Its not a mosque but a recreational center with a prayer room.
It is not at "ground zero."
The actual name of the project is "Park 51," not "the Ground Zero Mosque."
Imam Rauf is not a radical Muslim and has spoken out against terrorism.
A York Times editorial by a Leftist freak named Frank Rich uses these very points and adds the following:
If "Park 51" (the address of the disputed center) is at "ground zero," so, too, is a strip joint located [equally] close to the Twin Towers.
Rich implies that tolerance and religious freedom are at stake in the outcome of this debate; that only the "tolerance" of the anti-site contingency is in question. Rich does not entertain a single point of criticism with the pro-Muslim consideration. . . . not one.
He uses a word that is just beginning to make the rounds, Islamicphocia, in an subtle attempt to bias the reader and implies that the site was not opposed until folks at FoxNews, Bill O'Reilly in particular, began speaking out against the construction site.
Rich gives credit to the Marxist site, Salon, for the development of a timeline regarding the historical development of the controversy and even makes the argument that "all but 12 Republicans" opposed funding aid to 9/11 responders.
Finally, we give you this quote: The ginned-up rage over the “ground zero mosque” was not motivated by a serious desire to protect America from the real threat of terrorists lurking at home and abroad — a threat this furor has in all likelihood exacerbated — but by the potential short-term rewards of winning votes by pandering to fear during an election season.
Now -- the Truth
Understand that this Frank Rich article is becoming the talking points for those who no longer see Islam as problematic or have the ability to think for themselves. You will hear these specifics time and time again.
Beginning with the last point, we have this to say:
No one in the "opposition" has ever framed the debate in terms of protecting ". . . America from the real threat of terrorists" nor is this a debate about "religious and Constitutional freedom." While some who oppose the mosque's site see a threat to this country, such is not the primary point of opposition. It is only about "insensitivity." It is beyond "revealing" to note that Cordoba House (it's original name and a clear indication that this "house" will be a victory symbol to Muslims, world wide.) Not a single moment of compromise is being entertained by the Muslims who claim this is a "bridge" to multi-culturalism and the repair of the Islam/America.
The thinking that the site was not not opposed before FoxNews got ahold of the Muslim plans is as bogus as can be. a poll taken in late June found a majority of New Yorkers opposed the Cordoba site - well before this issue had become a national issue -- see the poll's result here.
Understand that the plans for Cordoba House were first presented to the public (New York) in April and first reported on May 5 by the Wall Street Journal. The first public discussion of this project was held in early May and opposition was voiced at that meeting. It is simply a lie to argue that opposition has been "ginned up" by the Republicans. In fact, the very opposite is true. The lid blew off this issue when Obama decided to score points with the Muslim population> Let's not forget that opposition is multi-level and bipartisan in scope. 70% of the American population opposes the site -------------------- not the construction of the mosque.
It this thing a mosque or simply a recreation center with a room for prayer? We point you to
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, who refers to the site as "mosque." According to The Daily Caller, Jasser had this to say: “This is not a humble Islamic statement. A mosque such as this is actually a political structure that casts a shadow over a cemetery, over hallowed ground. 9/11 was the beginning of a kinetic war, it is not an opportunity for cultural exchange. It was the beginning of a conflict with those who want to destroy our way of life.”
You will note that the pro-Muslim Cordoba House contingency no longer refers to the construction project as a "mosque" or as "Cordoba House," preferring the address of the site, "Park 51." But, from the beginning, many Muslims called this project a "mosque" and "Cordoba House" was their word for the center, originally. "Cordoba House" was dropped only after the opposition to this had grown to national proportions. Understand that when folks begin to change the wording in a debate, they are only about framing the debate in their favor and nothing more.
The notion that Cordoba House is not at "ground zero" is countered by the fact that the existing building at Park 51 was struck by part of the landing gear of one of the planes that hit the Towers. Let's not forget that this site is only 600 feet from the Towers.
We have the argument that if a strip joint is allowed to stand near the Towers, so should the multi-cultural Muslim center. First, the strip joint was there from the beginning. Secondly, it was not a covey of strippers who attacked the Towers. And finally, we suspect that the strip joint will fit the definition of "multi-cultural center" more comprehensively than this Muslim mosque and Islamic playground.
And with these words, we end our discussion. You have enough information in this post to begin an evaluation of the issues that have moved to center stage regarding the Muslim tribute to 9/11.
Salute to America !! -- jds
By way of a post script we make mention of Imam Rauf's refusal to reveal his financial sources as well as his refusal to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. There is nothing "bridge building" about this project and time is making that more clear as the days go by.
No comments:
Post a Comment