August 27, 2010 at 6:09 am #592229
What is your opinion? Should they build it or not? What do you think about Obama and Bloomberg’s comments?
My personal opinion is that they SHOULD build it. But not 13 floors. It should be 19 stories. And each floor dedicated to the hijackers on 9/11.
August 27, 2010 at 2:39 pm #1096704
What I find scary about this whole thing is they’ll build one mosque, than another and another….and than they will literally just take over!
August 27, 2010 at 3:02 pm #1096705
It should be built.
As jews we should appreciate the freedom of religion and the right to build shuls wherever the zoning allows. to pick and choose whom we allow is a slippery slope.
August 27, 2010 at 3:19 pm #1096706
How would your grandparents feel if the Germans would build a nice religious builing right next to Auschwitz… There has to be a line whats considered freedom of religion.
August 27, 2010 at 3:30 pm #1096707
August 27, 2010 at 3:31 pm #1096708
No, it should not be built. The freedom of religion does not apply to a religion that BANS ALL freedom of religion. You cannot brutally murder your parents and then come before the judge asking for clememncy on the grounds that you are an orphan, nebbich.
No one disputes the legal right for someone to build on property that belongs to him (though in many neighborhoods there are zoning laws that restrict those rights to an extent). But we are not talking about RIGHTS, but whether or not it is RIGHT to do it.
The Muslim agenda is very clear. The fact that as soon as there was a great outcry and they did not back off, shows that the Muslims do not care one whit for the sensibilities of the people who lost loved ones, or for the rest of us who simply commiserate with the, It takes not concern of the firefighters, police, EMS workers, other medical personnell who were injured or died trying to rescue people frfom the aftermath of what these maniacs did.
I don’t even care if it is only a “small segment of the population” who are terrorists. that is baloney and we all know it. But even if that were so, none of the Imams (especially the one associated with this mosque) has ever publicly and decisively denounced Muslim terrorism. Sorry, but they have no right to shout fire metaphorically in a crowded theater.
The biggest insuklt is when people say,”Well would you have the same objection if a church or synagogue was being built there?” WHAT??? HAVE WE LOST OUR COLLECTIVE MINDS? Did a Christian or Jewish group hijack three planes and murder thousands of people in the space of a few minutes? it is not the OBJECT but the people who want to build it and gloat in what it symbolizes, that we find objectionable. This is not just flak we are giving the Imam. He has to get the message loud and clear.
August 27, 2010 at 3:42 pm #1096709
“to pick and choose whom we allow is a slippery slope.”
Picking and choosing is when two groups have equal rights and one gets chosen over the other for no apparent reason- THAT’S a slippery slope but this case is totally different- its terribly insensitive to the family members of the many poor victims who perished in this sick attack and if your that desperate for freedom and religion then go build somewhere else- why davka here??? Its like the Japanese building a huge center next to Pearl Harbor…
I sincerely think this is the truth in the situation. Anyone with me?
August 27, 2010 at 3:45 pm #1096710
Im all with you- see my previous post
August 27, 2010 at 3:58 pm #1096711
Do we govern on insensitivities?
Why did they choose this location? Because they had a lease with an option to buy. Its a great location, great size and perfect for them. And it was an easy purchase.
IMO, backing down now would be like admitting they are partially responsible. Islam is a religion – not every muslim caused the terror attacks.
Do you want your shuls questioned? How about when they stop allowing zoning for your shul because there is one (halachically accceotable) shul three houses away?
Freedom means allowing others to do things you don’t like. All because you want freedom when its time for you to choose.
August 27, 2010 at 4:11 pm #1096712
blinky- sorry didn’t notice your previous post you basically wrote in short what I wrote…
I don’t think there’s space to argue our point at all.
SJS- Im beginning to get worried that you wear one of those black veils…lol
August 27, 2010 at 4:11 pm #1096713
I agree that it’s insensitve and the “wisdom behind the location” is lacking. I still think it’s their right to build there.
This is America we dont care what other countries or even the home countries practice.
switch muslim for other religions and we’ll be singing a different tune.
August 27, 2010 at 4:13 pm #1096714
Is every Christian responsible for the bloodshed of the Crusades?
For the Inquisition? For the blood libels? Is Christianity responsible? Or is it just the individual soldiers of Christendom who are responsible, and their unfortunate coreligionists merely innocent spectators?
August 27, 2010 at 4:15 pm #1096715
I’d like to respectfully disagree with you on this.
Islam is a religion and as long as they are practicing their religion in a way that doesn’t affect others they should be free to do what they want in the United States.
With that being said, I agree that the vast majority of Muslims want peace and consider Islam to be a religion of peace.
BUT, if they know that there were thousands of innocent people killed right there in the name of their religion- they should show some consideration to the sensitivities of those who lost loved ones and accept an offer of another location.
August 27, 2010 at 4:17 pm #1096716
is every german responsible for the holocaust?
the xian nation is responsible as a whole
collective responsibility is a Torah concept.
there is additionally a logical rationale for this.
too complicated for me to go into now
August 27, 2010 at 4:18 pm #1096717
You are getting at the same point as I am.
August 27, 2010 at 4:22 pm #1096718
i wasnt really following the thread
i just saw your post isolated
i didnt want to get into an argument with you
August 27, 2010 at 4:24 pm #1096719
“With that being said, I agree that the vast majority of Muslims want peace and consider Islam to be a religion of peace. “
thats a nice thought DP, and oft said
is it true?
i dont think so
look what they teach their children in school.
August 27, 2010 at 4:30 pm #1096720
Squeak, if you are talking about a movement (and the Inquisition, blood libels etc) was a movement that stemmed from Christian leadership. Those leaders and followers are absolutely responsible [with the exception of followers who protested].
Do you want the world to judge us by Neturei Karta?
As to the sensitivity aspect – I have no right to dictate their sensitivities as long as they are building legally. Sure, protest all you want, but there is no real reason for then to change their plans.
Should Rosa Parks have sat on the back of the bus so as not to offend people? White people WERE offended by blacks back in the day.
Again, freedom means allowing others to do things you don’t approve of as it gives you the same rights.
August 27, 2010 at 4:31 pm #1096721
take it, squeak
August 27, 2010 at 4:33 pm #1096722
Lets look at things we teach in schools:
1) Jews are better than everyone
2) In the times of Moshiach, righteous non-Jews are going to be our slaves
If you read Tanach, we had a bloody history. Granted, all sanctioned by Hashem. But they believe theirs is also.
August 27, 2010 at 4:34 pm #1096723
There are many moderate Muslim countries where the children are not taught hate. The contents of the text books there are not what makes the news. There are also large Muslim communities in Non-Muslim countries where the Islamic students use whatever text books are used by the rest of the school system.
August 27, 2010 at 4:45 pm #1096724
Wake up and get real people!
This isn’t about religious freedom! There are already dozens (or more) mosques in New York! This is about them making a political statement! Don’t compare this to (or worry about) OUR ability to build shuls. WE DIDN’T COMMIT A TERRORIST ATTACK HERE! (and – when they DO start banning shuls here, it wont matter that we didn’t).
Do you really think they want a mosque DAVKA near Ground Zero for the sake of peace and healing?!?!
They want it there to “twist the knife”!
What is in their hearts is “We attacked you, We killed thousands of you, NOW we will use YOUR own stupid political correctness to commemorate our victory by building a mosque on your graves!!!”
-Look at what is happening in France! It is OVERRUN with moslems and mosques. The French are running for their cultural (soon to be physical) lives! A huge percentage of french jews have gotten the wake-up call and are running to make aliyah.
If these pere-adam yishmaelim REALLY wanted healing and peace they wouldn’t push to build a mosque in the ONLY location that the vast majority of New Yorkers are wildly opposed to!
August 27, 2010 at 4:46 pm #1096725
SJS- we might teach that we are the chosen nation and everything, but we don’t go prancing it and terrorizing everone because we are the elite.
August 27, 2010 at 4:48 pm #1096726
As long as the mosque is not funded by terorist organsations or actively supporting terrorists they have a right to beleive and practice what they want were they want. Even if they beleive and preach that American culture is rotten and disgusting (somthing they may be right about)and that in an ideal world evreyone would be Muslim. Even if they preach things that evreyone else finds offensive. They still have that right. In a democrocy you have the right say, beleive, and do what you want no matter how offensive it is. That’s what comes along with living in America.
The people who beleive that the mosque is funded by terorists should take their proofs of this to court, if it is found to be true it will not be built.
August 27, 2010 at 5:01 pm #1096727
Islam is by its nature (according to the ‘pashut’ reading of the Quran) a controlling and an intolerant religion! There I said it! Forget about contemporary Talibans and Wahabis, since its very creation, Islam has subscribed to the belief that Christians and Jews are Dhimmis thus making them subserviant to Muslims under Shariyah law.
It’s bad enough to have a growing Muslim population in America, I don’t want it in my back yard in NY! And if it means using logic like not allowing a mosque on WTC grounds, then I’m up for using whatever it takes to prevent Islam from growing here.
August 27, 2010 at 5:01 pm #1096728
This is also not a mosque, but a community center. With a prayer room.
August 27, 2010 at 5:03 pm #1096729
Its annoying to me to see so many frum people parroting things catholics like Sean Hannity etc. say all day. Christains are no great friends of ours either and probably hate us just as much as the muslims, whatever a christain may say in public or on the radio they beleive that we killed their “god” and are going to burn forever for rejecting him. Their “saints” are by and large people who would have had no problem tourtering Jewish children to death. Just because in the past couple of hundred years it has become unfashionable to say these things in public in western society dosnt change what their religion is and has been for the past couple of thousand years.
Our history with muslims is a by and large a whole lot better. Muslims let Jews and christains live in their lands (with certain restrictions but generaly not as bad as those in christain countrys) while many catholic countrys were expelling us and inciting progroms.
August 27, 2010 at 5:14 pm #1096730
I’m glad you notice the similarities. Now let’s note the differences.
Let’s leave the “bloody history” of Tanach for a different discussion. Let it suffice for here to say that it is not an example of persecution.
