of the city's most respected Muslim voices: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The imam offered what was for him a familiar sermon to those in attendance. "Islamic extremism for the majority of Muslims is an oxymoron," he said. "It is a fundamental contradiction in terms."

It was, by contemporaneous news accounts, a successful lecture.

Flash forward six-and-a-half years, and Feisal Abdul Rauf occupies a far different place in the political consciousness. The imam behind a controversial proposal to build an Islamic cultural center near those same FBI offices has been called "a radical Muslim," a "militant Islamist" and, simply, the "enemy" by conservative critics. His Cordoba House project, meanwhile, has been framed as a conduit for Hamas to funnel money to domestic terrorist operations.

For those who actually know or have worked with the imam, the descriptions are frighteningly -- indeed, depressingly -- unhinged from reality. The Feisal Abdul Rauf they know, spent the past decade fighting against the very same cultural divisiveness and religious-based paranoia that currently surrounds him.

"Imam Feisal has participated at the Aspen Institute in Muslim-Christian-Jewish working groups looking at ways to promote greater religious tolerance," Walter Isaacson, head of The Aspen Institute told the Huffington Post. "He has consistently denounced radical Islam and terrorism, and promoted a moderate and tolerant Islam. Some of this work was done under the auspices of his own group, the Cordoba Initiative. I liked his book, and I participated in some of the meetings in 2004 or so. This is why I find it a shame that his good work is being undermined by this inflamed dispute. He is the type of leader we should be celebrating in America, not undermining."

A longtime Muslim presence in New York City, Feisal Abdul Rauf has been a participant in the geopolitical debate about Islamic-Western relations well before 9/11. In 1997, he founded the American Society for Muslim Advancement to promote a more positive integration of Muslims into American society. His efforts and profile rose dramatically after the attacks when, in need of a calm voice to explain why greater Islam was not a force bent on terrorism, he became a go-to quote for journalists on the beat.

"We have to be very much more vocal about protecting human rights and planting the seeds of democratic regimes throughout the Arab and Muslim world," he told Katie Couric, then with NBC, during an interview in October 2001.

Along the way, he rubbed elbows with or was embraced by a host of mainstream political figures, including several in the Republican Party. John Bennett, the man who preceded Isaacson as president of the Aspen Institute, was impressed enough by the imam's message that he became a co-founder of his Cordoba Initiative, which seeks to promote cross-cultural engagement through a variety of initiatives including, most recently, the center in downtown Manhattan.

In November 2004, Feisal Abdul Rauf participated in a lengthy discussion on religion and government with, among others, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In May 2006, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright placed the imam among a host of luminaries who inspired her book, "The Mighty and the Almighty." As the New York Times reported at the time:

She mentioned Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, the two Democratic presidents in whose administrations she served; King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah II of Jordan; Vaclav Havel and Tony Blair. She organized discussions with Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, a conservative Catholic.


''The epitome of this,'' she said, was ''a totally fascinating, interesting discussion'' with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a New York Sufi leader and author; Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; and Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention.

 

Albright eventually collaborated with Feisal Abdul Rauf and others on more substantive political projects. In September 2008, the two, along with a number of other foreign policy heavyweights (including Richard Armitage and Dennis Ross) signed a report claiming that the war on terror had been inadequate in actually improving U.S. security. No less a figure than Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, embraced the findings.

"The Project's report offers a thoughtful analysis of the current state of America's relations with the Muslim world and constructive recommendations on how we can approach this pressing concern in a bipartisan framework," said the senator.

Not that the imam has been without controversy. The most famous quote circulated by critics came when he talked to the Australian press in March 2004.

"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians," he said. "But it was Christians in World War II who bombed innocent civilians in Dresden and dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."

Then there is the interview he gave to CBS's "60 Minutes" shortly after the 9/11 attacks occurred. "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened," he said by way of explaining the attacks. "But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

More often than not, he's pushed his audience to grapple with uncomfortable analogies in his efforts to contextualize Islamic radicalism, such as when he argued that the Ku Klux Klan was, likewise, drawn from a form of extreme religiosity.

Those statements, in the end, were not enough to convince the Bush administration that he was a militant. Feisal Abdul Rauf was dispatched on speaking tours by the past State Department on multiple occasions to help promote tolerance and religious diversity in the Arab and Muslim world. In 2007, he went to Morocco, the UAE, Qatar and Egypt on such missions, a State Department official confirmed to the Huffington Post.

