Religious Leaders on Islam in America
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-08-16/religious-leaders-islam-america
Organizers of a planned Islamic center near Ground Zero say they want to repair the breach caused by the nine-eleven terrorist attacks. Opponents consider the location insensitive. Leaders of different religions discuss attitudes toward Islam in America.
Guests
Akbar Ahmed
chair of Islamic studies at American University, the first Distinguished Chair of Middle East and Islamic Studies at the U.S. Naval Academy, and former Pakistani high commissioner to the U.K. His latest book is "Journey into America."
Rabbi Bruce Lustig
Senior Rabbi of the Washington Hebrew Congregation
The Rt. Rev. John Chane
Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington
Dan Senor
Former Bush Administration foreign policy advisor, based in Iraq (2003, 2004)
Currently founding partner of Rosemont Capital, a global private equity firm; and Fox News Middle East Analyst
Barry Lynn
executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and author of "Piety & Politics" (Harmony Books)
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
i don't get it , we need to come down off our high horses ! Muslims where killed in this attack as well as everyone else ! last i heard , ALL Americans had the same RIGHTS ! and according to the Treaty of Tripoli , we where not founded as a Christian nation . there are many religions in our country , all have the same ...RIGHTS TO BUILD ! which group do we single out next ? let them build the Mosque ! no one religion has the right to ride shot gun oner another . because we are a nation of EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL , why are we even having this conversation. we are not at war with Muslims , are we ? the Afghan troops and Iraqi troops , i believe are Muslim , fighting for the same reason as us .
Muslims: IS THIS TRUE OR NOT? (I read this somewhere, and wonder if the following is correct.)
The Quran forbids separation of church and state. That is why every Islamic nation, where Islamic leaders have managed to gain power, is a theocracy, ruled by the Quran and Islamic Sharia law.
The Hadith and the Sira are the other political documents that, along with the Quran, constitute the basis for Islam's Sharia law.
Sharia law is administered by Islamic Imams who interpret the law and hand down rulings in their sole discretion. Sharia law does not allow trial by jury. Sharia law also mandates a double standard of laws for Muslims (believers) and infidels (non-believers). Sharia law mandates a tax on non-Islamic religions and nations:
"Fight those who believe not in Allah...until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." --Quran 9:29
Sharia law also mandates discrimination toward women, and forbids any criticism of Islam or its founder, stifling freedom of speech.
Is the above correct?
What a stupid, evasive, Clintonesque non-answer Obama gave when asked what he thought about building the mosque at ground zero! How patronizing to lecture to us about how Muslims have that right under our constitution. DUH! Those of us who got past 12th grade KNOW THAT! Don't insult our intelligence.
What the question IS that we want HIM to answer is:
Is it the right thing to do? Is it "appropriate"? sensitive? caring of the sensibilities of near 70% of Americans? Is that how neighbors get along - being so arrogant and insistent? Americans, by and large, have bent over backwards to be tolerant to a "religion" which is intolerant about so many things. Its tenents are actually anti-American. (It's actually so much more than a religion - it's an all-encompassing political system)
This whole issuer STINKS! Especially as we learn more about how Muslims have a history of building mosques over or real close to the site of their "victories"
Especially as we learn the money is source is very dubious.
There are many more points to make -- I do not have the room and the time.
I may have heard Obama wrong, but what I heard was, As president and American citizen, I'm clear that the law demands equal treatment for all religions (or something like that). To which I'd add it's not his job to give his personal opinion. I think the latter is important to him. Whatever else I think of Obama, I value his efforts to "cool" the presidency and make fairer and more even-handed.
Another consideration is the possibility that this new center could make an ideal beachhead, at least in the symbolic sense, for the same Muslim invasion that has engulfed most countries in western Europe. The EU is now in turmoil and the cultural landscape has been irreversibly changed. It might not happen overnight here in the US but if we give an inch a mile or more could be taken within a generation.
It should be possible for everyone to learn that Christians, Jews, and Muslims share the same core belief in one God.
No matter what "God" -- a German word -- translates to in your language: Dios, Allah, Yahweh not-to-be-spoken, or whatever.
If there is only one Creator-God, then monotheists believe identically. Different faiths, and different branches of faiths, may believe the one God has somehow given them different teachings, but the one Allah must logically be the same Being. There can't be two "one God"s.
Let's have more common respect for one another and a lot less loose talk about "monkey gods." And Hinduism, Gandhi's birth faith, deserves just as much respect.
How can Republicans both insist that governments allow people to do whatever they want with property they legally own or lease and demand that Muslims build their community center anywhere but within two blocks of the World Trade Center site?
@Bo: If you're serious in implying that Muslims cannot be good American citizens, then you would have to disqualify Mormons, Amish, (possibly) Catholics and a large number of adherents of other religions who nominally live their lives according to religious laws mediated by non-U.S. bureaiucrats.
