Monday, March 18, AD 2024 9:46pm

Mosque Opponents: Be Careful What You Wish For, You Might Get It

The debate over the so-called Ground Zero mosque near the former site of the World Trade Center in New York has raised public interest in, and opposition to, other proposed or recently built mosques and Islamic centers throughout the country.

In areas where Muslim migration or immigration has been significant, some citizens have attempted to discourage construction of new mosques. Few come right out and cite the threat of terrorism; more often they seem to resort to time-honored NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) tactics such as creative interpretation of zoning ordinances, claims of decreased property values, or claims of real or potential problems with traffic, noise, etc.

Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I understand the need to be vigilant regarding the potential for violent subversion, as well as the dangers of taking such a politically correct approach to militant Islam that people hesitate to report obvious suspicious activity for fear of being labeled bigots (as seems to have happened in the Fort Hood massacre case).

That being said, however, last time I looked the First Amendment was still in effect and the freedom of religion clause applies equally to Christian and non-Christian religions. So any legal measures that might be taken against Muslims or Islamic institutions based on their beliefs or teachings (rather than their actions) have to be weighed very, very carefully, lest those same measures one day be turned against Christians.

Well, it appears that day may have arrived in DuPage County, Illinois, where the County Board, after enduring repeated legal battles over proposed construction of mosques in fast-growing areas of the Chicago suburbs, is reportedly considering a total ban on all new construction of religious or fraternal institutions in unincorporated areas of the county.

You read that right, folks: the board may just decide to flat-out forbid construction of new parishes or synagogues, new parochial or Christian schools, new Knights of Columbus or American Legion halls, etc., as well as new mosques. The ordinance being proposed would allow existing congregations or fraternal organizations to expand current facilities, but would forbid construction of new institutions. The Chicago Tribune has more details at this link:

The proposal does not include religious organizations with pending proposals or religious organizations already located in unincorporated residential areas but looking to expand, said Paul Hoss, zoning coordinator for the county.

The measure would not only cover religious institutions, but also cover fraternal organizations, veterans groups and service clubs, he said.

“It’s not just relative to religious institutions,” Hoss said. “We think that by having other places of assembly in the list makes it nondiscriminatory (for religious institutions).”

If the proposal passes, religious groups could sue under a federal statute that bars governments from imposing land-use regulations that “burden” religious institutions unless they can prove those regulations are the “least restrictive means” of furthering “a compelling governmental interest,” said Sheldon Nahmod, a constitutional law professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law.

Personally I doubt that this ordinance will pass, since it would almost inevitably provoke even more lawsuits, but you never know. Still, the primary purpose of the proposal seems to be just to get the hard-core mosque opponents to stop and think about what they are trying to do, and what would happen if the same rules were applied against them.

Also, we should not forget that there was a time in U.S. history when Catholicism was considered to be nearly or equally as great a threat to national security as Islam is now. Ever heard of the Know Nothing Party, which was a big political force back in the 1850s? They wanted Catholics to be barred from holding public office or from teaching in public schools, on the grounds that their loyalty to a “foreign potentate,” i.e. the pope, made them a potentially subversive force. Or the 1925 Supreme Court case, Pierce vs. Society of Sisters, concerning an Oregon law (backed by the Ku Klux Klan) that essentially outlawed Catholic schools?

We also cannot rule out completely the possibility that Catholicism may once again be treated as a potential terrorist or subversive threat, most likely on the grounds that its teachings against abortion and same-sex marriage constitute “hate speech” or an attack on the civil rights of others. More likely, though, actions against Islam in general may simply lead to a further banishment of all religious expression from the public square, which is exactly what we don’t need.

So add me to the chorus of people on TAC who are saying, just build the damn thing and put the issue behind us.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
45 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mary Margaret Cannon
Mary Margaret Cannon
Saturday, August 28, AD 2010 10:43am

Outstanding article — thank you!!

Question (and please forgive this social-networking-backward-participant!):

Why doesn’t American Catholic enable readers to SHARE this via Facebook? (Maybe I’m flunking the IQ test and missed the link??? I just did a “copy & paste” on the link above on my FB page . . . Sad to say, I am still trying to figure out this RSS stuff!!!)

Thank you!

Teresa
Saturday, August 28, AD 2010 10:50am

Elaine,

You raise some very valid points. But, did Catholicism, or the perversion therof, and Catholics or any Christians for that matter murder 3000 innocents on September 11? Or have Catholics or Christians committed bombings in recent years or pose threats of bombings around the world?

I think the problem here is that the Muslims who have proposed this mosque have displayed absolutely NO sensitivity to the families of victims of 9/11 while demanding all the tolerance in the world from those 9/11 families,as well as other citizens. These “moderate” Muslims claim that they want to build bridges but all they are doing by forcing the building of this mosque at this partiular ultra-sensitive location is burning bridges. Why is this location so important when there are over 100 mosques located in NYC already? How is this mosque being funded? By terrorist organizations or not? I believe in order for the community as a whole to benefit from this mosque our government and our citizens must be as certain as possible that this mosque is not funded by terrorist organizations and will not be used as a terrorist training center under the guise of religious freedom. If the mayor and others would be willing to look into the mosque’s financial funding I believe that this would allay many peoples’ fears.

I do understand that the people behind the building of the mosque has a right to be built according to civil law. But, as Charles Krauthammer pointed out, if zoning laws and aesthetics can trump one’s right to build why could the sensitivity to those families who had loved ones killed by a single act of war trump one’s right to build?

As to the issue of this mosque being two blocks away from the primary ground zero site: Would you agree that wherever the planes hit or any of its part on 9/11 should be considered Ground Zero? If so, then so should the Burlington building since a part of the plane hit that building.

I think this whole controversy could have been avoided if the NYC commission had shown some prudential judgment and declared the Burlingtion building as a historical landmark.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Saturday, August 28, AD 2010 11:17am

Elaine a ban on construction of new places of worship would be clearly unconstitutional and would not stand up in court longer than the time it takes a Chicago alderman to pocket a bribe. No one has been disputing the right of the Flim Flam Imam and his Cordoba Initiative (Dhimmis Always Welcome!) to build this Mosque, but whether it is right for them to do so. I am keenly aware of the frequent divergence of a legal right and a moral right. My opposition might well not exist if a local group of Muslims had wished to put up a Mosque for local worship. I think the Flim Flam Imam clearly has an agenda that has little to do with worshiping Allah, and quite a bit to do with furthering his Cordoba Initiative which has one message for gullible Western elites and another message for his backers in the Middle East.

Blackadder
Saturday, August 28, AD 2010 11:20am

I thought this post by Bob Murphy about the Glenn Beck rally today was a propos:

Of course Mr. Beck and his fans have every legal right to hold a rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of the “I Have a Dream” speech.

Nonetheless, we are asking that they hold their rally a few blocks away, and on a different date. There are 364 other days in the year; what’s wrong with them?
Now look, we know full well that Mr. Beck and his supporters claim that they are trying to heal racial division. Intellectually, we black Americans know that just because we have been brutalized by angry white conservative males for as long as we can remember, that doesn’t mean that all angry white conservative males pose a threat to our physical safety.

But this isn’t about logic or rationality. This is about sensitivity to our feelings. Surely Mr. Beck can understand why a majority of American blacks wouldn’t appreciate him holding a rally on the anniversary of Dr. King’s famous speech. If he goes ahead with his plans, he won’t promote racial unity. So we ask him to hold the rally in a different place, on a different date.

Martin
Martin
Saturday, August 28, AD 2010 11:58am

Teresa – Did you seriously just say that Christians have not bombed or killed significant numbers of people? Check the stats on our current wars sometime.

