Mosque going up in NYC building

[BubberMiley]

When you're far, far to the right of the mainstream, virtually everything is "lefty."

[kimmy]

The rise of science and secularism peaked in the twentieth century, when a strong antireligious secularism became viewed as the impulse of modernity.

Yet the American notion of the separation of church and state was not intended to develop an atheistic or agnostic society. Rather, the objective was to allow any and all religions to thrive while preventing the state from using its powers to establish one religion or religious doctrine over any other.

But in the twentieth century, a more militant secularism gained currency in America, and the separation of church and state was reinterpreted in ways that were increasingly antireligious. In a sense, antireligionism crept in as a new state religion, in my opinion, violating the intent of the First Amendment authors.

The rise of aggressive antireligion sentiment in the West and within the ruling elite of much of the remaining world, dismissing as it did the religious voice from participating in society's political and economic boardrooms, created an equal and opposite reaction in the twentieth century: the rise of religious fundamentalisms worldwide, as Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists all experienced fundamentalism and its attending expressions of militancy. All fundamentalisms shared one common enemy: "secular modernity"-- not because of secularism or modernity per se, but because secular modernity was viewed as actively antireligious.

The Muslim world still perceives that the West distrusts religious voices and will not brook their presence in the discourse on building the good society. Muslims believe that America needs to reestablish its original understanding of the First Amendment, which balances the separation of church and state with freedom of religion by allowing all religions equal standing and by honoring the role of religion in building the good society. This balance is enormously important to Muslims.

(pg 6-7)

I therefore entertain a wish, shared by my reading of my noble scripture, the Quran, regarding all religions, including Judaism and Christianity—the very same wish entertained by all who have taken part in interfaith dialogue across the ages. I wish for humankind to drink deeply from that rich, nourishing current of spiritual traditions—those immutable principles of divine origin that have been given form in so many ways in human societies. Religion must be more than mere custom or habit, more than the transient styles and cultural fashions of passing ages. Religion, which speaks to the eternal in us, must be the foundation of a robust, harmonious society and the animating principle of the whole life of a people.

(ABC excerpt)

...If any of this sounds familiar, it's because Pope Benedict 16 was saying practically the same thing in England this week. Feisal Rauf at least has the decency to state his case without invoking the Nazis, which is admirable, I suppose.

I would love to hear either Rauf or Benedict explain what they mean by "militant atheism" or "militant secularism" or "aggressive antireligion" in America and the UK. I mean, certainly we know that militant religious people tend to do stuff like launching crusades, building fortified compounds in Texas, crash airplanes into buildings, stuff like that. Where are the militant atheists? Are they the ones who go to court so that their kids don't have to pray to other peoples' gods in school, or learn junk-science in biology class?

He says the Muslim world is losing respect for America because America doesn't permit religious voices to participate in building the good society. What, exactly, is he talking about? What religious points of view does he feel are being unjustly shut out? Is he saying the Muslim world is mad that Americans aren't learning "intelligent design" or praying to Jesus in school? Or is he saying Muslims are distrustful because of the rejection of religious-based rules against things like homosexuality and reproductive choice and womens' freedoms? When he says Muslims are losing respect for America because America is becoming less religious, is he trying to say that "they really do hate us for our freedoms"?

Religion is being shut out! Religious voices aren't permitted to participate in our governments and our schools and our boardrooms! This isn't the language of a "liberal", and it's not the language of a Muslim extremist or anything of the sort. It's the same language we hear all the time from conservative American Christians who long for that old time religion to be brought back to our society. And aside from the small detail of being Muslim rather than Christian, that's exactly what Rauf is: a conservative religious man who thinks that religion has to be the foundation of a good society. The irony is, Fox News should be a huge admirer of this guy. He's on their team.

-k

[bloodyminded]

(pg 6-7)

(ABC excerpt)

...If any of this sounds familiar, it's because Pope Benedict 16 was saying practically the same thing in England this week. Feisal Rauf at least has the decency to state his case without invoking the Nazis, which is admirable, I suppose.

I would love to hear either Rauf or Benedict explain what they mean by "militant atheism" or "militant secularism" or "aggressive antireligion" in America and the UK. I mean, certainly we know that militant religious people tend to do stuff like launching crusades, building fortified compounds in Texas, crash airplanes into buildings, stuff like that. Where are the militant atheists? Are they the ones who go to court so that their kids don't have to pray to other peoples' gods in school, or learn junk-science in biology class?

