New Bar at Gound Zero

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Yes, he does sidestep the obvious answer to denounce them, but I can see where he is coming from. He is straddling two worlds, and wants to be a peace maker between them.

But, he never sidesteps anything else, huh?

BTW, that is one of the major reasons the majority of people don't believe in a moderate Muslim and why I can say that I have not seen ENOUGH moderates speak out against the radicals. So, with you saying, he is being a peace maker - NO - he is being an appeaser.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

But, he never sidesteps anything else, huh?

BTW, that is one of the major reasons the majority of people don't believe in a moderate Muslim and why I can say that I have not seen ENOUGH moderates speak out against the radicals. So, with you saying, he is being a peace maker - NO - he is being an appeaser.

If you have evidence of him sidestepping something else, then yes, we can agree on that as well. As it stands, that is the only thing I have seen him sidestep on.

He has spoken out against the attacks on Ft Hood, and has openly condemned terrorism:

"We condemn terrorists. We recognize it exists in our faith, but we are committed to eradicate it." He also stated: "We want to rebuild this community. ... This is about moderate Muslims who intend to be and want to be part of the solution."

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/...mosque21m.html

"Condemns suicide bombings and all violence carried out in the name of religion."

http://www.asmasociety.org/home/p_press_16.html

A verse comes to mind, if you are so inclined to believe it:

Mat 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

Sounds like you are the one not being moderate, not Imam Rauf.

[Sam]

There has been some controversy over this.
Some feel it is a slap in the face to the Americans and especially to the families of those who lost friends and loved ones in this terrorist attack.
Others feel it could be a gesture of good will and healing in that the Muslims could reach out to Americans in love and understanding.
There are a lot of unanswered questions like who is promoting this and where the funding is coming from.

Well, recently a model of the proposed Islamic center has been unveiled and presented to the public.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Sam

There are a lot of unanswered questions like who is promoting this and where the funding is coming from.

That is what is troubling to the American people. He refuses to disclose his funding sources and we don't know the names of any of the board members. His attempt to use the name Cordoba put everyone on the defense. There is no way I can believe that was not intentional. Nobody could be that stupid.

[geekette]

Originally Posted by Sam

Well, recently a model of the proposed Islamic center has been unveiled and presented to the public.

I'm sorry, I am going to be extremely blunt and judgmental, but that picture is unbecoming of a Christian. I guess on the "am I an agnostic or am I am atheist today" question, it's going to be "atheist."

I'd also point out that nobody asks megachurch pastors where they get the money to build their monstrosities to personality. And I consider some of those people to be more dangerous to my way of life (because they'd have me to conform to their way of life, including throwing buckets of ca$$$h their way) than a bunch of shadowy threats flung about in a desperate attempt to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Food for thought:

Matthew 5:44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by geekette

I'm sorry, I am going to be extremely blunt and judgmental, but that picture is unbecoming of a Christian. I guess on the "am I an agnostic or am I am atheist today" question, it's going to be "atheist."

I'd also point out that nobody asks megachurch pastors where they get the money to build their monstrosities to personality. And I consider some of those people to be more dangerous to my way of life (because they'd have me to conform to their way of life, including throwing buckets of ca$$$h their way) than a bunch of shadowy threats flung about in a desperate attempt to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Food for thought:

Matthew 5:44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Excuse me, but if a congregation KNEW the leadership of a church was having any kind of ties with terrorism, they would demand the Board to produce the paperwork to show where their offerings were coming from. Apples to oranges.

[geekette]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Excuse me, but if a congregation KNEW the leadership of a church was having any kind of ties with terrorism, they would demand the Board to produce the paperwork to show where their offerings were coming from. Apples to oranges.

No they wouldn't.

Seriously, they wouldn't, because first of all, they'd never hear about it, and if they did hear about it, they'd be so browbeaten by "touch not thine anointed" and "if you don't like it, get out, 'God' is in charge here" that they'd never ask. Besides, if a Christian does it, it's never terrorism, even if it's bombing an abortion clinic or killing a doctor. Or merely just trying to take over the government for Jesus (e.g., "seven mountains mandate").

It's only terrorism if someone whose beliefs you dislike does it. And yes, there is terrorism incited by radical Islamic jihadist beliefs--beliefs that most Muslims do not hold. I have harsh, unprintable opinions about the Taliban, for example.

And, if churches don't have to present papers laying out their funding to be able to build, then neither should this mosque. I hope that this group is very open and aboveboard about all of its funding. That way we all can check 'em out--which is more than I can say for your average megachurch.

[Socialite]

MB, the problem with using the KKK/Rosa Parks analogy, is that it assumes "All Muslims are American-hating extremists."

I think I can agree with the analogy in degree, but it certainly ups the ante for what is really happening and exposes maybe unfair logical assumptions on our part.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by geekette

No they wouldn't.

Seriously, they wouldn't, because first of all, they'd never hear about it, and if they did hear about it, they'd be so browbeaten by "touch not thine anointed" and "if you don't like it, get out, 'God' is in charge here" that they'd never ask. Besides, if a Christian does it, it's never terrorism, even if it's bombing an abortion clinic or killing a doctor. Or merely just trying to take over the government for Jesus (e.g., "seven mountains mandate").

That is not how our church operates. And my husband is on the Board and you bet they would be asking.

It's only terrorism if someone whose beliefs you dislike does it. And yes, there is terrorism incited by radical Islamic jihadist beliefs--beliefs that most Muslims do not hold. I have harsh, unprintable opinions about the Taliban, for example.

There is also a peaceful or quiet jihad. Sharia Law being implemented into our financial sector is one way. It is not how the financing is set up, it's that it is being set up under Sharia Law. Study AIG and you will know more.

And, if churches don't have to present papers laying out their funding to be able to build, then neither should this mosque. I hope that this group is very open and aboveboard about all of its funding. That way we all can check 'em out--which is more than I can say for your average megachurch.

Didn't say they had to. The background in this situation is a bit different. Mainly, Rauf refuses to disclose his backers, his father was also a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, no one is sure whether Rauf has ties with them as well. It is just a trail that leaves people uncomfortable.

Now, I do believe they have the right, under our Constitution, to build their mosque and exercise their religious freedom. The angst over the whole issue is that it is a poor choice of location and a very poor, initial choice, in naming the project. Immediately, everything was suspect. If they were going to do relationship healing and building, I find it strange that they used the location and name to do it. Apparently, so do the majority of Americans as they are against it.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Twisp

If you have evidence of him sidestepping something else, then yes, we can agree on that as well. As it stands, that is the only thing I have seen him sidestep on.

He has spoken out against the attacks on Ft Hood, and has openly condemned terrorism:

"We condemn terrorists. We recognize it exists in our faith, but we are committed to eradicate it." He also stated: "We want to rebuild this community. ... This is about moderate Muslims who intend to be and want to be part of the solution."

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/...mosque21m.html

"Condemns suicide bombings and all violence carried out in the name of religion."

http://www.asmasociety.org/home/p_press_16.html

A verse comes to mind, if you are so inclined to believe it:

Mat 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

Sounds like you are the one not being moderate, not Imam Rauf.

Great scripture to throw out to silence anyone from speaking out about things they don't agree with. He obviously was skirting the issue on the funding, as has been reported, but you don't want to look at that.

I'll remind you that Paul, who was jailed illegally, under Roman law, appealed to Cesar. Would you say he wasn't being a peacemaker?

And sorry that I won't side with Rauf's attempt to build a mosque of peace in a community that doesn't want it there. Is he being a peacemaker?