Paul Zummo
Admin
Saturday, August 28, AD 2010 12:10pm

As usual, Blackadder mistakes cuteness for substance. By now Blackadder is aware that the objections to the Mosque are not grounded in a general objection to anything at all being built near Ground Zero.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Saturday, August 28, AD 2010 12:15pm

“Teresa – Did you seriously just say that Christians have not bombed or killed significant numbers of people? Check the stats on our current wars sometime.”

Our wars being the equivalent of Bin Laden’s murder of 3,000 innocent men, women and children? Moral equivalency: the opiate of the politically correct.

Michael Denton
Saturday, August 28, AD 2010 12:18pm

While I agree with Donald that the proposed ban shouldn’t pass constitutional muster (there’s a case that states you can’t ban all forms of religious speech-I think it’s Rosenberger v. Rectors & Vistors of UVA), you are absolutely right in stating that the opposition to the mosque establishes a precedent that is far more dangerous to Catholics than to Muslims insofar as some are advocating legal means to interfere with the building of the mosque.

Teresa
Saturday, August 28, AD 2010 12:24pm

“I think the Flim Flam Imam clearly has an agenda that has little to do with worshiping Allah, and quite a bit to do with furthering his Cordoba Initiative which has one message for gullible Western elites and another message for his backers in the Middle East.”

Donald, I agree.

Blackadder,
If Alveda King has no problem with the rally I don’t see why any other person, of any color black, white, red, brown etc., should have a problem with Beck and others honoring Martin Luther King Jr’s message of equality for all. Yeah, and if he didn’t do anything honoring Martin Luther King the Left would make accusations about no person caring about blacks and spreading King’s message, so Your “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t” according to liberalism.

Martin,
First, is that an admission that our nation is rooted in Christian values?

Second, Did we really go to war as “Christians” or as a nation fighting against terrorism and for our nation’s national defense?

Third, I didn’t know that a group of Christians not associated with the U.S. government went off on their own and specifically targeted a building or another location just to murder Iraqi inocents? I think your the person who is a little confused with reality, Martin.

Fourth, Please name me one war in history that has had no civilian casualties?

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Saturday, August 28, AD 2010 12:27pm

I’m with Gen’l. (Vinegar) Joe Stillwell, “Don’t let the bastards wear you down.”

n4nadmin
n4nadmin
Saturday, August 28, AD 2010 1:19pm

It isn’t even a matter of where the mosque is being built – replace the entire WTC site with the biggest mosque in the world, no problem – PROVIDED Islam changes its ways.

I realize all the 1st Amendment issues involved here – but until I am no longer considered such subhuman filth that I cannot enter the precincts of Mecca, then I’m going to hold that Moslems must be curbed in what they do in the United States. Not stopped – not expelled; just carefully curtailed to ensure that everyone, especially in the Moslem world, knows that we have not lost our back bone.

Tolerance does not mean going along happily with whatever someone wants to do – it is a two way street and it requires some compromise. We can easily tolerate a mosque in Manhattan – but we can’t tolerate it hard by Ground Zero…not now, and not until Islam changes its tune.

Mark Noonan

n4nadmin
n4nadmin
Saturday, August 28, AD 2010 1:21pm

Blackadder,

I wonder if the author of that piece can find even a single black man brutalized by a conservative white man in the past 40 years.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Saturday, August 28, AD 2010 1:42pm

We might just consider the possibility that these local pols want to limit the quantum of non-taxable property in that particular locality. Piggy, but unsurprising.

It is not a novelty for houses of worship to face zoning tangles. Given the size of the metropolitan New York area, you will have to excuse me if I suggest that prohibiting the placement of a 13 story building of a particular character at a historic site of modest dimensions is a measure different in kind than prohibiting all construction of houses of worship in a given municipality.

Martin:

As far as I am aware, the Marine Corps does not have an icon of St. Michael on their weaponry and al-Qaeda does not do civil affairs projects.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Saturday, August 28, AD 2010 2:54pm

Here’s my $64,000,000.03 question.

