Comments

1. John Quin says on Jul 26, 2010 @ 02:18 AM:

   Now this blog I like better. It balances out some other areas on the site that at least appear to disrespect other faiths. Perhaps yet again it just a misinterpretation on my behalf.

   I could also add to WLC's list the directives in South Australian which ban the teaching of Special Creation and Intelligent Design in Science class. If we put to one side the issue of whether ID is real science I can tell you that this directive appears to have implications out side of the Science room. In practice my son's primary school was asked to remove a poster that depicted a 6000 year old time line. So it seems like the directive is that Special Creation can not be taught as being literal.

   It's foolish in the extreme to think that you can kill off belief in Special Creation by legislation. History shows that it only stiffens people's resolve.

2. MG says on Jul 26, 2010 @ 10:00 AM:

   Reminds me of Martin Niemöller's poem "First They Came..."

   First they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

   Then they came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

   Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

   Then, when they came for me, there was no one left to speak up.

3. John Quin says on Jul 26, 2010 @ 02:32 PM:

   Yes that is a classic piece of wisdom.

4. KStret says on Jul 27, 2010 @ 10:45 AM:

   Europe has a big problem with Islamic extremism. The Muslim extremists have used the politically correct mentality against them. While government bureaucrats were focusing on secularization,creating more bureaucracies, passing more regulations and spending money; the Muslims were taking over certain sections of cities. They have almost established another country with Sharia law in certain places. In France, there are sections of the city that police really can't into to. Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh was murdered for making a documentary about Islam. The politically correct mentality let the problem get out of hand and now there is a backlash. They don't know how to deal with Islamic extremism and now the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. They think banning burqas will solve the problem, which it won't. If police can't go into to Muslim portions of the city, they can't enforce the law.It doesn't deal with the main problem either.

   I agree with every thing Dr. Craig said about the mosque being built near Ground Zero. You can not stop it from being built simply because of the religion. However, the best argument I have heard to stop it asks the question who is funding the mosque and are they extremists? If the funding comes from Islamic extremism, is that sufficient grounds to stop the mosque from being built?

   The imam behind a proposed mosque is a guy named Feisal Abdul Rauf. He has some pretty shady dealing and questionable associates. Hey is a main member of Perdana Global Peace Organization. They helped fund the Free Gaza Movement. Free Gaza was the organization that attempted to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza.

   Despite the press being universally against Israel when it happened, when the Israelis were attempting to get them to stop, you can hear the flotilla on the radio saying, "Go back to Auschwitz."

   Co-organizers of flotilla include a Turkish "charity" with terrorist ties. Members of the Muslim brotherhood were also on the flotilla. Another promonent member of Perdana is the former prime minister of Malaysia. He has gone on the record as a 9-11 truther and doesn't like Jewish people very much. There is enough information on Rauf to put up some red flags.

5. Paul Vjecsner says on Jul 30, 2010 @ 11:27 AM:

   This is to decidedly disagree with Dr. Craig. He mentions zoning restrictions, but those take very much into account human sensibilities. A nightclub, to give a mild example, would not be allowed to open in the middle of a normal residential district. There was an attempt, I understand, to build a Christian church on Auschwitz grounds, and after intense Jewish objections the plan was discontinued. Religious beliefs are by definition opposed to each other, and although we may acknowledge the general right to express them, without violence, we can avoid aggravating the feelings in sensitive areas. It seems Dr. Craig is under the influence of "political correctness", which ironically is alarmed by the mildest offence to anyone's belief, while in the process imposing speech codes against "offensive" language, as in academia, thereby violating the very spirit of the first amendment intended to defend.

6. CT says on Jul 31, 2010 @ 07:02 AM:

   The key seems to lie in recognizing what is permissable versus what is loving or best. This issue is dealt with in Christian doctrine. Secular governmental forbiddance is a different issue than choice to act in good taste or even better in love. We can openly express the truth of the gospel to compete with other religious worldviews in a free society. These are complex issues and we are called to be both strong and wise, and also to have love. Hopefully, the appeal to Muslims to understand that the building of a Mosque at such an emotional site will be felt by many Americans to be another attack on our feelings about the events there and they will consider a loving response. But this cannot really be legislated. Be careful what you wish for.

7. Paul Vjecsner says on Jul 31, 2010 @ 01:47 PM:

   No legislation is required. Nobody can willy-nilly erect a building on any plot of one's choice in Manhattan. There are strict requirements to be met, and one of them is the suitability of the building in the neighborhood. The loving decision is that the building is totally unsuitable in view of the extreme grief aroused in many by the project.

8. KStret says on Aug 1, 2010 @ 12:12 AM:

   Paul,
   There are certain zoning laws that cities and towns have. If a church is included in a zone, you can not tell a religion that they can not build a church simply because the city doesn't like the religion.

9. Paul Vjecsner says on Aug 2, 2010 @ 10:50 AM:

   KStret,
   Regulations are in no way as vague as you suggest. If a residential zone consists of a Christian community, it would be ridiculous to make the house of worship a mosque. But I want to emphasize a much more important point with respect to the 9/11 site. The very fact that certain Muslims want to erect a mosque there demonstrates that their motives are not as pure as made out to be. In other words the motives are sinister, unlike some in their "political correctness" would like us believe.

