What's new

Burning of Koran is CANCELLED

Could you explain to me why 70% of Americans oppose this mosque ?

Because many Americans believe that the radical Muslims would view the completion of a mosque near the scene of their greatest triumph as a new cause for celebration and a victory. Most Americans do not want to see this enemy receive any victory, even if unintentional. And, too, there is a sizable portion of the American public who believe that Islam actually does encourage violence against non-Muslims and they are afraid of any increase in Muslim influence, including the building of $100 M mosques. Together these two groups make up the 70%. I am in the first group.

I, myself, believe it is a provocation to build it there and do not understand why it could not be built a few kilometers further away and serve the intended purposes that are given for it. I don't get exercised over it, but if there was a referendum on the issue, and I was allowed to vote, I would vote against building it on it's current proposed site but would vote for permitting it anywhere else that is at least 1 mile away from the WTC site. The 1 mile is a symbolic distance. (Oh, I would also vote against a mosque being built in that field in Pennsylvania where the fourth plane crashed.)
 
The guy, pastor or whoever, is what we call..."Chickened" out.

LOL,

There we go. I can foresee people like him celebrating victory of "Islam over infidels" in the streets and burning US flags, those images being shown on TV all over, and some other Pastor starting the Quran burning issue all over again...........

Hope I am proven wrong.

@AA,

You were correct it is a right and not privilege as I had quoted.
 
Is that for recpect of a religion or for the fear of retaliation by fanatics of same kind?

You can get idea from this statement:
Burning Quran ‘recruitment bonanza for al Qaeda’: Obama

It is out of respect. That part is the only way to put pressure on this guy to stop and it is obviously a legitimate concern but it isn't the only reason. Lots of places and people came out against this guy even before the government said this could hurt our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
Because many Americans believe that the radical Muslims would view the completion of a mosque near the scene of their greatest triumph as a new cause for celebration and a victory. Most Americans do not want to see this enemy receive any victory, even if unintentional. And, too, there is a sizable portion of the American public who believe that Islam actually does encourage violence against non-Muslims and they are afraid of any increase in Muslim influence, including the building of $100 M mosques. Together these two groups make up the 70%. I am in the first group.

I, myself, believe it is a provocation to build it there and do not understand why it could not be built a few kilometers further away and serve the intended purposes that are given for it. I don't get exercised over it, but if there was a referendum on the issue, and I was allowed to vote, I would vote against building it on it's current proposed site but would vote for permitting it anywhere else that is at least 1 mile away from the WTC site. The 1 mile is a symbolic distance. (Oh, I would also vote against a mosque being built in that field in Pennsylvania where the fourth plane crashed.)

That is the precise reason why issues concerning fundamental rights in the US are not decided by "referendums".
 
You and I know that its a fringe lunatic society that calls for death of anything.
A 'Death to America' rally, or when it is a convenient adjunct to 'Death to Israel' rally, is usually tolerated and even encouraged by a muslim government. So do not even try this with me because I have been confined to base when one of these rallies occurred in Saudi Arabia. Right...So here is a fantasy that in a 'Death to Israel' rally, which is quite a rite of adulthood passage for any muslim, if some muslims begin to call out 'Death to America' and burn an American flag, the authority would immediately swing into action and arrest those 'fringe lunatic'.

What is Quran burning supposed to symbolize? The desire to burn Muslims at the stake.
If that is so, then the responses from the US government and the lack of support from the religious community in the US truly made this nutjob a 'fringe lunatic', unlike what we know of the ME.

Violent tendencies will be shown by lunatics.
True...I read enough of that here.

But then if you're going to use that as the measuring rod against Muslims, then you might as well also come forward and declare that you're in an adversarial position to all Muslims.
Not all muslims. Only those who are willing to do my country harm. But that does not mean I will deviate from my position that we do not live in a moral vacuum. I will put Islam under my own microscope, just as I have with Christianity and other religions.
 
Pastor cancels Quran-burning, then reconsiders

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – An anti-Islamic preacher backed off and then threatened to reconsider burning the Quran on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, angrily accusing a Muslim leader of lying to him Thursday with a promise to move an Islamic center and mosque away from New York's ground zero. The imam planning the center denied there was ever such a deal.

The Rev. Terry Jones generated an international firestorm with his plan to burn the Quran on Saturday, the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and he has been under intense pressure to give it up. President Barack Obama urged him to listen to "those better angels" and give up his "stunt," saying it would endanger U.S. troops and give Islamic terrorists a recruiting tool. Defense Secretary Robert Gates took the extraordinary step of calling Jones personally.

Standing outside his 50-member Pentecostal church, the Dove Outreach Center, alongside Imam Muhammad Musri, the president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida, Jones said he relented when Musri assured him that the New York mosque will be moved.

Musri, however, said after the news conference that the agreement was only for him and Jones to travel to New York and meet Saturday with the imam overseeing plans to build a mosque near ground zero.

Hours later, Jones said Musri "clearly, clearly lied to us."

"Given what we are now hearing, we are forced to rethink our decision," Jones said. "So as of right now, we are not canceling the event, but we are suspending it."

