# The "Ground Zero Mosque" Can be built, but should it? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 22, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496 "2010-11-22T00:52:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496/101 "2010-12-08T02:18:02Z")
Forgot which forum I was in. Apologies to all concerned, especially **emarkp**. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496/102 "2010-12-08T02:20:22Z")
> [@emarkp](#): > > Except it _is_ a ground zero mosque. No, it is not. > [@emarkp](#): > > The building was condemned [because of damage from debris from one of the 9/11 airplanes](http://politicsandrandomness.blogspot.com/search/label/Ground%20Zero%20Mosque). However, “Ground Zero” has a specific meaning [regarding the location of the actual impact or explosion of an attack](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_zero), not all the area affected by subsequent trauma. Two blocks away from the WTC site and on the far side of the site from the locations of WTC-1 and WTC-2 is not Ground Zero. > [@emarkp](#): > > As a community center with worship, it’s essentially a mosque. Your imaginary definitions are not binding on other speakers of English. A community center that may include a Mosque is no more a mosque than a hospital that includes a chapel is a church. > [@emarkp](#): > > The organizers have ties to (and sympathies with) terrorism. I am not sure which liar you are quoting, here, but your statement is not correct. Imam Rauf has been an advocate of communication between the Muslim and other communities for years, (a position attacked by Wahhabists and the members of al Qaeda), and has, himself, been recruited by the FBI and U.S. State Department to help provide training to allow agents to better understand and communicate with the Muslim community. > [@emarkp](#): > > The name itself is representative of victory of Muslims over other cultures. False. The name invokes the city and period on the Iberian peninsula in which Muslim scholars shared their knowledge with Christian and Jewish scholars in an attitude of mutual respect. This period began decades after the Ummayad conquest and continued for several hundred years. So, basically, every single declaration in your post was in error. ETA: Newt Gingrich thought it was a big deal that one of the churches in Cordoba was turned into a mosque, (pretty much the way that Christians have converted pagan temples and Muslim mosques to churches over the years) but the name was actually employed by the Cordoba Institute, (not mosque), a Muslim community outreach association, for a decade or so prior to the WTC/Pentagon attacks in reference to the aforementioned period of mutual tolerance. Claiming that the Park51 location was being named in honor of the Cordoba Mosque is simply a lie pushed by ignorant xenophobes for political purposes. You might want to avoid associating with them. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496/103 "2010-12-08T02:39:12Z")
Doesn’t the Pentagon have a space reserved for Muslim worship? Apparently that makes the Department of Defense a mosque! ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496/104 "2010-12-08T02:44:02Z")
A Ground Zero mosque, no less. I mean, it _was_ hit by a plane. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496/105 "2010-12-08T02:52:30Z")
[As was that mosque in New York City. You remember that one, don’t you? After all, Lower Manhattan was no stranger to mosques:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51) > [@](#): > > Muslims have had a presence in Lower Manhattan for many years prior to the September 11 attacks. At least two mosques existed near the World Trade Center, and several designated Muslim prayer rooms existed within the World Trade Center buildings. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496/106 "2010-12-08T02:52:38Z")
> [@interface2x](#): > > Ohare Airport has a chapel where travelers can worship, that doesn’t mean it’s a church. Oh, where in the Cordoba center will Christians and Jews be worshipping? > [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > On the other hand, you could just link to the nearest wiki page detailing both the Cordoba Mosque and most especially Muslim Andalucia and learn why an organization supposedly dedicated to building bridges being monotheisms would chose a name refering to that era (like being one of the most tolerant episodes, given the times, of interreligion cooperation). The [Cordoba Movement](http://www.cordobamovement.org/about/) was founded by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. They claim that “the name Cordoba was chosen to symbolize the time in history when Muslims, Jews and Christians lived together in peace and harmony and created a prosperous center of intellectual, spiritual, cultural and commercial life in the city of Cordoba in Southern Spain.” Unfortunately, Cordoba was the center of the Umayyad caliphate in which Christians and Jews had to live “[under restrictions](http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain_1.shtml)” oh, and were [sometimes executed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_C%C3%B3rdoba) for expressing their faith. The Muslim conquerors converted a church into the Great Mosque of Cordoba. Rauf refuses to condemn Hamas, and said regarding 9/11, “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” He also seems to respect [Yusuf al-Qaradawi](http://bigpeace.com/abostom/2010/08/29/imam-feisal-rauf-and-the-genocidal-hamas-covenant/), the Spiritual Leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. There’s no doubt that a significant fraction of Islam (a minority to be sure, but a significant one) approves of terrorism. The name and the man place the project squarely in that group. > [@tomndebb](#): > > However, “Ground Zero” has a specific meaning [regarding the location of the actual impact or explosion of an attack](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_zero), not all the area affected by subsequent trauma. Two blocks away from the WTC site and on the far side of the site from the locations of WTC-1 and WTC-2 is not Ground Zero. The planes took down WTC1 & 2, and part of one of the planes damaged the Burlington building making it unusable. If WTC7 counts as part of Ground Zero, the Burlington building deserves it at least as much. > [@](#): > > Your imaginary definitions are not binding on other speakers of English. A community center that may include a Mosque is no more a mosque than a hospital that includes a chapel is a church. Then we’ll compromise and call the Muslim worship area inside the center a mosque? … which is a Ground Zero Mosque. > [@](#): > > False. The name invokes the city and period on the Iberian peninsula in which Muslim scholars shared their knowledge with Christian and Jewish scholars in an attitude of mutual respect. This period began decades after the Ummayad conquest and continued for several hundred years. Was that before or after the martyrdoms of Christians? Maybe [after the 1066 massacre](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_Granada_massacre)? Please clarify. ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496/107 "2010-12-08T03:39:51Z")
