I think that about says it.
Maybe one more comment. Some of the ruling class apologists have said there are other mosques in the area so what’s the big deal ? The answer, I think, is pretty clear. To quote:
Tribeca Tavern owner Greg Kosovoi said that for 10 years he was unaware that a mosque was next door. Eric Benn, co-owner of the 11-year-old Bubble Lounge, said the same.
‘None of us knew there was a mosque there,’ he said. ‘What kind of research are we supposed to do? Do we knock on every single door?’
The building at 245 West Broadway, open for services twice a week, has no signage other than the following four lines, in small print, on the door:
Dergah/Nur Ashki Jurahai/Sufi Order/Masjid al-Farah
A report written by an SLA investigator and obtained by the Trib concludes that the building is indeed a mosque, but states: ‘There are no signs or any indication that there is a Mosque located in the building.’
It’s not the mosque, it’s the symbolism.
“It’s not the mosque, it’s the symbolism.”
I agree. Let them build. Like most people, I question if this mosque is based on pureness of religion. In time, they will reveal themselves for whom they are, but it is our moment to show the world
who we are, now.
It morphs from house of worship to community center, depending on the pull of the tides or needs of the pols. Painfully obvious and equally disingenuous.
I don’t think many people want to actually stop them, as for example, the city has stopped the damaged Greek Orthodox church that was damaged on 9/11 from rebuilding.
The St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, once a tiny, four-story building in the shadows of lower Manhattan, was destroyed in 2001 by one of the falling World Trade Center towers. Nobody from the church was hurt in the attack, but the congregation has, for the past eight years, been trying to rebuild its house of worship.
Though talks between the church and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey stalled last year, church leaders say they’ve been trying to kick-start discussions ever since. But amid debate over whether a proposed Islamic community center should go forward near Ground Zero, government officials threw cold water on the prospect of any deal with the church — telling Fox News the deal is off the table.
Confronted with the Port Authority’s verdict, Father Mark Arey, of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, said it’s the first he’s heard that.
“Negotiations did break off last year. We were expecting to hear from their lawyers — we never did. We’re still expecting to hear from them,” he told Fox News. “We’re disappointed. … 130 Liberty Street was promised to us.”
Yes, the Greeks will never set off a car bomb in Bloomberg’s neighborhood. They don’t count.
“On that question, we worked for many years to reach an agreement and offered up to 60 million dollars of public money to build that much larger new church. After reaching what we believed was an agreement in 2008, representatives of the church wanted even more public commitments, including unacceptable approvals on the design of the Vehicle Security Center that threatened to further delay the construction on the World Trade Center and the potential for another $20 million of public funds.”
Why is any church receiving public money? Is this the case with the mosque?
That’s the $64 question, Irene Adler.
The NYPost reports,
The developers of the controversial Ground Zero mosque are on a mission to drum up the $100 million for their project — and they won’t rule out taking money from Mideast countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Oz Sultan, spokesman for the center now called Park51, refused to comment on whether or not the religious organization would accept money from foreign donors like Iran, leaving the door open for speculation.
Dana, my concern is not for the use of private/public sovereign funds from foreign countries. Though, I expect that US laws (HR 3162 RDS) should be respected concerning that matter. My argument is that US taxpayers should generally not be expected to propagate religion, with the obvious traditional exception of clergy in the military.
Arey was referring to the address, about 100 yards away from the original site, where the government earlier proposed relocating the church. The Port Authority and the church announced a deal in July 2008 under which the Port Authority would grant land and up to $20 million to help rebuild the church — in addition, the authority was willing to pay up to $40 million to construct a bomb-proof platform underneath.
Within a year, the deal fell through and talks ended — apparently for good, according to the Port Authority.
Sounds to me like the PA was trying to move them and provide compensation for the move. That’s a lot different from “propagating religion,” wouldn’t you admit ?
Port Authority: “and offered up to 60 million dollars of public money to build that much larger new church”
Port Authority: “the church wanted even more public commitments, …and the potential for another $20 million of public funds.”
A land swap would be mutually beneficial and perhaps compensation for inconvenience, or receiving property of a lesser value. Yes, the church should receive fair market value for their subterranean property rights. This is a straight milking the public teat deal based on greed and the 911 sympathy factor. I don’t care for what religion, or the intended building use-I just don’t want to pay for it. The religious remark is based on my concern that the mosque may be receiving government funds-I don’t want any religion supported with my tax dollars.
OK, then give them back their property that was damaged. I doubt the Port Authority is converting to Greek Orthodox. They want something, probably related to the subway route or other assets. You are trying to make a religious argument with one but not the other.
Hell you’re stubborn. All the facts stated are from your very own link. The church is free to reclaim their property, and ergo to reconstruct. The dispute is access to the site (permit/existing construction) vs. the church playing hardball with their original location subterranean property rights (slated for a use as a security garage). All parties agreed that a deal was announced in July 2008. The dispute is why the deal fell through. My experience is that when a party says “It’s not about money”, IT IS ABOUT THE MONEY. My question remains the same: Whose money?
So, it is stubborn to keep the same opinion when the facts remain the same ? The PA wants something from the church. They didn’t come to terms. So, go back to the status quo ante. You admit that is not an option. I am closing comments for my own mental health.