NBC, CBS reject controversial anti-ground-zero-mosque ad

“The official said the ambiguity of the words ‘their’ and ‘they’ made it unclear whether the ad was referring to terrorists or to the Islamic groups — including the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative — who are sponsoring the mosque’s construction.”

More

3188 reads

There are 14 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

I do think the ad is unfortunate. There's definitely some lumping together going on there. A mosque at ground zero would be a travesty but a better angle against it would be to emphasize sensitivity to the families and the appearance of Muslim gloating. It's not in the best interests of liberal Muslims to put a mosque there because it would strongly associate them with with happened there. So either the mosque-building group is not as liberal as it seems, or they are not thinking clearly about the PR of the whole thing.
The ad is clearly going for indiscriminate outrage. That may actually "work" better at blocking the mosque, but I'm not so sure.

Jim's picture

How far away from the old WTC site is legitimate?

We live in a land where individuals and groups of individuals have legal rights to purchase property and use that property for appropriate (zoning laws) purposes.

It's a waste of time to oppose it. Don't like it? Outbid them for the property

Diane Heeney's picture

Even the title is inflammatory..."Kill" it?

Jim makes a good point...there is no square inch of turf within the confines of NYC that would be considered acceptable to its residents. The chosen site does seem to make a statement, and that is no doubt painful for so many.

"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com

Chaplain Long's picture

For 9 years we have been waiting for "liberal Muslims", "moderate Muslims", and "non-extremist Muslims" to decry the actions of their so-called "extremist" counterparts; yet they remain silent. Aaron, I would submit that the liberal Muslims are not as "liberal" as we want them to be. So, I think PR is exactly what they are about. PR to an ideology that desires to erect a triumphal Mosque on the ground that took so many lives--an action that has historically been a practice in Islam. So, it isn't just a matter of free enterprise like Jim states, but rather it is a deliberate afront. In addition, who is funding this Mosque? What is developer Feisal Abdul Rauf's real association with the Muslim Brotherhood? Diane, you are correct in stating that the Mosque will make a statement. Doe the Constitution protect every ideology even when that ideology is an enemy of the Constitution protecting it? Is everyone convinced that the erecting of a Mosque is solely for religious purposes? History teaches that Mosques are ground zero for teaching Islamic rhetoric that cries for the escalation of war against Dar al-Harb ("house of war"). Finally, would not there be an outcry of debate and protest if the KKK wanted to build a shrine at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, TN; or the American militia movement erected an outpost at the Oklahoma City Federal Building; or the Nazis wanted to build a political headquarters next door to any Jewish synagogue? When does an enemy of our Constitution quit getting a free pass in the name of liberty?

Jim's picture

Chaplain Long wrote:
... would not there be an outcry of debate and protest if the KKK wanted to build a shrine at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, TN; or the American militia movement erected an outpost at the Oklahoma City Federal Building; or the Nazis wanted to build a political headquarters next door to any Jewish synagogue? When does an enemy of our Constitution quit getting a free pass in the name of liberty?

A couple of comments:

  • My defense is not of the Muslim faith or of Mosques.
  • First your phraseology "at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, TN" ... "at the Oklahoma City Federal Building"
    • No one can build "at" those sites (I've been to both of them myself). The [URL=http://www.oklahomacitynationalmemorial.org ]Oklahoma City Federal Building site [/URL ]is private (I think) and the [URL=http://www.civilrightsmuseum.org/home.htm Lorraine Hotel [/URL ]is private
    • Any legal organization could buy property near one of those sites for any zoning approved purpose.
    • The mosque will not be "at" ground zero. It will be near it.
  • From the premise that Muslim Mosques, Roman Catholic churches, Mormon stakes and temples, Hindu temples, etc are centers of error! OK I get that!
  • The way to combat error is with truth. Not protesting a property or a building
Jim's picture

On this point: "When does an enemy of our Constitution quit getting a free pass in the name of liberty "

If you are saying that every Muslim is "an enemy of our Constitution". I cannot agree with the view that every Muslim is an enemy of the constitution!