No, you’re completely right dude, most Muslims are trying to kill dhimmis and convert them at the very same time. You saw clearly into their game, one can’t fool you. I strongly advise you call the local offices of the FBI and share your discoveries. If you could also include a list of all people with suspicous behavior or a distinct Middle Eastern look about them, that you could have spotted in your neighborhood, that would be a definite plus ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496/108 "2010-12-08T04:23:06Z")
> [@emarkp](#): > > Unfortunately, Cordoba was the center of the Umayyad caliphate in which Christians and Jews had to live “[under restrictions](http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain_1.shtml)” oh, and were [sometimes executed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_C%C3%B3rdoba) for expressing their faith. Yeesh. Read your own links. The Beeb article goes on at great length regarding the ways in which the Christians and Jews were tolerated in ways that Jews and Muslims and pagans were not tolerated at the same time in Christian Europe. The Wikipedia article notes that the martyrs were killed for deliberately insulting the Muslims and that their own Christian bishop regarded them as antagonistic fanatics who deservedly brought about their own doom. I do not support killing people for their beliefs, nor do I support holding people as second class citizens, but considering the times–and contrasting the actions of the Iberian Muslims with those of the European Christians–there was significantly more tolerance at that time in Cordoba than among the Christians. > [@emarkp](#): > > The Muslim conquerors converted a church into the Great Mosque of Cordoba. So what? How many pagan temples got converted to churches? I already noted that action. It is silly to get excited about the transfer of ownership of a building 1200+ years ago. > [@emarkp](#): > > Rauf refuses to condemn Hamas, and said regarding 9/11, “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” He also seems to respect [Yusuf al-Qaradawi](http://bigpeace.com/abostom/2010/08/29/imam-feisal-rauf-and-the-genocidal-hamas-covenant/), the Spiritual Leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. What Rauf did on a couple of occasions was to refuse to let some TV talking head get him to make derogatory comments about groups in the Middle East. Those two individual incidents are trotted out over and over again by zealot xenophobes as though Rauf had some long history of supporting terrorists. His comment about the U.S. political actions being “accessory” to events while noting that the U.S. still did not deserve to be attacked are actually pretty accurate and are a lot less inflammatory than the comments of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson indicating that the U.S. did deserve to be attacked. And, again, you really need to learn to read your own citations. al-Qaradawi is, indeed, associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and someone who has no use for the United States, yet in the very article to which you linked, he was quoted as condemning the WTC/Pentagon attacks as not being justified, despite his own antipathy to this country. > [@emarkp](#): > > There’s no doubt that a significant fraction of Islam (a minority to be sure, but a significant one) approves of terrorism. The name and the man place the project squarely in that group. No. The name indicates that Imam Rauf is in direct conflict with the terrorists. (I notice that you have to ignore his work with the FBI and State Department to make your claim.) > [@emarkp](#): > > The planes took down WTC1 & 2, and part of one of the planes damaged the Burlington building making it unusable. If WTC7 counts as part of Ground Zero, the Burlington building deserves it at least as much. No it does not, any more than the outskirts of Hiroshima are considered Ground Zero in that city. That you wish to extend the meaning of the word for your own polemics does not actually change the meaning. It is just rhetoric employed by haters like Pamela Geller to get people like you worked up so that they can make more money. > [@emarkp](#): > > Was that before or after the martyrdoms of Christians? Maybe [after the 1066 massacre](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_Granada_massacre)? Please clarify. That would be after the Golden Era that is generally considered to have come to a close about nine years earlier with the fall of the Ummayads. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496/109 "2010-12-08T04:41:58Z")
It doesn’t matter if the proposed community center were to be a mosque or even if it were to be built on the very site of the destroyed World Trade Center buildings as those opposing it are so excellently demonstrating. But what they fail to grasp is that it would be perfectly acceptable to those not driven by their prejudice to have the building on that site. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496/110 "2010-12-08T07:22:36Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The Beeb article goes on at great length regarding the ways in which the Christians and Jews were tolerated in ways that Jews and Muslims and pagans were not tolerated at the same time in Christian Europe. The Wikipedia article notes that the martyrs were killed for deliberately insulting the Muslims and that their own Christian bishop regarded them as antagonistic fanatics who deservedly brought about their own doom. The relative treatment is irrlevant. If Christians built a monument and called it Acre & the Saracens, it would be offensive to Muslims, no matter if there was also a good connotation somewhere. Yes, the martyrs were killed for “deliberately insulting” – read: testifying of their belief in Christ, while some also denounced Mohammed. Damn fine religion that. For over 1000 years killing people who disagree with them or who are perceived to be insulting their prophet. (And yes it’s not the whole religion, not even a majority of it – more on that below.) > [@](#): > > I do not support killing people for their beliefs, nor do I support holding people as second class citizens, but considering the times–and contrasting the actions of the Iberian Muslims with those of the European Christians–there was significantly more tolerance at that time in Cordoba than among the Christians. Again, the relative treatment is irrelevant. The choice of the name refers to a time when Muslims were triumphant and allowed other religions to survive their rule – as long as they didn’t get uppity. > [@](#): > > So what? How many pagan temples got converted to churches? I already noted that action. It is silly to get excited about the transfer of ownership of a building 1200+ years ago. Hey, I didn’t pick the name. It was the capital of a caliphate, and it was a building expressly changing hands via conquest. Hence the negative connotation. Yes, it was common then. Unfortunately it’s still common now in the parts of Islam that are fighting against western culture. > [@](#): > > What Rauf did on a couple of occasions was to refuse to let some TV talking head get him to make derogatory comments about groups in the Middle East. No, what he did was refuse to condemn Hamas, which is an explicitly terrorist organization. It’s charter is to eradicate the Jews. You **cannot** be peaceful and yet refuse to condemn Hamas. > [@](#): > > His comment about the U.S. political actions being “accessory” to events while noting that the U.S. still did not deserve to be attacked are actually pretty accurate and are a lot less inflammatory than the comments of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson indicating that the U.S. did deserve to be attacked. No, it’s not accurate. No more accurate than the Sharia man who says his wife forced him to beat her. > [@](#): > > No. The name indicates that Imam Rauf is in direct conflict with the terrorists. (I notice that you have to ignore his work with the FBI and State Department to make your claim.) His “work” with the FBI? All I can find about that is participating in a forum. Saying in English that terrorism is irrelevant. Else Ararfat wasn’t a terrorist, nor is Abbas. Haven’t you noticed that Islamicists like to say how killing innocents is bad in English but promote terrorism in Arabic (or Farsi, or Pashtun, or whatever). It’s perfectly acceptable to lie to the west to deceive them. So you look to intent, not just boiler plate statements. And if he’s so against terrorism, why was he unwilling to condemn a terrorist organization? Even if only in English? > [@](#): > > No it does not, any more than the outskirts of Hiroshima are considered Ground Zero in that city. That you wish to extend the meaning of the word for your own polemics does not actually change the meaning. It is just rhetoric employed by haters like Pamela Geller to get people like you worked up so that they can make more money. That’s poor reasoning. Ground Zero in Hiroshima is explicitly defined to be the point right under detonation. Ground Zero in New York isn’t defined the same way as Hiroshima. Your claim that it’s just “hater rhetoric” is circular. It’s polemic if you object to the mosque, therefore whatever someone says in opposition to the mosque is polemic. I guess this particular logical fallacy is the genetic fallacy. I’ve made a clear argument why I see it as part of Ground Zero. Your assertion that it’s hater rhetoric isn’t an answer. I’ve presented no arguments from Geller (in fact I only passingly have heard about her site, and was more familiar with it because of Paypal’s banning/unbanning). Nothing you’ve said has directly addressed what I’ve said. You’ve presented added information and shown that some people can interpret the whole thing in a positive light, but it doesn’t negate the negative. Do you refuse to believe that there is a substantial fraction of the world’s Muslims who sympathize with terrorism? Or who approve of the 9/11 attacks? If you do, then you’re ignoring reality. If you don’t (more likely) then it’s imperative to decide what we allow these people to do to us. Rauf is clearly not with us, and the Cordoba project is grounded in hate, with an attempt to disguise it as “understanding.” Clearly that isn’t the purpose, especially after the outcry against the project. An “understanding” imam would express apology and move the site. An “understanding” imam wouldn’t have tried to press forward for a 9/11/11 opening date. Simply repeating that people who don’t agree are haters isn’t an argument or a debate. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496/111 "2010-12-08T07:23:39Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > It doesn’t matter if the proposed community center were to be a mosque or even if it were to be built on the very site of the destroyed World Trade Center buildings as those opposing it are so excellently demonstrating. But what they fail to grasp is that it would be perfectly acceptable to those not driven by their prejudice to have the building on that site. Again, circular reasoning. If you’re going to call me prejudiced, call me it to my face. The oblique “they” is pathetic. The problem is two-fold: 1) it **is** a mosque, and 2) it **is** at a site hit on 9/11. It is the two conditions together that make it so objectionable. You seem to fail to grasp this. A mosque or Islamic community center at the site of the United 93 crash is just as objectionable. Just repeating that people are “prejudiced” to avoid the effort of making a coherent argument isn’t terribly useful or insightful. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496/112 "2010-12-08T08:41:38Z")