At the most simplistic level, the difference is that we write off the NK as misguided (read: unguided) loonies with perverted sense of right and wrong, while the actions of the Crusaders and Jihadists are designed, sanctioned, and/or supported by the rank leaders of the faith. As such, all followers of the faith are buying in to that “service of G-d” (or god, as the case may be) by recognizing that leadership. In the case of NK it is quite clear that Jewish leadership and their followers denounce them and their actions. We do not support them financially or otherwise. We vocally condemn their atrocities (atrocities by our standards, not the much lower standards of the general public).
In the case of the Christian Crusaders, no one denies that the opposite is true – the holy war and the pillaging of communities was indeed sanctioned by the pope himself, as was the Inquisition. That is why it is important that the current leaders of the religion publicly distance themselves from those atrocities- so as to not be counted as a participant.
In the case of the Muslims of today, it is a bit more murky – in that although it has been proven time and again that terrorism is directed, funded, and encouraged by Islamic leadership, they still deny it for PR reasons and pretend that each individual terrorist is a random misguided loony. Which is precisely what makes these conversations difficult – because there are two sides here, 1) you can take the Muslim leaders seriously, or 2) you can just add lying to the world to the list of their crimes against humanity.
I don’t expect you to change your mind, but I will stand solidly behind what I am saying – Muslims collectively do not refuse to be associated with the leadership that has shown involvement with Jihadists. They do not condemn and distance themselves from the “loonies”, except when the cameras are rolling. As long as the worshipers continue to follow such leaders, they are giving tacit approval to the decisions by the leaders to support the war against the rest of the world.
August 27, 2010 at 5:16 pm #1096731
“Islam is by its nature (according to the ‘pashut’ reading of the Quran) a controlling and an intolerant religion! There I said it! Forget about contemporary Talibans and Wahabis, since its very creation, Islam has subscribed to the belief that Christians and Jews are Dhimmis thus making them subserviant to Muslims under Shariyah law. “
Thats not a reason to make it illegal to build a mosque. Christianity beleives that Jews are evil and deserve to die for rejecting their mamzer as well. Churches arn’t illegal. If someone had proof that the mosque was going to be used to actively support murder they should take their proofs to court
August 27, 2010 at 5:18 pm #1096732
Bava Kamma 38a!
August 27, 2010 at 5:24 pm #1096733
Note that the conversation has steered away from the question “should they be allowed to build a mosque”.
Building there is simply in poor taste. Poor taste is not illegal in this country, as evidenced by the jokes that start to go around when there is an election.
But illegal? Should they be stopped from building there? Certainly not. People are merely appealing to the sensibilities of those making the decision to build. Apparently, those sensibilities are lacking.
August 27, 2010 at 5:28 pm #1096734
August 27, 2010 at 5:31 pm #1096735
August 27, 2010 at 5:38 pm #1096736
Squeak, unfortunately, a lot of Muslims are afraid to speak out for fear of retribution. Right or wrong.
And I agree with a lot of your assessment. Including that it is in poor taste. But I don’t dictate other people’s poor taste.
August 27, 2010 at 5:45 pm #1096737
Fear of retribution? I don’t imply standing up to the leaders. I am saying to distance ones’ self from actions that you do not believe in or support. If I refuse to enter a certain place of worship, there is nothing to fear (especially as Muslims can legitimately pray ‘beyechidus’), but I have made a silent protest. Enough individuals acting this way would constitute general discontent with the status quo. There is no discontentment, except on CNN.
August 27, 2010 at 7:06 pm #1096738
arc: “It should be built. As jews we should appreciate the freedom of religion and the right to build shuls wherever the zoning allows. to pick and choose whom we allow is a slippery slope.”
Couldn’t agree more. As jews, our primary concern in America is our Freedom of Religion. We cannot have that tampered with, at any cost.
oomis1105 – “The freedom of religion does not apply to a religion that BANS ALL freedom of religion.”
I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but our religion also “BANS ALL freedom of religion”. As a matter of fact, if somebody from our religion converts to another, we stone them. And yet we still want the Freedom of Religion to apply to us, don’t we?
“But we are not talking about RIGHTS, but whether or not it is RIGHT to do it.”
OK, if you want to talk about that: No, it’s not very nice of them to build a mosque next to ground zero. However, they have every legal right, and let’s face it, that’s all that matters.
“Did a Christian or Jewish group hijack three planes and murder thousands of people in the space of a few minutes?”
No, but Christians did cruelly murder thousands of jews and muslims in the crusades and the inquisitions. Should we not allow any churches anywhere in Europe?
AinOhdMilvado: “What is in their hearts is “We attacked you, We killed thousands of you, NOW we will use YOUR own stupid political correctness to commemorate our victory by building a mosque on your graves!!!””
I have no idea what “is in their hearts”. However, it makes no difference: Freedom of Religion is Freedom of Religion, regardless of intent.
SJS/000646/squeak – Well said.
August 27, 2010 at 7:18 pm #1096739
Squeak, there are plenty of Muslims that attend mosques that are not pro-terrorism. In english and arabic.
