Comments:US president Barack Obama backs mosque near Ground Zero site
Comments from feedback form - "manhattan was hallowed ground ..." 
Comments from feedback form - "he came out in favor of religi..." 
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Comments from feedback form - "His statement was later amende..."||0||03:48, 11 September 2010|
|Comments from feedback form - "Obama never "backed" the mosqu..."||0||21:44, 9 September 2010|
|More importantly...||5||05:47, 26 August 2010|
|Well.||1||00:06, 20 August 2010|
|Out of respect...||7||00:00, 19 August 2010|
This is (judging from the article's quotes) the acquisition of private property. If the zoning laws check out then politicians who condemn the owners should take care to divorce their personal opinions from their administrations.
Indeed. Amerika is pretty damn intolerant. Obama, at least, has got it right on this one.
I personally think that building a Mosque will certainally show Americas's freedom of religion. But why there? People are really going to get upset (imagine riots surrounding the Mosque, racist graffiti on the Mosque). I think the situation is too sensitive to really go for an extreme, even though a benifit come of it.
Let's face it - why not there? Normal Muslims share nothing in common with the cult that attacked the WTC. It is as much a different religion as it is between a Christian and a Buddhist.
What I might be tempted to look for is evidence it was being done as a provocation or publicity stunt. That would harden my opinion greatly against those behind the plan.
To be on the safe side, we'll say he's a bit biased (though I don't see how)... Ladies and Gents, Mr. Keith Olbermann.
He's the Rambo of political stupidity =P All credit goes to youtube and tv and Keith Olbermann
People are really wearing their bigotry on their sleeves with this one, then shining it up and strutting it around like a badge of honor.
To all the ignorant racist bigots in New York and in this country: Please understand that First Amendment to The United States Constitution explicitly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There you have it - While the United States has no official religion- and as such is by definition secular- its people are free to pursue without restriction or sanction whatever spirituality or faith they choose, and are protected from all persecution for uttering, publishing, and publicly demonstrating their political or religious view whatever those may be.
It is this sentence of The U.S. Constitution, perhaps more than any others that sets the United States apart from nations where liberty is not held to be sacred. It is precisely the reason that the United States has been an asylum for political refugees from every part of the globe for over 230 years. It stands to reason that those who oppose this mosque for whatever reasons-pretended or true- are indeed expressing their disgust and contempt for this fundamental American Principle that is at the very heart and soul of America's greatness.
I'm going to open a beer and pork shop next to the mosque, called "The mecca of beer and pork". I'm also going to sell toilet paper with the picture of mohammed there, out of respect.
And to thank obama for letting this happen I will burn a cross in the Lincoln Memorial.
I don't think starting a fire on public property is legal.
You might run the proposed business for as long as you can stay alive, but it'd likely be an embarrassingly brief stunt if you don't invest in security.
When Muslims want to build mosque on site where there once was a building which they blew up is ok, but opening a bar and a diner isn't? When Muslums burn churches and crosses it's ok, but when someone paints a long bearder raghead isn't? America is far from free: some of it's people are brainwashed by stupid ideas and stubbornity to see what's really happening.
It's not on-site, it's nearby. I highly doubt the owners of the WTC property would sell to Muslims building a mosque, or if it's even zoned to allow that.
Furthermore, no one said it would be wrong to open any other type of establishment nearby, either, so long as there aren't zoning/licensing conflicts. Blood Red Sandman and I simply pointed out that intentionally evoking an association between the neighboring structure and items that conflict with it (beer and pork) is a stunt with the intention of "getting a rise" out of others. I advised that if you're going to do that, hire a good private security company. Maybe some personal security, as well, if you can be identified as the owner.
On that note, does anyone know who sold the property in question? It's probably some bank that doesn't care if it's being developed into a mosque or a strip club. And as much as I find strip clubs offensive, I'd be saying the same thing about the transfer of private property.
Are you insinuating that Muslims might commit violence against those who disagree with them? Because if so, well-done on supporting their right to build a terror-house right near Ground Zero. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, I think you honestly believe all Muslims are terrorists.
How, I wonder, do you react to the Christian terrorists throughout history?
The example is not one of disagreement but deliberate provocation.
After some digging, it looks like this was owned by a private citizen. The property was sold about a year ago to the real-estate agency that owns it now. It is physically connected to property currently owned by Consolidated Edison, which has a lease agreement with the agency. The agency is trying to exercise its purchase option so that it can own the entire building and develop the mosque.
The groups proposing the establishment of the mosque to the agency don't want to reveal their funding sources, and since they're not publicly traded companies nor do they receive government assistance, I guess they don't have to (by the law). It would be a good use of intelligence operations to discreetly determine the sources so that the government can evaluate the threat of it being a terrorist front; but that's the government's business, and it's a kind of business that they won't exactly tell us about.
It would go a long way towards validating their intentions, though, if they just saved us the trouble and disclosed their investors. Other Muslim groups are asking them to do this, as well. Regardless, there is law, which needs to transcend our passions and fears.