> [@emarkp](#): > > The relative treatment is irrlevant. If Christians built a monument and called it Acre & the Saracens, it would be offensive to Muslims, no matter if there was also a good connotation somewhere. Piffle. Cordoba was a seat of learning to which Christians and Jews were drawn because they could participate in that society. Making up an imaginary “Acre and the Saracens” monument, (which could not celebrate any similar event), would be equally insulting to Christians. > [@emarkp](#): > > Yes, the martyrs were killed for “deliberately insulting” – read: testifying of their belief in Christ, while some also denounced Mohammed. Damn fine religion that. Go read up on those “martyrs,” again. All of them died during a three year period in which a small group of Christians went out of their way to irritate a small number of autocrats for which they paid with their lives. This is not some long period of constant persecution and harrassment. I think that killing Eulogius and his merry band of agitators was wrong–just as I think that killing Hus and Tyndale and Joan of Arc and Campion was wrong–but finding a few examples of religious people doing dumb things in the same way that other religious people did similar dumb things does not rise to the level of indicating that an entire society was repressive for long periods. > [@emarkp](#): > > Again, the relative treatment is irrelevant. The choice of the name refers to a time when Muslims were triumphant and allowed other religions to survive their rule – as long as they didn’t get uppity. You mischaracterize what happened. The socety centered in Cordoba encouraged multicultural scholarship and cooperation at a time when similar scholarship was effectively prohibited in Christian Europe. Even if you do not like how that society was organized, it is recognized by actual historians as a period of growth and tolerance. It is that view of that period that prompted the choice of the name, not your revisionist view that it was a horrible place. > [@emarkp](#): > > No, what he did was refuse to condemn Hamas, which is an explicitly terrorist organization. It’s charter is to eradicate the Jews. You **cannot** be peaceful and yet refuse to condemn Hamas. You can, however, refuse to be baited into condemning a political organization just to make some TV interviewer happy. You will note that all the people foaming at the mouth about Rauf’s “links” to terrorism can only cite this one single TV interview. If he is so supportive of terror, where are all the other similar statements? Israel has supported the Apartheid South African regime at different times. Mandela has refused to criticize Ghadafi or Castro at other times. Reagan praised the Nicaraguan Somozan terrorists. Lots of people find reasons to either support or fail to condemn bad people at different times for different reasons. Simply refusing to be drawn into an off-topic condemnation of one group or another for a particular sound bite in a single inteerview is not the same as actually supporting bad people. > [@emarkp](#): > > His “work” with the FBI? All I can find about that is participating in a forum. You were expecting them to deputize him and send him outr to round up dissident Muslims? He did not simply “participate” in the forum, he helped to organize it. He was also asked on several occasions to speak to Muslim groups to assure them that the U.S. was not going to round them all up and deport them. The U.S. State Department held similar meetings seeking his input and the Bush administration even asked him to go to the Middle East to reassure various groups that the U.S. was not going to wage war against Islam (which would be the opposite view that they would get from reading Beck or Geller). > [@emarkp](#): > > That’s poor reasoning. Ground Zero in Hiroshima is explicitly defined to be the point right under detonation. Ground Zero in New York isn’t defined the same way as Hiroshima. It is excellent reasoning. The phrase has the same meaning in all cases, including in New York–except when a Geller changes the meaning to launch a hate tirade against a community organization. > [@emarkp](#): > > Your claim that it’s just “hater rhetoric” is circular. It’s polemic if you object to the mosque, therefore whatever someone says in opposition to the mosque is polemic. I guess this particular logical fallacy is the genetic fallacy. I’ve made a clear argument why I see it as part of Ground Zero. Your assertion that it’s hater rhetoric isn’t an answer. > > I’ve presented no arguments from Geller (in fact I only passingly have heard about her site, and was more familiar with it because of Paypal’s banning/unbanning). Geller is the idiot that invented the term “Ground Zero Mosque.” Anything you say that employs that phrase is supporting her hate filled diatribes. Prior to her lies about where the community center would be built and the lies that it would be dedicated on the tenth anniversary of the WTC/Pentagon attacks, the community center was actually being lauded by people, (even on the political Right), as something that we should support so as to marginalize the extremists. Then Geller posted her lies and Murdoch sent out his marching orders and all of a sudden the community center was the “Ground Zero Mosque” and it was BAD IDEA. The opposition to it was created out of whole cloth, based on lies. > [@emarkp](#): > > Do you refuse to believe that there is a substantial fraction of the world’s Muslims who sympathize with terrorism? Or who approve of the 9/11 attacks? If you do, then you’re ignoring reality. If you don’t (more likely) then it’s imperative to decide what we allow these people to do to us. Rauf is clearly not with us, and the Cordoba project is grounded in hate, with an attempt to disguise it as “understanding.” Clearly that isn’t the purpose, especially after the outcry against the project. An “understanding” imam would express apology and move the site. An “understanding” imam wouldn’t have tried to press forward for a 9/11/11 opening date. > > Simply repeating that people who don’t agree are haters isn’t an argument or a debate. Actually, Rauf, who is Sufi–a group that opposes the Fundamentalists and which is condemned by them–has along history of promoting better relations between the Muslim community and the rest of Western society. He has spent twenty years, or so, in Tribeca, the neighborhood where the WTC stood, doing exactly that. He is clearly not supportive of terrorism, (unless you think the FBI and the State Department are in cahoots with him to foment Fundamentalist Islam). So you are simply wrong on that score. As for moving the Park51 project, Rauf has already said that he would be willing to do so. However, his funds are already tied up in that building and he had done all the work to purchase the old building and get the correct permits during the months when Fox News was saying that he was doing a good thing. Once Geller spouted her lies and Murdoch told Faux News to change their opinions, Rauf was stuck with the building. Unless you are willing to buy the old building from him so that he can move to a different location, then criticizing him for not moving is simply joining the rank hypocrisy of Geller and Murdoch. (And all of this information has already been posted, so your claim to have read anything (other than hate sites) rings pretty hollow.) ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496/113 "2010-12-08T09:41:57Z")