August 27, 2010 at 7:53 pm #1096740
You wrote “I have no idea what “is in their hearts”. However, it makes no difference: Freedom of Religion is Freedom of Religion, regardless of intent.”
If you are a reasonably intelligent Yid, which I will assume you are, you really DO know what is in their hearts, since they have expressed it HUNDREDS of times both here in the U.S. and in Eretz Yisrael. They want to destroy democracy, they want to destroy Israel, they want to destroy Judaism and xianity, they want to impose sharia law on the whole world. For them the hundreds of years between the Crusades and 9/11 was just a “cease-fire” in an on-going war with the “infidels”.
YES, Freedom of religion IS freedom of religion, BUT just as that freedom does NOT mean they can build a mosque in the middle of the Belt Parkway, it does NOT mean they can build it whereEVER they want. Intent DOES matter. If their intent is to study and pray, it does NOT have to DAVKA be done on the site where their co-religionists massacred thousands of innocent Americans and where it will cause anger and grief, AND if their intent is to honor and glorify the terror attack by building a mosque on the site, then CERTAINLY it must NOT be allowed to go forward.
August 27, 2010 at 8:45 pm #1096741
I’m joining the thread just now, but here is my take.
There are two unrelated issues.
A. What are the legal (perhaps constitutional) issues involved.
B. What should be the public response.
I don’t think the public response is related to the legal issues. There are many things which are legal and I speak out against them. I’m not necessarily criticizing the legality, but I am criticizing people who practice it.
An example would be potching your kids. It is legal. I would not support a statute which prohibited it. I criticize parents who do it.
(BP totty: you can use the example of the KKK’s Skokie march. It was legal and most Americans think it should be legal. Yet- of course most Americans would speak out against it.)
August 27, 2010 at 8:53 pm #1096742
Now, my opinion on those two issues.
A. The legality. “I’m on a need to know basis and I don’t need to know.”
B. The public response.
There is no question in my mind that this building is specifically intended as an insult to us, and a monument to the success of the 9/11 attacks.
The entire Moslem world is laughing at us.
I condemn the planners and supporters of this mosque in the strongest terms.
If I were a judge on the case, I would judge it only on the legal merits, but my criticism is not meant to block it legally. It is meant as opinion on the character and intentions of the people involved.
August 27, 2010 at 9:56 pm #1096743
I’m joining the thread now too,
Building there is simply in poor taste. Poor taste is not illegal in this country, as evidenced by the jokes that start to go around when there is an election.
if were talking about legalities then it is also perfectly legal to carry guns
yet there are metal detectors in public places and they tell you you can’t have guns here
I understand 1 is sensitivities and 1 is safety but were basically talking if it’s legal or not right?
August 27, 2010 at 10:35 pm #1096744
Many of us have fallen to the political fight in this issue.
1) Why do we call it ground zero?
Its not at ground zero its 2 huge blocks away so that shouldnt be the problem.
2)Also, why is the question to build or not to build when there is already a fully functional mosque there?
My problem with this whole project is this weird imam and his ties with terrorists. He should be investigated with the money and then im sure the project will be canceled.
August 29, 2010 at 1:26 am #1096745
IMO, backing down now would be like admitting they are partially responsible. Islam is a religion – not every muslim caused the terror attacks. “
I have rarely had cause to disagree with your well-written posts, but this is one time I must. Any Muslim who has not vocally and vigorously denounced HAMAS and all terrorist groups, distancing themselves from them as much as they can in avery obvious way, IS responsible for the continuation of terror. The Imam has made very clear in an interview in his own words, that there IS an agenda. It is not one of peace, for anyone who still might be naive enough to be liberal. There is no justification for allowing this mosque to be built bedavka at this location. They can build all the mosques they want (well, really I would not be so happy about that, because that IS their plan), BUT NOT BY GROUND ZERO. It dishonors the memory of those who died there so tragically and painfully. The fact that the Muslims are STILL pushing for this, knowing how so many people feel, proves they are uncaring of the insesitivity they are showing in their zeal to push forward with their owns desires. In my eyes, there is absolutely no mitigating factor in this.
August 29, 2010 at 1:51 am #1096746
Doesn’t any thinking person find it grossly ironic that the people who force their women to wear burkas, who execute women for being raped, who beheaded a Jewish journalist just because they COULD, who commit every act of barbarism under the sun against people who do not follow THEIR religion, or issue fatwahs (death threats) against authors who even satirize their religion (does the name Salman Rushdie ring a bell?), want to use OUR constitutional right of freedom of religion to push their agenda? In what Bizarro world does a way of life which preaches religious intolerance and death to all infidels, get to use our laws of religious freedom as an excuse to be able to do ANYTHING? The Koran is very specific. Until they change everything in it that talks about killing non-believers and driving Jews into the sea, I have no reason to see their side of things.
August 29, 2010 at 1:56 am #1096747
You are wrong when you write, “No one disputes the legal right for someone to build on property that belongs to him”. In fact, a right Christian group known as the American Center for Law and Justice — led by an apostate Jew — has filed lawsuits that seek to force the city government to stop the project despite the fact that it is completely permitted within the current zoning. That is a depicable un-American act and it is similar to what anti-Semites have tried to pull in their attempts to stop shuls and yeshivot from expanding.
