Hold on. Whatever happened to the "Seperation of church and state"? If he believes in freedom of religion how does he justify spending money to support the institution of just one? Has there been news that he's giving his support to the building of Christian churches? Buddhist temples? Hindu shrines? Jehovah's Witness kingdom halls? Anything?

He is protecting the wall os church and state.

If you follow american reality thre are several cities where opposition to  mosques being built... and one church wants to burn the sacred book of the Muslims.

So there's no money involved? He's just saying (paraphrasing), "Hey, let the Muslims have another place to come together to worship."? Who could be against that??

 Yes there has been clarity on where the money is from but with the people who are opposing it it doesn't matter. They don't actually believe the information or believe it's some sort of trick.  Neither do they believe that the main Iman that is overseeing this building is actually preaches peace (he has been on the record many times talking about how violent jihad is wrong)  he's just 'faking' people out apparently.   It's all just a giant conspiracy foisted by the terrorists from the dark murky world of scary Muslims apparently.   

Neither do people believe the truth of what this building is. It's not even a full fledged mosque.  It's more a Muslim community center which which has prayer space in it as well a numerous other uses. 

 I'd caution on using or perpetuating that 'conquering' meme as well.  That one came straight out of racistville from blatently anti-muslim sources in net world a few months ago.  It is one of the main 'arguments' being used to freak people out and make them angry.  It implies the scary brown world islamic conspiracy' blah blah blah, omg these people think they've conquered us!  It's BS and of course people that don't know any better eat it up as being some overarching 'truth' that applies to ALL Muslims everywhere.  Here's a clue, while perhaps some Muslims somewhere ply this building conquering symbolic thing, not all Muslims are the same, think the same or do the same things.  

Good for Obama.  I'm sure he and his advisors were well aware of the freak out that was going to happen when he said he supported it.  Good for him for actually holding up and standing up for the principles of the actual document that his country was founded on.   He's right and will continue to be right unless their Constitution is changed.        

Hee. You always have a humorous way of drilling down to the point.  

I wonder why they choose Edmonton to be the first place to conquer in Canada. (1938)?  And I'm a bit puzzled at the strategy of taking Maine first in the US. (1915).   Well Maine maybe because it is on the coast so perhaps was some sort of strategic jumping off point but Edmonton hmm..... 

(yes this is tongue and cheek.  Had to put this disclaimer because while googling to find the place and dates I found some blogs where people were taking this conquering thing seriously and asking these very sorts of questions) 

Yes there is more than one way to look at it, and the one way you suggested we look at it was purile racist propaganda.

Sorry but I don't agree that I need to give racist propaganda any consideration.

There is looking at things from many angles, and then there is giving view points consideration when they deserve none.

Good on Obama.  I hope once built this will be a stepping stone to opening chanels of dialogue and help heal the rift between Muslims and non-Muslims in the USA.  Wouldn't that be beautiful?  If this place became both a madrassa style mosque, and an outreach centre? Programs about Islam, inter-faith dialogue, the works.

As-salaamu alaikum, Ramadan Mubarak

-Omni

 Sure it's a concern but that's not a good reason for it not to happen or not to be built.   If concern over all those sorts and what might happen is used as some sort of valid reason then those sorts have won.  They get their way. +1 for the zealots, racists, and general assholes and -1 for religious freedom, peoples freedom and one of the most basic principles that are enshrined in the Constitution.  As well as contravening the most basic of private property rights and other rights.    You know all the stuff that the US touts itself to be founded on.    Concerns are one thing and entirely valid but they don't always equal legal or constitutional reasons for one group to stop another from doing something they don't like.     

And to address your first concern I agree and never suggested otherwise that it shouldn't be mentioned.  Big difference between mentioning that it exists and placing weight in considering it once you know it exists.   In fact the reason I commented in the first place about the conquering meme you wrote about was so that more information about it, it's origin and why it's validity as a good argument against this project is questionable.   That is information that exists too...so yeah...I mentioned it.   

double

computer is wonky

double

I wonder if the followers of any other religion were ever any different. Somehow I think not.

 I don't think they weren't either. That's why I mentioned that point and  other religions probably doing similar things in the next paragraph.  The only reason I didn't comment on any specifics or say what happened in East Asian with religions etc etc is because I'm not familiar enough with details to pull examples off the top of my head.     

I'm sleepy and shall come back later, all I'm going to say now is that I'm all for the building of this muslim center.

Well, I don't actually feel like typing up a whole long post on the subject, but feel I must say something because I said I would before.

I think it's great what Obama said, I think they should be able to build their Muslim center anywhere they want (I wouldn't care if they built it on the very spot the towers were). I feel that all this fear and hate is bad for humanity as a whole and the center could be a great place for different faiths to come together and share ideas and break down social barriers.

We could even have a sort of "Religion Mega Mall" with all major religions in one building! (I know the mall part kinda makes it sound like a place to "shop for god" or something, but a mall is all I could think of).