Jones did not say whether the Quran burning could still be held Saturday, but he said he expected Musri to keep his word and expected "the imam in New York to back up one of his own men."

Jones had never invoked the mosque controversy as a reason for his planned protest. He cited his belief that the Quran is evil because it espouses something other than biblical truth and incites radical, violent behavior among Muslims.

But he said Thursday afternoon that he prayed about the decision and concluded that if the mosque was moved, it would be a sign from God to call off the Quran burning.

"We are, of course, now against any other group burning Qurans," Jones said. "We would right now ask no one to burn Qurans. We are absolutely strong on that. It is not the time to do it."

Musri thanked Jones and his church members "for making the decision today to defuse the situation and bring to a positive end what has become the world over a spectacle that no one would benefit from except extremists and terrorists" who would use it to recruit future radicals.

After Jones accused him of lying, Musri said the pastor "stretched my words" at the press conference.

"I think there was no confusion to begin with. When we stepped out of the church, we had an agreement to meet in New York," Musri said. He added that Jones "said his main reason for stopping the event was that it would endanger the troops overseas, Americans traveling abroad and others around the world."

Musri said he told the pastor "that I personally believe the mosque should not be there, and I will do everything in my power to make sure it is moved," Musri said. "But there is not any offer from there (New York) that it will be moved. All we have agreed to is a meeting, and I think we would all like to see a peaceful resolution."

Musri said Thursday night that he still plans to go ahead with the meeting Saturday.

In New York, the leader of the Islamic center project, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, issued a statement saying he was glad Jones had decided not to burn the Quran but that he had spoken to neither the pastor nor Musri.

"We are not going to toy with our religion or any other. Nor are we going to barter," Rauf said. "We are here to extend our hands to build peace and harmony."

Jones' decision to call off the Quran burning was made after a firestorm of criticism from leaders around the world. The pope and several other Christian leaders were among those urging him to reconsider his plans, which generated a wave of anger among Muslims. In Afghanistan, hundreds of Afghans burned an American flag and chanted "Death to the Christians" to protest the planned Quran burning.

Obama told ABC's "Good Morning America" in an interview aired Thursday that Jones' plan "is completely contrary to our values as Americans."

"And as a very practical matter, I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women who are in uniform," Obama said.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell confirmed that Gates called Jones about 4 p.m. EST Thursday — shortly before the pastor's announcement. During the "very brief" call, Gates expressed "his grave concern that going forward with this Quran burning would put the lives of our forces at risk, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan," Morrell said.

Morrell said earlier that the decision to issue a personal appeal was not easy because it could provoke other extremists "who, all they want, is a call from so-and-so." After Gates' call to Jones, Morrell said the secretary's "fundamental baseline attitude about this is that if that phone call could save the life of one man or woman in uniform it was a call worth placing."

Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S., thanked Obama, Gates and other administration officials for their efforts. "This is definitely a positive moment in showing America's tolerance and pluralism and should not go unappreciated in the Muslim world," Haqqani said.

The cancellation also was welcomed by Jones' neighbors in Gainesville, a city of 125,000 anchored by the sprawling University of Florida campus. At least two dozen Christian churches, Jewish temples and Muslim organizations in the city had mobilized to plan inclusive events, including Quran readings at services, as a counterpoint to Jones' protest.

Jones' Dove Outreach Center is independent of any denomination. It follows the Pentecostal tradition, which teaches that the Holy Spirit can manifest itself in the modern day. Pentecostals often view themselves as engaged in spiritual warfare against satanic forces.

The pastor was not the only person to inject confusion into the debate over the New York mosque, which is planned to go up two blocks north of the trade center site. Donald Trump, who made a fortune in real estate, offered Thursday to buy out a major investor in the real estate partnership that controls the site where the 13-story Islamic center would be built.

Opponents argue it is insensitive to families and memories of Sept. 11 victims to build a mosque so close to where Islamic extremists flew planes into the World Trade Center and killed nearly 2,800 people. Proponents support the project as a reflection of religious freedom and diversity and say hatred of Muslims is fueling the opposition.

In a letter released Thursday by Trump's publicist, Trump told Hisham Elzanaty that he would buy his stake in one of the two lower Manhattan buildings involved in the project for 25 percent more than whatever he paid — if the mosque is moved at least five blocks farther away from the trade center site.

"I am making this offer as a resident of New York and citizen of the United States, not because I think the location is a spectacular one (because it is not), but because it will end a very serious, inflammatory, and highly divisive situation that is destined, in my opinion, to only get worse," the letter said.

Elzanaty's response: No sale.

"This is just a cheap attempt to get publicity and get in the limelight," said his lawyer, Wolodymyr Starosolsky.

He added that the offer's lack of seriousness is evident in the price.

The group collectively paid $4.8 million for the building Trump offered to buy. The other is being leased.

Starosolsky said the real estate partnership had already received two offers in the ballpark of $20 million.

"He knows what the value of the building is. If he were really interested in buying the building, he would have come forward with at least $20 million," Starosolsky said.