He says the Muslim world is losing respect for America because America doesn't permit religious voices to participate in building the good society. What, exactly, is he talking about? What religious points of view does he feel are being unjustly shut out? Is he saying the Muslim world is mad that Americans aren't learning "intelligent design" or praying to Jesus in school? Or is he saying Muslims are distrustful because of the rejection of religious-based rules against things like homosexuality and reproductive choice and womens' freedoms? When he says Muslims are losing respect for America because America is becoming less religious, is he trying to say that "they really do hate us for our freedoms"?

Religion is being shut out! Religious voices aren't permitted to participate in our governments and our schools and our boardrooms! This isn't the language of a "liberal", and it's not the language of a Muslim extremist or anything of the sort. It's the same language we hear all the time from conservative American Christians who long for that old time religion to be brought back to our society. And aside from the small detail of being Muslim rather than Christian, that's exactly what Rauf is: a conservative religious man who thinks that religion has to be the foundation of a good society. The irony is, Fox News should be a huge admirer of this guy. He's on their team.

-k

It would appear Kimmy has pretty incontestably established that Rauf is not a "liberal" in any sense of the word in which it is commonly used in the contemporary era.

He's a social conservative. He's not an arch-conservative in the sense we might think of it in the Muslim world; but by North American standards (never mind Western standards generally), he is quite unambiguously a social and religious conservative.

An excellent post.

Edited September 18, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

He's also not a person of high ethics, with admirable character, as he's been portrayed.

[BubberMiley]

He's also not a person of high ethics, with admirable character, as he's been portrayed.

And you still cannot explain why that is so important.

[Guest American Woman]

And you still cannot explain why that is so important.

More like you cannot understand in spite of the explanation.....

[Machjo]

My conclusion after all these posts:

1. Different people oppose the project for various reasons.

2. Some have approached local and other government officials to ask for official sanction of the project. Others, still believing in freedom of religion and the Constitution, oppose such petitions to the government, but still support the right of public protest.

3. The main argument coming from the camp supporting the freedom of the centre to be built is that since a person should be judged on his own actions and not those of his religious affiliation, the investors in their project should therefore not suffer any legal sanction for the actions of the perpetrators of 9/11. And of course this camp would oppose any official sanction of the project on Constitutional or other grounds relating to freedom of religion. This same group is likely to be divided between those who believe that even public protest represents the harassment of an innocent group simply practicing freedom of religion, and those who believe that they should protest on the grounds that we should be sensitive to what others do in association with our ethnic, religious, or other identity.

[Oleg Bach]

No such thing as a moderate muslim - but many think there are

Borg

It's all about the weakening effect of political correctness which is a polcy driven phenoma of control - that NO one is offended - and if no one is offended then no one dare offend the governing hords...with out political correctness we could get pissed of and oust any unfair or unjust government .. but we CAN't - because we are not allowed to have righteous indignation...polically it is called "anger" - and if you are preturbed with the holocausting of 3000 citizens ..THEN - they might just force you to take that classic anger management course..and force you back into being tolerant of evil..and yes the most polically correct people on earth are Muslims..they are miles ahead of us when it comes to behaving like a compliant colony of insects.

[scribblet]

Take this for example, on the surface it sounds great, tolerance and respect for all faiths right, but maybe it's more about incrementalism and getting a foot in the door. Would it be a two way street, would Christians be allowed to pray in any of their Mosques.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/08/17/cordoba.mosque.spain/index.html?hpt=C2

Cordoba, Spain (CNN) -- Muslims in Spain are campaigning to be allowed to worship alongside Christians in Cordoba Cathedral -- formerly the Great Mosque of Cordoba.

"Would they be happy to do the same in any of their mosques?" he asked. "Absolutely not.

[nicky10013]

Take this for example, on the surface it sounds great, tolerance and respect for all faiths right, but maybe it's more about incrementalism and getting a foot in the door. Would it be a two way street, would Christians be allowed to pray in any of their Mosques.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/08/17/cordoba.mosque.spain/index.html?hpt=C2

How many churches that were never mosques do they want to pray in?

[scribblet]

No idea, but like I said, it's incrementalism as is the Cordoba Initiative at Ground Zero, it's also symbolic. Although as far the Cordoba Mosque goes, it wasn't always a Mosque either, it was the Christian Visigoth church of St. Vincent.