I think somewhere that all religions can come together and communicate would be great! I think it would really get rid of quite a bit of hate and distrust that can go on between different religions.

I rather like  Witch's suggestion of a church and mosque side by side sharing a patio. Of course, I also think that all denominations should pitch in and build community worship centres for all to use (even if separately.) Sell the church buildings, use the proceeds to co-operatively build a common centre for Christian worship. Maybe include 3 sanctuaries so as to diminish the inevitable friction over who gets to worship when, and have a large central area for the various denominations to mix and mingle afterward. What do you think?

Your argument is that because the mosque will make a lot of racists who threaten to use violence angry, we should abandon Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms and give into their tactics of intimidation.  If they do cancel construction of the mosque for this reason, it would mean that intimidation won. 

Typical Beshpin logic. 

HAHA! That's exactly what I was thinking about when I thought of it!

I know I'm going to take some heat for my comments, but I think the timing and location is insensitive. Not enough time has passed for this IMHO. There are still those that still think the ones that flew the planes into the tower were from Iraq and the blame is still misdirected at all Muslims.

It' would be comparable to building a mega Christian Church  near ground Zero where the United States dropped the Atomic Bombs just a few years afterward. Even though many Americans would have disagreed with using this destructive power, Unfortunately, it is remembered as Americans, as a nation that did this.

It's interesting that we who are on the periphery of this disastrous event (911) have no respect for the healing process that needs to take place for those directly affected. Nearly 3000 families which fans out to even a larger number to those affected by this tragedy. The anger is still there and that reflects a very early stage of the healing process for grief. We want the victims to hurry up and get over it and show the world that they have healed to the point of acceptance---but I don't believe that's true. It's too soon and ANY church IMHO should be understanding of the culture and grief surrounding a highly controversial area in the life of any nation.

That piece of land in Manhatten must be worth millions if not a billion. What a collossal waste of money that I'm sure could be put to better use. (the same goes for any religion) to create more understanding of the muslim faith, rather than pick a highly sensitive area that would continue to rub salt into a wound that has not healed.

To be fair Sebb, I googled Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and found out (which I never realized) that the Roman Catholic Church had a strong presence within Nagasaki. In fact ground zero in Nagasaki was a Roman Catholic Church, which to this day has not been rebuilt but left with only an archway as a memorial.

I never knew this, but Nagasaki had the largest Christian population in Japan at the time of World War 2. Interesting that another supposed "Christian Nation" chose this city, isn't it?

Another bit of trivia, I discovered is that the land was purchased in lower manhatten for 4.3 million cash a year ago, after the owner had tried for years to sell it for 18 million. Seems ridiculously low but this was blamed on the recession.

Waterfall, how much time is enough time to get over 9/11?  It's been 9 years.  Not to sound callous, but how long do we have to wait before we stop giving the 9/11 families the status of authorities, which somehow entitles them to have the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution waived. 

In order for civil rights in a liberal society to mean anything, they have to be upheld despite the strong emotions of victims. 

Here is a classic catergory mistake "It' would be comparable to building a mega Christian Church  near ground Zero where the United States dropped the Atomic Bombs just a few years afterward. Even though many Americans would have disagreed with using this destructive power, Unfortunately, it is remembered as Americans, as a nation that did this."

Your illustration was the symbol left by the Roman Catholics indicate that we are not talking about the same symbolic nature.... We are talking about the USA and its values of freedom of religion.  As long as all building permits and limits are followed the state cannot prevent the building of a structure, in this case a Muslim center.  As long as it is legal than it should go ahead.

In Japan they would have to deal with it within their culture.

Then there is symbolic issue - what would be wrong about building a church in an area where there are christians? What would be wrong with building a Muslin center where there Muslims living?

Sorry neither symbolic issue demands nothing be done - it is not intrinsic to the issue.  The issue is why the negativigity?  

We live in an era where the cry of just one sparrow can be heard almost instantaneously across the world.

This is an amazing thing.

Of course, garbage in, garbage out -- along with the tales of the invention of a new colour that can bring aboot world peace, we also get tales of SuperCeleb's problems with hir zit cream.

Humanity deserves better stories.  Kudos to Obama for having to deal with this purility.

All praise the FAC!  I used to run a game called Over the Edge, where all the action took place on the island of Al Amarija, located somewhere mysteriously in the Mediterranean.  You could only get there if you really belonged there.  It was a place where every conspiracy that you could think of existed.  The main church there was one where they had a different worship service for every day of the week, except Sundays, when it was a Religious Potluck.

The argument about whether it hurts the victims families is not for us to decide IMO, it's the families that have that right. And if it hurts them, then we should listen. Misplaced anger, maybe, but who are we to say "hurry up with getting over it will you?" And it's not just the families, most americans have been victim to the propaganda that surrounded 911. It has it's own set of criteria.

Standing outside of the box, gives me privileges of objectivity but at the same time it blinds me to the pain that exists within.  So I do agree with you in many places but it's not necessarily my luxury or right to brush off legitimate fear with a fast anecdote.