- This topic has 91 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
charlie hall:
I don’t see why using legal means to attempt to stop this is un-American, or at all similar to anti-semites using the courts to attempt to block shuls.
Anti-semites who block shuls are wrong because they are doing it for anti-semitic reasons.
People who are against this mosque feel that way because it is a deliberate provocation and intended to monument the success of the 9/11 attacks. We should try to stop it through any means. It’s for the courts to decide what the law is.
oomis: If we set a precedent for not allowing a religion full freedom due to their objectionable beliefs, we could very well be next. As I have already pointed out, our religion clearly states that anyone who converts out of our religion is stoned to death, and there’s always that old argument that we have with the christians (something about us killing their “god”). Some would probably find that objectionable, no?
This has nothing to do with their having an objectionable religion. It has to do with their attempting to memorialize their attack on us.
popa,
“I don’t see why using legal means to attempt to stop this is un-American, or at all similar to anti-semites using the courts to attempt to block shuls.”
It is so similar it is creepy! The leader of the effort is an apostate Jew who converted to Christianity and can legitimately be called an anti-Muslim bigot. Don’t think for a second that he will not be running to court to support Christian attempts to stop shuls and yeshivot that aren’t “Messianic”. The amazing thing is that so many frum Jews have fallen for this; it is a sign of the high level of assimilation within the frum community that we now identify with people like this.
“It has to do with their attempting to memorialize their attack on us. “
There is no evidence from any of the statements of the projects’ supporters that the project is an attempt to memorialize the attack. They got a good deal on a piece of property in a somewhat run-down area where the two existing mosques are overcrowded.
Or do you think strip joints and gay bars are preferable?
“I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but our religion also “BANS ALL freedom of religion”. As a matter of fact, if somebody from our religion converts to another, we stone them. And yet we still want the Freedom of Religion to apply to us, don’t we?”
We do NOT try to forcibly convert goyim or kill them if they refuse. The Muslims do. And they do it to prevent anyone from having freedom of religious choice. They cannot come back and try to use our laws to help them achieve their goal, when they l’chatchilah believe our laws to be stupid and would never follow them themselves. You cannot use my law against me to achieve your own aim, when that aim is to render me unable to follow my own law.
Also, according to what I have learned all my life, the Sanhedrin that actually implemented such an action even once in 70 years, was called a cruel Sanhedrin (meaning, it never really happened or was an incredibly rare occurrence).
Charlie, I was referring to us. I knwo there are some people who oppose the mosque on the grounds that they have no legal right to do it. Most of us, however, are not contesting their legal rights, but are questioning if in fact it IS right.
My opinion is that there are many things that we can legally do, but should not for various reasons. People could legally stand in the street in front of someone’s funeral procession that has left the chapel and is in a public area, and start singing hip hop and rap music,cursing at the top of their lungs, if they so desired (free speech and all that). Should they do something that would probably offend the sensibilities of the mourners, EVEN IF IT IS LEGAL?
charlie hall:
I disagree with your assessment of their intentions. There is plenty of evidence, from their statements, from the circumstances, and from their unwillingness to meet with the governor to discuss alternatives.
And I think strip joints are preferable.
And even if I am wrong and they do intend nothing untoward, it does not make me anti-Muslim nor my intentions bad.
I have not read all the posts yet, though I will comment strictly on how I believe this particular situation should be treated.
All people, which includes people of different religions, have the exact same rights as other people and religions in this country. This is the all based on the principles that the founding fathers of the United States laid out in the Bill of Rights under the First Amendment.
Though all religions are entitled to the same rights under the United States Government, does that give one religion the right to infringe on another to the extant that it causes a disagreement with the others religion?
Ethically, we are not allowed to judge another religion as all bad, unless all the people of this religion are such. Even if most of this religion is bad, how can we stop the minority of this religion from utilizing their freedom. Why would this minority want to force others into believing they are honoring our deceased if really they are all bad? I am sure there are those in their religion that are against the construction of the mosque too because they are against the honoring of our deceased. Even if this is not their intentions, we can not and should not judge them on the basis of the rest.
They have the same right as the rest of the religions in the world to build a place of worship.
We would not want others to discriminate against us, therefore we may not discriminate against others!
We are living in Galus and we do not have the right to run the world!
They have the same right as the rest of the religions in the world to build a place of worship.
that’s true but they can build it someplace else.
We are living in Galus and we do not have the right to run the world!
noone is saying we are running the world we using our entitlement of free speech and this post is asking what are your views on the mosque
How can we stop them from any legal standpoint . They can not stop us either. They can make up all different kinds of stories about us and we would fight back. They have the same rights. Ethically they may be wrong but in this country legal rights are above ethics.
We can not act like them and bring ourselves down to their level. We must show them we are better by tolerating their building of the mosque. Do unto others as you would like others to do unto you.
Let me re=phrase that, They have the same right as the rest of religions in the world to to build a place of worship where they want.
If we wanted to build something we wanted to, where we wanted, I can just see the extremists in our religion (especially in Israel) flag burning, pelting the police with rocks, burning dumpsters etc.