In February 2006, meanwhile, he took part in a U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar with Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes, a close adviser to President Bush. Months later, Feisal Abdul Rauf wrote favorably about his meeting with Hughes, noting that he wanted to further the discussion with other members of the administration.

The Huffington Post reached out to both Albright and Hughes for comment. Perhaps reflecting the political sensitivities of the situation, neither responded. Hughes' aide explained that the former Bush aide was "tied up with client travel and unable to give interviews at this time."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...lped-f_n_685071.html
Reference:
WHY in the HELL would anyone[including muslims] build a temple/church where there was a mass murder...no matter WHO was responsible for it? It should be sacred.

Since when have places of worship represented something that's antithetical to that which is deemed to be "sacred"???  You keep asking questions that make no sense at all.  First, the planned site for the building will not be "where there was a mass murder."  The Burlington Coat Factory, the site where the center will be located, is some two or more blocks away from Ground Zero.  


Reference:
it is STILL insensitive whateva title you wanna put on it

What makes it insensitive?  These claims of "hurt" are unsupported and, actually, ridiculous.  What is the offense?  "People don't like" doesn't cut it.  Racists didn't like the passage of the Civil Rights Act and felt "hurt" because of it.  Claiming "hurt" when racism/xenophobia are the underlying motivating/animating emotions is commonplace.  That's what this clearly is all about.  Same old, age old American racist attitudes.



Reference:
So a non-violent former gang member [who once belonged to the gang that took over the street]...

Whose the "non-violent former gang member", Kocolicious?  And what evidence do you have of the "take over" (by gang violence) and, more importantly, previous gang membership??


Reference:
there has ALWAYS been suspicion in regards to the muslim world

While it's nice that you're exposing yourself, please do try to actually respond to what I've said.  Note that I did not say there has been no suspicion of the Muslim world.  I basically said Muslims, or Black people for that matter, don't have to (and, frankly, should not do) things to appease the feelings of racists (or religious bigots).



Reference:
[remember the Crusades...my brotha?  This is a historic rivalry]  

RELEVANCE?



Reference:
if we are to move forward we GOT TO KNOW that it will be a lot better for ALL Americans[including muslims] not to build a temple on Ground Zero. 

Better for the racists and religious bigots still fighting the Crusades?   LMAO!!


Reference:
Cuz if it does happen, I project a lotta bombings targeted there[from massa and his boys]...similar to the church bombings that plagued African Americans throughout history...so.  I'm just tellin ya what I know about human behavior....not what I don't know but!  

You're all over the place and all this concern trolling you're doing is hilarious.  But I guess you always intended to say that the Cordoba House/Park 51 shouldn't be built because of the "hurt" feelings of "massa and his boys" who, apparently, are the real Americans you were concerned with the whole time.    How dare those "non-violent" Muslims in New York plan to do something that's so "insensitive" and inconsiderate of "massa and his boys."
Reference:
And I have to ask the question to the Muslims....why there? And turned it around on them...."are yall being insensitive of what happened and don't care? Cuz it was MUSLIMS who did this. So as fellow Americans, wouldn't the right thang[not the legal thang but the conscious thing] to do would be honor and understand why this may not be the right place to worship and to build elsewhere?" To me this is a legitimate question/concern and the denial of appropriate and shall I say human answers will continue to cause division in diverse religions cuz in this case they are turning a "blind" eye regarding the most horrific bloody event to occur in our nation in current history by doing the unmentionable.

I hear you, Ms. Koco!  And I think it's a legitimate question, too.  I agreed with the President's second statement, as well, regarding the "wisdom" of building the mosque there .. and the fact that that is solely a decision for the Muslim community to decide.

But, my point in all of this is that ... we can't have this "American" thing swingin' both ways!!    It is what it is.  There is a such thing as "religious freedom" in this country that we ALL share .. and ALL want to enjoy (individually) as our right.

There are millions of people here who are Muslims - law-abiding, non-criminal, non-terrorist, people ... who have never met anybody that would even consider blowing themselves up ... who may have family members that have been the victims of terrorist attacks ... who pay their taxes and go to work .... are citizens that just want to live long and prosper... just like me and you.

There's no proof that these people who want to put a mosque in this building and those who would wish to worship there are in any way connected to terrorism.  Of course, you never know.  But because of Tim McVeigh, there was no talk of stopping White men from entering  federal buildings after he blew one up!!    I mean .. was it really "wise" to let people who looked like him go back into those buildings after what happened the first time?? 

