Obama supports mosque by Ground Zero

GL88154

fife wrote:

Message to Obama.

you country owes a shit load of money to China, you have an oil leak, you have high unemployment, your party is getting mad at you, the left is getting mad at you, you are losing your indep., you still have 2 wars going on. why the fuck are you getting involved is stuff that is not your job. stop trying to do everything for everyone.

Message to the Mosque builders. I don't know if you have done this but talk to the family of the dead on 911 and answer their question and listen to their words.

+1

Jason P

unsung wrote:

unsung wrote:

So he will cite The Constitution in this case but has no problem resigning the PATRIOT Act.

Still wondering if anyone thinks this is an issue.

Has anyone on this board been personally impacted by the PATRIOT act?

_

BamaPJFan wrote:

This isn't about the Constitution; this is about making a thoughtful, appropriate decision. I'm sick of the out-of-touch media hacks across the board (as well as the sheeple on this message board) continuing to invoke the Constitution. Anyone with a slice of a brain knows about the First Amendment. The decision to allow this multi-purpose mosque to be built in eyeshot of Ground Zero is horrendously pathetic. It is akin to allowing members of the SS to construct a gathering place next to a former Nazi death camp.

The majority of New Yorkers are against this foolish $100 million garbage can (as well as a sizeable majority of Americans), but as usual, a select few in power will ignore the people's wishes and will yet again cram an unpopular action down our throats.

I haven't kept up on this thread, but this nonsense just caught my eye.

1. Just because the terrorists involved in this particular event were all Muslims does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists. That's just basic logic. I can't understand why anyone is still having to repeat it. Therefore, no, it is not at all, in any way, akin to allowing members of the SS to do anything.

2. For someone from Alabama to try to dictate the actions of a neighborhood in New York and then talk about ignoring the people's wishes is the height of hypocrisy. The first step in respecting people's wishes is for people who don't live there to shut the fuck up.

fuck

you know in all fairness, the US govt has been building plenty of ground zeros next to Iraqi mosques since March 2003...

haffajappa

BamaPJFan wrote:

It is akin to allowing members of the SS to construct a gathering place next to a former Nazi death camp.

Incorrrect,
if it was members of al qaeda constructing a gatheing place beside the ruins of 9/11, then it would be akin to your example.

JonnyPistachio

haffajappa wrote:

BamaPJFan wrote:

It is akin to allowing members of the SS to construct a gathering place next to a former Nazi death camp.

Incorrrect,
if it was members of al qaeda constructing a gatheing place beside the ruins of 9/11, then it would be akin to your example.

yeah, that nazi death camp analogy was really stretching it and pretty sad.

gimmesometruth27

'Ground Zero Mosque' Imam Helped FBI With Counterterrorism Efforts

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/685071

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."

cajunkiwi

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

'Ground Zero Mosque' Imam Helped FBI With Counterterrorism Efforts

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/685071

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."

Technically speaking, as far as some people on this board are concerned, a Muslim who is a good guy and helps America would be described as "radical"

haffajappa

JonnyPistachio wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

BamaPJFan wrote:

It is akin to allowing members of the SS to construct a gathering place next to a former Nazi death camp.

Incorrrect,
if it was members of al qaeda constructing a gatheing place beside the ruins of 9/11, then it would be akin to your example.

yeah, that nazi death camp analogy was really stretching it and pretty sad.

Maybe s/he meant to say,
not letting muslims build 2 blocks away is just as ridiculous as not letting germans build a german community center 2 blocks from a holocaust memorial... yeh.

ok, most nazis were german... but most germans aren't nazis!
now, work with me here...
most al qaeda are muslim... but not all muslims are al qaeda!

it's easy!

mikepegg44

whygohome wrote:

Do I need to answer the question?
By the way, I am speechless that anyone would support the corporate takeover of our citizenship that the Citizens United case has enabled Corporate America to attempt (and, as I feel they will, succeed).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-glass ... 47342.html

Read this please

It might calm your fears,

THEY CANNOT GIVE DIRECTLY TO CAMPAIGNS, George Soros and Warren Buffet have many many many times the resources of the typical corporation, should rich people be banned from PACs as well?

whygohome

mikepegg44 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

Do I need to answer the question?
By the way, I am speechless that anyone would support the corporate takeover of our citizenship that the Citizens United case has enabled Corporate America to attempt (and, as I feel they will, succeed).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-glass ... 47342.html

Read this please

It might calm your fears,

THEY CANNOT GIVE DIRECTLY TO CAMPAIGNS, George Soros and Warren Buffet have many many many times the resources of the typical corporation, should rich people be banned from PACs as well?

I had already come across this article months ago. If an article is written by Ira Glasser and posted on the Huffington Post website, does that make it truth? Glasser makes some very god points in the piece, especially those concerning the role of not-for-profits and advocacy agencies in the campaign process. What I disagree with in this ruling is the role that corporations - big bank, insurance companies, etc. - have in the campaign process. They are not allowed to directly fund a campaign, most people know this, however, their role in the process becomes similar to that of the lobbyists. They are now though, with respect to the fact that they still can contribute a lot of money to campaigns, Giant Lobbyists. Just because they are not allowed to donate money DIRECTLY, doesn't mean they won't find a way to do so. They will do it, and they will find some loophole in which to do it. Corporations should not have a role in campaigns. The result will be what is called corporate personhood. In short, and many have written about this, including law professors denouncing the ruling, CP states that corporations should enjoy the legal status once only enjoyed by the citizens - human beings - of this country, and therefore, as Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy argued as they were handed a bundle of cash no doubt, voted in favor of CP, they applied the rights of man to corporations, ensuring this country's descent into a corporate-controlled state. Who has more power? Me - a 31 year-old graduate student with no money but the power of one vote, OR Bank of America, a multi-billion dollar corporation with the power, and now the right, to influence campaigns by being able to donate money freely to any candidate who will have their best interests in mind?