Starosolsky added that Elzanaty remains committed to the idea of having a mosque built on at least part of the property.

It's unclear how much control Elzanaty has over the property, which is owned by an eight-member investment group led by El-Gamal's real estate company, Soho Properties.

El-Gamal said Soho Properties controls the site, but didn't elaborate. His spokesman said he couldn't answer questions about the investment team or ownership issues.

In a pair of interviews with the AP this week, Elzanaty said he had invested in the site with an intention of making a profit and was willing to half the land for private development, and maybe all of it if a Muslim group doesn't come forward with enough money to build the mosque.

___

Associated Press Writers David B. Caruso in New York, Anne Flaherty and Lolita C. Baldor in Washington and AP Legal Affairs Writer Curt Anderson in Miami contributed to this report.
Pastor cancels Quran-burning, then reconsiders - Yahoo! News
 
The guy, pastor or whoever, is what we call..."Chickened" out.
Only imbeciles 'Chickened out' from verbal challenges. Being physically threatened is a different matter. But am glad to see that you approve of getting someone to 'Chickened out' via threats of physical violence. Thanks a bunch for the confirmation.
 
I am no fan of the media or how the vast majority of reporting is done but they tend to run with the most relevant facts. America still has a majority Caucasian population so when a white person commits a crime, they can usually take it as granted a white people commited the crime and say "gunman kills a billizion people"

I'm sure other non-muslim minorities are singled out the same way. This by itself doesn't represent bias.

This rule applies everywhere! A crime reported from muslim country is assumed to have muslim involved in it. But explicitly naming his religion is creating paranoia and hatred among the society. This may be to justify acts of America but this is creating hell out of this world. Hatred, Religious incompatibility is preached and burning of Quran is its evidence.
 
That is the precise reason why issues concerning fundamental rights in the US are not decided by "referendums".

I agree! Don't you wish all countries, even Muslim countries, had constitutions with individual rights spelled out and enforced?

But, I don't think building a mosque at a particular spot is a basic right. NYC could have denied the building permit for a host of reasons but chose not to, for their own "political" reasons. Church buildings are opposed by neighborhood groups all the time in the USA, usually because of parking and traffic issues, but sometimes because of the "politics" of the church. Many churches are denied building permits because of neighborhood opposition and have to locate elsewhere. That is why you see the Baptist megachurches being built out away from residential neighborhoods, like a big box Walmart.
 
Because many Americans believe that the radical Muslims would view the completion of a mosque near the scene of their greatest triumph as a new cause for celebration and a victory. Most Americans do not want to see this enemy receive any victory, even if unintentional. And, too, there is a sizable portion of the American public who believe that Islam actually does encourage violence against non-Muslims and they are afraid of any increase in Muslim influence, including the building of $100 M mosques. Together these two groups make up the 70%. I am in the first group.

I, myself, believe it is a provocation to build it there and do not understand why it could not be built a few kilometers further away and serve the intended purposes that are given for it. I don't get exercised over it, but if there was a referendum on the issue, and I was allowed to vote, I would vote against building it on it's current proposed site but would vote for permitting it anywhere else that is at least 1 mile away from the WTC site. The 1 mile is a symbolic distance. (Oh, I would also vote against a mosque being built in that field in Pennsylvania where the fourth plane crashed.)

I think that is completely wrong. This would be a victory for the united states. It would actually hurt the terrorists recruitment and radicalization efforts. Everyone would see that the U.S. stands for equal rights and religious rights for everyone. Plus like i posted in the other thread. This can not be in anyway related to 9/11 or radicals because it has completely nothing to do with it. Which what i believe people against this mosque are getting at. Relating this(the religion of billions) to a small group of crazies in caves has no relation at all. Same goes for people that lost loved ones on 9/11. That which is sad has no relation to Islam. That relation would be the wars going on right now against the people that killed and support the killing of innocents with their distorted wacko ideology. I really don't know how you even got to relating this mosque which will have areas for Jews and Christians. To radicals thinking this is some victory. What part would even be a victory for them ? That a moderate Muslim Imam that the U.S. sends out to represent them built a islamic learning center close to from where they attacked the twin towers ?
 
Last edited:
(Oh, I would also vote against a mosque being built in that field in Pennsylvania where the fourth plane crashed.)
Would you also vote for no American presence in Iraq? Since 2003 millions of muslims over there have lost their lives & the invasion itself was under false pretenses, and i think since its the high time for Americans to get in touch with their feelings, how about they also show some sensitivity & not set a foot in Japan's Hiroshima & Nagasaki for virtually killing all the inhabitants of these cities...........?
 
You won't see anyone denying that there is a fundamental right of that person to burn the Quran, but that doesn't mean I have lost my right to voice my displeasure at him either.

Btw, its a right, not a privilege. By definition privileges can be cherry picked as they are optional.
True...But since the majority of America opposed the proposed Islamic triumphalist structure near Ground Zero and because of their opposition they are branded as 'bigots' for voicing their displeasure, why should you be immune from being tagged with any label?
 
Back
Top Bottom