If religious freedom/tolerance requires a $100 million mosque over the WTC site. How is religious liberty/tolerance served by denying the rebuild of THE Orthodox Church that THE muslim terrorists destroyed on 11 Sep 2001?

AD:

No! It’s much worse than that! USMC heroes wear (gasp) US flags on their uniforms.

Re AQ civil affairs projects: They’re helping make Americans good. They believe the only good American is a dead American.

Foxfier
Saturday, August 28, AD 2010 3:31pm

Lot of assumptions in this post; the assumption that the REAL motive folks have is fear of terrorism, and that they can’t possibly object for the reasons they give:

zoning ordinances, claims of decreased property values, or claims of real or potential problems with traffic, noise, etc.

Evidence for this claim? I know that the blog Beers with Demo did the research to show a pattern of harassment against a church in his area, but a blanket claim that 1) Mosques are being unusually opposed and 2) it is because of fears of terrorism is a claim that requires more than just a claim to be taken seriously.

There’s also the issue of using charged terms inaccurately. NIMBY, while meaning “not in my back yard,” also implies that something is not opposed in general. (Example, opposing wind power generators in your area while promoting wind energy in general.)
People who are worried about Islamic terror risings from Mosques are going to be bright enough to remember the home mosques of the 9/11 terrorists were far, far away, and would appose them in general, not just specific.

Your notion of equivalence between “there shall be no non-profit organizational buildings in our district” and “no, you may not build a triumphalist religious center on the ruins created by said religion” is mind bending.

Foxfier
Saturday, August 28, AD 2010 3:32pm

Martin-
Go troll someplace else.

Deacon Chip
Saturday, August 28, AD 2010 5:31pm

Wow. Far-ranging discussion.

First, the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The religion piece really has no bearing on the discussion over the Cordoba Mosque proposed for Ground Zero.

How many mosques are there in Manhattan? About a hundred? Sounds like pretty free exercise of religion to me.

Second: I challenge any black person who reads this blogs, or any black person who’s a friend of someone who reads this blog, to tell me the date of Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. I had to memorize parts of it as a child (stand down, racialists: I’m Black). Never knew what day it was given; barely knew it was in August. Glenn Beck planned this rally (which I wish I had had time to attend)for the last Saturday in August. An lo and behold, what date did that happen to fall on? Why, August 28! August the 28th, which happened to be an anniversary of Dr. King’s speech!

Why should a mosque be built at the site of a murder committed by people motivated by Islam? Why should a church of any type be built at the site of the murder of hundreds of thousands of Jewish people (and others, including Catholic Saints)? Why should the Japanese in Hawaii build a temple at the site of the sunken USS Arizona?

Answer? None of them should. Because it’s disrespectful. Why is this so hard to grasp? And what does it tell those who truly hate us about whether we will truly resist them?

It is not un-Christian to stand up for common politeness.

restrainedradical
Sunday, August 29, AD 2010 3:02am

n4nadmin, Google turned up this from 2 years ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/nyregion/16attack.html

Foxfier
Sunday, August 29, AD 2010 3:11am

Gee, RR, why didn’t you link to this much more recent article on those idiots?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/nyregion/08hate.html

Those morons were accused of racial hate crimes and seem to be gang related. Notably, not “conservative white men”– just idiot gang members. (is that redundant?)

Ryan Hammill
Sunday, August 29, AD 2010 5:22am

What are you trying to prove by arguing that white people no longer attack black people? For one, it’s a sad, callous, and absurd battle to fight. Do you, like, remember this one time, in, like, 1992 in LA where, like, some white cops beat up this black guy named Rodney King? White on black violence occurs a lot, as does black on white, white on white, black on black, brown on black, brown on white, brown on brown, white on brown, black on brown, etc, etc, etc.