I wonder what the Turks would do if Orthodox Christians demanded the right to pray in Haghia Sophia of Istanbul, now a museum.

"An Islamic regime must be serious in every field," said Ayatollah Khomeini.

[BubberMiley]

No idea, but like I said, it's incrementalism as is the Cordoba Initiative at Ground Zero, it's also symbolic.

Incrementalism?

[Bitsy]

Gotta watch that incrementalism, look who has control of the church now.

From Scribblets link:

In fact, the site remains significant for Muslims as a symbol of Islam's golden age of learning and religious tolerance. The Mosque of Cordoba was once famed for allowing both Christians and Muslims to pray together under the same roof.

[Shady]

New pictures of the proposed mega-mosque. Judging by the proposed design, do people still object to the description as mega?

Just your run of the mill mosque.

PIC

PIC

[Bitsy]

New pictures of the proposed mega-mosque. Judging by the proposed design, do people still object to the description as mega?

Just your run of the mill mosque.

PIC

PIC

It was never planned to be a run if the mill mosque or a mega-mosque. The vision behind it has always been to create a community center for all who live or work in lower Manhattan.

With 50,000 square feet of air rights, Imam Feisal said, the location, with enough financing, could support an ambitious project of $150 million, akin to the Chautauqua Institution, the 92 Street Y or the Jewish Community Center.

Joy Levitt, executive director of the Jewish Community Center, said the group would be proud to be a model for Imam Feisal at ground zero. “For the J.C.C. to have partners in the Muslim community that share our vision of pluralism and tolerance would be great,” she said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?_r=1&sq=mosque%20ground%20zero&st=nyt&scp=1&pagewanted=all

[msj]

New pictures of the proposed mega-mosque. Judging by the proposed design, do people still object to the description as mega?

Just your run of the mill mosque.

PIC

PIC

I don't think it is mega mosque but that's based on watching this: 60 minutes Ground Zero.

[BubberMiley]

If you don't consider it mega, you are clearly biased against muslims.

[DogOnPorch]

Meh...the Muslims in my city are making sure their mosque is larger than the substantial Sikh temples...which are larger than any Christian church. This is SOP with regards to religion. My spire is bigger than your spire.

[GostHacked]

Looks nice! The final product if true to the pictures will be a real show stopper. The architech and floor structure is very very cool. Although .. glass floors?? Giggity.

[Oleg Bach]

Meh...the Muslims in my city are making sure their mosque is larger than the substantial Sikh temples...which are larger than any Christian church. This is SOP with regards to religion. My spire is bigger than your spire.

Exactly! Our god is bigger and more real than your god..In fact our God is not God..and to prove this point these people put up a monument to their god...close to where ours once stood - problem was - that our god was MONEY ----and with Saudi funding apprently their god is all about money also..Eventually Islam will prosper in a material way and the rest of us will be third class citizens..who ever has the richest biggest temple rules the roost..Have you seen some of the fine temples build by other - other than Christians and Islamics? The finest material ..the finest of design...the most agressive image on the sky line - we are stupid - they are smart - end of story.

[guyser]

Just your run of the mill mosque.

Yup .

Looks pretty much run of the mill considering all the new ones seem outlandish. But hey, this one looks good.

(psst take a look at the one in Vaughan)

[GostHacked]

Yup .

Looks pretty much run of the mill considering all the new ones seem outlandish. But hey, this one looks good.

(psst take a look at the one in Vaughan)

That one on Vaughan is pretty huge, and it's a beautiful structure.

[jbg]

Meh...the Muslims in my city are making sure their mosque is larger than the substantial Sikh temples...which are larger than any Christian church. This is SOP with regards to religion. My spire is bigger than your spire.

In Muslim lands under rules of dhimmitude, all non-Muslim houses of worship must be lower than Muslim ones.

[nicky10013]

In Muslim lands under rules of dhimmitude, all non-Muslim houses of worship must be lower than Muslim ones.

There's a reason why those states are authoritarian. You expect fair treatment from those kinds of governments?

[bloodyminded]

Meh...the Muslims in my city are making sure their mosque is larger than the substantial Sikh temples...which are larger than any Christian church. This is SOP with regards to religion. My spire is bigger than your spire.