President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 03, 2010 01:39 AM UTC

Why I Support The Ground Zero Mosque by Muhammad Ali Hasan

  • 138 Comments
  • by: Muhammad Ali Hasan

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Technically, this is not a Colorado issue, but the Huffington Post was kind enough to give me an opportunity to share my thoughts over the matter regarding the Ground Zero Mosque. With my background as a Republican, Muslim, and Founder of Muslims For Bush, I was proud to contribute. The article is linked below and please check it out –

As an American, a Republican leader, and a practicing Muslim, the issue of building a mosque near New York’s Ground Zero is of natural interest to me. For the record, I deeply support building this mosque. To my fellow conservative leaders who say they are against this project, yet claim to not be bigoted, I have news for you: you are a bigot.

To read the rest, click here –

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

Tweet
Share

Comments

138 thoughts on “Why I Support The Ground Zero Mosque by Muhammad Ali Hasan”

  1. The First Amendment is the First Amendment.  We have absolute religious freedom in this country. The freedom of religion clause was the FIRST thing in the First Amendment.  It wasn’t an afterthought.  Republicans don’t get to pick and choose which religions they hate.

    2. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

      Special interest groups regularly threaten to challenge a church’s tax exempt status. They claim that being against Gay Marriage is the same thing as endorsing candidates that are against Gay Marriage.

      A 501(c)(3) exempt organization, however, may not “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.”

      Opposition to abortion is interpreted as support for pro-life political candidates and opposition to pro-abortion candidates, even when candidates are not mentioned.

      Threatening a lawsuit is usually enough to shut the pastor up. Donors stay away from churches in tax battles with the IRS because they cannot risk having to pay taxes on contributions if the church loses its battle.

      Guidelines for Political Activities by Churches and Pastors, Alliance Defense Fund, 3/2006 (viewed 8/3/2010), http://www.alliancedefensefund…

      1. If a church really wants to be a political organization instead of a religious order maybe they should incorporate as a 501(c)4.  Being tax exempt is not a sacred right nor is there any requirement that they be a 501(c)3.  It just means that the rest of us won’t have to subsidize their lobbying.  

      2. but not the spirit, then I support such counter tactics. They sometimes collude with their allied special interests in getting out messages and recommending that their members vote a certain way, without naming specific candidates or ballot issues. But then again, I believe that churches should not enjoy automatic tax-exempt status, and I fail to see how removing it chills freedom of religion.

    3. I agree that we have pretty much absolute religious freedom in America.  It is one of the things that makes us what we are.  If this group building the cultural center/mosque owned a lot across the street from ‘ground zero’ I would support their absolute right to build there too.  

      But I disagree, mildly, with their plans.  I think this is a question of tact and respect.  How would Muslims feel if a group of Jews, even moderate non-Zionist Jews, were building a synagogue close to the site of a dramatic massacre carried out by Lehi (aka The Stern Gang)?  

      It would not silence the right wing critics, but I think a little further away would have been a bit more diplomatic.

  3. What could say the USA is weaker than trying to ban a place of religious worship?  

    I think it absurd that anyone would believe  it reflects the American spirit to deny a group of people the right to build and worship where they choose.  

    Americans should applaud the Muslim group trying to build the mosque at Ground Zero, not be trying to stop them.

  6. Fortunately, a large amount of prominent Republicans and/or leaders have stayed away from the issue, as well as stayed away from Arizona’s 1070

    I am usually a major supporter of anything Gingrich or Palin does, but saying these comments is going to severely damage their chances at winning Independent voters – I’m just not convinced that American Independents are racist – maybe I live with rose-colored glasses, but after running for office twice, that’s my vibe on about 3/4 of the Independents, at minimum – thus, Gingrich and Palin both had a spotless history of staying away from bigoted issues, but not anymore – it’s heartbreaking

    I’ll tell you this – I could never support him, but Romney has stayed away from this issue, as well as staying away from Arizona – ditto on Pawlenty – those guys are taking their Presidential runs very very seriously, with proper discipline

    As my father says – if you’re in a position to become the President, you better start talking like a President

    1. But Palin’s and Gingrich’s comments on this should teach you something about who they really are.  It’s time to come over to the other side…

      1. When you finally realize the Republican Party is beyond saving, we (the Democrats) could use a little conservative influence to help our party find the middle.