No .. there was no fear and hysteria over White men after what Tim did ... although there should have been because there's plenty of them out there right now .. deep off in the woods, with guns, calling themselves "militia" and "patriots".. wanting to come out and wreck holy hell on people they don't like - like us - right now!

But it is fear and hysteria .. and plenty of it .. that are the sole motivation behind suddenly condemning a group of (so far) innocent people based on their religion to, in essence, kowtow to emotional blackmail and submit to the will of irrational (and unfounded) prejudice, intolerance and fear.  And, I'm sorry, sistagirl ... been there, done that.  And it wasn't very fun.  I just can't see where that's the right or fair thing to do.  So I just can't condone it.

Now .. don't get me wrong!  I, too, am leery about, distrustful of and, at least moderately prejudice against a whole lot of Arab/Middle Eastern descended people in this country.  I don't so much care about them being Muslim (or anybody's religious preference, for that matter.) But .. I've run into a lot of bad attitudes from "those kinds" of people.  Couple that with the fact that you don't know who's an "extremist" and who is not .. no more than you do with any other fanatic of any other religion or cult these days . and yeah, I can understand giving them the "side eye"! 

But that doesn't make it right nor fair.  If they decide to build somewhere else .. I'm wit that.  And if they decide to stay put .. they have every right to .. there's no reason not to except prejudice and fear (which Black people know are a horrible combination) ... so, if that happens, I have to be wit that, too!
WHY in the HELL would anyone[including muslims] build a temple/church where there was a mass murder...no matter WHO was responsible for it? It should be sacred.
Since when have places of worship represented something that's antithetical to that which is deemed to be "sacred"??? 

Well...only a person who hasn't been there would asked this question.  I've already presented my position on this.  Nothing more to say.  

 You keep asking questions that make no sense at all. 

Doesn't MAKE sense to you..my brotha.  Cuz why?  You're not asking the question....I am!  And it makes plenty of SENSE to me....who am I?  The author of the question that's who!  Geez

 First, the planned site for the building will not be "where there was a mass murder."  The Burlington Coat Factory, the site where the center will be located, is some two or more blocks away from Ground Zero.  

What's a couple of blocks between friends...eh?  Still in walking distance my brotha.  They won't need a "plane" to get to the destination.  A destination that has been targeted way before 9/11. 

Reference:
it is STILL insensitive whateva title you wanna put on it
What makes it insensitive?  These claims of "hurt" are unsupported and, actually, ridiculous.  

What's riduculous about being "hurt"....my brotha?

What is the offense?  "People don't like" doesn't cut it.  Racists didn't like the passage of the Civil Rights Act and felt "hurt" because of it.  Claiming "hurt" when racism/xenophobia are the underlying motivating/animating emotions is commonplace.  That's what this clearly is all about.  Same old, age old American racist attitudes.

Doesn't cut it for YOU....Whateva my brotha.  That's your opinion not mine.  Believe what you want!   I know I will believe what I want.  And do.

Reference:
So a non-violent former gang member [who once belonged to the gang that took over the street]...
Whose the "non-violent former gang member", Kocolicious?  And what evidence do you have the "take over" (by gang violenatce) and, more importantly, previous gang membership??

That was a "story telling" example my brotha to show a connection to the issue I was referring to.  You didn't get it.  Well...can't do "nothing" about that...now can I?. 

Reference:
there has ALWAYS been suspicion in regards to the muslim world
While it's nice that you're exposing yourself, please do try to actually respond to what I've said.  Note that I did not say there has been no suspicion of the Muslim world.  I basically said Muslims, or Black people for that matter, don't have to (and, frankly, should not do) things to appease the feelings of racists (or religious bigots).

Exposing myself?  Now that's too funny!!!   Plus...I never said you said ANYTHING.  The statement of suspicion came from me. 

Reference:
[remember the Crusades...my brotha?  This is a historic rivalry]  
RELEVANCE?

White boys [Christanity] and the Middle East [Islam] have been fighting for years...that's what the christian crusuade was all about.  Christanity vs islam.  Again...I was just using it as a story telling example to connect my point.  You didn't get that either?  Pitiful.

Reference:
if we are to move forward we GOT TO KNOW that it will be a lot better for ALL Americans[including muslims] not to build a temple on Ground Zero. 
Better for the racists and religious bigots still fighting the Crusades?   LMAO!!

