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
- 10 views
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.
The ad is clearly going for indiscriminate outrage. That may actually “work” better at blocking the mosque, but I’m not so sure.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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
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
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.
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
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?
[Chaplain Long]… 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.
- 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
- 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
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!
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!
[Chaplain Long] 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! :D 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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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)
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)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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?
The commercial was a travesty. Who is this GOP group anyway? Why saddle the Republican candidates with such rubbish?
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.
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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Discussion