        Your article is excellent and I admire your courage for speaking the truth with such moral conviction. I grew up in the segregated southern United States in the 50s’ and 60s’. I know bigotry, up close and personal. Racial and ethnic hatred are a particularly onerous blight on the soul of humanity.

        Keep standing up for honor and tolerance Ali…you are a good man.

        1. Just look at his sig line.

          But then again, I’m not a Dem. Still, I see “TABOR4LIFE” fitting in with the Dem platform as well as I see marriage equality fitting in with the GOP’s.

          1. The right wing hated McCain because he was a centrist. The media loved him because he was a “maverick,” bucking the Republican agenda.

            When centrist McCain was in a real race with centrist Obama, the media threw him overboard. Why vote for a Republican Lite when you can vote for Democrat?

            The Republican can only go to the right…

      2. Ali, many of us hope that some day – maybe soon – you’ll see that the Democratic Party is not only more tolerant in general, but your fiscal conservatism fits with us much better than your religious, anti-bigot views fit with the Republicans.  Perhaps in another time that will be different, but not now.

        Democrats truly have a broad, inclusive Party.  We don’t all agree on fiscal issues, social issues, or how much government there should be.  But we are inclusive, and we are focused on the many, not just on what’s best for “me.”

        1. I admire the diverse mix that the Democratic Party can boast and certainly, nominating Obama shows a tremendous amount of open-mindedness in these modern times

          I respect the Democratic Party, but I could never go there – I’m just not in line with the principles governing economics

          However – that said – the Republican Party is becoming a directionless vessel that’s burning the best parts of its soul – if I ever run for office again, I may entertain doing it as a self-financed Independent, who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal

    2. “Gingrich and Palin both had a spotless history of staying away from bigoted issues”.

      I guess it is all in whose ox is being gored.

      Both of these “spotless” candidates have a long colored history of bashing gays and lesbians, or does bashing us not count as “bigoted” in your book, Ali?

      Gingrich has warned of “gay fascism”

      http://www.newsmax.com/Politic…

      He also doesn’t think that gays should be allowed to adopt:

      http://www.time.com/time/magaz…

      (Curious, has any political candidate taken the postion that Muslims should not be allowed to parent, and how would that fly?)

      As for Palin, here is a link to an entire page of her positions on gay issues.

      http://gaylife.about.com/od/po…

      They are both bigots towards LGBT community and your turning a blind eye to this when you claim that they have a “spotless record” speaks volumes about you.

      1. Gingrich though has called for gay rights, in terms of civil unions and/or domestic partnerships – I’ll do my best to find the link

        Overall, Gingrich and Palin have done a great job of avoiding issues of race and religion – this latest event though is a terrible turn for two leaders who I was hoping would shape a better Republican Party

        1. that we should be able to visit our partners when they are in the hospital….that is the extent of his “enlightenment” on LGBT issues.

          Both Palin and Gingrich (whose sister is a lesbian, so he should know better) are bigots when it comes to LGBT people.

          1. Gingrich has also advocated that gay couples be able to inherit property – far greater than what most major Republican candidates advocate for – give credit where credit is due

            http://www.theamericanview.com…

            Gingrich and Palin are far from perfect on the issue of LGBT rights, but they represent a much better face of the Party when it comes to the issue – overall, I’d rather attack the likes of Romney and Lazio over the issue, rather than Palin and Gingrich

            1. We need to convince enough Republicans that she would make a viable 2012 Presidential candidate. At least enough to get her through the primaries.

              I really want to see the debates. ROFL

  7. I think what constantly amazes me is how further from the Bush Era the conservatives are getting when it comes to Muslim tolerance. I don’t often look back to the Bush Administration with fondness but the few things I admire about George W. Bush were the speeches on tolerance towards Muslims he made shortly after 9/11.

    It’s sad to see conservatives use Muslims to gin up fear to score political points among their more ignorant base. This fear of a mosque at Ground Zero has spread to Temecula, CA and fear of Sharia Law in Tennessee. Actually, this isn’t sad…It’s grossly irresponsible.  