10. KStret says on Aug 3, 2010 @ 01:08 AM:

    I don't want the mosque there either. However, if the zoning laws permit it, you can't tell them they can't build it because of their religion. If someone actually committed journalism, looked at the guy funding the mosque and he is an extremist; then you can make the case that they shouldn't be allowed to build it.

    Flip your rationale on it's head. A group of Christians want to build a church in San Francisco but because they are all atheists there, they won't let the church be built.

    There was a case along time ago where the KKK paid for the clean up of a section of a highway that was named after Martin Luther King. Anyone that funded the clean up received a sign erected stating who paid for the section of the highway to be clean up. So you had a sign for the KKK on Martin Luther King highway. Do I want the sign there? No. Free speech means all speech, even speech we might find appalling.

11. Paul Vjecsner says on Aug 3, 2010 @ 10:22 AM:

    KStret, Freedom of speech does not apply to erecting a building, and has itself its limitations; remember calling "fire" in a crowded theatre. When it comes to erecting buildings or similar large structures, like bridges, municipalities understandably have to exercise considerable control over it for a well functioning community. Elected officials decide on particular ordinances for those purposes, and then decide how to apply them to particular cases. So it's up to the judgment of those concerned whether a proposed building is in compliance with a "peaceably" (also mentioned in the concerned First Amendment) functioning community. And it is evident that the construction of a mosque at the intended site is anything but peaceable, even if the motives behind it are of unblemished innocence, which they are not by the intended location alone.

12. KStret says on Aug 3, 2010 @ 07:17 PM:

    Paul,
    Would you have a problem if San Fran didn't allow any christian churches to be built?

    I also have a problem with draconian zoning laws and regulations which give bureaucrats too much power. They cherry pick what projects they like. The ones they like usually end up being large campaign contributors.

    I think there is sufficient grounds to stop or at least delay the mosque being build based on who is funding it.

13. Paul Vjecsner says on Aug 4, 2010 @ 08:07 AM:

    KStret, There isn't really much disagreement between us once we understand each other.

    
    Yes, I would have a problem if San Francisco didn't allow Christian churches (although I am a Jew). Unfortunately things aren't always as we would like them to be.

    
    This applies to your "draconian" zoning laws. A large city must have sufficient regulations to keep things in order, but I think New York City (I live in it) isn't really draconian. If anything they are too liberal, not wanting to "offend" certain groups, as I have been saying. The mosque issue seems to have been decided, not as I and many other people like it, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

14. KStret says on Aug 4, 2010 @ 06:10 PM:

    Paul,
    "This applies to your "draconian" zoning laws. A large city must have sufficient regulations to keep things in order, but I think New York City (I live in it) isn't really draconian. If anything they are too liberal, not wanting to "offend" certain groups, as I have been saying."

    
    There lies the inherent illogical position of a political correct philosophy. On one hand they bend over backwards not to offend a group and on the other they actively targets groups they don't like.

    A college might want to ban Christians on campus citing the separation of church and state, hate speech, or because of their position on homosexuality. Then they will turn around and build foot baths for Muslim students, accommodate Muslim students praying several times a day, and shut down the school gym so only Muslim woman can work out at a certain time.

    A city must have zoning laws but there are so many they can find any reason not to allow a building to be built or a business to be opened.

    With the case of the mosque, they are a politically protected group, so they get preferential treatment. You would not see that if it was a conservative group building something. For example, a guy who own a restaurant put a sign up that said something to the effect of speak English in this restaurant. This offended the liberals bureaucrats who controlled the city he was in. They basically harassed him. They took him to court and lost. Most restaurants in the area get a health inspection every other year. He had his restaurant inspected two to three times in one year. What would happen to him if he wanted to open up another restaurant in the area? They would stop him but picking out one of the many zoning laws they have at their disposal.

15. Paul Vjecsner says on Aug 5, 2010 @ 07:22 AM:

    KStret, I don't know if this surprises you, but I wholeheartedly agree with you. The "politically correct" indeed favor one group and attack another. New York City's mayor Blumberg isn't probably that extreme and wouldn't oppose a Christian church. But he favors the mosque, obviously because of his liberalism. The issue with the mosque is its projected location, which many honorable people oppose. They have in fact supplied evidence that the Imam behind it has a radical Islamic history. So the objections are fully justified, although they may be made in vain.

16. KStret says on Aug 5, 2010 @ 05:25 PM:

    Paul,
    I figured we prmarily agreed on the issue. My objection was focused on cherry picking regulations to stop the building. I am against this practice and it would be hypocritical to use this tatic on a gruop I dissagree with. Blumberg was on TV after the failed car bomb and was essentially saying that he hoped it was another Timothy Mcveigh that was responsable and not a Islamic extremist.

    People need to wake up to the fact that the Muslim extremist are attempting to do the same thing in the United States that they have done in Europe.If they are successful were are going to be in trouble.