You write, “Its like the Japanese building a huge center next to Pearl Harbor…” In fact, there are numerous Shinto shrines in Hawaii, including one close to Pearl Harbor.
August 29, 2010 at 2:08 am #1096748
“Why did they choose this location? Because they had a lease with an option to buy. Its a great location, great size and perfect for them. And it was an easy purchase.”
In fact they got a good deal because it is a run down area featuring (among other things) gay bars and strip joints. A place where people can worship God (the proposed center will have a prayer room) will be an elevation over the current tumah!
“i dont think so….look what they teach their children in school”
Google “gus dur” and you will find a web site devoted to the teachings of a man who died late last year who was the leader of the largest Muslim organization in the world. His name was “Abdurrahman Wahid” and he also served briefly as President of Indonesia. He was a tremendous Muslim scholar and a man of peace and tolerance. No less a figure than Paul Wolfowitz wrote in his praise after his death. Unfortunately, most Americans have never heard of him and he never had access to the oil money that the Wahabis and Iranian mullahs have that enable them to spread their narrowminded intolerant version of Islam. It is probably Mr. Wahid’s liberal and tolerant form of Islam that President Obama saw when he spent his childhood in Djakarta, Indonesia’s capital. (Remember also that Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world.)
August 29, 2010 at 2:15 am #1096749
I live in a county that already probably as more Muslims than Jews; I see Muslims frequently on the street and on public transit vehicles. I walk past mosques and halal slaughterhouse. Not once has any Muslim ever treated me with anything other than the greatest of respect. I have spoken with Muslims about our respective fasting rules (they can’t see how we can fast for 25 hours; I can’t see how they can fast for a month at a time). My wife has compared experiences of hair covering and modest dress with Muslim women.
France is far from “overrun” with Muslims — the Muslim population of France is at most 12%. The big problem there is that the Christians hate the Muslims as much as they have hated Jews. France has always demanded a higher standard of assimilation of its immigrants; the American standard in which immigrants are encouraged to keep their culture is far better. (Note that it indeed has worked out much better for Jews in America than in France!)
Furthermore, regarding the location, there exists an existing mosque two blocks from the proposed site that is currently overcrowded, it has been there since 1970. What is different about two blocks?
August 29, 2010 at 2:17 am #1096750
“I’m up for using whatever it takes to prevent Islam from growing here. “
And if you succeed it will set the precedent for stopping any religious group from building or expanding whenever the populace objects. Forget about ever expanding a shul or yeshiva. The effects on the frum community will be disastrous. And unfortunately we will have earned that punishment because we were on the wrong side of this mosque controversy.
August 29, 2010 at 2:21 am #1096751
“why is the question to build or not to build when there is already a fully functional mosque there?”
That mosque is overcrowded, with such an inadequate worship space that people have to pray outside on the sidewalk. If the attempts to stop the Park 51 center succeed, forget about ever being able to expand an overcrowded shul when the neighbors object.
August 29, 2010 at 2:39 am #1096752
this project seems too pro-arab if you ask me and it doesn’t matter what we say about the mosque
August 29, 2010 at 3:08 am #1096753
I don’t see why using legal means to attempt to stop this is un-American, or at all similar to anti-semites using the courts to attempt to block shuls.
Anti-semites who block shuls are wrong because they are doing it for anti-semitic reasons.
People who are against this mosque feel that way because it is a deliberate provocation and intended to monument the success of the 9/11 attacks. We should try to stop it through any means. It’s for the courts to decide what the law is.
August 29, 2010 at 3:51 am #1096754
oomis: If we set a precedent for not allowing a religion full freedom due to their objectionable beliefs, we could very well be next. As I have already pointed out, our religion clearly states that anyone who converts out of our religion is stoned to death, and there’s always that old argument that we have with the christians (something about us killing their “god”). Some would probably find that objectionable, no?
August 29, 2010 at 4:26 am #1096755
This has nothing to do with their having an objectionable religion. It has to do with their attempting to memorialize their attack on us.
August 29, 2010 at 5:06 am #1096756
“I don’t see why using legal means to attempt to stop this is un-American, or at all similar to anti-semites using the courts to attempt to block shuls.”
It is so similar it is creepy! The leader of the effort is an apostate Jew who converted to Christianity and can legitimately be called an anti-Muslim bigot. Don’t think for a second that he will not be running to court to support Christian attempts to stop shuls and yeshivot that aren’t “Messianic”. The amazing thing is that so many frum Jews have fallen for this; it is a sign of the high level of assimilation within the frum community that we now identify with people like this.
“It has to do with their attempting to memorialize their attack on us. “
There is no evidence from any of the statements of the projects’ supporters that the project is an attempt to memorialize the attack. They got a good deal on a piece of property in a somewhat run-down area where the two existing mosques are overcrowded.
Or do you think strip joints and gay bars are preferable?
August 29, 2010 at 5:19 am #1096757
“I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but our religion also “BANS ALL freedom of religion”. As a matter of fact, if somebody from our religion converts to another, we stone them. And yet we still want the Freedom of Religion to apply to us, don’t we?”