> [@emarkp](#): > > Then edumacate me. I know what I think the Mosque of Cordoba is. I’d be happy to be proven wrong. One rather suspects otherwise, re the last statement. But from history, Corduba represents the conquest of Islam over the Visigoths who were Arian christians who didn’t get along well with their Catholic subjects. What bloody lesson that has for modern history is all up to the fetid imagination of various partisans. If a group takes the lesson away from that period that their best model is cooperation (which is the sponsors’ take-way very evidently) that rather seems a valid lesson, rather more valid than some odd-ball triumphalism read. And your earlier statement about “Jihadi tourism”- pray tell where do you get that piece of creative assertion from? Silly assertion in any case, as if the Al Qaeda sorts need any particular excuse to fixate on New York, which they’ve been fixated on since the early 1990s… There’s no particular reason to freak out over the Corduba centre, other than simple minded bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496/114 "2010-12-08T09:45:29Z")
> [@emarkp](#): > > Again, circular reasoning. If you’re going to call me prejudiced, call me it to my face. The oblique “they” is pathetic. > > The problem is two-fold: 1) it **is** a mosque, and 2) it **is** at a site hit on 9/11. It is the two conditions together that make it so objectionable. You seem to fail to grasp this. A mosque or Islamic community center at the site of the United 93 crash is just as objectionable. Just repeating that people are “prejudiced” to avoid the effort of making a coherent argument isn’t terribly useful or insightful. It’s only objectionable if one is so simple minded as to confuse Islam in general with the Al Qaeda folks. Else it is not objectionable at all. The position confusing Sufi Mulsims with Al Qaeda very much and fully merits the label bigotted. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496/115 "2010-12-08T12:49:28Z")
> [@emarkp](#): > > Simply repeating that people who don’t agree are haters isn’t an argument or a debate. That’s alright - the arguments against your point of view have already been made enough times. They were made earlier in this thread, and before that, they were made in a different thread. The same arguments have been made on both sides for months. After a while it’s valid to conclude that some people just aren’t interested in the facts. Meanwhile the people who lead the charge against the community center have mostly piped down because the issue already served its purpose in the midterm elections. ---
**Author:** ![Kokopilau](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Kokopilau](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kokopilau)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496/116 "2010-12-08T15:46:11Z")
> [@emarkp](#): > > Oh, where in the Cordoba center will Christians and Jews be worshipping? In [the spaces that will be set aside for them](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/opinion/08mosque.html?_r=1&ref=opinion). “At Cordoba House, we envision shared space for community activities, like a swimming pool, classrooms and a play space for children. There will be separate prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians, Jews and men and women of other faiths. The center will also include a multifaith memorial dedicated to victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.” > [@](#): > > The Muslim conquerors converted a church into the Great Mosque of Cordoba. A structure they _bought_, not took. > [@](#): > > Rauf refuses to condemn Hamas, [Wrong!](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:buLM-KkXHFEJ:mediamatters.org/rd%3Fto%3Dhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.cordobainitiative.org%25252F%25253Fq%25253Dcontent%25252Ffrequently-asked-questions%26lid%3D1135759%26rid%3D52350881+http://www.cordobainitiative.org/%3Fq%3Dcontent/frequently-asked-questions&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) > [@](#): > > **Clearing Up False Charges Made Against Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf:** > > **"Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf won’t condemn terrorism”** > Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has always condemned terrorism. Here are his words from his 2004 book, What’s Right with Islam is What’s Right with America: “The truth is that **killing innocent people is always wrong – and no argument or excuse, no matter how deeply believed, can ever make it right. No religion on earth condones the killing of innocent people; no faith tradition tolerates the random killing of our brothers and sisters on this earth. God does not want us to kill each other.** ” He has repeated the same thing in hundreds of speeches around the world. > > **“Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has not condemned Hamas”** > \*\*Hamas is both a political movement and a terrorist organization. \*\*When Hamas commits atrocious acts of terror, those actions should be condemned. **Imam Feisal has forcefully and consistently condemned all forms of terrorism, including those committed by Hamas** , as un-Islamic. In his 2004 book, he even went so far as to include a copy of the Fatwa issued after 9/11 by the most respected clerics of Egypt defining the 9/11 attack as an un-Islamic act of terror and giving permission to Muslims in the U.S. armed forces to fight against those Muslims who committed this act of terror. Imam Feisal included this in his book to prove that **terrorism must be fought even if Muslims have to fight fellow Muslims to stop it.