Also, please STOP calling it a mosque. A mosque is specifically a Muslim holy place where only prayer can be conducted. This is a Muslim community center, similar to a YMCA. It will have a culinary school, basketball courts, etc. With a prayer room on one or two of the fifteen or so floors.

I can think of Catholic terrorism pretty easily: the IRA. And that was specifically religio-nationalist.

It is utterly absurd to demand that “Islam” renounce its terroristic ways before the community center is built, as Mr. Noonan said. A religion cannot change its ways. People can change their ways, but abstract nouns cannot. And the people behind this community center have no terroristic tendencies to modify. Furthermore, there is no central authority for Islam as there is for Catholicism. In fact, some radical sects of Muslims hate opposing Islamic sects more than they hate America. Like al-Qaeda. Bin Laden hates America not “for our freedoms” but because we prop up the (in his mind) heretical Saud monarchy in Arabia.

Quite frankly, it’s astounding that a debate over a Muslim community center is occurring in 21st century America. As someone who would never have voted for George Bush, I will say that I am so grateful that he modeled Christ’s love to American Muslims by not targeting them after 9/11, as seems to be occurring now.

trackback
Sunday, August 29, AD 2010 7:10am

[…] Read full story […]

Teresa
Sunday, August 29, AD 2010 7:26am

I would like to ask everyone – Do you think that Islam can be a “moderate” religion? I am not saying Muslims cannot be moderates, but can the religion itself really ever be considered moderate since it follows Sharia law?

If Sharia law is one of the precepts of Islam then why wouldn’t Sharia law fall under the guise of religious freedom and challenge the constitution in several capacities and force all of us citizens to respect and follow Sharia as well? Is Sharia law and the Constitution really compatible?

If those who believe in the “letter of the Constitution” instead of the “spirit of the Constitution” with regards to religious freedom truly believe that religious freedom is absolute without taking into account our national security interests (as it seems to me) how could one deny Muslims the “right” to follow their “moderate” religion that includes Sharia Law which would also impose Sharia Laws on the non-Muslim citizens when that clearly clashes with our Constitution?

You might want to look at a some things that Sharia law demands:

1 – Jihad defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.

2 – A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.

3 – A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.

4 – A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.

5 – It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.

6 – A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.

7 – The Muslim public must remove the Caliph in one case, if he rejects Islam.

8 – A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.

9 – A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an apostasy 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.

10 – A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.

11- Sharia never abolished slavery and sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.

12 – Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for crimes of sin such as adultery.

13 – Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman or if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.

14 – It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. However, the opposite is not true for Muslims.

15 – A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

16 – Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.

17 – No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or a bathhouse attendant. Women in such low-level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.

18 – A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslims minority.

19 – H***sexuality is punishable by death.

20 – There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place any time after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.

21 – Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.

22 – Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.

23 – There is no community property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.

24 – A woman inherits half what a man inherits.

25- A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.

26- The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.

27 – A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.

28 – The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.

29- A woman loses custody if she remarries.

30- To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.

31 – A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.

32 – A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face and some don’t.

33 – A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he “could be married to the woman he was caught with.”

The above are clear-cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed’s life. Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us what part of the above is compliant with the US constitution?

Foxfier
Sunday, August 29, AD 2010 10:39am

Ryan-
who are you talking to?
NO ONE was talking about “whites never attack blacks”. Blackadder posted a quote of someone claiming that “angry white conservative males” have been brutalizing blacks for “as long as they can remember,” and someone else challenged him to find a single case of a white conservative assaulting a black person. RR then posted an article that implied but did not claim anti-Dem motives, and which five minutes of research showed to just be gang idiots.

Secondly, go yell at the Cordoba House proponents, and even the initiative itself; half the time, they call it a mosque. (Generally when they want to drum up the religion side of it; when it’s more flattering to emphasize the “community center” side, it becomes a building that includes a mosque.)

If the reading comprehension and careful consideration of the argument you’ve shown in this post is standard for you, no wonder you can’t see how this is a topic for valid debate. Straw men with only a nodding acquaintance to the topic aren’t very good aids to understanding.