They are just as equal in this country to place a mosque anywhere like we would a Shul. When it disturbs them that we have Shul built near something of theirs, we would fight just as hard to continue having it built.
We are living in Galus and we should not look to make problems for ourselves. There is no reason to to stop the mosque from being built.
My view, is that THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD THE MOSQUE!
Hamelech Shlomo:
Why are you only focusing on the legal aspect; a discussion most of us are not trained to take part in to any meaningful degree?
There is another far more basic issue. That is: Is the building of this mosque intended as an insult to us and a monument to their success in attacking us?
The answer is clearly, “yes”.
So I oppose it. Using all the means in my power. Including legal challenges.
(And I even hope that if my legal challenges are unworthy, that the court will overrule me.)
The comparison to those who hatefully try to block shuls in incorrect. The difference is the intent in blocking. The intent is anti-semitism; my intent is in no way racist or homophobic.
popa_bar_abba – You have no idea of what amount of knowledge I have in any field at all or what I am trained in.
I do not believe that ones heart should get in the way of legal rights and freedoms.. I hear the side that we should not let the mosque be built, but we can not let that get in the way of giving every person in this country the same legal freedom that is given to anther.
I do not like certain types of people for what they represent and for the things they have done either. However, as a person who does understand religious freedom,in this country we have to be equal.In another country I would possibly have a different view.
(depending on the legal system)
Conclusion:
From our hearts and even possibly from an ethical standpoint we should fight the building of the mosque.
But because of the situation we are in and the country we live in, I am of the opinion that we should leave it all alone and not bother with a fight.
You may ask me, “How can I let my legal side get in the way of my ethical side?’
The answer is, “We must respect the law of the country we reside in.” (Dina D’Malchusa Dina) which on of them is
“Freedom of religion”
Hamelech Shlomo:
There is quite a difference between my speaking out against the mosque versus if I, as a judge or legislator, prevented it from being built.
There are many things I speak against that I would perhaps have to allow as a judge. For example: KKK marches and strip clubs.
Likewise, there is quite a difference between YOU wringing your hands and saying, “we can’t legally stop them”, versus your saying “there is no reason to stop the mosque from being built”.
You sound almost as if you want it to be built.
Also, why are you making as if my opposition is to their religion? As if I don’t like mosques? My opposition is to the deliberate undertones of this one.
Also, I never made any comments about your legal knowledge; I said “most of us”, meaning myself and most of the commentators on this forum. My point was that the legal side is irrelevant to most of us. If you happen to be a first amendment scholar, you may be very interested in debating the merits of their case. By all means, just please don’t confuse it with an evaluation of the worth of their cause.
But a legal side must be relevant to us all. Would a religious Jewish person to whom the country law is not relevant rid themselves of Halacha.
DINA D’MALCHUSA DINA
We must respect the law and abide to it even if we do not like it.
( I am not talking about where the country’s law clearly violates halacha, but when it is emotional and ethical, which clearly does not override halacha.
Personally, It doe not bother or effect me at all, no matter what the outcome is. I truly believe that they do have the right and may build the mosque there.
Ethically, I wish they would re-locate somewhere else, as it does cause emotional stress (and trauma) to many people.
But, I would not fight it on any ground, since they have the right just as everyone else does.
I know I seem to be contradicting myself, but there is a difference between the ethical, legal, personal and even emotional standpoint.
Yes, but it is not illegal to oppose it.
It is not illegal to mount legal challenges against it.
Perhaps I ought to be the legal scholar.
1) A few years ago I saw that one high Israeli security official told the Kenesset that we have to thank the Creator that 90% of planned terrorist attacks had been stopped. How were they stopped? Because moderate Arabs informed on their fellow Arabs to the Israeli security forces. It’s very much to our advantage to encourage moderate Arabs, even if we don’t agree with them completely. This happens in other places too, as when Muslims informed on fellow Muslims who were planning a chemical explosion on a flight from London.
2) All the arguments that it’s insensitive to hold prayer services so close the point where Muslims did so much damage leave me concerned that the Arabs could similarly claim that it’s insensitive for Jews to daven in Ma’aras HaMachpelah after what Boruch Goldstein did there.
2) It’s not to our advantage to set precedents for restricting religious freedom.
Gosh! What makes all you people think that this is not calculated as a direct insult to us?
Or that moderate Muslims don’t understand that?
Go build a German cultural center in Auschwitz!
Yes, our founders gave us the right for religious freedom, yet how many countless acts of violence and desecration on our shuls and jewish landmarks have there been? I am all for religious freedom, don’t get me wrong,but why is okay for shuls in the neighborhood to be sent to court for being a shul. Where is our government support there? So for all you who are saying that we are judging the individual muslims, does the world not stereotype us as well?
yes freedom of religion, is very close to us, because we can practice as full frum yidden and not hide it. But this mosque has nothing to do with that. there are mosques built around the US. We are talking about sheer sensitivities, (i personally think it’s a bit scary, soon these mosques will start talking about ideas of radical Muslim stuff. And whether they like it or not, people associate arabs, muslims and mosques even if they’re not the radical ones – together) What’s the whole fuss about? why can’t they build it somewhere else in Manhattan? Manhattan is not a hick town. C’mon, there’s no other areas that it can be built? They’re being such akshanim for no reason.
“This has nothing to do with their having an objectionable religion. It has to do with their attempting to memorialize their attack on us. “
this is also very true and quite frightening. In high school we learned all about the Arab ideology – sometimes i was so frustrated i wish the president would chap! (there word means nothing, they keep quiet and submit, until they feel they’re strong enough to conquer and spread islam ideology… )
por,
Great comments. I agree entirely. It is very much in our interests both short and long term to be in the right side on this.
They’re being such akshanim for no reason.”
Not for NO reason. Their reasons are very clear. They are doing it because they CAN. It serves their agenda to rub it in our noses. This memorializes no one else but THEIR “martyrs” who were killed when they hijacked those planes and flew them into the Twin Towers, and almost into the Pentagon. And they know it.
Por, Boruch Goldstein did not pull off a massive plan. he was one man, not a terrorist ideologue actin in concert with other terrorists. AND what he did was provoked by years of being subjected to Arab terrorism. Didn’t they find an aresenal of weapons that the Arabs had hidden (or am I mixing up two different things)?
I do not believe there is a moral equivalency here in any way, shape, or form. I further find it extremely hard to believe that 90% of Arab terrorist attacks were stopped because an Arab informed on them. Who is this Israeli official who made this claim, anyway?
For anyone who believes that there is really nothing wrong with this particular Mosque (formerly called Cordoba House, until they realized what a gaffe that was in really making their agenda obvious), would you want a halfway house for drug addicts built next door to you, if one of your loved ones chalilah v’chas had been murdered by a junkie? Several religious “junkies” hopped on three planes and forced them to be crashed into three thousand of our loved ones. Should we be ok with them building a “home” near that spot? I don’t care if it is legal. I care that it is WRONG, and if the Muslims really were interested in memorializing our dead and reaching out in a spirit of friendship, they would cease and desist immediately and look for another location that was less controversial.
. . .and almost into the Pentagon. . . .
Several religious “junkies” hopped on three planes and forced them to be crashed into three thousand of our loved ones.
They actually did crash into the Pentagon. And there were four planes. The only reason the fourth plane didn’t crash somewhere in Washington (presumably the White House or Capitol) was because the passengers fought with the hijackers and crashed the plane in Pennsylvania.
This thread is really interesting.
If we oppose Muslims building their recreational center, it has nothing to do with Islamophobia. But if people oppose the building of a shul when there are ten more within 3 blocks, its clearly anti-semitism right? It has nothing to do with traffic or tax base or anything like that.
As to why they chose this site – it was an easy buy. Lease with a buy option.
As to their sense of building it – it may not be so “sensitive” but I can’t ask them to change based on MY sensitivities. Unless you are willing to do the same.
I do think the Baruch Goldstein comparison is a good one. He was Jewish. Many people support his actions. So even if he is one lone Jew, perhaps we should stay away?
We live in a country with Islamophobia right now. Look around how many mosques are being stopped (or trying to be stopped) around the country. Right here in Staten Island even.
Just this location my foot.
por-
With regard to Boruch Goldstein-
Jewish people have had a connection to the Ma’aras HaMachpelah long before Islam was ever founded. If Boruch Goldstein would have went on a rampage in a place where Jewish people never had any connection and all of the sudden some people wanted to open a shul nearby then I would have some serious issues with it.
Not only was it an easy buy, it was a steal of a deal! Less than five million dollars for the site — about what three co-op apartments cost in Manhattan. Anyone here would have bought the site, too!
I just do not see this as comparable to Baruch Goldstein. He was not doing what he did out of rish-oos, or to maim, mangle, and murder innocent people. He was being a kano-ee, and though I might feel he made a horrible mistake, his motives were to protect his country and people, not to terrorize and massacre his enemies. Many NON-Jews died on 9/11, too. In any case, the biggest difference is that the Maaras Hamachpelah belongs to Jews, no matter what the Arabs think. OUR Avos and Emahos are buried there. It is the Arabs who trespass on our holy ground. And now they are trying to do the same thing in NY in a way guaranteed to re-open all the old wounds and rub salt and acid in them. The fact that they know how antagonistic this is to go forward, yet they still plan to do so, shows they could not care less about anyone’s feelings.
All religions ban freedom of religion.
“All religions ban freedom of religion”
That is a false statement.
What religion allows freedom of religion?
Open Orthodox/Reform/Conservative
The Universal Life Church.
Are those really religions?
So they claim. What determines whether a purported religion is real or not?
Is anything, besides Yiddishkeit?
Most Protestant churches are today huge supporters of freedom of religion; for many this has been the case since their founding. Ditto for Unitarians.
They support freedom of religion in government but by nature believe that all other religions are wrong.
Not the Universal Life Church.
I don’t know why this old topic came back to life, but since it did, I want to know what, if anything, ever happened to that proposed mosque. I think the promoter of the idea lost his backing, both financial and religious. So all that outrage was for nothing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.