Oh I thought you didn't understand my examples in regards to the crusades.  Um. Damn!  I'm glad you found humor in it.
Reference:
Cuz if it does happen, I project a lotta bombings targeted there[from massa and his boys]...similar to the church bombings that plagued African Americans throughout history...so.  I'm just tellin ya what I know about human behavior....not what I don't know but!  
You're all over the place and all this concern trolling you're doing is hilarious.  But I guess you always intended to say that the Cordoba House/Park 51 shouldn't be built because of the "hurt" feelings of "massa and his boys" who, apparently, are the real Americans you were concerned with the whole time.    How dare those "non-violent" Muslims in New York plan to do something that's so "insensitive" and inconsiderate of "massa and his boys."

Again...happy and delighted you found humor in it....however! My brotha...don't try to minimize my opinion and perception to MAXIMIZE your point.  My brain works just like yourn.  I said what I wanted to say.  Bottom line.  Sumthing wrong?  And if I am all over the  place, the only thing I can tell you is...better keep up or you will really get lost with me.  Cuz I'm over here now[may be over there later].  Want me to wait for you?  'K....but only for a minute.
But that doesn't make it right nor fair.  If they decide to build somewhere else .. I'm wit that.  And if they decide to stay put .. they have every right to .. there's no reason not to except prejudice and fear (which Black people know are a horrible combination) ... so, if that happens, I have to be wit that, too! 


  I too hear you my sista...but!  I KNOW human behavior and it has nothing to do with the right to do it or the right not to do it.....for me it has to do with doing the RIGHT thing.  To be sensitive to what has happened.  And folks can do what they want.  But for me that's real telling when you know sumthing devestating has occurred and know what the fall out will be[despite having the right to do  it ]....and doing it anyway.  I am nervous about this only cuz of the potential behavior both parties will participate in if this temple is built.  You and I know massa don't give a fock about rights....they violate our rights ALL the time....but!  When lives are a stake and there is a history of violence...why take that chance to only get an apology later. That apology won't bring back the dead.  And that's all I'm talking about.  Yes they have the right...but!  At what cost....yours, mine?  Maybe if they took a transparent position on this or created a multi-religious center to include everyone ....I will "feel" a little better.  Oops there's that emotional word...Brotha Nquest doesn't seem to like....but!  I'm sorry I'm human and despite what's on paper...I KNOW what humans are capable of...and I just don't wanna see unsuspecting innocents pay for something they have NOTHING whatsoever to do with....but!  I'm just sayin
Last edited by Kocolicious
Reference:
there's that emotional word...Brotha Nquest doesn't seem to like.

Correction:  There's the racist, bigoted attitudes (see Kocolicious' Muslims=gang members "story-telling") Brotha Nquest doesn't like and will always oppose no matter who it is and who it is directed to.

Also, since you know you "will believe what [you] want", have the "truth" on your side and don't have to defend your position on this to me or anyone else... don't concern yourself with what I do or don't "seem" to like.  Stop showing how you are insecure in your position  with all these unnecessary statements -- i.e. if what you say about what you will believe is true and if you really believe that you position and the question you raised is "truth"... your position/question, itself, should be able to make that case.  Obviously even you don't think it does.

But, go ahead, be my guess...  Defend the honor and "hurt" feelings of "massa and his boys" all you want.  LOL
Reference:
You and I know massa don't give a fock about rights....they violate our rights ALL the time....but! When lives are a stake and there is a history of violence...why take that chance to only get an apology later. That apology won't bring back the dead. And that's all I'm talking about.

Amen to that, my sista!!  I couldn't agree with you more!
Reference:
I know, and what's so impressive about it is that speaking up on this particular issue as FAR more potentially damaging than speaking up on things he's refrained from talking about.

I mean look, I agree with him on this issue. None of the reasons I've heard against the mosque make any logical sense to me. But avoiding black issues the way he has looks especially cowardly to me, now that he's piping up on behalf of the mosque.

Perhaps one of the reasons the President "piped up" on this issue is because he has direct family members who are also Muslims.  That would make the issue particularly personal for him.

By the same token, he does not have a direct family connection to slave-descended Black Americans.  Perhaps that influences the personal disconnect between the two subjects .. and the issues concerning the two.
Reference:
Stop showing how you are insecure in your position all these unncessary statements

My statements are NEVER unnecessary...my brotha.  Your opinion, not mine

i.e. if what you say about what you believe is true and if you really believbe that you position and the question you raised is "truth"...your postion/question should be able to make that case.