I applaud Glasser's work with the ACLU, however, his word is not truth (in my opinion) on this matter. I would rather take the word of a law professor than a math professor.

Corporations should not have the same rights as American citizens.

Flagg

In fairness, we have put plenty of ground zeros around their mosques in Iraq over the last few years.

mikepegg44

whygohome wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

Do I need to answer the question?
By the way, I am speechless that anyone would support the corporate takeover of our citizenship that the Citizens United case has enabled Corporate America to attempt (and, as I feel they will, succeed).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-glass ... 47342.html

Read this please

It might calm your fears,

THEY CANNOT GIVE DIRECTLY TO CAMPAIGNS, George Soros and Warren Buffet have many many many times the resources of the typical corporation, should rich people be banned from PACs as well?

I had already come across this article months ago. If an article is written by Ira Glasser and posted on the Huffington Post website, does that make it truth? Glasser makes some very god points in the piece, especially those concerning the role of not-for-profits and advocacy agencies in the campaign process. What I disagree with in this ruling is the role that corporations - big bank, insurance companies, etc. - have in the campaign process. They are not allowed to directly fund a campaign, most people know this, however, their role in the process becomes similar to that of the lobbyists. They are now though, with respect to the fact that they still can contribute a lot of money to campaigns, Giant Lobbyists. Just because they are not allowed to donate money DIRECTLY, doesn't mean they won't find a way to do so. They will do it, and they will find some loophole in which to do it. Corporations should not have a role in campaigns. The result will be what is called corporate personhood. In short, and many have written about this, including law professors denouncing the ruling, CP states that corporations should enjoy the legal status once only enjoyed by the citizens - human beings - of this country, and therefore, as Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy argued as they were handed a bundle of cash no doubt, voted in favor of CP, they applied the rights of man to corporations, ensuring this country's descent into a corporate-controlled state. Who has more power? Me - a 31 year-old graduate student with no money but the power of one vote, OR Bank of America, a multi-billion dollar corporation with the power, and now the right, to influence campaigns by being able to donate money freely to any candidate who will have their best interests in mind?

I applaud Glasser's work with the ACLU, however, his word is not truth (in my opinion) on this matter. I would rather take the word of a law professor than a math professor.

Corporations should not have the same rights as American citizens.

Like I said earlier, I would like to limit it to corporations that have headquarters in America, but other than that, I do not think their participation is any more dangerous than allowing billionaires to participate, or unions, or any one else with muscle and money. Until we completely publically fund elections, it is unfair to dictate who or what for that matter can give money to pacs.
I am actually happy that this ruling occured as it may help in civil cases if corporations are seen as "people"

Do you not see this as a speech issue?

cajunkiwi

mikepegg44 wrote:

Like I said earlier, I would like to limit it to corporations that have headquarters in America, but other than that, I do not think their participation is any more dangerous than allowing billionaires to participate, or unions, or any one else with muscle and money. Until we completely publically fund elections, it is unfair to dictate who or what for that matter can give money to pacs.
I am actually happy that this ruling occured as it may help in civil cases if corporations are seen as "people"

Do you not see this as a speech issue?

What would you (and anyone else) think of putting essentially a salary cap on campaign spending? As it stands right now, you have to be rich to even consider running for president, and each election it seems like the spending gets more and more insane.

Wouldn't a cap end a lot of those problems?

whygohome

Like I said earlier, I would like to limit it to corporations that have headquarters in America, but other than that, I do not think their participation is any more dangerous than allowing billionaires to participate, or unions, or any one else with muscle and money. Until we completely publically fund elections, it is unfair to dictate who or what for that matter can give money to pacs.
I am actually happy that this ruling occured as it may help in civil cases if corporations are seen as "people"

Do you not see this as a speech issue?[/quote]

Yes, I do. In my opinion, I do not feel that Corporations should be covered under the first amendment. The Bill of Rights pertains to the CITIZENS of the U.S.A.

I also do not feel that billionaires, unions, or anyone else with "muscle and money" (if I may steal that) should be allowed to INFLUENCE elections. The system we have for campaigns and elections is just as screwed up as the functionality (thank you media!!!) of the House and Senate (Charlie Rose had William Packer, Al Hunt, and Fmr. Sen. Bob Cohen discuss this in a very interesting talk last night). So, I agree with some of what you say, but I am not happy about this ruling. In my opinion, it takes the power of the rights of citizens and places them behind Corporate America. In effect, in the future, rendering us powerless. Voting in this country does not give power....not anymore unfortunately.

McCain-Feingold should be reenacted, or something stronger in the sense of campaign financing regulation.
This country needs more regulation.

As far as civil cases go, I have not read up on how the ruling affects them with respect to Corp. Amer., so I will not run my mouth like a fool since I am not fully familiar with that subject.