Emailed to IPR and posted at Free Patriot Press by Darryl W. Perry, Chair of the Boston Tea Party National Committee:
Lately it seems everyone is putting in their “two cents” on the Cordoba House; which opponents – including some supposed “libertarians” (Wayne Allyn Root, John Hospers & Neal Boortz) – are calling a “mosque at ground zero.” Tom Knapp has posted some facts:
– Cordoba House is not a “mosque.”
– It is not located at “Ground Zero.” It’s a two-block walk or a four-block drive (due to one-way streets) away.
– Cordoba House (will not be) “overshadowing” Ground Zero. Cordoba House is planned to be 13 stories tall. Its site is separated from Ground Zero by a 15-story Post Office, a 21-story office building and three streets.
According to their website,
“Cordoba House is a Muslim-led project which will build a world-class facility that promotes tolerance, reflecting the rich diversity of New York City. The center will be community-driven, serving as a platform for inter-community gatherings and cooperation at all levels, providing a space for all New Yorkers to enjoy.
This proposed project is about promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture. Cordoba House will provide a place where individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, will find a center of learning, art and culture; and most importantly, a center guided by Islamic values in their truest form – compassion, generosity, and respect for all.
The site will contain tremendous amounts of resources that otherwise would not exist in Lower Manhattan; a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants – all these services would form a cultural nexus for a region of New York City that, as it continues to grow, requires the sort of hub that Cordoba House will provide.” (emphasis added)
It should be repeated: Cordoba House is NOT a “mosque” at “ground zero” but rather a Community Center over 2 blocks away.
No government should discriminate against any person or group for any reason. Cordoba House isn’t a “mosque” at “ground zero” but rather an Islamic Community Center 3 streets from the WTC site. Even if it were a “mosque” at “ground zero” there is no legitimate reason that any government should prevent Cordoba House from being built. The Federal government cannot intervene without violating the First and Tenth Amendments and arguably the Fourth & Fourteenth Amendments, as well – not that the Constitution has prevented the Feds from implementing many laws that violate the rights of Americans. The State of New York cannot stop this Community Center from being built without violating Article I Section 3 of the New York State Constitution and without creating a weird “zoning law” or using “eminent domain” to take the property, New York City cannot lawfully prevent the Cordoba House from being built.
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Chair Boston Tea Party National Committee
Managing Editor Free Patriot Press
2016 candidate for President of the United States of America
Also addressing this issue: Reactions to Root’s piece from the libertarian blogosphere, LNC member Daniel Wiener, Tom Knapp, Kristin Davis, Warren Redlich, Carl Paladino, and LPHQ interns Marissa Giannotta and Josh Roll.
I still like the quote that has been making the rounds among my Facebook friends: “The US has been building ground zeros near mosques around the world for decades.”
Wait, I’m confused. Since when are Cheney, Giuliani, Silverstein, and the Bush family Muslims?
Instead of arguing about a community center blocks from the largest terrorist attack in American history, it would be far more useful for us as a nation to intelligently discuss bringing the terrorists responsible to justice by considering Cheney’s stand down order which prevented America from defending our airspace, or how and why Giuliani’s command center collapsed around 5 p.m. NY time after never having been hit by a plane, or Silverstein’s insurance fraud and the rolling over of his profits into the Sears Tower, and/or Marvin Bush’s security company Securacom’s after hours activities “upgrading” the twin towers elevator shafts.
We must stop wasting our time on diversionary issues and focus instead on the real issues that really effect the real politic of our nation and our world.
The evidence of key governmental figures actively participating in and using their power to prevent a free and fair investigation of the attack on America and our freedom is overwhelming.
Muslims are not the enemy. The evil ones are.
Turn off Hannity. Turn off Beck. Turn off Maddow. Open your eyes. Read. Question. Think.
The building to be razed, was hit by a flying fragment caused by airplanes flying into the Twin Towers. The top two floors were damaged. Many other buildings besides the WTC towers were damaged.
That the proposed Islamic center is open to non-muslims, means it is intended as a recruitment tool.
Whether a mosque or not, still it is a symbol of Islam. There are few Muslims in the area, which already sufficient facilities. The only reason, is the symbolism.
The $100m is secretly funded, probably from middle eastern oil money. Private western companies built the infrastructure, that was later confiscated by Islamist governments (who used the funds to promote terrorism).
The organizers of this project openly support terrorists and they are funded from the same sources that terrorists use to get their funding.
A blind man could see the problem in a second.
tk, were it only that simple. Some people who take the same position that you and I do on CH are refering to it as a mosque. We’d have to ask them — some highly paid professionals — why they call it a mosque, but it doesn’t seem to me they refer to CH to jerk anyone’s chain. Someone like Thomas Friedman may well be misguided or wrong on the facts, but I certainly wouldn’t consider him “stupid.”
If, say, a Catholic organization built a building that had a “prayer room” as well as other facilities, and the “prayer room” lacked a crucifix, and Rome only considered a church a “church” if it had a crucifix. This prayer room might have everything else that just about anyone would say is a “church,” but, according to the Vatican, it isn’t a “church” because it lacked one item.