Only if the reader is willing to "accept it as truth."  Cuz I can talk until I'm blue in the face regarding " truth" doesn't mean it's gonna CONVINCE you-that's on you to find out if it's valid...not me. Plus this is NOT a court of law...this is a message board...my brotha and it's soooo easy to reseach the truth.  Really it is.
Also, since you know you "will believe what [you] want
Exactly!

have the truth on your side and don't have to defend your position on this to me or anyone else..

True Dat.
don't concern yourself with what I do or don't 'seem" to like

As you wish my brotha.  Just so you know I never have been concerned.  And I've NEVER cared what you do...how can I?  why would I? And for what you don't seem to like...well.  That too.  But! This is my FIRST and probably my only time EVER saying ANYTHING to you.  I responded to your talking to me remember?  Not the other way around.  I have never had an interest in anything you ever had to say...not one single thing.  As is why I've NEVER engaged in a convo with you until now.  But no problem.  And by the way....you don't know and WILL never know...how I think.  Got that?  One mo' "gen"  ..this "muslim equal gang members" comment you indicated in your previous post? I NEVER said that. Nope!  I was again trying to make a human connection by giving the reader an example to visualize...something it's clear you know NOTHING about ....but!  Unfortunately I realized earlier on in this debate that anything that has to do with being a human being and behaving like a human ....you have a problem with.  Can't do nothing about that...cuz why?  Again....that's on you. You can try to turn my positon around and twist it up side down to fit your mental comfort....still... it's not gonna change a thang.  Cuz why?  Your opinion is your opinion...and mine is mine.  And truth?  It is what it is.  And just cuz it's your opinion doesn't MEAN it is superior to mine even if you try to throw in some ridiculous/unreasonable angst that you feel overrides me or undermines what I'm conveying...just so you know...it only defines your limited thinking.  I see what you're [trying] to do!  Ain't gonna work with me  i.e. your trying to minimize or insult my intelligence.[just cuz what I say you disagree with]  Nope!  Sorry.   And lastly, I don't have to prove a thang to you!  Bottom line.  So...this, my brotha, is a done deal.... 
Last edited by Kocolicious
Reference:
Only if the reader is willing to "accept it as truth."

This from the person who plays the "Your opinion is your opinion...and mine is mine" card.


Reference:
And truth?  It is what it is.

Okay.  Let's deal with TRUTH and NOT opinion/suspicion/assumption/etc.  This is what you said earlier in this thread (my emphasis):


Reference:
This whole thing reminds of gangs fighting over territory.  Gangs will come into a "turf" and kill someone as a mark to claim the street or block...the same street or block someone was KILLED on.  The gang don't care....they will claim "their street turf" and proceed with their destructive behavior.  So a non-violent former gang member [who once belonged to the gang that took over the street] comes on the scene and decides he's gonna build a center to neutralize the violence(not  the same as a prayer temper...but stay with me here].

That, of course, was your "story-telling".  Trying to get at the truth in your "story", I already asked the following question:
  • [Who is] the "non-violent former gang member", Kocolicious? 
  • And what evidence do you have of the "take over" (by gang violence) and,
  • more importantly, [what evidence do you have of] previous gang membership??

For some reason (skip-a-line glasses, avoiding the truth, no answer, etc.) you did not address those questions and just said you were doing some "story-telling."  Now, you just told me that nothing you say is "unnecessary", so now I'd like to know not only the reason why you told that "story" but, since we're dealing with TRUTH here... please explain how your gang "story" is TRUE as it relates to not-at-Ground Zero Islamic community center/mosque.

For your story to be TRUE, for it to contain "TRUTH" then there has to be someone, some Muslim (I suppose) who "once belonged to the gang."  Please demonstrate the truth of that statement of yours, whether it applies to the Muslim "gang" or whatever other (opposing) gang you're talking about.
 That, of course, was your "story-telling."

Yes.  It was.  Sumthing wrong?

I already asked the following question:  [Who is] "the non-violent former gang member," Kocolicious?

I apologize, my brotha, that you are unable to grasp onto my story-telling examples.  The non-violent former gang member is the character in the story.

And what evidence do you have of the "take over" (by gang violence) and more importantly, [what evidence do you have of]  previous gang membership?

My brotha!  Where have you  been?  In a bubble?  This example is living large all over cities in the United States of America...i.e. in terms of gang violence and gangs taking over territories.  Geez.  I know!  If you wanna see examples...go to your local prisons...plenty of 'em there!

