one world is enough falafal us

8/19/10

Hey, remember when I said “I don’t think anything religious ought to be shadowing the WTC site”? That’s because if it’s truly a Freedom Tower, religious centers ought to be INSIDE the damned thing.

And so I bring you: my floor plan to the One World Trade Center tower!

OneWorldTradeCenterRel(bl).jpg

click for bigger

0 thoughts on “one world is enough falafal us

  1. Annie H.

    Very late to this party, but today I am moved to say that, on first hearing of the cultural center, my first reaction was delight. Yes! I thought it was a great idea! What could better enshrine our (I thought) most deeply held national creed? (that would be, religious tolerance and freedom) My eyes stung. I thought it was a thing of great import, depth and beauty. I felt proud to be moving to New York City, a place where such examples were possible.
    A few moments later, tuning into the controversy, I felt appalled and suddenly much less proud.
    Today, I echo a previous commenter: Opposing the cultural center in effect blames the whole of Islam for the extreme acts of a mere few claiming to represent the faith. To me, this viewpoint is neither correct, legal, OR right.

    Reply
  2. Debbie Conner

    The proposed mosque near to ground zero is not really a religious institution. It would be — as many mosques throughout the nation are — a terrorist recruitment, indoctrination and training center. It is not the worship of Islam that is the problem. It is the efforts to advance Sharia Law with its requirement of Jihad and violence that is the nub of the issue.
    There is a global effort to advance Sharia Law and make it the legal system of the world. Most major banks and financial institutions offer Sharia Compliant Funds which have their investments vetted by the most fundamentalist and reactionary of clerics to assure that they advance Sharia Law. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the founder of the proposed Mosque, helps to prepare a Sharia Index which rates countries on their degree of compliance with Sharia Law. In the United Kingdom, many courts have recognized Sharia as the governing law on matters between two Muslims.
    Not only is Sharia Law a vicious anti-female code which orders death by stoning, promotes child marriage, decriminalizes abuse of women, and gives wives no rights in divorce, but it also explicitly recognizes the duty of all Muslims to wage Jihad against non-believers and promotes violence to achieve its goals. In this respect, violent Jihad is as inherent in Sharia Law as revolution is in Communist doctrine.
    But there are non-Sharia mosques where peaceful and spiritual Muslims worship God in their own way without promoting violence. A soon-to-be published study funded by Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, found that 20% of the mosques in the United States have no taint of Sharia and simply promote peaceful worship. But 80% are filled with violent literature, Sharia teachings, and promotion of Jihad and its inevitable concomitant — terrorism.
    Which brings us to the ground zero mosque. There can be no doubt that any mosque organized and run by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf will be based on Sharia Law and will serve as local branch office of the pan-Islamic terrorist offensive against the west. That such a facility should be located right next to the place where Jihad achieved its most hideous triumph is unspeakably inappropriate.
    President Obama is confusing the issue when he describes it as one of religious freedom. There is broad latitude to worship God as one chooses. But there is none to promote violence and terrorism. The record of involvement of Sharia mosques with the 9-11 attackers and the Ft. Hood massacre shooter is so deep and extensive that it vividly underscores the difference between a religious institution and an organization that promotes terrorism.
    Politically, President Obama’s defense of the mosque and his efforts to make it a First Amendment issue are incredibly self-destructive. They raise questions about his political sanity. It is hard to believe how tone deaf he must have become to take such a position. He has now embraced two positions that are anathema to two-thirds of all Americans — the mosque and opposition to Arizona’s immigration law. Neither was a controversy that sought him out. He waded into each one voluntarily with flags flying. He had no role in the Arizona law but his lawsuit to invalidate it made it his fight. He does not sit on the New York City Planning Commission, but his endorsement of the mosque puts him squarely in the center of controversy.
    Lastly, troubling text in the Koran abounds. Repeatedly, the prophet Muhammed calls his followers to “kill the “infidels”. “Infidels” are all peoples unwilling to accept Muhammed as the last and greatest prophet and Allah as the one and true God.
    On the other hand, Jesus Christ called for his followers to “love your enemy” and..”for what good does it for a man to love his friends, for even the pagans love their own”.

    Reply
  3. Ian Williams

    “Debbie”, you get all your information from Frank Gaffney’s “Center” for “Security” “Policy”.
    Gaffney is a frothing, wingnut birther. No less than Grover Norquist called him a “sick, little bigot”. Any info you get from his side of the street is going to be irreparably tainted with hate.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *