Obama backs mosque near ground zero


Seems to me Obama is working towards being a one-term president.

I’m starting to think this guy ***wants ***the majority of America to hate him, either that or he is the most clueless person on the planet. He consistantly takes the wrong side of a position, Health Care, the Arizona Immigration Law, and on and on, and now this.

"Obama stands up for Ground Zero mosque

President Barack Obama on Friday endorsed a controversial plan to build a mosque and Islamic center just blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan, despite the strong objections of conservatives, civic groups and those who lost loved ones in the September 11 attacks."…

Entire article: politico.com/news/stories/0810/41060.html

I’m glad he did it, and it makes me think better of him. It is easy to stand up for politically popular opinions, but when you are already be called a “secret muslim” and the majority of the country opposes the mosque standing up for basic American principles or religious freedom and rights regarding privately owned property isn’t so easy. Even if you don’t like the man or what he is supporting you have to give him credit for sticking to his principles.

I agree, at least he is not a moving target on this one. And in doing so, he adds to the growing list of reasons why he will not get re-elected. As he shouldn’t, if there is a shred of decency left in America.

as i have said before, i am no longer shocked by what obama does. nothing surprises me anymore. obama’s backing of this mosque at ground zero seems like a natural choice for him.

2012 cannot come fast enough for me and i pray he will only be a one term president.

I don’t think so. There is no reason to oppose the mosque, other than anti-Muslim sentiment.

I am glad that the President is willing to stand up for religious freedom, when so many people seem to be running in fear of it. I think this shows leadership, something which has been sorely lacking among US politicians.

A large majority of Americans oppose the construction of a mosque near the Ground Zero site in lower Manhattan, according to a poll released Wednesday.

The CNN/Opinion Research survey showed that 68 percent oppose the plan to build the mosque, compared to 29 percent who favor it.


No reason for him to be involved, either. I thought the mayor and the Landmarks board settled it by now.

I am glad that the President is willing to stand up for religious freedom, when so many people seem to be running in fear of it. I think this shows leadership, something which has been sorely lacking in the US.

Maybe it’s principle, but the politics can work for him as well. He needs to motivate his base. It seems to me that the Democrats are speaking more on cultural issues to rally the troops than is usual for Democrats, and the Republicans are trying to focus on the economy, since they have their base motivated, and are trying to appeal to moderates. The mosque is an exception, because the Republicans may perceive that this issue will ultimately play to moderates.

I don’t think the man had any choice but to back it. It’s easy for some pundit to rant and rave about it, but when it gets down to it I think it would be kind of scary to say: “No. You can’t build a religious center here because we don’t like your religion.” We can’t pick and choose on such things, or at least shouldn’t in the U.S.

I think those numbers would be a bit different if there wasn’t a large group of people saying that the mosque was being put up AT ground zero when it is really two blocks away from the world trade center site. I also think people would be a lot more accepting if they knew that the Mosque being built is simply converting property already used by Muslims for religious purposes into a more appropriate facility. This whole discussion has lacked either honesty or knowledge on the part of many participants from the start.

After all, they voted for “Hope and Change.”

They’re getting what they voted for. What’s the big deal?

(New York was won by Democratic nominee Barack Obama with a 26.9% margin of victory.)

They’re being “Fundamentally Transformed.”

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust in You!
Love, Dawn

I hope they have settled it. But certainly it has been a national issue for several weeks now. I guess I am not surprised (although I didn’t expect it) for the president to comment on the situation.

I don’t think this has anything to do with politics. It concerns opposing bigotry. There is absolutely no reason to oppose a mosque being built two blocks from Ground Zero other than an unreasoning hatred of Muslims.

“No. You can’t build a religious center here because we don’t like your religion.” We can’t pick and choose on such things, or at least shouldn’t in the U.S.

Who is making that argument, that it shouldn’t be built because they don’t like the religion?

The objections I’ve read have more to do with the fact that building a mosque that close to the site of where thousands lost their life at the hands of people who corrupted that particular religion is just a bit much and shows a lack of sensibility AND civility. Who would favor placing a historic display of WWII B-29 bombers in Hiroshima, Japan? Maybe just a tad insensitive don’tcha think? Not that there is anything wrong with such a display, but anyone who’d suggest putting it there ought to have their head examined.

Such is the case with the mosque. Mosques aren’t bad, they just could have used a few more brain cells before deciding to put it there. Many of those people are distrustful of any mosque because those who have engaged in terror or helped to facilitate it have been known to frequent American mosques that are full of otherwise good folks who have no part in terrorism. The fear is that this particular mosque would then become something of a Mecca for the terrorist element; kind of a way to gloat over a past tragedy they some see as a cause for celebration. That would not even be a factor were the mosque build somewhere else.

Another objection is security of the mosque itself. A lot of anger is still present in many New Yorkers, and with a population as big as that it would only take one moron to step out of line and do something like try to attack or damage the mosque, then we have more hostilities and more separation instead of trying to heal wounds.

It’s just not a smart idea. Diversity has its merits but it also has limits. This is at least right up and touching the line if not over it.

I guess for some that would make 7 out of 10 Americans nothing more than anti-Muslim bigots.

I have to agree here. Is it the right of the muslims to build a mosque there? It sure is - and their rights should be defended. As to whether or not they should build it, that’s a different issue. It shows a great sense of insensitivity to what happened there, especially with the name they chose (suggests conquered land).

Frankly, I fight fire with fire on this issue. Muslims are told in the Quaran not to incite scandal or fan the flames of hostility. In this case, they are doing exactly that. They are picking a site that muslim extremists murdered more than 3,000 Americans, to build a site of muslim worship. It just seems tacky.

Finally, if it were put to popular vote, I would say that I would vote that they be allowed to build there. Freedom of religion is not to be restricted. However, I am deeply embarassed for them for their lack of sensitivity. It certainly does nothing to alleviate the discord towards Muslims in this country (not that that I am defending hate-mongers against the muslim faith, just that they really aren’t doing anything to ease tension in this move).

Is it also insensitive to have Christian churches near the site of the Oklahoma City bombing?

That fear is irrational. Even if people do legitimately feel the Muslims are “gloating” America is predicated on individual liberty. If they want to gloat, we cannot abridge their freedom to do so. Doesn’t Catholicism teach that when struck we should turn the other cheek? Why not show Muslims the strength of your beliefs by being accommodating even when you feel slighted.

Would you feel vindicated if someone did attack the centre once it was built? I certainly hope you would not get pleasure from any act of violence against Muslims. Regardless, the threat of violence is proportional to the amount of controversy generated. If you wanted to attenuate these threats, you should spread the message that they are welcome and reduce the controversy.

erm… that is not a valid comparison.

Islam did not attack the World Trade Center. A handful of persons who were Muslim, but they were motivated by an extreme politicized version of Islam, made the attack

We don’t condemn Christianity for the horrible crimes committed by the Lord’s Resistance Army. Clearly, it is understood that they are operating out of political extremism, and not because Christianity is a sociopathic religion which needs to be suppressed. The same is true regarding Islam and the the tragedy of 9/11.

Not all fears are well founded. Some people were afraid that starting the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland a couple years ago would create a black hole which would destroy the world. Fears are not a good basis for public policy.

That argument is speculative and it is misplacing the blame… the problem is not the mosque, but the hatred that some persons might feel towards it. By your reasoning, families could be banned from moving into certain neighborhoods because they do not match the racial/ethnic composition of the neighborhood and violence might ensue.

not sure i understand the connection between churches and the oklahoma city bombing?

I am quite certain that they were not the ones who started the media storm. Nor have I heard anything from the Muslim community which sounded incendiary. Quite the opposite, I think it is clear they are teaching a valuable lesson.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.