The great "Ground Zero mosque" hoax

[Stan]

The great "Ground Zero mosque" hoax

With James Standish

S O U R C E

Anyone paying attention the last couple of weeks has heard multiple reports about plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero. It's been labeled a "victory mosque", described as towering over the memorial to the victims of 9/11, and as being the pet project of a terrorist-sympathizing, Muslim imam. All of this would be cause for Americans to get upset, and no surprise, polls show we are.

But what if what we're being told are gross distortions mixed with bold faced lies?

Three simple fact checks help put the flap in context:

1) There is no "Ground Zero" mosque

If you take a minute to Google map the address of the supposed "ground zero" mosque, 45-47 Park Place, you'll find the proposed site is on a small city street buried in the middle of the block. It is separated by two full city blocks of towering buildings from the World Trade Center site. While the entire lower Manhattan might be considered "Ground Zero", the site of the mosque is separated visually and physically from the World Trade Center site. No one visiting the World Trade Center site will see it - unless they take a wrong turn on the way.

2) There is no "Victory" Mosque

The stated goal behind building the Muslim center in lower Manhattan is to recapture the spirit of mutual respect between Judaism, Christianity and Islam that existed in Cordoba, Spain, from 700 - 1200 AD. While Europe was trapped in the Dark Ages, marked by bloody religious repression, Cordoba thrived as a commercial and cultural center with what was, for the time, a high level of religious freedom. For example, in the 10th Century, Cordoba became the intellectual capital for Jews worldwide. The stated point of the project is creating a world where Jews, Christians and Muslims connect again in a way that builds mutual understanding and respect. This is precisely the opposite goal of the 9/11 terrorists.

3) There is no Terror-Loving Imam Behind the Mosque

The Imam behind the mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is reported to have good relations with the Jewish community and has strongly condemned terrorism. He is precisely the kind of Imam that violent Islamic radicals despise the most. He has been lambasted in some quarters in the US for stating that American support of corrupt and coercive regimes in the Middle-east motivated the 9/11 terrorists. While the precise motivation of the terrorists may be subject for debate, his analysis can only dismissed blithely by those unfamiliar with the deplorable practices of American "allies" in Middle-east ranging from the Saudi regime to Egyptian government. But this misses the point; we don't have to agree with his analysis or the way he expressed himself to agree that in a free society, unless someone is engaged in criminal activity, they have the same rights as anyone else to build and operate a house of worship.

Target the Saudi Government - Not Americans

Not only are the "facts" that have been widely reported gross distortions, but the arguments for banning the mosque are fatally flawed. Some have argued that America should not allow the mosque to be built until Saudi Arabia permits the building of churches. As someone on the forefront of pressing for full religious freedom in all nations - including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan - for almost a decade, I strongly support the view that Saudi Arabia must abide by its international commitment and permit people not only to build the houses of worship they choose, but to speak freely about their religious convictions and to change their faith should they so choose. But this misses a key point. If we want this to happen, we should target the Saudi regime, not Americans like Imam Rauf.

Specifically, the politicians currently railing against Imam Rauf, should rather use their influence and power to place conditions on the vast economic and security cooperation between the US and Saudi Arabia. The conditions should require the Saudis to end their egregious human rights violations - and most specifically, their abuse of religious minorities including Christians and Shia Muslims.

Don't Give the Government Power to Ban our Houses of Worship

But there is a second disconnect. Americans have the right to build our houses of worship wherever we choose, as long as we lawfully purchase the land and build to code. Indeed, in 1998 the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act was passed to ensure this right is robustly protected. Do we really want to give the government the right to pick and choose which religions get to build where? Do we want Evangelicals banned from building new churches in neighborhoods where they are an unpopular minority? Do they want the majority to be able to decide where Mormon churches can be built, or Synagogues or Adventist Churches, or Catholic? We are all minorities somewhere in this country. Do we want the majority to be able to squelch our plans to build a house of worship?

Where is the fear of intrusive government when we need it? Where is the dedication to the First Freedom found in our Constitution when it really matters?

Stop Damaging American Security

The so called "Ground Zero" controversy has no doubt effectively raised the profile and filled the coffers of the politicians and advocacy organizations misleading the public. Scapegoating unpopular minorities is generally an effective way to gain power and influence. But it comes at a price. In this case, the price is not only the integrity and credibility of the individuals and organizations that raced to jump on this bandwagon. It is deeper and it is broader. This controversy has done much to stoke hatred against American Muslims at home and in the process, has made peaceful Muslims around the world doubt our commitment to equality and liberty. In so doing, these attacks on American Muslims gives fuel to violent Islamic radicals.

The politicians and NGOs that have stoked the "ground zero" mosque hoax should be seen for what they are - security charlatans. Their intolerance weakens our society and our allies, while strengthening our enemies.

Conclusion

Even if we are willing to abandon our constitutional right to freedom of religion, even if we are willing empower the government to pick and choose between religions, even if our conscience doesn't bother us when inflammatory remarks are made about a vulnerable minority, even if all this is true, it is indisputable that America's self interest at home and abroad lays in supporting peaceful voices in the Muslim community, not employing distortions to whip up the fires of prejudice against them.

[Stan]

Why do so many people fall for this stuff?

[phkrause]

Thanks for this post Stan. I guess most have been watching to much FoxNews! If you listen to them and have never been to NY, you would think the Mosque was across the street or even right on the sight were one of the towers was standing. I still have my reservations about why they want it right there.

[bonnie]

Thanks for this post Stan. I guess most have been watching to much FoxNews! If you listen to them and have never been to NY, you would think the Mosque was across the street or even right on the sight were one of the towers was standing. I still have my reservations about why they want it right there.

No,if you have listened to more than sound bites it has been made clear where the location is.

The Imam has been offered other locations which have been turned down. If the intent is to "be a bridge builder" you do not set out to keep poking the other party in the eye and telling him if he is christian he will like it.

This would be no different than building something dedicated to Timothy McVeigh within a short distance from the federal building and telling everyone to "like it"

Building a bridge should mean taking into account the families of the dead. It is easy for the arm chair experts to tell them how they should react. We are not the ones that had our loved ones jumping from the towers while they burned.Or waited days and hoping against hope for our loved ones to be found alive.

Many think they count at least as much as those of the muslim religion wanting to erect this mosque there.

[Dr. Shane]

Why do so many people fall for this stuff?

They don't get their news from a variety of sources. It is like people that went around saying the Iraq War was an illegal war. Some people just jump on band wagons that they like to ride.

[Dr. Shane]

If the intent is to "be a bridge builder" you do not set out to keep poking the other party in the eye and telling him if he is christian he will like it.

[Woody]

Quote:

It is like people that went around saying the Iraq War was an illegal war.

The only comparison I see here with Ground Zero and Iraq is that Iraq signed and agreed to the terms of the war and thereby authorizing the war.

And the Mosque was signed for and purchased legally. As long as they abide by zoning laws .... I don't see how we can stop it.

[Dr. Shane]

Why would we want to stop it?

[bonnie]

Well, it is very unchristian to oppose the building of this mosque. James Standish makes a good point. Do we want the government banning the construction of religious buildings?

[Woody]

I should point out that the government often denies churches the ability to build for various reasons including zoning laws.

[Dr. Shane]

Didn't realize Al-queda had been brought into this unless you believe Timothy McVeigh belonged to al-queda.

Al-queda attacked the WTC. McVeigh attacked the federal building in Oklahoma City. Both were terrorists. The mosque cannot be compared to a memorial to McVeigh in Oklahoma City because the Muslims building the mosque are not part of Al-queda. Equating the Muslims building the mosque to Al-queda is like equating Adventists to papists during the Dark Ages.

[Dr. Shane]

I should point out that the government often denies churches the ability to build for various reasons including zoning laws.

Churches are given a lot of leeway. Many cities will allow churches to be built on property zoned residential (as long as there is enough parking and drainage). Churches can also be built in most commercial areas.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

Didn't realize Al-queda had been brought into this unless you believe Timothy McVeigh belonged to al-queda.

Al-queda attacked the WTC. McVeigh attacked the federal building in Oklahoma City. Both were terrorists. The mosque cannot be compared to a memorial to McVeigh in Oklahoma City because the Muslims building the mosque are not part of Al-queda. Equating the Muslims building the mosque to Al-queda is like equating Adventists to papists during the Dark Ages.

I didn't know that Adventists and papists belonged to the same religion.

[bonnie]

I should point out that the government often denies churches the ability to build for various reasons including zoning laws.

They have recently done so with the Greek Orthodox church in the same area.They have applied to rebuild the church that was destroyed. So far they have been denied

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

I should point out that the government often denies churches the ability to build for various reasons including zoning laws.

Churches are given a lot of leeway. Many cities will allow churches to be built on property zoned residential (as long as there is enough parking and drainage). Churches can also be built in most commercial areas.