If I referred to the building as a “church,” I might be technically incorrect. IF that’s your point, well, alrighty then.
It seems to me land use policies should be a local decision, so this should be an issue for the Manhattan Borough Council.
“what more than mere disagreement are we dealing with here?”
Known facts which are irrefutable and which have been publicly extant for some time.
If you tell me that 2+2=5, I’m more than happy to conclude that you just haven’t been taught math yet.
If I take the time and trouble to teach you math and you still tell me that 2+2=5, at some point I have to conclude that you’re either stupid or yanking my chain.
tk, waiting for the punchline here inside the Beltway, then. What’s the standard by which you label people “stupid” or “liars”?
Could be that some issues get one’s goat more than others. When I encounter an L who, for ex., favors the death penalty, I admit to the name-calling impulse. Overt racists, ditto. But it’s not my practice to name call, which solves nothing that I can see. Confused or misguided is about the harshest I’ll generally get.
But enough about me…what more than mere disagreement are we dealing with here?
Check your premises.
It’s not “those whom I disagree with” whom I label stupid and/or lying sacks of shit. You and I disagree regularly and vehemently, but I don’t recall ever labeling you either of those things.
More than mere disagreement is involved.
Tom @6 & 14, agreed.
Darryl W. Perry @17, agreed.
Robert Capozzi @13, “…ALLIES…”
These alliers(allies-alliers is a typo! Ha, Ha!), like Root & Hospers, have failed Tom’s litmus test. & Hospers’ failure has Tom in a tizzy.
Which begs the question-what about allies who fail libertarian litmus tests?
@12 “fighting the “it’s not a mosque” fight seems weak to me.”
me: “Even if it were a “mosque” at “ground zero” there is no legitimate reason that any government should prevent Cordoba House from being built.”
I put more stock in the comments by Samir than all the rest combined. I would like him to comment on the comments which followed his.
tk: Therefore it is tactically reasonable to point out that the latter group is composed of (in unknown proportion) a) idiots and b) lying sacks of shit.
me: It may be “reasonable” to and for you to label those you disagree with as “idiots” and/or “lying sacks of shit.” I don’t find that reasonable, not at all. People like Root and Hospers have made gotten their facts incorrect on this matter and drawn conclusions I disagree with, yet it seems obvious to me that they are not “idiots.” Whether they misrepresent Cordoba purposely, I cannot say.
But I am as sure as I can be that EVERYONE lies at least sometimes.
Or, are you the exception? If so, sainthood awaits you. 😉
I’ve been through this at least once before, but I’ll go through it more slowly, at more length, and more clearly.
Muslim religious authorities are somewhat divided on whether or not non-Muslims should be allowed in mosques at all.
The conservatives say no — KEEP OUT, INFIDELS.
The moderates say yes, but that they may not eat or sleep there.
Cordoba Center will have a food court. Non-Muslims will be welcome to order all the halal food they care to eat.
Mosques are reserved exclusively to Muslim worship.
Cordoba Center will have an inter-faith prayer room.
One universal function of a mosque is that it serves as a platform from which the adhan (Muslim call to prayer) is issued (audible to a distance so that even those not attending the mosque will know that it is time to pray).
Cordoba Center will not serve as such a platform.
Cordoba Center is not a mosque.
That’s a fact.
It will remain a fact regardless of how inconvenient that might be to the demagogic purposes of those attempting to bring the force of government to bear against the property rights and religious freedom of its owners and customers
It’s also not at “Ground Zero,” as I and others have irrefutably demonstrated.
While neither of these FACTS is key to the argument against suppressing the property rights and religious freedom of Cordoba House’s owners and customers, falsely asserting claims to the contrary appears to be key to the arguments of those who support suppressing the property rights and religious freedom of Cordoba House’s owners and customers.
Therefore it is tactically reasonable to point out that the latter group is composed of (in unknown proportion) a) idiots and b) lying sacks of shit.
tk: …when you can demonstrate that your opponent is lying, it undermines his credibility.
me: Perhaps. But ALLIES are also saying it’s a mosque and community center. To say the opposition is “lying” rings hollow.
Hysterical overstatement is contra-indicated.
dwp: Most larger airports have a “prayer room” – does that make them churches, synagogues, mosques, etc?
me: No, they are airports. Cordoba is to be an Islamic facility. What constitutes a mosque from a technical perspective I don’t know. If the developers claim it’s not a mosque, I’m sure they have a technical reason for doing so. I’m noticing several pro-Cordoba analysts calling it a center and mosque, so, from a purely rhetorical POV, fighting the “it’s not a mosque” fight seems weak to me.
I merely suggest that it’s stronger rhetoric to say Corboda is a religious facility and based on 1A and property rights, it should not be blocked by State action. Nitpicking over the definition of a mosque sounds distracting, petty, and childish to me.
A more apt analogy than the one you offered would be if someone proposed to build a Christian church near the Gettysburg battlefield.