A wise lady once told me that if you can’t argue the other side of something, you have no business arguing your own side because you clearly don’t know enough about the topic. I try to keep it in mind, maybe you should try it?

Sandy
Sandy
Sunday, August 29, AD 2010 11:20am

In response to jihad etc…

I am not sure where you are getting your information on what jihad and sharia is….but you have incorrect information. Jihad and sharia is much more complex then what you have stated. As I have reserached this extensively I will just point out very plainly and in layman terms what jihad is. Jihad means “struggle”.
More commonly known in the Muslim world as an internal spiritual struggle to be better and serve God. It can also mean warfare where one needs to defend themselves when attacked- so it has two meanings to it. There are a lot of inaccuracies in your e-mail and I do not have time to go over them now…but one just to correct one is that bride money is not given for sexual organs. Bride money is called “mehr” and it is an obligatory gift that the groom must give his wife so that she is not left with nothing if he decides to leave her. It is the right of a woman and not a man. Actually in researching Muslims I found that there are a lot of similaries to Catholicism…and then there were differences as well. An interesting bit of information I came across was “Marriage helps men and women to develop along natural lines and head towards development and success through mutual co-operation. Marriage prevents immorality licentiousness and irresponsibility. The spouses in marriage agree to share rights and responsibilities to develop a happy family”….doesn’t that sound like something Catholics believe in as well? What happened on 9/11 was plain WRONG. I have friends who are Muslims and they beleive it is wrong…they say that the people who did this are crazy. So I have to think before I judge anyone and encourage you to do the same.

Foxfier
Sunday, August 29, AD 2010 11:38am

Sandy-
please do not misrepresent your study, which seems to have been of the more modern and mild forms of Islam, as representative of Islam in general.

Also, your definition of “mehr” is incorrect, (In Canada, it often functions like a pre-nup– often enough that a basic google will bring up a LOT of legal help boards.) as is your characterization of Jihaad.
(links to understanding-Islam.com, which is affiliated with Al-Mawrid Islamic Research foundation out of Pakistan.)

restrainedradical
Sunday, August 29, AD 2010 12:37pm

Foxfier, white conservatives can’t be in gangs?

RL
RL
Sunday, August 29, AD 2010 1:20pm

RR,

Gangs are color neutral, but I’m having a hard time picturing how a conservative could be in a gang since gang life and activities run counter to conservative values. My guess is that you’re perhaps angling toward skinheads because the media like to call them conservatives. However, conservatives have about as much appreciation for neo-nazis as they do racist gangs/parties typically associated with the left, which is to say none.

c matt
c matt
Monday, August 30, AD 2010 9:58am

I can think of Catholic terrorism pretty easily: the IRA. And that was specifically religio-nationalist.

True to some extent. But it wasn’t expansionist.

Phillip
Phillip
Monday, August 30, AD 2010 10:21am

Actually I think in a number of areas there are limits on, if not the building of churches, at least the size of churches. Where I once lived this limit made it impractical to build a Catholic Church as the size limit was too small for what was required to meet the needs of the Catholic population without building multiple small churches. Those restrictions were placed in the 90’s as I recall. No big First Ammendment concerns have been raised. Perhaps they should.

Tito Edwards
Monday, August 30, AD 2010 2:26pm

Mary Margaret Cannon,

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Until recently, WordPress.com did not allow this function (WordPress.org does I believe).

But today I noticed this option was now available and I have just finished adding this particular function.

Enjoy!

Foxfier
Monday, August 30, AD 2010 2:49pm

Hey, why not make a page, too? You can set it up to autopublish your blog with the “notes” feed, or us
e http://apps.facebook.com/blognetworks/newuser1.php

Tito Edwards
Monday, August 30, AD 2010 3:45pm

Foxfier,

We have ‘something’ on Facebook, not sure what.

