New Bar at Gound Zero

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I think that the majority of Americans have spoken their feelings in relation to this atrocity - Do not place a mosque in close proximity to Ground Zero. I side with the majority on this.

You are pushing the "hypocrisy" in not allowing religious freedom and I am saying that AFTER the feelings are spoken, this imam is going to want to do it anyway. For claiming relationship building - THAT is the height of hypocrisy and it is very telling, IMO. It's bogus and it is an appeasement on our part. A writer in Britain, Murray, was saying the same thing - he is watching us bow down - just like they did in Europe.

How is it hypocrisy on his part? It's not like he just up and wanted to do this one day. He has been working to bridge the gap between Muslims and the World for years. He has written books to do this, he has traveled to other countries to do this, he has started non-profit organizations to do this.

This is what he has been doing in NY for the past 20 years or so. No hypocrisy on his part, he is doing what he has always done.

The hypocrisy is from people saying, "We have religious freedom" and then not allowing a certain Americans to exercise that religious freedom.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Twisp

How is it hypocrisy on his part? It's not like he just up and wanted to do this one day. He has been working to bridge the gap between Muslims and the World for years. He has written books to do this, he has traveled to other countries to do this, he has started non-profit organizations to do this.

This is what he has been doing in NY for the past 20 years or so. No hypocrisy on his part, he is doing what he has always done.

The hypocrisy is from people saying, "We have religious freedom" and then not allowing a certain Americans to exercise that religious freedom.

Again, at first, imam Rauf, insists the funds would be raised entirely from the Muslim-American community, but then he tells an Arabic-language newspaper in Britain that funding would also come from Arab countries. There it is again - Taqiyya.

That is why the question hangs in the air - Who is going to fund this project? If given the green light, they need to make their funding transparent. They owe it to all Americans and to New York.

Right now, Con Edison owns 49-51 Park Place and one of the organizers, Daisy Kahn (cited below) claimed she didn't know anything about it, the Community Board claimed they didn't know it, and others are saying they have been acting under false pretenses.

Where is now stands is that Sharif El-Gamal, the head of Soho Properties, bought the buildings (45-47 Park Place) in 2006, he paid an additional $700,000 to Con Ed for the lease next door, that lease expires on 2071, the walls were taken down and the buildings were made into the Burlington Coat Factory, Con Ed wants to use the purchase option in the lease, the Utility is doing an appraisal, El-Gamal will decide if he accepts the price of $10-20 million, he says the long-term lease is equivalent to ownership, but he wants to purchase it anyway - "the cost is not an issue", and then the sale proposal will go before the Public Service Commission and could possibly face a vote by a five-member board controlled by Gov. Paterson.

Disclosure would be nice for us all.

For their part, the two people at the heart of this center—Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan—defend the center as an antidote to 9/11. "Our religion has been hijacked by the extremists," Ms. Khan told National Public Radio, "and this center is going to create that counter-momentum which will amplify the voices of the moderate Muslims."

Perhaps. But it's hard to argue with the Anti-Defamation League's assessment that the controversy created by building the center at this location "is counterproductive to the healing process."

Without doubt Pope John Paul II did not share the more malevolent interpretations attached to the presence of the Carmelites at Auschwitz. By asking the nuns to withdraw, he didn't concede them either. What he did was recognize that having the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ...350430368.html

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Dan Senor pens an open letter to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf urging him to reconsider the location:

But the fact remains that in the minds of many who are swayed by the most radical interpretations of Islam, the Cordoba House will not be seen as a center for peace and reconciliation. It will rather be celebrated as a Muslim monument erected on the site of a great Muslim “military” victory—a milestone on the path to the further spread of Islam throughout the world. Someone who rejects the link between Islam and the brand of radicalism and violence espoused by al Qaeda and like-minded groups should be wary of helping to further, even inadvertently, the rhetoric and propaganda of those groups. Indeed, we believe that such a person should take an active role in opposing any measure or message that might be seized upon by those whom he considers to be the blasphemers of his own faith….Similarly, the exact street address of your cultural center cannot matter to the performance of its mission—but it very much does matter to the perceptions of your fellow Americans. We urge you to reconsider.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/0...ORDS=Dan+Senor
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...Tabs%3Darticle

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Again, at first, imam Rauf, insists the funds would be raised entirely from the Muslim-American community, but then he tells an Arabic-language newspaper in Britain that funding would also come from Arab countries. There it is again - Taqiyya.

