New York pols, however, seem determined to ignore the will of the people. We have not given up, however, and never will. "New York City Voters Oppose Mosque Near Ground Zero, Poll Says," by Martin Z. Braun for Bloomberg, July 1 (thanks to Twostellas):
July 1 (Bloomberg) -- New York City voters, by an almost 2- to-1 ratio, oppose a plan by a Muslim group to build a mosque and cultural center two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to a Quinnipiac University poll.New Yorkers, by 52 percent to 31 percent, don't want the Cordoba Initiative, a group that [ostensibly! -- RS] seeks to improve Muslim relations with Western societies, to build a community center near Ground Zero in Manhattan, the survey said. Opposition was strongest on Staten Island, where respondents were against the plan by 73 percent to 14 percent in favor. In Manhattan, support for the project led, with 46 percent to 36 percent opposed.
"Is it because we're still nursing the wounds from the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center or is it more like bigotry?" said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in Hamden, Connecticut, in a statement about the results. The poll was released today.
Or could it possibly be that some people are genuinely concerned about the declaration of jihad victory that this mosque would represent, after the fashion of mosques built on the holy sites of conquered people all over the world, and about the Islamic supremacism that will be preached there?
"Opponents suggest that the mosque would dishonor the memory of the attack's victims," Carroll said. The cultural center plans include a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, restaurants, bookstores and space for art exhibitions, according to the organization's website.While a majority opposed the center, 55 percent of those questioned said "mainstream Islam" is a "peaceful religion." To 22 percent of respondents, the religion "encourages violence against non-Muslims." Another 23 percent were undecided....
I'd say talk about ignorance. They should learn about mahoundianism's history of hate, genocides, rape, intolerance and extreme violence, plus read Mein Qurampf. That should help them see the truth.
There are fools, and then there are fools...
"Is it because we're still nursing the wounds from the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center or is it more like bigotry?" said Maurice Carroll...
A pure fool...His middle name should be Percival...
I can see how Mahoundians 'want' this mosque, but I have difficulty with the kufr who want it, or are indifferent...
Is this some more leftist/liberal mental illness symptoms?
Is foolishness contagious?
New Yorkers by a 2 to 1 margin oppose the mosque monstrosity on ground zero and yet the Mayor supports it!!!
Who is a big fool here???
>"While a majority opposed the center, 55 percent of those questioned said "mainstream Islam" is a "peaceful religion."
Oh "the religion peace" crap still haunts the minds of most New Yorkers!!! What a travesty even after seeing what Muslims have done to their city, and a Muslim was going to do again in time Square and what Muslims are doing everyday throughout the world!!
Some personal protection thoughts for all the undaunted NYC protesters... and others:
http://freemendo.typepad.com/undaunted/2010/06/read-hereabout-boeing-guards-who-somehow-let-twelve-or-was-it-fourteen-handguns-be-stolen-from-a-storage-locker-at-the-he.html#tp
Man, American people have got to learn more about Islam.
And please forward this approach to anyone who might be attending a public mosque:
To anyone out there who wants to prevent mosques from being built:
It’s a pretty simple strategy. Attend a public debate. When it comes time for the Q & A session with the Imam, use this approach:
1. Establish that Mohammed is the guide for mankind for ALL TIMES. Make certain the Muslim in question admits that there’s no room for moral relativism in Islam. If he admits that the example of Mohammed is every bit as valid in the 21st century as it was in the 7th century, you’re good to go.
2. Establish that the Quran is the most authentic book in Islam followed by the hadith collections of Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari. This is a common part of Islamic theology, so it should be easy to get them to admit to this.
3. Once that has been established, bring up verses from the quran and hadiths from Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari that express support for child rape, slavery and wife abuse.
4. Force them to either admit they believe it’s morally acceptable in the year 2010 for grown men to have sex with nine year old children, beat their wives, enslave other men, or admit that Mohammed’s example is no longer valid in the 21st century.
5. It’s going to be hard to get them to admit to this, so it’s up to the audience to force them to answer the questions.
6. If they admit that it’s morally acceptable to have sex with children, beat women, enslave other men, you’re good to go. Public opinion will turn.
I’ve provided a few examples that I came up with on the SIOA Facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=110841015612178&topic=278
Good luck.
Please forgive the typo, I meant anyone who might be attending a public debate on a new mosque, or some sort of "Islam outreach" event.
"Is it because we're still nursing the wounds from the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center or is it more like bigotry?" said Maurice Carroll
Does it matter?
The results of the poll indicate that more people are opposed to the victory dance mosque, than are in favor of it. It is what it is, regardless of what motives drive the opinions.
Are the violent murders by terrorist of the Muhammedan pursuasion, or "bigotry" the only explanations for the negative votes? I don't think so.
In fact, one might say that the events of 9/11 were the result of pure Islamic bigotry. The quest to make "all religion for Allah" sounds pretty bigoted to me.
" Is this some more leftist / liberal mental illness symptoms ?
Yes.
It simply points out how far out of touch our leaders are.
Did people want the health care plan?
Did people want to spend tax dollars like drunken sailers?
Did people want to ignore the growing threat of Islam?
There will be a reckoning. Remember in November.
Tax burdened New Yorkers can take on the load of services from police, fire, street dept. workers and all other publicly-funded kafirs in the service of the 501 3)(c) mosque.
If 2/3 of them don't want it, where were they in June?
Heck, I am afraid it only shows people NEED that mosque to tell them that islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, harmony, bridge building, interfaith and dialogue.
If somebody is suffering and you try to help them, the one thing you should never do is - Romantisize their Pain. It goes completely in the wrong direction.
oops, I meant to post the above comment somewhere else.