There are TWO mosques already in the "Ground Zero" area:
But what the two mosques have in common — besides the sense of celebration and camaraderie that comes at the beginning of Ramadan, the holiest month of the Islamic calendar, in which Muslims fast from sunup to sundown, give alms and focus on self-improvement — is that both have existed for decades, largely unnoticed, blocks from the World Trade Center site.
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/nyregion/14mosque.html?_r=1
Should Muslims remove these places of worship too? Did the protesters of the Cordoba House project even know this before they started blathering?
There is a mosque in the Pentagon, another target of the a terrorists on 9/11: http://tinyurl.com/2dlcmaa
There is a strip club, a sex toy shop, an OTB office and several bars in this "hallowed ground" area:
On Church Street, around the corner from where Cordoba House would rise, there is a store that sells pornographic videos and an assortment of sex toys. A few doors east of the planned Islamic center, there is an Off-Track Betting office. Spilling onto the sidewalk in front of it the other day were men who would have been described in my old Bronx neighborhood as degenerate gamblers.
A strip joint, a porno store and a government-run bookie operation. No one has organized demonstrations to denounce those activities as defiling the memory of the men and women who died a few hundred yards away.
From: http://tinyurl.com/232bjz3
So let's be very clear. This hullaballoo is now nothing more than a intellectually dishonest "wedge" issue for the GOP and its right-wing pundit cabal so they can play rubes like the hopeless & gutless media like a fiddle.
The real question that the media should be asking now is if Ground Zero in Manhattan is such hallowed ground, why is it still a big damn 10 years after the fact?!?!
Best regards, Seán F. Heneghan
This country was founded on freedom of religion & I believe most people really don't have a problem with a Muslim mosque being built in New York City - someplace OTHER than close to ground zero. Yes, innocent civilians who practiced the Muslim religion died - killed by the extremists who give Islam the bad rep that it has. It's my opinion that it is just in extremely bad taste to have a mosque that close to ground zero, & I would bet that that's what most people who oppose it think & it's being confused as anti-Islamic attitudes.
Reciprocity! reciprocity! reciprocity! As long as all Muslim countries allow religious freedom as in any Western country, I don't have a problem of having a mosque built next to 9/11 tragedy.
In other words, C. Cantu, you want the American government to be as proactively religiously intolerant as the Saudi government. In a word: No.
Muslim countries should allow any non-Muslim church to build a temple in their territories without restrictions in the same way Western countries allow freedom of religion.
This is NOT about religious freedom - it is about the Republicans trying to keep the news from talking about the fact that GM is about to be a publicly traded stock again.... just the way that the video of the black woman appearing to be racist at an NAACP meeting took the attention away from the momentous event that was happening that weekend!
True, but totally beside the point, C. Do you not see value in America setting an example of religious freedom? Judging by your first post, you do not. You'd rather see the USA regress into intolerance and the American government begin denying basic liberties.
Historically Moslems have raised cathedrals and erected Mosques over areas that they have conquered, Spain, Jerusalem, Turkey, this is an underhanded attempt to show that they conquered our holy place of capitalism, the world trade center with a MOSQUE. WAKE UP IT IS SO EVIDENT.
As someone who is not affiliated with any religious organization, may I say how much I resent the ginning up of this issue by those who wish to benefit from the conflict.
I have no respect for any of them. They'd rather cause problems than solve problems. They have no regard for this country, only their own ambitions.
Jay -- The experiences of European countries and America are similar. They threw their doors open to new sources of labor -- and in most cases to citizens of countries in which they'd had colonial interests. But when the new labor force grows larger and becomes inconvenient culturally and politically, both Europe and America try to blow them off in one way or another. "Beachhead" and "invasion" just don't describe the reality. They're hot political words suggesting an agenda which has little to do with a real discussion of the issues -- caliphates in Tennessee and Dusseldorf and Tours...!
When one considers that the Saudis - supposed friends and business partners of Bush pere - celebrated the 9/11 attacks, even killing the fatted calf, would the building of this mosque not give them food for laughter at the US's policies? Can we not take advantage of seeing what is happening with the Islamic invasion in Europe and the murder and death threats for their hosts? And as far as "sensibility" is concerned - remember what happened in Denmark when a journalist drew a cartoon of Mohhamed. It seems that Islam is becoming a Nazi type idealistic political movement rather a religion. Or, it is becoming a religion which is transforming itself into a political movement. Surely one who believes in Karma will see that this is the sowing of what the Christians reaped during the crusades. The battle cry then was "Kill the infidels" and that is exactly the cry today. Whichever way you look at it, it is a sad state of affairs.
