The imam behind the proposed Ground Zero Mosque had a not so veiled threat for those against the mosque. I quote: “The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack,” “…if you don’t do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world,” …. predicting that the reaction could be more furious than the eruption of violence following the 2005 publication of Danish cartoons…. More….
Go here to read the rest:
Field of Nightmares
Soledad O’Brien interviewed Imam Rauf last night on “Larry King Live.” Rauf ’s contention that we must accept the building of the mosque near Ground Zero because “moving it would embolden Islamic radicals, and in the Muslim world it would be considered an attack on Islam” is a threat. He seems to be saying that Americans better not fight this, or we’ll pay for our opposition to it by being attacked. That sounds like the same argument used against publishing a cartoon, or a book, or making a film exposing Islam’s violence. If you do it, you will die. Comedy Central took that kind of threat seriously by not showing criticism of Islam. View video of the interview after the jump: Rauf probably doesn’t realize it, but his argument makes the point that 70 percent of Americans have been making for weeks, which is that Islam is not a religion of peace or freedom or understanding, but instead it is an ideology of violence and submission. We must accept it, or else. Building this mosque on this site serves no purpose other than submission to those who attacked us. Why should we be silenced into submission to Islamic law ? What is American about that? The imam displayed his character in full view tonight for everyone to see. More threats, more deception, and more reason for us to continue the opposition.
View original post here:
Imam Rauf on CNN: Moving The Mosque Could Get Us Killed
The political commentary of popular Chicago-Sun Times film critic Roger Ebert has drawn some harsh scrutiny here at NRB . He authored some discombobulated rants against extending due process to BP in the wake of the Gulf oil spill. He since wrote in support of the Cordoba Initiative’s construction of a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero of the 9/11 attacks in New York City. The unfocused nature of these posts demonstrate an apparent disconnect between Ebert’s clear ability to perceive the fictional worlds of film and any ability to perceive the real world in which he lives. Despite my unrelenting scrutiny , I hardly wish the man ill. I would like nothing more than to peruse an Ebert blog post which contained a substantive, challenging argument. To satisfy, it wouldn’t have to be an argument I agreed with, just one where the point of disagreement could be taken seriously. For a moment, while reading Ebert’s latest blog post regarding the public perception of President Obama’s religious affiliation, I thought such a moment had come. Compared to many of his recent posts, Ebert begins remarkably coherent. Rush Limbaugh has told his listeners he can find “no evidence” that Obama is a Christian. In Paul Krugman’s op-ed column in the New York Times on 8/29, Limbaugh is quoted: “Imam Hussein Obama, is probably the best anti-American president we’ve ever had.” Limbaugh obviously doesn’t believe Obama is an imam. How many of his listeners realize that? Is he concerned that his words will be taken seriously? For several paragraphs, Ebert at least seems focused. Unfortunately, his effort is not sustained. Like an elder rattling off war stories to a captive grandchild, Ebert soon drifts into complete irrelevancy. In the process, he takes us through a connect-the-dots breakdown of an insidious plot by Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin which sounds like it could have been written for Adam West’s 1960′s Batman . This process may soon be arriving at a moment of truth. The new issue of Vanity Fair mentions in its profile of Sarah Palin, as a casual aside, that Glenn Beck has booked the Dena’ina Center, the largest venue in Anchorage, for the date of September 11, 2010. What do you think that means?… …it cannot be a coincidence that he has chosen 9/11. Nor does it take special insight to connect that date with Palin’s many statements about the “Ground Zero Mosque” and the even more pointed “9/11 Mosque.” The association is obvious: “9/11″ feeds into “mosque” feeds into “Muslims” feeds into the misperception that Obama is a Muslim. Beck and Palin speak about “taking back America.” The buried message is that they will take it back from Muslims. This is a heartless misuse of the tragedy of 9/11 and its victims. … The symbolic date of 9/11 invests this event with the inescapable possibility that he and Palin plan to announce their Presidential candidacy for 2012. Someone close to Ebert ought to be reigning him in at this point. Publicly employing this kind of Scooby Doo logic is just too embarrassing. Unless the intent is comedy, some editorial discretion is in order. Seriously, I haven’t seen such cartoonish deduction since the revelation of the sinister plot in last year’s Black Dynamite . Warning: Explicit Language. Who really knows though? Ebert may be on to something. If Beck and Palin announce their Presidential candidacy in Alaska on 9/11, or reveal their belief Obama is a Muslim, I will eat my hat.
Original post:
Holy Deductive Reasoning, Batman: Roger Ebert Unravels Beck/Palin Plot
In a comment thread regarding the Ground Zero mosque , Fishboy feigns ignorance: I’m still bemused – no-one seems to be able to say *why* it’s poor taste. Fishboy – let me take a stab at this: They’re building a Muslim house of worship at a site where innocent Americans were killed by Muslim terrorists. If 9/11 were the work of Irish terrorists, building an Irish pub there would be in poor taste for the same reason.