How much leeway are you suggesting we give the Muslims?

[bonnie]

Al-queda attacked the WTC. McVeigh attacked the federal building in Oklahoma City. Both were terrorists. The mosque cannot be compared to a memorial to McVeigh in Oklahoma City because the Muslims building the mosque are not part of Al-queda. Equating the Muslims building the mosque to Al-queda is like equating Adventists to papists during the Dark Ages.

Those wishing to build the mosque I believe follow Islam. As did the terrorists. Whether or not it was extreme muslim or not is immaterial. Is there any assurance that extremists will not consider this theirs as well?

While the Imam claims to want to be seen as a "bridge builder" he will continue to poke in the eye those he claims to want peace and understanding with.

It is not illegal and no one is claiming it is. You are not the go-to guy to determine who is christian for what they believe

[Dr. Shane]

I didn't know that Adventists and papists belonged to the same religion.

Yep, we're both Christians.

[Dr. Shane]

Whether or not it was extreme muslim or not is immaterial.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

Whether or not it was extreme muslim or not is immaterial.

Sure hope you don't end up cross-eyed.

I would hope had it been a bunch of fanatics,maybe like David Koresch that carried our name as some thought, we as a denomination would be very conscious of causing more hurt.

Instead of demanding those that have been harmed accept our poking them in the eye and refusing to bend in "our so called bridge building" we have a little sensitivity.

Because they don't want the mosque there now they become unchristian and we just keep bulling our "christian" way thru.

[lazarus]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

Whether or not it was extreme muslim or not is immaterial.

Shane, why are you rolling your eyes?

A Muslim is a Muslim regardless of whether he is a terrorist or not. For some people Muslim is Terrorist and Terrorist is Muslim. It's called prejudice!! It's called xenophobia - uncontrollable fear of foreigners!

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

Whether or not it was extreme muslim or not is immaterial.

A Muslim is a Muslim regardless of whether he is a terrorist or not. For some people Muslim is Terrorist and Terrorist is Muslim. It's called prejudice!! It's called xenophobia - uncontrollable fear of foreigners!

That is not quite what was said. For some it may be true all muslims are alike.Most don't believe that.

The permit for the mosque should not be denied. That does not mean that all are prejudiced that would like to see some understanding from muslims in general.From that aspect it does not matter whether or not the Imam represents extremists or not.

What disturbs a lot of people you seem to think are racists is the bulling the way thru.Build the mosque and demand all understand it is a peaceful and bridge building effort.

To disagree makes one xenophobia or racists.

I would think they would want to go forward with consideration for those they claim to want to reach. It seems the only interest is "Do it the way of the Imam".

[bonnie]

I would hope that if our denomination were in the position of the Imam they would behave differently.

I doubt it because of what is posted here.

We would probably force our "bridge building" down the throats of all that objected.

Any SDA not going along with that behavior would have to be racist or unchristian.

[Guest]

That is not quite what was said. For some it may be true all muslims are alike.Most don't believe that.

The permit for the mosque should not be denied. That does not mean that all are prejudiced that would like to see some understanding from muslims in general.From that aspect it does not matter whether or not the Imam represents extremists or not.

What disturbs a lot of people you seem to think are racists is the bulling the way thru.Build the mosque and demand all understand it is a peaceful and bridge building effort.

To disagree makes one xenophobia or racists.

I would think they would want to go forward with consideration for those they claim to want to reach. It seems the only interest is "Do it the way of the Imam".

Yup

[Tom Wetmore]

NIMBY-ism taken to a whole new level...

It also reminds me of a "solution" to afford a certain segment of our citizens equal opportunities as long as it was in a separate place...

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

It also reminds me of a "solution" to afford a certain segment of our citizens equal opportunities as long as it was in a separate place...

oh please. Can't someone take a stand about something without bring up something from a bygone era? Name a segment of any society that did not/does not have a form of caste system.

The fact is, one cannot tell if someone is a terrorist Muslim or not. I suppose it is best just to let all Muslim people come here and hope for the best...and, by all means, let them build a mosque near Ground Zero. It doesn't matter what the majority of American citizens feel about it. We MUST pander to the Muslim community. We MUST. It is the Christian thing to do, after all. Because Christians MUST NOT be patriotic or discerning or suspicious. We should all be like little children and trust everyone. Oh wait...children are now being taught to be aware of certain activities of people that might prove dangerous. That MUST be eliminated and children should be taught to trust everyone. It's the Christian thing to do.