** (See also [here](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/nyregion/22imamfacts.html)) > [@](#): > > and said regarding 9/11, “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” He said that in a 60 Minutes piece about the horrified reaction to and denouncing of the 9/11 attacks by Muslims. The full transcript of the whole thing can be found [here](http://www.islamfortoday.com/60minutes.htm). This is Imam Rauf’s bit: > [@](#): > > ED BRADLEY: How — how do you feel as a Muslim knowing that people of your faith committed this act that resulted in the loss of probably 6,000 lives? > > MR. ABDUL RAUF: It’s painful. But when this thing first happened, everybody in the community said, “Oh, God, let this not be a person from our faith, tradition or from our background.” > > MR. BRADLEY: What would you say to — to people in this country, who, looking at what happens in the Middle East, would associate Islam with fanaticism, with terrorism? > > **MR. ABDUL RAUF: Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam. That’s — that’s just as absurd as associating Hitler with Christianity or — or David Koresh with Christianity. There are always people who will — who will do peculiar things and think that they are doing things in the name of their religion. But — but the Koran — you know, God says in the Koran that they think that they’re doing right, but they’re doing wrong. …** > > MR. BRADLEY (voiceover): And throughout the Muslim world, there is also strong opposition to America’s foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, because of its support of Israel and economic sanctions against Iraq. > > MR. ABDUL RAUF: It is a reaction against the policies of the U.S. government, politically, where we espouse principles of democracy and human rights and where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries. > > MR. BRADLEY: Are — are — are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened? > > MR. ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. > > MR. BRADLEY: O.K. You say that we’re an accessory? > > MR. ABDUL RAUF: Yes. > > MR. BRADLEY: How? > > MR. ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A. That last part is also something that has also been said, using virtually identical language, by such America-hating terrorist-supporters as: [Glenn Beck](http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201004150070): “When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems.” [Bill O’Reilly](http://www.livedash.com/transcript/the_o'reilly_factor/51/FNC/Monday_September_13_2010/297268/): “The prevailing wisdom in the Muslim world among moderate Muslims and even Muslims who like America is that America foreign policy, the way it was handled for 30, 40 years was responsible for radicalizing some people because we have a presence in the Gulf. We take their oil. We support death spots in some countries. Saudi Arabia and others, that we do all of these things that we intrude on the Muslim world. That’s not a radical position. You can debate it one way or the other, but it’s not radical.” And [Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702050.html), Chairman and Vice-Chairman, respectively, of the [Congress-appointed 9/11 Commission](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_commission): "U.S. foreign policy has not stemmed the rising tide of extremism in the Muslim world. In July 2004, the 9/11 commission recommended putting foreign policy at the center of our counterterrorism efforts. Instead, we have lost ground. … We have not been persuasive in enlisting the energy and sympathy of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims against the extremist threat. That is not because of who we are: Polling data consistently show strong support in the Muslim world for American values, including our political system and respect for human rights, liberty and equality. Rather, U.S. policy choices have undermined support." > [@](#): > > He also seems to respect [Yusuf al-Qaradawi](http://bigpeace.com/abostom/2010/08/29/imam-feisal-rauf-and-the-genocidal-hamas-covenant/), the Spiritual Leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. No, he doesn’t. He described al-Qaradawi as “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.” That’s not a statement of approbation, but an accurate description of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, as even a quick perusal of the sources linked at [his wiki article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaradawi) will show. And in any case, Imam Rauf wasn’t talking about al-Qaradawi’s pre-eminence because Rauf agrees totally with the man, but because of al-Qaradawi’s _fatwa_ in the wake of the 9/11 attacks that Muslims were permitted to fight other Muslims in order to combat terrorism and the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, as [his quote in the New York Times article](http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/12/us/nation-challenged-religious-opinion-muslim-scholars-back-fight-against.html?scp=6&sq=Imam%20feisal%20abdul%20rauf&st=cse) about the _fatwa_ makes blatantly clear. > [@](#): > > That scholar, Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, is regarded as an independent voice, unlike the many Islamic muftis and theologians who have been appointed by some Muslim governments. Far from pro-Western, Sheik Qaradawi has been a spiritual adviser to Muslim Brotherhood militants in Egypt, has harshly criticized the United States for supporting Israel and has condoned Palestinian suicide bombers. > > ‘‘This fatwa is very significant. Yusuf Qaradawi is probably the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today,’’ said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of the American Sufi Muslim Association, and an authority in Islamic jurisprudence. ‘‘The armed forces of other countries now have behind them a legal standing in the eyes of a noted legal authority to be part of the coalition against terrorism.’’ That, by the way, is the extent of Imam Rauf’s comments on al-Qaradawi. In his book _What’s Right With Islam is What’s Right With America_, Rauf talks about al-Qaradawi’s _fatwa_ and the above-quoted New York Times piece, saying: > [@](#): > > A fatwa was issued on September 27, 2001, by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi and four other signatories, pointing out that under Islamic law the events of September 11 were terrorist acts, whose perpetrators should be brought to justice, and therefore it was their duty to act accordingly (see the appendix [which is just a straight reproduction of said fatwa, with no preface or commentary at all added by Rauf]). I was called by the New York Times to comment on the fatwa, and I strongly recommended that it be printed, since the Times then was running a special section called “A Nation Challenged.” The fatwa would have made valuable reading for the Times’ Muslim and non-Muslim readers and would have helped amplify the Muslim moderate voice. In other words, Rauf’s entire point in mentioning al-Qaradawi is because the fact that a hardline (and widely-respected in the Muslim world) cleric like al-Qaradawi issued a _fatwa_ condemning the events of 9/11 as terrorist attacks and permitting Muslims to fight other Muslims to stop further such attacks would only strengthen and reinforce the statements that moderates like Rauf (such as the ones featured in the above 60 Minutes piece) issued about the same things. > [@](#): > > There’s no doubt that a significant fraction of Islam (a minority to be sure, but a significant one) approves of terrorism. The name and the man place the project squarely in that group. That statement is about as wrong as it’s possible to _get_. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496/117 "2010-12-08T15:58:32Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > And your earlier statement about “Jihadi tourism”- pray tell where do you get that piece of creative assertion from? You mean the phrase that was linked to [this NY Times article](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/world/europe/13germany.html)? I guess you didn’t click or even hover on it? I could also have linked [this Time article](http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2009618,00.html) as well, but didn’t bother. Are these right-wing rags? > [@wmfellows](#): > > It’s only objectionable if one is so simple minded as to confuse Islam in general with the Al Qaeda folks. Else it is not objectionable at all. The position confusing Sufi Mulsims with Al Qaeda very much and fully merits the label bigotted. Wow. Impressive misreading. So you think that only Al Qaeda is hostile to western culture? My point was straightforward, and I can only conclude that you’re intentionally obtuse here. Let me state it more clearly: many Muslims want to subjugate the west. I beleive Rauf is in that subgroup. Al Qaeda is also in that subgroup. The two subgroups need not overlap. Do you need a Venn Diagram? > [@](#): > > Geller is the idiot that invented the term “Ground Zero Mosque.” Anything you say that employs that phrase is supporting her hate filled diatribes. This is such a ridiculous logical fallacy, I’m just stunned. I’ll let you get back to your remedial logic classes. > [@](#): > > (And all of this information has already been posted, so your claim to have read anything (other than hate sites) rings pretty hollow.) Got it. Anything which disagrees with you is a hate site, including NY Times, Time Magazine, wikipedia, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496/118 "2010-12-08T15:58:50Z")
Post more often, **Kokopilau.** ---
**Author:** ![Kokopilau](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Kokopilau](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kokopilau)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496/119 "2010-12-08T16:06:32Z")
> [@emarkp](#): > > Let me state it more clearly: many Muslims want to subjugate the west. I beleive Rauf is in that subgroup. Really? That would the same Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf who has written such things as > [@](#): > > The West’s dramatic material advancements over the last four centuries, fueled by the simultaneous development of democracy and capitalism, are perceived as companions to the rise of reason and the beginnings of secular humanism. This philosophical trend of secularism promoted the West’s concept of religious freedom, which was enshrined in the First Amendment of the American Constitution as the separation of church and state. America’s founding fathers believed strongly that religion cannot and must not be entrusted to the halls of power…[T]he objective was to allow any and all religions to thrive while preventing the state from using its powers to establish one religion or religious doctrine over any other. > > … > > Muslims believe that America needs to reestablish its original understanding of the First Amendment, which balances the separation of church and state with freedom of religion in building the good society. This balance is enormously important to Muslims. > > Muslims have yet to fully incorporate the institutional expressions of democratic capitalism, defined as the combination of democracy and capitalism, into their various essential institutions: the rule of law (an independent judiciary), human rights, a stable currency, equal opportunity, free markets, social safety nets, and so forth. These principles, in my view, are among the most important institutional expressions of the second commandment [“To love our neighbors - that is, our fellow human beings - regardless of race, religion, or cultural background as we love ourselves”, which Rauf says is common to the three Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam] that humanity has invented. and > [@](#): > > Pluralism of religions and churches is the foundation of the establishment clause [in the First Amendment to the US Constitution]. This is similar to the Islamic injunction in the Quran: “Say: O disbelievers. To you your religion, and to me mine” (Quran 109:6). This verse and others together demonstrate that pluralism of religions is a fundamental human right under Islamic law. and > [@](#): > > A harmonious pluralistic society requires us to know ourselves and the others in our midst. No Christian can claim to be following the precedent of Christ unless she or he accepts the presence of other intelligent, compassionate, educated people who are deeply spiritual Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or atheists. The same applies to those of other religions as well as to atheists who regard themselves as decent, upright secular humanists. If a Muslim cannot find comfort in a world in which others are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and agnostic, that person cannot claim to be following the teachings of the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad. and > [@](#): > > What I now aim to demonstrate may surprise readers, namely that America is substantively an “Islamic” country, by which I mean a country whose systems remarkably embody the principles that Islamic law requires of a government. From a different perspective, it means that Muslims around the world believe in the principles that undergird American government and want those principles upheld in their