Link:
Clarification
NewsReal Blog has tried unsuccessfully to talk to the organizers and supporters of the Ground Zero mosque. Here are the questions that should be asked and the answers we would like to receive. NewsReal Blog: Does location matter: what if the mosque was built right at Ground Zero-would that be ok? What about across the street from Ground Zero-would that be ok? What about one block from Ground Zero would that be ok? Logical Answer: The location for the mosque should be based on a boundary. If a building was even partially damaged the mosque should not be built there. If any debris from the WTC or the plane was found in the building then the mosque should not be built there. If any body parts or ashes were found in the vicinity the mosque should not be built there. NRB: Mayor Bloomberg, you stated “Cops and firefighters who died on 9/11 didn’t ask people in the World Trade Center, ‘where do you pray?’” Mayor Bloomberg, why do you think it is ok to evoke their memory and to put your words to their thoughts? Logical Answer: A 9/11 family member, Maureen Santora (whose son died at the WTC), commented that she still hears the voice of her son regarding this issue. “I feel my son could not talk but I can hear him yelling and screaming about how insensitive to evoke his voice. Bloomberg should not be a voice for the dead. Those people that left loved ones behind should be the sole voices that can speak for the dead.” NRB: Aren’t you invoking freedom of religion to mask the real issue of insensitivity? Logical Answer: This is not a religious issue but an emotional issue. The mosque overlooks Ground Zero at different vantage points. Those people that murdered Americans were Islamic extremists . Nothing should be built where potential radicals can look down on the graves of all those who died. Ground Zero and the surrounding area should be considered sacred ground. Debra Burlingame (whose brother was the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, and a co-founder of Keep America Safe ), felt that this issue has been “egregiously demogogued. It has nothing to do with religious tolerance. Since he has presided as mayor of NYC shortly after the attacks, he knows perfectly well that there are some 200 mosques in NYC, and there has NEVER been a move to deny them their freedom to worship. His speech was irrelevant.
Continued here:
Logical Answers Americans Should Demand from the Supporters of the Ground Zero Mosque
In yet another mind-blowing editorial in support of the Ground Zero mosque, the Hezbollah-loving National Catholic Reporter (NCR) has gone on the attack against Catholicism’s newest high profile convert, Newt Gingrich . Hide the children! Newt Gingrich is promoting “hysteria”! It’s difficult to fathom how the editors of a publication that whitewashes Hezbollah could attack Newt Gingrich and claim that they are defending “ reason “. The significance in all of this is not what faith Obama professes but that [Kim] Lehman and others in her party, most notably Newt Gingrich on the Islamic center, would feel free to spread hysteria and falsehood without fear of reprisal. When a publication that acts as an apologist for Hezbollah suggests that Newt Gingrich is promoting “hysteria and falsehood” on the issue of the Ground Zero mosque, we know reason has gone completely out the window. Their reason, that is. Here is Newt Gingrich explaining his position on the Ground Zero mosque. I’ve suggested a name change for NCR before. Perhaps Nutty Catholic Rag might be more appropriate. ~~~ Follow Lisa Graas on Twitter and visit her blog at LisaGraas.com
Read more:
National Catholic Reporter Attacks Newt Gingrich For “Spreading Hysteria”
New York Times : New York Poll Finds Wariness for Muslim Site
The mega-mosque complex planned for the vicinity of Ground Zero (originally called the Cordoba House but now referred to as Park 51) has just picked up the endorsement of the radical Nation of Islam leader Minister Louis Farrakhan and some of his like-minded friends. The web site of the Cordoba Initiative (the web site still uses the reference to Cordoba, the site of Islamic conquest in Spain) trumpeted the endorsement, which was contained in a press release issued a few days ago by an organization known as the Coalition of African American Muslims. The press release explained the reason for the endorsement this way: The controversy over the Park 51 Project (Islamic Center in Lower Manhattan) is indicative of a general rise in racist bigotry towards people of color in this country. While the issue has its particular and unique distinctions, it cannot be separated from the rising violence against African Americans and Latinos, or the increasingly inflammatory rhetoric and exclusionary politics driving the national debate on immigration. As African-American Muslims, we feel our unique perspective has been missing from an emerging national discussion. We wish to join that discussion by first of all affirming that among our forbears are Muslims who have lived peacefully and productively in this country since its inception. They, and others among our people have sacrificed too much, both in enduring the horrors and brutalities of chattel slavery, and during the long march to freedom, civil and human rights for us to silently accept a return to Jim Crow exclusionary practices and policies that relegate either ourselves or our co-religionists from other ethnic backgrounds to second-class citizenry. In one fell swoop, the principled opposition of the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers to the placement of this particular mosque so close to Ground Zero becomes ”a return to Jim Crow exclusionary practices” and part of the same ”racist bigotry” that is supposedly driving the debate over illegal immigration. What a load of race-baiting crap! Yet the sponsors of the mega mosque complex put it right up there on their web site.
See the original post here:
Sponsors of Ground Zero Mosque Are Proud Of Louis Farrakhan And Friends’ Endorsement