After all some armed people, many of them Christians, killed thousands of people on that battlefield.
Of course, many of the people they killed were also Christians.
And the idea of building a church there apparently isn’t the least bit controversial.
Yes, the 9/11 attackers were Muslims.
Some of their victims were, too.
And I hate to have to keep repeating this, but the project in question isn’t a mosque.
Is it right? It might be legal to build a mosque near ground zero but is it right to build it there? No, it is not right.
There once was a proposal to build an amusement park at Gettysburg. This idea went nowhere after the outcry of many. If someone proposed to build a gas station at Bunker Hill would it be right? What if someone wanted to build a water park at Pearl Harbor would that be right? What about building a casino at the Alamo?
The examples I have given and I could have given more show how wrong this proposed mosque is. Americans will consider this mosque to be a blot upon the fair name and high honor of our nation. A tremendous disservice will be done to the people of New York in the eyes of the nation and that will be done to the nation in the eyes of the world if this mosque is built.
Yes, Jake, educate yourself — “pagans,” as used in the Quran, does not refer to Jews or Christians.
Multi Faith Centre. Simple.
All you have to do is look to Europe to see how this will play out after its built.
Once built, radical minded muslims are going to move into the area. Within 10 years, it is going to be a radical islamic enclave, where jewish people steer well clear of to avoid being mugged or killed.
Educate yourself on Islam, because this ideology is extremely unfriendly to non muslims, as soon as muslims are able to pull it off.
Here is one quote from the Quran that eerily matches the islamic terrorism in the world…
[9.5] But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Educate yourself, because building this thing is a very very large mistake.
“ALL mosques are community centers.”
That may be. But not all community centers are mosques.
Non-Muslims may not eat or sleep in mosques.
Non-Muslims will be allowed to eat at Cordoba House because it’s not a mosque.
Mosques must be dedicated to exclusively Muslim worship.
Cordoba will have an interfaith prayer room because it’s not a mosque.
All the prevarication in the world won’t magically make Cordoba House a mosque, nor will it pick it up and move it to Ground Zero.
Bob, while that point of argumentation is secondary (property rights and religious freedom apply even if it IS a mosque), it’s worth keeping — when you can demonstrate that your opponent is lying, it undermines his credibility.
Most larger airports have a “prayer room” – does that make them churches, synagogues, mosques, etc?
It appears Cordoba House will have “a Muslim prayer room, 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare services, art exhibitions, bookstore, a culinary school, and a food court serving halal dishes.”
Perhaps a “prayer room” is not technically a “mosque.” Dunno. It’s an Islamic facility. Denying that it’s a mosque rings hollow for me.
I recommend losing that point of argumentation…it sounds kinda silly and nitpicky.
I’m sorry, but some of you are ridiculously ignorant of Islam. ALL mosques are community centers. They’re not just houses of worship. The largest ones are designed to be self-contained communities, where Muslims can isolate themselves from the “infidels” around them. I know what I’m talking about – I was raised Muslim by some very (theologically) conservative parents before I opened my eyes as an adult.
The goal of Islam is not worldwide conversion but worldwide conquest; non-Muslims can live if they accept second-class status. Mosques are always erected on the most symbolic sites possible, to demonstrate their impending conquest. That’s why the Dome of the Rock was built where the old Jewish Temple stood. That’s why the cathedrals at Damascus, Constantinople and Cordoba were turned
into mosques. That’s why there is a mosque on the southermost point in Gibraltar even though the population is 95% Christian. And that’s why this group (which openly supports Hamas, by the way) wants to build the largest Islamic edifice as close to the site of the WTC as possible. I flat-out guarantee that the construction of this mosque will be celebrated by every radical Islamic group in the world. It will be an enormous propaganda victory for them.
This isn’t a question of the law but of taste. Yes, Muslims have the legal right to build there, but they do not have the moral right to. If there’s anyone we should be listening to, it’s the 9/11 victims, and they are almost unanimously in opposition. If this Islamic group truly wants to build bridges, it will abandon the project or at least relocate it. But there is zero chance that happens without intense public pressure – it’s simply against the nature of Islam to retreat on its own.
Did I just get endorsed by Robert Milnes??
Well, it looks like 2012 is my only chance because Darryl is running in 2016!
Seriously people, BTP can provide a very important service in 2012. That would be if the LP & GP nominate losing tickets-again-BTP could provide enough ballot access to mathematically win for an otherwise Independent fusion ticket, WHICH COULD THEN GO ON TO WIN! By presenting a viabloe ticket, a defacto 3 way race would be created which would lower the threshold to 34/33(dem.)/33(rep.). 34%-@40% of the vote IS POSSIBLE for a progressive/libertarian fusion ticket. Gravel/Ruwart COULD have been such a ticket for the LP in 2008. Nader COULD have created such a ticket by choosing a libertarian for the vp position on his Independent ticket.
I am still looking for a libertarian woman for the vp position on my Independent ticket for 2012.
Comments are closed.