We do NOT try to forcibly convert goyim or kill them if they refuse. The Muslims do. And they do it to prevent anyone from having freedom of religious choice. They cannot come back and try to use our laws to help them achieve their goal, when they l’chatchilah believe our laws to be stupid and would never follow them themselves. You cannot use my law against me to achieve your own aim, when that aim is to render me unable to follow my own law.
Also, according to what I have learned all my life, the Sanhedrin that actually implemented such an action even once in 70 years, was called a cruel Sanhedrin (meaning, it never really happened or was an incredibly rare occurrence).
August 29, 2010 at 5:26 am #1096758
Charlie, I was referring to us. I knwo there are some people who oppose the mosque on the grounds that they have no legal right to do it. Most of us, however, are not contesting their legal rights, but are questioning if in fact it IS right.
My opinion is that there are many things that we can legally do, but should not for various reasons. People could legally stand in the street in front of someone’s funeral procession that has left the chapel and is in a public area, and start singing hip hop and rap music,cursing at the top of their lungs, if they so desired (free speech and all that). Should they do something that would probably offend the sensibilities of the mourners, EVEN IF IT IS LEGAL?
August 29, 2010 at 5:28 am #1096759
I disagree with your assessment of their intentions. There is plenty of evidence, from their statements, from the circumstances, and from their unwillingness to meet with the governor to discuss alternatives.
And I think strip joints are preferable.
And even if I am wrong and they do intend nothing untoward, it does not make me anti-Muslim nor my intentions bad.
August 29, 2010 at 7:38 am #1096760
I have not read all the posts yet, though I will comment strictly on how I believe this particular situation should be treated.
All people, which includes people of different religions, have the exact same rights as other people and religions in this country. This is the all based on the principles that the founding fathers of the United States laid out in the Bill of Rights under the First Amendment.
Though all religions are entitled to the same rights under the United States Government, does that give one religion the right to infringe on another to the extant that it causes a disagreement with the others religion?
Ethically, we are not allowed to judge another religion as all bad, unless all the people of this religion are such. Even if most of this religion is bad, how can we stop the minority of this religion from utilizing their freedom. Why would this minority want to force others into believing they are honoring our deceased if really they are all bad? I am sure there are those in their religion that are against the construction of the mosque too because they are against the honoring of our deceased. Even if this is not their intentions, we can not and should not judge them on the basis of the rest.
They have the same right as the rest of the religions in the world to build a place of worship.
We would not want others to discriminate against us, therefore we may not discriminate against others!
We are living in Galus and we do not have the right to run the world!
August 29, 2010 at 1:18 pm #1096761
They have the same right as the rest of the religions in the world to build a place of worship.
that’s true but they can build it someplace else.
We are living in Galus and we do not have the right to run the world!
noone is saying we are running the world we using our entitlement of free speech and this post is asking what are your views on the mosque
August 29, 2010 at 2:07 pm #1096763
How can we stop them from any legal standpoint . They can not stop us either. They can make up all different kinds of stories about us and we would fight back. They have the same rights. Ethically they may be wrong but in this country legal rights are above ethics.
We can not act like them and bring ourselves down to their level. We must show them we are better by tolerating their building of the mosque. Do unto others as you would like others to do unto you.
August 29, 2010 at 2:08 pm #1096764
Let me re=phrase that, They have the same right as the rest of religions in the world to to build a place of worship where they want.
If we wanted to build something we wanted to, where we wanted, I can just see the extremists in our religion (especially in Israel) flag burning, pelting the police with rocks, burning dumpsters etc.
They are just as equal in this country to place a mosque anywhere like we would a Shul. When it disturbs them that we have Shul built near something of theirs, we would fight just as hard to continue having it built.
We are living in Galus and we should not look to make problems for ourselves. There is no reason to to stop the mosque from being built.
My view, is that THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD THE MOSQUE!
August 29, 2010 at 3:13 pm #1096765
Why are you only focusing on the legal aspect; a discussion most of us are not trained to take part in to any meaningful degree?
There is another far more basic issue. That is: Is the building of this mosque intended as an insult to us and a monument to their success in attacking us?
The answer is clearly, “yes”.
So I oppose it. Using all the means in my power. Including legal challenges.
(And I even hope that if my legal challenges are unworthy, that the court will overrule me.)
The comparison to those who hatefully try to block shuls in incorrect. The difference is the intent in blocking. The intent is anti-semitism; my intent is in no way racist or homophobic.
August 29, 2010 at 3:50 pm #1096766
popa_bar_abba – You have no idea of what amount of knowledge I have in any field at all or what I am trained in.
I do not believe that ones heart should get in the way of legal rights and freedoms.. I hear the side that we should not let the mosque be built, but we can not let that get in the way of giving every person in this country the same legal freedom that is given to anther.
I do not like certain types of people for what they represent and for the things they have done either. However, as a person who does understand religious freedom,in this country we have to be equal.In another country I would possibly have a different view.
(depending on the legal system)
From our hearts and even possibly from an ethical standpoint we should fight the building of the mosque.