"Is this some more leftist/liberal mental illness symptoms?" -duh swami
That could be part of it. There are many Americans, left, right, and center, who assume that a (monotheistic) religion is inherently a good thing. In this view, setting up a center of "worship," especially one that is being touted as a broad-minded place of tolerance and peace (with other aspects like an auditorium, recreation center, and so on, touted to smooth the sell to the broader public) is good. Islam has the added advantage of a massive propaganda campaign, aided and abetted by Western politicians (left, right, and center), who tell us how wonderful Islam really is, how it has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists who do not represent true Islam, and so forth. Part of this campaign includes the idea that there is some sort of warm and fuzzy affiliation between the so-called Abrahamic religions, and that they ought to work together and cooperate.
Lord Carey of Clifton, the former Archbishop of Canterbury is the co-chair of the World Economic Forum’s Council of 100 West-Islamic Dialogue.
The C-100 has endorsed Rauf’s Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, although actual funding comes by way of HRH Price Al Waleed of Saudi Arabia, and “others”.
http://www2.weforum.org/en/initiatives/c100/Projects/index.html
Lord Carey has said some interesting things about Islam in the past.
From Jihadwatch of September 20, 2006
“Lord Carey said that Muslims must address “with great urgency” their religion’s association with violence. He made it clear that he believed the “clash of civilizations‘” endangering the world was not between Islamist extremists and the West, but with Islam as a whole.
“We are living in dangerous and potentially cataclysmic times,” he said. “There will be no significant material and economic progress [in Muslim communities] until the Muslim mind is allowed to challenge the status quo of Muslim conventions and even their most cherished shibboleths.”...
Lord Carey, who as Archbishop of Canterbury became a pioneer in Christian-Muslim dialogue, himself quoted a contemporary political scientist, Samuel Huntington, who has said the world is witnessing a “clash of civilizations”.
Arguing that Huntington’s thesis has some “validity”, Lord Carey quoted him as saying: “Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”
Lord Carey went on to argue that a “deep-seated Westophobia” has developed in recent years in the Muslim world....”
Of course, he has also given a less than robust defense of free speech during the 2006 cartoon riots.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/br0nc0s/managed-mt/mt-search.cgi?search=lord+carey+of+clifton&IncludeBlogs=1&limit=20
Still, it might be interesting to hear what Lord Carey thought about Feisal Abdul Rauf’s new direction into real estate development.
Lord Carey can be contacted here.
http://www.glcarey.co.uk/Pages/Contact.html
"6. If they admit that it’s morally acceptable to have sex with children, beat women, enslave other men, you’re good to go. Public opinion will turn."
The word “confirm” would be more correct. “Admit” implies that you realize a moral wrong. Muslims don´t.
But you are right that public opinion can change on such matters.
Christians accepted slavery for many hundred years and also the husbands right to beat wife and children. The legal age of marriage for girls according to canonical law was 12 years but in case of pregnancy dispensation could be given for girls under that age.
And then ask yourself how long time and how many fights and wars it took before opinion changed and slavery, child marriage and wife beating was abolished and declared immoral?
Why should any Muslim change his opinion on such matters? What is the words of mere mortals against the words of Allah and the deeds of his prophet?
You see the problem?
The article says,
More of us need to become experts on Islam, so we can help persuade. We need to know the Qur'an, and Sahih Bukhari, and the Life of Muhammad by Ishaq, translated by Guillaume...
Ipso Facto,
As I read Simmonsbill11, he was not talking about changing the opinions of Muslims. He was talking about changing the opinions of non-Muslims.
How many non-Muslims "might be attending a public mosque", apart from undercover FBI agents that is. ;-)
Non-Muslim Americans do not need to be convinced that wife beating, child marriage and slavery are wrong and punishable by the law. Some Muslims do!
Oh shame on you New York. ONLY 2 to 1 It should have been 99 to 1. More New Yorkers need to read the Qur'an.
Duh-Swami,
"Is this some more leftist/liberal mental illness symptoms?"
I cannot give a comprehensive answer, as what people think, know and conclude is to me such a complex matter, but I hear from those PCMC that I discuss with:
- First of all, we, "PCMC", do NOT see any danger! Or real big danger.
- Then: We only or primarily look at our own countries, not to what happens in Islamic countries. This results in criticizing Wilders exorbitantly, while he never harmed one human being, and overlooking all those atrocious acts clearly or very probably linked to the Islam he exposes.
- Yes, I see what you say about Islam, but ..... and then they say that the situation is so complex that people just cannot judge. They highlight certain good sides of Islamic societies, like the high percentage of female students and teachers in Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia. In other words, there are many good Muslims and good things in Islamic societies also. Even in Shariah law! Totally missing the point that good laws by themselves should win in a democratic process, not dictated by a bunch of clerics and their thugs. And of course bad sides of secular democracy are highlighted.
- The well-known: You cannot paint all Muslims with the same brush. Meaning in effect, since there is no sense of danger/ threat, that we can all go to sleep at ease, and trust ALL those Muslims not proven to be violent or saying highly provocative sayings. And proof must be VERY conclusive for a PCMC-person.
- A convinced Christian, "PCMC", said; Those who do good, will receive good, meaning that Christians should do good (and not bad) to Muslims. Period. Next time I like to challenge him by asking; What if there are victims (Christians in Islamic countries) and perpetrators (Muslims, by Islam inspired or at least not restrained by it),will you do good to the perpetrators, thereby abandoning your fellow-christians?
- Oh, but the Christian I speak of will point out: A. That the proven perpetrators are only a minority and that Islam is thoroughly divers and divided, just as Christianity is.
- And the PCMC's so often point out that "we" in the past did the same. Indicating that all we need is patience. Not realizing, as Lee Harris points out, that they ASSUME that secular democracy is what the whole mankind must move to, and desires. But in fact, mankind may go in all sorts of different directions, secular democracy may well be a fluke!