    The real icing on the religious intolerance cake is the same conservatives that are railing against all things Muslim are the ones that claim to be “Constitutional Conservatives”. I find it completely disrespectful to hear these supposed “Constitutional Conservatives” preach about how we need to get back to our founding document. They absolutely whip up a fervor with that 2nd and 10th but have no problem ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to them. They especially find the 1st Amendment cumbersome unless they get to control it.

    When it comes to any religious protections, clearly the Founders were referring to Christianity only. Just ask Sarah Palin, she’s suddenly a Constitutional scholar.

    Ali, I hope conservatives find your excellent article. I fear it will fall on dead ears.

    1. .

      Except didn’t he say that God told him to invade Iraq ?

      And wasn’t that basically a war against people because of their religion ?

      Am I remembering that wrong ?

      .

      3. to attack a country of Muslims. He was a complete failure of a President. There’s no need to pile on made up moral reprehension. There’s plenty of real ones.

  8. What I have read about this, not including the Palin garbage, is this is needed for not only general understanding, but to give those who live in the NYC area a place to reflect on what happens when bad is done by bad people in the name of religion.

  9. Huffpo and Pols are haunted mostly by liberals.  I would presume, and hope, all liberals would support the building of the mosque.  (I think that the Muslim community involved made some poor decisions, but that’s beside the point.)

    Now, how do you get some conservative, nay, reactionary, journals and blogs to pick this up?

  10. …on a subject that your batshit-insane political party requires you to be…well, batshit insane.

    I know that pesky 1st Amendment-thingie bites us in the ass sometimes, but because of it, this mosque has to be build.

    Now, ask me again when the Westboro Baptist kooks want to put up a double-wide next to Arlington Cemetery. I’ll be gnashing my teeth, but I’ll have to support it….

  12. Not only for the reasons (all perfectly valid) given but also because, from the beginning of the dust up over this, I have simply not understood why anyone thinks they should have a say in this as if the placement of a mosque should be treated any differently than the placement of a church, synagogue or any other place of worship. I don’t see why the opponents suppose they should have that right in a nation in which complete religious freedom is a founding principle.  

    I only hope that the kind of hatred we see from bigots on the right doesn’t put anyone building or later attending the mosque in danger. A lot of folks on your side of the political spectrum are pretty crazy.  Remember Tancredo opining about retaliating against, not just specific terrorists enemies but all Muslims, by bombing Mecca?  I must say, all things considered, Muslims for Bush leaves me scratching my head in the same way that Log Cabin Republicans do but that’s another topic.  

    Incidentally, unlike the ADL, JStreet, the organization for American Jews who want a solid peace and a viable two state solution that recognizes the validity of Palestinian aspirations and which gives American Jews who oppose the  entrenched  positions of the old established organizations a voice of our own, is in complete support of the building of this mosque. Got an e-mail on it from them yesterday with a petition of support which I was happy to sign.

      1. but you can read about and probably link to it at the site:

        http://www.jstreet.org/

        I’ll forward another e-mail voicing  opposition to Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who is proposing kicking the Palestinians’ diplomatic representatives out of the United States. The percentage of Jewish Americans who are on board with the Jstreet view is steadily rising, especially among the less senior segment. Many seniors, though are also Jstreet supporters, my mom and many of her cousins included. The old Israel right or wrong no matter what the current government does type organizations can no longer claim they speak for a majority of us.  

                1. Never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

                  Not to be a turd in the punch bowl, but it ain’t happening.  If you like the 8th century because you TOTALLY KICKED ASS in the 8th century, you can’t really expect the rest of the world to follow you back to the dark ages.

  13. One of the problems for certain Republicans was that 9/11 forced them to pretend that they thought that New Yorkers were “real”  Americans, and not decadent, elitist, and effete libruls.  This issue lets them get back to their roots.

    Ali, the Republican party is bigoted, nativist, anti-intellectual and it’s in thrall to inane economic theories and scientific denialism.  It’s governing theory in opposition is nihilism.

    It’s not enough to pen a thoughtful piece for the Huffington Post.  A man of integrity would stop calling himself a Republican.

    1. So any Republican is devoid of integrity?

      Sorry, but weren’t you trying to give a lesson to someone on intolerance?