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Chaplain Long wrote:
For 9 years we have been waiting for "liberal Muslims", "moderate Muslims", and "non-extremist Muslims" to decry the actions of their so-called "extremist" counterparts; yet they remain silent. Aaron, I would submit that the liberal Muslims are not as "liberal" as we want them to be.
Well, the handful I've met certainly are, but that's not saying much.
It may be that they are silent because they are liberal. The American left is, on average, somewhere between "911 was our own fault" and "Well, I can sympathize with the terrorists since we have been so pro Israel." So liberal Muslims have plenty of company on that score, if that explains their reticence.
I had a conversation with a mosque president a few years ago in a city not too far from here. Theologically, he was as liberal as they come. "We're all taking different taxi's to the same place." He spoke with great admiration about a priest in a nearby officially-Christian denomination who is "also a Buddhist."
I asked him specifically why Muslims who are not in favor of the 911 kind of behavior aren't more vocal in denouncing it--and lots of other terrorist acts. He did dance around that a bit but the gist was that there is a long-standing tradition in Islam of backing the underdog. So they tend to feel that the US is the big bully and Israel is the crony backed by the big bully.

No idea how many folks that attitude represents. Wasn't going to argue much with him since I was in his mosque on a Friday surrounded by fairly serious Muslims. Wish I had recorded that interview.

Anyway, my point is that there really are liberal Muslims and with some religions, "liberal" is a good thing! Biggrin All that said, you may well be right that the group in NY is not really liberal at all. I don't know anything about them specifically.

Dave G's picture

It's called Islamization and I found it on Yahoo! news one day...

It might help to explain the Muslim agenda in this country and why no Muslim groups decried their terrorist bretheren:

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called ‘religious rights.’
When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States — Muslim 1.0%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1%-2%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).

France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s (supposed) to be peace because everybody is a Muslim: we know however that this isn't true is it...?

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons...and they are coming to a neighborhood near you...so keep thinking they are not going to harm you and they "accept" you.

* Taken off Yahoo news...interesting, huh?...;)

Sola Scriptura, both mentally and physically.
That means no other books about Bible interpretation on my shelf, sorry...;)

1 John 2:27-29

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Just might be a good time to note that...
a) Jesus died for Muslims
b) We are called to love them
c) We are commissioned to bring the gospel to them
d) Lot's of them don't hate Christians or Jews and don't want to take over the world (wish there was some really good way to measure how many, but I'm not sure that's been figured out)

About the stats, wherever you have a population that is overwhelmingly one religion, you also have a much larger segment of the population that embraces a radical form of that religion (but no, not all religions are equal when it comes to what their "radical form" means)

Sean Fericks's picture

I find it ironic that the Chaplain argues against liberty for private property owners in the name of the Constitution.

The commercial was a travesty. Who is this GOP group anyway? Why saddle the Republican candidates with such rubbish?

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

We've always believed in some limits on private property liberties. In this case, the nature of the site is such that some constraints are justified. If we can zone out use of a residential lot for a shopping mall, surely we can zone--or otherwise limit--the use of a site where 3k civilians were killed by Muslim radicals. But in this case, I think the ad is intended to work with property rights. I think the ad uses the wrong tone/argument, but they don't seem to be calling for legislation (unless I missed that). They are trying to gin up public pressure to stop the effort via what we could call "the market."

My advice would be
a) do harness the public, but use a more broadly appealing (ie calmer and more precise) argument and
b) do also see if the legal means are yet exhausted--without expanding infringement of property rights beyond what is already customary (IOW, use whatever exists w/o creating additional precedents)

I think you're right though that some Republicans probably don't appreciate being nominally linked to the ad. Others, no doubt, do.