I’m going to investigate and get this set-up/streamlined for greater social-networking-optimization (SNO).

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Monday, August 30, AD 2010 6:54pm

Scott Gentries might want to take a look at this:

Foxfier
Monday, August 30, AD 2010 6:54pm

…Might strike home if the primary arguments weren’t specifically related to the history and culture of Islam, Ryan.

Fail.

restrainedradical
Monday, August 30, AD 2010 10:44pm

RL, if conservatives can’t be in gangs by definition then sure there are no white conservatives in gangs. There are no Catholics in gangs either then.

Zee
Zee
Wednesday, September 1, AD 2010 3:40am

i would like to point out that the proposal only bars new buildings, and not changing the use to of already constructed ones. the mosque near to us was once a church, a church was previously a synagogue, and the nigerian christian group uses a clothing warehouse.

Zee
Zee
Wednesday, September 1, AD 2010 3:48am

Teresa, half of what you said is inaccurate / disinformation. if the USA followed the other half, maybe they wont have millions of inmates that the taxpayer has to support.

Brian
Brian
Thursday, September 9, AD 2010 2:17pm

I would just like to point out a couple of things that are on point:

1. It’s not a mosque. It’s a community center, and you can read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/opinion/08mosque.html?_r=1&src=tptw the words of the chairman of the project, stating that one of the many goals of it is to include prayer centers for those of Christian and Jewish faiths in hopes that this will strengthen interfaith relations.

2. I’m not usually a fan of Charlie Brooker, but he hit one point straight on the head when he said that being a 2 minute walk and around the corner is not at all the same thing as being AT the same location. He said something like, he’s used a bathroom 2 minutes away from Buckingham Palace, and has yet to be arrested for defecating on the Queen’s pillow. We’re talking about Manhattan, and if you’ve ever been there, it’s a crowded place. How close is too close, exactly?

3. To the person who said Catholic/Christian extremists haven’t bombed or killed significant numbers of people in recent years, I ask: Have you ever heard of the Irish Republican Army? Visit Belfast or Glasgow sometime and ask around – just… be careful in which neighborhood you ask and what colors you’re wearing when you do.

Brian
Brian
Thursday, September 9, AD 2010 2:20pm

4. On the topic of how Muslim women are clothed, ask yourself if you’ve ever questioned the chaste garb (and lifestyle, for that matter) of nuns and priests. I bet you just take it as a matter of course, because it’s what you’re used to. Of course, there is spousal abuse and other unsavory activity that goes on among members of the Islamic faith, but again, look closer to home. Surely you cannot insist that no Catholic or Christian has ever abused another human being.

Tito Edwards
Thursday, September 9, AD 2010 2:21pm

Brian,

Strawman.

The IRA is a nationalist organization. To be more accurate, they are a violent Marxist nationalist organization looking to impose communism under the guise of being “Irish” and “Catholic”.

Being Catholic has nothing to do with it.

They don’t espouse anything Christian AT ALL.

You’ve never heard them saying they are dying in the name of Jesus. Only in the name of Ireland.

You need to do better than that to espouse your anti-Christian bigotry around here.

Tito Edwards
Thursday, September 9, AD 2010 2:23pm

Brian,

Again your bias is grossly revealing itself.

Religious wear their clericals as a choice, not in being imposed.

Whilst on the other hand Muslims force women to wear burkas, regardless of their religiosity.

Foxfier
Thursday, September 9, AD 2010 2:43pm

Brian, you’re exposing your ignorance or willful blindness– the folks building it called it a mosque until their PR guys realized that was not so good. They also called it the Cordoba House, until word got around what that indicated, especially with the 9/11/11 opening date.

Also, you’re pointing to an opinion piece in the NY Times. Not exactly hard, unbiased facts– I notice you didn’t bother to do the research Powerline did about another time that “chairman” spoke in the NYTimes.

As Teresa pointed out above, a building destroyed by chunks of the plane on 9/11 is part of ground zero.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top