That is why the question hangs in the air - Who is going to fund this project? If given the green light, they need to make their funding transparent. They owe it to all Americans and to New York.

Right now, Con Edison owns 49-51 Park Place and one of the organizers, Daisy Kahn (cited below) claimed she didn't know anything about it, the Community Board claimed they didn't know it, and others are saying they have been acting under false pretenses.

Where is now stands is that Sharif El-Gamal, the head of Soho Properties, bought the buildings (45-47 Park Place) in 2006, he paid an additional $700,000 to Con Ed for the lease next door, that lease expires on 2071, the walls were taken down and the buildings were made into the Burlington Coat Factory, Con Ed wants to use the purchase option in the lease, the Utility is doing an appraisal, El-Gamal will decide if he accepts the price of $10-20 million, he says the long-term lease is equivalent to ownership, but he wants to purchase it anyway - "the cost is not an issue", and then the sale proposal will go before the Public Service Commission and could possibly face a vote by a five-member board controlled by Gov. Paterson.

Disclosure would be nice for us all.

And again, show us where he insisted that the mosque would only be built with funds from the Muslim-American community. The link you provided did not say that. It said:

"The imam said the money would be raised here. But he told a London newspaper that Muslim nations would also fund this project."

That is not a lie. That is stating that the funds would be raised from multiple sources. Nowhere in that statement did he insist funds would only be raised from Muslim-Americans.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Twisp

And again, show us where he insisted that the mosque would only be built with funds from the Muslim-American community. The link you provided did not say that. It said:

"The imam said the money would be raised here. But he told a London newspaper that Muslim nations would also fund this project."

That is not a lie. That is stating that the funds would be raised from multiple sources. Nowhere in that statement did he insist funds would only be raised from Muslim-Americans.

You are kidding, right? LOL!

Analysis: NYC Mayor Eloquent Advocate For Mosque

Rauf also refuses to disclose who is funding the mosque's construction.

"The mayor is demagoguing an issue that is wreaking agony on family members of those killed in the name of Allah," Burlingame said. "Bloomberg says it's about the separation of church and state? The imam doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. He's laughing up his sleeve."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6749728.shtml

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You are kidding, right? LOL!

You said he insisted the funds would be from Muslim-Americans. I am simply asking you to show where he said that. The article you gave did not say that. It had Imam Rauf giving two answers to where funding would be coming from. He did not say in the article that it would be an either/or situation.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Twisp

You said he insisted the funds would be from Muslim-Americans. I am simply asking you to show where he said that. The article you gave did not say that. It had Imam Rauf giving two answers to where funding would be coming from. He did not say in the article that it would be an either/or situation.

What in the world does HERE mean to you, anyway!!!

[Socialite]

First of all, before many knew anything about the Imam, his funding, etc... they were already outraged. It's dishonest to pretend any of those concerns are the reason for many to hide behind what is basically Islamophobia, or at the least, guilty of grouping all Muslims together as one monolithic group.

However, I do recognize there are some who have made judgements about this matter after obtaining all the information. This includes the fact that the Imam refuses to denounce terrorism (calling it "complex") or Hamas. Further, the proximity of this Muslim Paradise is suspect and very provocative. NYC what it is, it's not uncommon, but definitely provocative for Americans, and I get that. I don't understand the people who say they don't get that.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

What in the world does HERE mean to you, anyway!!!

Again, show me where he insisted he was getting funds from Muslim-Americans only.

The article you linked to said he was getting funds from two separate places.

The article you linked to did not have him saying he was only getting funds from Muslim-Americans.

You are trying to read between the lines to fit your views that he is a liar who has a deceptive agenda. In reality, he did not insist funds would only be coming from Muslim-Americans.