I believe President Obama and the press in general missed a very teachable moment last week.
The reaction to Dr. Laura using a racially charged word on her radio show emphasized the reason why Muslims should not build a Mosque at ground zero.
Every American has the First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech. However, because of the abuses of a few, mostly now dead, white people it has become inappropriate for white people to say certain words in public forums. The use of those words results in instant condemnation and possible loss of employment and other penalties.
Similarly, because of the horrific abuse -- mass murder in the name of Islam -- by a few bad Muslims it has become inappropriate for Muslims to exercise their First Amendment Right to build a Mosque at the very site of the abuse by their 'brothers.'
The outrage and protest to the plan to build at Mosque at Ground Zero is no different then the outrage and protest at Dr. Laura's use of a racially charged word.
The only way I could accept the construction of a Mosque at that site would be if it was named and dedicated to the memory and honor of the people murdered at the WTC; not to the implicit honor of their murders.
In about three weeks I will teach a unit on tolerance to my English II students. The study centers on Elie Wiesel's novel "Night." However, as an International Baccalaureate teacher I must include discussions focused on recent events as well as history. I have difficulty dealing with the concept that Americans should forbid the construction of a Mosque five blocks from "Ground Zero." Such a position uses too broad a broad brush that unjustifiably condemns a religion. While I encourage my students to arrive at their own conclusions, I am trying to conceive of how I will square the prohibition with the Constitution. Its Preamble calls for us to use the document to "create a more perfect union," "establish justice," "promote the general welfare," "and secure the blessings of Liberty." Clearly one of the blessings is the right to practice religion free of government intervention. I suggest the proposed prohibition flies in the face of all of these goals ratified by the writers of our central political document.
"Separation or church and state"
The constituion recommends this and therefore there should not be any religious dicsussions by elected members of the state, city or national level, PERIOD!!!
Since the law does protect religious rights so why bother??
Dan Senor never really explained his position. I heard him saying that building the Mosque in Manhattan is insensitive but how so? The only way to defend that is to say that the September 11 attacks were attacks by Islam or represented Muslims. It was not. It was a political act of terrorism like Pearl Harbor. By giving credence to the people opposing the mosque, one is basically saying that yes, this was an attack by all Muslims on the United States, something I thought we all understood was false.
Muslims as a whole did not attack us, just as christians as a whole did not attack the federal building in Oklahoma City. If we don't allow this mosque, then we should not allow christian churches in the area of the federal building in Oklahoma City. We have to learn to discern the extremists from the core religion of any faith.
Rich Hackel, Goshen, IN
I believe in our system of religious freedom. There is no question that under American law they have the right to build this institution. I ask about the Mirror situation, can I build a Jewsih house of worship in Saudi Arabia?
Can I as a Jew even travel within that country? Should I not have the same or Mirror rights in an Islamic country?
I can't understand why there are no WOMEN in your discussion. This might seem like a red herring, but it's not. Given the fact that that there are myriad women in religious professions, it's passing strange that there should be five men and no women weighing in on this crucial subject, one in which women could make a distinct contribution, since for centuries, they have been at the receiving end of a lot religious power politics. They might contribute a useful perspective -- or various useful perspectives.
The whole concept of The three (male) Musketeers of religion seem a bit out of date, no?
If this is not an "in your face" gesture I don't know what is. Something doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong. If we haven't figured that out by now we're missing the point. How insensitive to plan to go ahead with a mosque in this area given the feelings of so many - not just in New York, but all over the US.
This turmoil over the building of a mosque is blatantly political and fueled by the conservative right, period. That influence has indeed spurred other anti Muslim efforts - like in Kentucky.
http://nky.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20100816/NEWS010...
Fortunately the city officials are not succumbing to this kind of uninformed hatred.
Just because something is legal does not mean it is appropriate.
If the intention is to "foster community relationships," isn't it obvious that there are enough people still sensitive about September 11 to make this proposed use or purpose at least questionnable?
Nazi's had the "right" to march in predominantly-Jewish Skokie, IL. Did that make it "correct." Of course not.
Given the state of real estate in NYC, surely there are hundreds of other, less-offensive, locations/sites available at similar or better terms.
I wonder what percentage of Muslims practice extreme radical violent Islamist ideology, as compared with those who practice a non-violent peaceful form of Islam. I think the American public has no idea what these percentages are, and so hate and mistrust are taking hold based on impressions formed in the American psyche by the Islamic terrorist perpretrators of 9/11.
The New York Moslem group is within their rights to build on their own property, but to do so they assault the feelings of their non-Muslim neighbors. What does the panel think of suggesting that Mayor Bloomberg or President Obama simply request that they do not build at that location as a favor to their neighbors? If the imam does not agree, his lack of sensitivity will be clear.