But because of the situation we are in and the country we live in, I am of the opinion that we should leave it all alone and not bother with a fight.
You may ask me, “How can I let my legal side get in the way of my ethical side?’
The answer is, “We must respect the law of the country we reside in.” (Dina D’Malchusa Dina) which on of them is
“Freedom of religion”
August 29, 2010 at 5:03 pm #1096767
There is quite a difference between my speaking out against the mosque versus if I, as a judge or legislator, prevented it from being built.
There are many things I speak against that I would perhaps have to allow as a judge. For example: KKK marches and strip clubs.
Likewise, there is quite a difference between YOU wringing your hands and saying, “we can’t legally stop them”, versus your saying “there is no reason to stop the mosque from being built”.
You sound almost as if you want it to be built.
Also, why are you making as if my opposition is to their religion? As if I don’t like mosques? My opposition is to the deliberate undertones of this one.
Also, I never made any comments about your legal knowledge; I said “most of us”, meaning myself and most of the commentators on this forum. My point was that the legal side is irrelevant to most of us. If you happen to be a first amendment scholar, you may be very interested in debating the merits of their case. By all means, just please don’t confuse it with an evaluation of the worth of their cause.
August 29, 2010 at 5:35 pm #1096768
But a legal side must be relevant to us all. Would a religious Jewish person to whom the country law is not relevant rid themselves of Halacha.
DINA D’MALCHUSA DINA
We must respect the law and abide to it even if we do not like it.
( I am not talking about where the country’s law clearly violates halacha, but when it is emotional and ethical, which clearly does not override halacha.
Personally, It doe not bother or effect me at all, no matter what the outcome is. I truly believe that they do have the right and may build the mosque there.
Ethically, I wish they would re-locate somewhere else, as it does cause emotional stress (and trauma) to many people.
But, I would not fight it on any ground, since they have the right just as everyone else does.
I know I seem to be contradicting myself, but there is a difference between the ethical, legal, personal and even emotional standpoint.
August 29, 2010 at 6:05 pm #1096769
Yes, but it is not illegal to oppose it.
It is not illegal to mount legal challenges against it.
Perhaps I ought to be the legal scholar.
August 29, 2010 at 8:13 pm #1096770
1) A few years ago I saw that one high Israeli security official told the Kenesset that we have to thank the Creator that 90% of planned terrorist attacks had been stopped. How were they stopped? Because moderate Arabs informed on their fellow Arabs to the Israeli security forces. It’s very much to our advantage to encourage moderate Arabs, even if we don’t agree with them completely. This happens in other places too, as when Muslims informed on fellow Muslims who were planning a chemical explosion on a flight from London.
2) All the arguments that it’s insensitive to hold prayer services so close the point where Muslims did so much damage leave me concerned that the Arabs could similarly claim that it’s insensitive for Jews to daven in Ma’aras HaMachpelah after what Boruch Goldstein did there.
2) It’s not to our advantage to set precedents for restricting religious freedom.
August 29, 2010 at 9:07 pm #1096771
Gosh! What makes all you people think that this is not calculated as a direct insult to us?
Or that moderate Muslims don’t understand that?
Go build a German cultural center in Auschwitz!
August 29, 2010 at 10:11 pm #1096772
Yes, our founders gave us the right for religious freedom, yet how many countless acts of violence and desecration on our shuls and jewish landmarks have there been? I am all for religious freedom, don’t get me wrong,but why is okay for shuls in the neighborhood to be sent to court for being a shul. Where is our government support there? So for all you who are saying that we are judging the individual muslims, does the world not stereotype us as well?
August 30, 2010 at 12:11 am #1096773
sof davar hakol nishmaMember
yes freedom of religion, is very close to us, because we can practice as full frum yidden and not hide it. But this mosque has nothing to do with that. there are mosques built around the US. We are talking about sheer sensitivities, (i personally think it’s a bit scary, soon these mosques will start talking about ideas of radical Muslim stuff. And whether they like it or not, people associate arabs, muslims and mosques even if they’re not the radical ones – together) What’s the whole fuss about? why can’t they build it somewhere else in Manhattan? Manhattan is not a hick town. C’mon, there’s no other areas that it can be built? They’re being such akshanim for no reason.
August 30, 2010 at 12:15 am #1096774
sof davar hakol nishmaMember
“This has nothing to do with their having an objectionable religion. It has to do with their attempting to memorialize their attack on us. “
this is also very true and quite frightening. In high school we learned all about the Arab ideology – sometimes i was so frustrated i wish the president would chap! (there word means nothing, they keep quiet and submit, until they feel they’re strong enough to conquer and spread islam ideology… )
August 30, 2010 at 1:27 am #1096775
Great comments. I agree entirely. It is very much in our interests both short and long term to be in the right side on this.
August 30, 2010 at 3:43 am #1096777
They’re being such akshanim for no reason.”
Not for NO reason. Their reasons are very clear. They are doing it because they CAN. It serves their agenda to rub it in our noses. This memorializes no one else but THEIR “martyrs” who were killed when they hijacked those planes and flew them into the Twin Towers, and almost into the Pentagon. And they know it.