Chaplain Long's picture

Jim, I am not accusing you of defending Muslims nor their faith; and I apologize if I implied such. I completely agree with you that the Mosque is not being built "on" Ground Zero. However, I agree that "any legal organization could buy property near one of those [Lorraine Motel and/or Oklahoma City Federal Building ] sites for any zoning approved purpose"; nevertheless, I still believe their are certain organizations that would be censured by public opinion. My premise was not "that Muslim Mosques, Roman Catholic churches, Mormon stakes and temples, Hindu temples, etc are centers of error!" My premise is that Islam and its doctrines as taught in the Quran, Sunna, and Hadith (Sharia Law) are definitely enemies of the Constitution. Thus, if any Muslim (or anyone for that matter) believes in adherence to Sharia Law to the point of elevating it above the Constitution then that is who I am accusing of being an enemy of the Constitution.

Sean, I don't believe I was making an argument against liberty for private property. Every federal official has taken an oath to "defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC." Where would you classify an ideology that seeks to institute a law that is intended to usurp the Constitution. My question was, and still is, what affiliation is this group desiring to build the Mosque. If, as much evidence suggests, the developer is (at minimal) associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, should not it be know that the Muslim Brotherhood's stated agenda is the following: "The Muslim Brotherhood is an international Muslim body, which seeks to establish Allah's law in the land..." (Article (2) of the Muslim Brotherhood's Guidelines).

I am not questioning the need for Muslims to know the truth, I am not questioning their need for a Savior. I AM questioning the expediency of building a Mosque at, on, or near a site that was the thrust us into war by a group we very well may be at war with. My point is that I don't believe this Mosque is just an innocent house of worship being built by liberal Muslims.

Dave G's picture

But , let me see if I got all this straight:

A) Jesus died for Muslims = check. Not in particular, but He did die for the sins of the whole world, and certainly for the elect (many of whom did and will come out of Islam)
Cool We are called to love them = check. We are called to practice love towards our enemies, definitely. Not the same love as we would towards our brothers and sisters in Christ, but love nonetheless.
C) We are commissioned to bring the Gospel to them = ....check. *Pause for hesitation in thought, perhaps to my own personal understanding of the so-called "Great Commission", but that's not for this thread.*
D) Lots of them.... = True, but if they followed their "holy book" any more seriously, they WOULD hate Christians and ESPECIALLY Jews.

Don't let the liberal-minded American media or public sentiment fool you...most people in the U.S. have never seen or been in a Muslim country ruled by Sharia law. It's a whole different ballgame, believe me. Ask the people in the ancient city of Fez, Morocco...or Darfur province in Sudan...or throughout the Balkans over the last 1000 years; the amount of blood shed in the name of Islam alone would probably fill a small inland sea...:(

However, with regards to the article, I'd say according to the laws of the United States of America, Muslims have the same rights as any other religion. So, yes, they have a right to buy property and establish a mosque in the area of "ground zero" WTC.

It's no particular threat to me because it's not my world, I'm just passing through...but for those that might care or be alarmed about it there's reason to justify that.

Whether it's recognized or not, Islam is doing one hot job of asserting itself on Earth IMO. Another of man's false religions on a power trip.

Sola Scriptura, both mentally and physically.
That means no other books about Bible interpretation on my shelf, sorry...;)

1 John 2:27-29

Sean Fericks's picture

Aaron,

Regarding the zoning option, I beleive that cities have a right to zone their land. However, it is very inappropriate to change zoning when somebody applies for a building permit simply because you do not like their business (Wal-Mart) or their religion. Zoning (like all other laws) should be consistent and impartial .

The idea of having a private organization purchase the property from the Muslims is not feasible because the Muslims would sell it very dearly.

I also don't think that public outrage against a mosque near ground zero is a good or just tactic. Allowing them to build demonstrates the difference between the free world and dar al Islam. No, it will not assuage the terrorists, but it will provide a clear moral distinction between "us" and "them".

Chaplain Long, there are many organizations in the USA that are for degrading or eliminating the Constitution in favor of their own ideology. However, we allow them to speak their opinions freely according to the Constitution. We allow them to publish, canvas, and build headquarters buildings. Would you ban the Communist party from building a headquarters building simply because they are for communism? How about the Democrat party?