For some reason(skip-a-line glasses, avoidance the truth, no answer, etc)
Quite frankly, I don't know whatcha mean by avoidance of truth. 
You did not address those questions and just said you were doing some story-telling
My brotha.  You are not the leader of my life and or control how I express myself...if you didn't get my examples....I don't know what to tell ya.  It was CLEAR to me.  I am NOT conducting a critical thinking class...I was merely utlizing my ability to tell a story to connect a point.  I told you that.  I am not gonna take you by the hand and spoon feed it to you.  You're more intelligent than that.  Right?  Some things you have to visualize on your own.  This is ridiculous...and!  I know EXACTLY whatcha doin'

...please explain how your gang story is true
Again....your nic picking.  You know what I'm saying. Stop playin

For your story to be TRUE, for it to contain "TRUTH" then there has to be someone, some Muslim (I suppose) who "once belonged to the gang." Please demonstrate the truth of that statement of yours, whether it applies to the Muslim "gang" or whatever other (opposing) gang you're talking about.

Brotha!  Brotha!  You and I both know "prison" is where many Black muslims [historically] are recruited.  So it is NOT out of the ordinary for a gang member to go to prison, form a kinship coalition with an existing prison cell muslim and convert to Islam then come out with a new mentality to rescue other out-of-control brothas in the hood and informed them of the "woes" of the white devil.  They're on every other corner throughout inner city neighborhoods selling papers and bean pies.  But!  That wasn't what I meant when I told the story. As it relates to Ground-zero....I'm sorry.  I told the story.  You must find the meaning.  I can't do your reading for you.  As I tell my students...some things...you have to discover on your own through your capacity to absorb the information.  That's how you learn.  In addition my brotha, just cuz you say "story to be true for it to contain truth....doesn't mean it "isn't" true.  Again!  That's YOUR opinion as to how you receive it as "truth" or not!  I can't MAKE you believe or ACCEPT anything I say or give as examples as truth....to repeat myself...that's on you! It seems you are hell bent on making me wrong in my perception of ground-zero or try to insult my intelligence on how I see the issue through my "eyes". Well.... One mo time!  You can't.  Nope!  But!
Last edited by Kocolicious
Reference:
just cuz you say "story to be true for it to contain truth....doesn't mean it "isn't" true.

Please speak ENGLISH!!!!

It was your "story-telling"...  Your sorry attempt at an analogy.  And you're the one who pretended like you were concerned about dealing with the truth.  Now all you have are EXCUSES.

Your "doesn't mean it isn't true" fallback line doesn't address this very simple and clear request:
 Please demonstrate the truth of that statement of yours


Reference:
Again!  That's YOUR opinion as to how you receive it as "truth" or not!  I can't MAKE you believe or ACCEPT anything I say or give as examples as truth...

I didn't ask you for examples.  I asked you to demonstrate that your statement, the inherent claims in your "story-telling" were true (and relevant) to the "Ground Zero Mosque" situation.  It is all too obvious that you can't; hence your idiotic cop-out lines about OPINIONS when I've asked to talk, not about your opinion or mine, but about the truth.

You're obviously unprepared or just not capable of doing that.

Either there is someone involved in the plans to build the Islamic center (aka "Ground Zero Mosque") who, according to your "story-telling", is a "non-violent former gang member [who once belonged to the gang that took over the street]" or there is not.   That is NOT a matter of opinion and certainly not something for me to discover on my own.  It's your "story-telling" not mine.

You said it (and you know it's bulllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllsh*t).  So it's on you to show how it is true.  
If you said Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a member of the SCLC (or a member of the Republican party, as some have claimed) and I questioned it, I would certainly hope you be able to "demonstrate the truth" of your statement.  My acceptance isn't the issue.  Your avoidance is.

QUESTION: What person, what Muslim (Black or non-black) involved in the plans to build the "Ground Zero Mosque" is the "non-violent former gang member [who once belonged to the gang that took over the street]" in your "story-telling"?

It's not hard.

 
With all of the Islamophobia that Fox News spreads about this Mosque, it will probably come as a surprise to most that the (or one of the) financial backers of this Mosque, Sharif El-Gamal is part owner of FOX and very good friends with Rupert Murdoch.  

I tried to find written info on this, but was unable to so far, but Rachael Maddow did a piece on this on her show last night.  If anyone finds this information in print, please post.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×