August 30, 2010 at 3:50 am #1096778
Por, Boruch Goldstein did not pull off a massive plan. he was one man, not a terrorist ideologue actin in concert with other terrorists. AND what he did was provoked by years of being subjected to Arab terrorism. Didn’t they find an aresenal of weapons that the Arabs had hidden (or am I mixing up two different things)?
I do not believe there is a moral equivalency here in any way, shape, or form. I further find it extremely hard to believe that 90% of Arab terrorist attacks were stopped because an Arab informed on them. Who is this Israeli official who made this claim, anyway?
August 30, 2010 at 4:02 am #1096779
For anyone who believes that there is really nothing wrong with this particular Mosque (formerly called Cordoba House, until they realized what a gaffe that was in really making their agenda obvious), would you want a halfway house for drug addicts built next door to you, if one of your loved ones chalilah v’chas had been murdered by a junkie? Several religious “junkies” hopped on three planes and forced them to be crashed into three thousand of our loved ones. Should we be ok with them building a “home” near that spot? I don’t care if it is legal. I care that it is WRONG, and if the Muslims really were interested in memorializing our dead and reaching out in a spirit of friendship, they would cease and desist immediately and look for another location that was less controversial.
August 30, 2010 at 9:08 am #1096780
. . .and almost into the Pentagon. . . .
Several religious “junkies” hopped on three planes and forced them to be crashed into three thousand of our loved ones.
They actually did crash into the Pentagon. And there were four planes. The only reason the fourth plane didn’t crash somewhere in Washington (presumably the White House or Capitol) was because the passengers fought with the hijackers and crashed the plane in Pennsylvania.
August 30, 2010 at 1:12 pm #1096781
This thread is really interesting.
If we oppose Muslims building their recreational center, it has nothing to do with Islamophobia. But if people oppose the building of a shul when there are ten more within 3 blocks, its clearly anti-semitism right? It has nothing to do with traffic or tax base or anything like that.
As to why they chose this site – it was an easy buy. Lease with a buy option.
As to their sense of building it – it may not be so “sensitive” but I can’t ask them to change based on MY sensitivities. Unless you are willing to do the same.
I do think the Baruch Goldstein comparison is a good one. He was Jewish. Many people support his actions. So even if he is one lone Jew, perhaps we should stay away?
We live in a country with Islamophobia right now. Look around how many mosques are being stopped (or trying to be stopped) around the country. Right here in Staten Island even.
Just this location my foot.
August 30, 2010 at 1:36 pm #1096782
With regard to Boruch Goldstein-
Jewish people have had a connection to the Ma’aras HaMachpelah long before Islam was ever founded. If Boruch Goldstein would have went on a rampage in a place where Jewish people never had any connection and all of the sudden some people wanted to open a shul nearby then I would have some serious issues with it.
August 31, 2010 at 10:51 pm #1096783
Not only was it an easy buy, it was a steal of a deal! Less than five million dollars for the site — about what three co-op apartments cost in Manhattan. Anyone here would have bought the site, too!
August 31, 2010 at 11:04 pm #1096784
I just do not see this as comparable to Baruch Goldstein. He was not doing what he did out of rish-oos, or to maim, mangle, and murder innocent people. He was being a kano-ee, and though I might feel he made a horrible mistake, his motives were to protect his country and people, not to terrorize and massacre his enemies. Many NON-Jews died on 9/11, too. In any case, the biggest difference is that the Maaras Hamachpelah belongs to Jews, no matter what the Arabs think. OUR Avos and Emahos are buried there. It is the Arabs who trespass on our holy ground. And now they are trying to do the same thing in NY in a way guaranteed to re-open all the old wounds and rub salt and acid in them. The fact that they know how antagonistic this is to go forward, yet they still plan to do so, shows they could not care less about anyone’s feelings.
August 18, 2015 at 7:02 pm #1096785
All religions ban freedom of religion.
August 19, 2015 at 2:35 am #1096786
“All religions ban freedom of religion”
That is a false statement.
August 19, 2015 at 4:04 am #1096787
What religion allows freedom of religion?
August 19, 2015 at 5:00 am #1096788
August 19, 2015 at 5:05 am #1096789
The Universal Life Church.
August 19, 2015 at 1:48 pm #1096790
Are those really religions?
August 19, 2015 at 2:28 pm #1096791
So they claim. What determines whether a purported religion is real or not?
August 19, 2015 at 2:48 pm #1096792
Is anything, besides Yiddishkeit?
August 19, 2015 at 4:00 pm #1096793
Most Protestant churches are today huge supporters of freedom of religion; for many this has been the case since their founding. Ditto for Unitarians.
August 19, 2015 at 4:27 pm #1096794
They support freedom of religion in government but by nature believe that all other religions are wrong.
August 19, 2015 at 4:42 pm #1096795
Not the Universal Life Church.
August 19, 2015 at 6:37 pm #1096796
I don’t know why this old topic came back to life, but since it did, I want to know what, if anything, ever happened to that proposed mosque. I think the promoter of the idea lost his backing, both financial and religious. So all that outrage was for nothing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.