own societies. > … > > As we shall see, many Muslims regard the form of government that the American founders established a little over two centuries ago as the form of governance that best expresses Islam’s original values and principles. > > … > > What’s right about America is its Declaration of Independence, for it embodies and restates the core values of the Abrahamic, and thus also the Islamic, ethic. Since human liberty is one of its aims, and reason the method by which we justify our political order, then the cardinal moral truths from the Declaration of Independence that flesh out the Abrahamic ethic are: > > That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed. > > … > > America’s founders thus outlined the moral foundations of a free society - and in the process, an Abrahamic society. These beliefs are fundamental to all Americans and may be said to constitute the American “religion” or creed that all Americans subscribe to and believe in. They are also beliefs fundamental to all Muslims, who regard these beliefs as essential to Islam. and > [@](#): > > When people seek reform or wish to correct the mistakes of the past, they do it in one of two ways. Either they work constructively, incorporating and learning from the past, or they work critically, seeking to start over by discarding learning from the past. The advantage of the first approach is that it focuses people on what needs to be done by educating and developing them. It is also the more permanent and lasting approach because people are taught how to think through new situations and come up with a right answer - and to recognize when there is, and can be, more than one right answer. The advantage of the second approach is that it is much simpler to teach and inculcate. Crimes are easier to identify, cheaper to punish, and they invoke more passion than does education. And people are driven by passion. Moreover, it is much easier to find teachers to teach the second, critical, approach than the first constructive approach. However, the second approach creates heresies out of any idea that differs from its own and finds it difficult to coexist with other approaches. Its life is also naturally short, since it is defined by what it stands against and therefore does not outlast its opponent. and > [@](#): > > Gender equality is an intrinsic part of Islamic belief. > > … > > In surveying the women who have been prominent in the history of the Islamic world, it becomes increasingly clear that there is a strong prototype for Muslim women and that women’s rights are alive in the very theology of Islam. But, as in most countries the world over, the reality for women does not match the ideals we all know are right and just. As American women are fighting for equal pay for equal work, for reproductive rights and affordable childcare, Muslim women are fighting for compulsory education (in Afghanistan), the right to drive (in Saudi Arabia), and the right to cover their hair (in France and in Turkey). As American women are knocking through glass ceilings to acquire the rights due to them in the Constitution, Muslim women are doing the same to gain full access to their rights as laid out in the Quran and sunnah. > > Many of the limits placed on women in Muslim (and non-Muslim) societies are the result of custom, and these limits continue because people have a hard time changing their customs. In terms of realizing social rights, the Muslim world is following a similar trajectory as in the West, and changing a society’s notions of what is acceptable in gender roles takes generational change. Just as in America roles have changed dramatically, especially in the last hundered years as America has implemented the Abrahamic ethic to a greater degree, it is reasonable to expect that Muslim societies implementing the justice called for in Islamic theology will undergo parallel transformations. > > This is why granting political rights is the most effective way to redress legitimate women’s grievances. For as a nation becomes increasingly democratized, the ballot box becomes the means by which each constituent group in society attains its objectives. \*That \*Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf? ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496/120 "2010-12-08T17:08:00Z")
> [@emarkp](#): > > You mean the phrase that was linked to [this NY Times article](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/world/europe/13germany.html)? I guess you didn’t click or even hover on it? I could also have linked [this Time article](http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2009618,00.html) as well, but didn’t bother. Are these right-wing rags? I made no mention of "right wing"mate and frankly don’t give a fig as to the political colours of your press. You rather highlight the sheer absurdity of your use of that most infelicitous phrase since rather clearly the Germans - as interpreted by American reporters - are worried about an otherwise obscure building attracting attention. Given decades of Al Qaeda obsession with New York, your wanking on about this site as a draw is risible and absurd as a ‘concern.’ > [@](#): > > Wow. Impressive misreading. So you think that only Al Qaeda is hostile to western culture? My point was straightforward, and I can only conclude that you’re intentionally obtuse here. Let me state it more clearly: many Muslims want to subjugate the west. I beleive Rauf is in that subgroup. Al Qaeda is also in that subgroup. The two subgroups need not overlap. Do you need a Venn Diagram? Save the immature little expressions. There is no misreading, you’re dance and pretence and vague ad hominems as obtuse, misreading etc don’t obscure it at all. Your beliefs re Rauf… eh others have dealt with that. Boring bigotry. Boring. > [@](#): > > This is such a ridiculous logical fallacy, I’m just stunned. I’ll let you get back to your remedial logic classes. More ad hominem without substantive reply. Although I do note that the comment which this was on was not mine, although the poster included it under my banner. > [@](#): > > Got it. Anything which disagrees with you is a hate site, including NY Times, Time Magazine, wikipedia, etc. And this is merely a shrill straw man, as of course I made no comment re hate sites, etc. (although in review I see it was to a comment that was not mine). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ground-zero-mosque-can-be-built-but-should-it/561496.md?page=7)