      I agree with you, Ali.  I’m a little conflicted on whether or not they should have chosen this particular site, but freedom of religion and free speech must be universally applied.  They have an absolute right to build a mosque wherever they can legally do so.

        2. And not everyone that is a Republican believes it is “an enterprise that is morally repugnant in its core beliefs“.

          Thanks for questioning my mom’s moral integrity, you intolerant fuckhead.

          1. The reason that Republicans don’t know that that their bigotry is morally repugnant is because they’re bigots, or that their embrace of crackpot economic theories is stupid is because they’re stupid.

            If you don’t want your mother’s integrity impugned, why don’t you try leaving her out of your blogging?

      2. however I wonder what the intent was in selecting that location.  If there is any incindiary effort or intent to twist the knife that should be examined.  If not, go on, we are a free country (mostly).

          1. obviously no ill intent = no big deal.  The only thing I saw in the MSM was fear and hyperbole based (shocker), like it was something COMPLETELY NEW.  

          2. I think it was the location of a Burlington Coat Factory that had gone out of business.  The existing building has been used as a mosque ever since the Imam bought it.  The only thing that has attracted attention to the project is that he wants to build a new building.

            1. What first brought attention to the property was a piece of the fuselage from an airliner crashing into it, brought about by cavemen who announced that they were acting in the name of Islam.

              I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to be pissed off about what’s happening, but being pissed off and stopping the mosque from being constructed are two different things.  Your right to be pissed is protected. Your right to tell someone what they can do with private property is not.  At least not yet.

      3. If you don’t agree with the party, and the party is not going to change (in fact, the Republicans are doubling down on the crazy), then isn’t it incumbent on persons of good will and integrity to leave the party?  How is it ethcial to continue to commit one’s good name to an enterprise that is morally repugnant in its core beliefs?

        There is nothing intolerant about pointing out that Republicans are intolerant, and equating them is simply stupid–which is, of course, one of the hallmarks of modern Republicanism.

        1. … to try to FIX the party rather than leave it.

          Lots of people on this blog are former Republicans.  Most of us feel the party is worth saving, if only we could get the crazies to die down a bit – enough to retake the party.

          And then there are people like MAH, who are die-hard fiscal Republicans who are not bigots.  Ali would have a hard time fitting into the Democratic Party (or pretty much any other party out there right now); he and others like him have an interest in trying to ‘reconquer’ the party and redeem it in some way.

          It’s tough work – you might try respecting them some time rather than insulting them.

          1. the Republican party has been taken over by crazies.  The latest–calls for a constitutional amendment to strip Noble prize winners of American citizenship–shows you what their preoccupations are.

            The Democratic party includes the ideological space formerly occupied moderate Republicans exemplified by Nelson Rockefeller, and is very heterodox in its economics.

            2. … the next time a Republican gets in to the Presidency?

              I’d suggest the following phrase, which can be applied at all levels of government and organization:

              My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.

              –Carl Schurz

                1. I mean, what do you want?  Are you interested in having fiscal uber-conservatives like MAH in the Democratic Party?  For all that we have a big tent, I’m not sure it is (or should be) so big as to include every potentially differing Republican view.

                  Do you just think they should “drift off” and have no effective voice in today’s political world?

                  Should they just spontaneously form a new political party to replace the Republican Party?  That doesn’t seem very doable given the current rules.

                  I left the GOP because I no longer thought it would ever match my values, and because the Democratic Party did.  Many of the people remaining in the Republican Party are true believers, and others support core principles without being supporters of the hate-filled parts of the party.

                  The Republican Party has a role to fill, and I hope it isn’t the sad but increasingly prominent role of bigotry and blind intolerance.

                  1. 1.  Kick the crazies to the curb, and reestablish the Republican brand as fiscally conservative and socially moderate.

                    2.  Align with the Democratic party, which is pretty much what the Rockefeller wing of the GOP has done.

                    3.  Direct political energy to issue-related causes and eschew party politics.

                  2. for all people of principle.

                    But what the hell do I know?  I quit being a Democrat when it became more important to believe what everyone else believed rather than what I believed.

      1. Is she bigoted, nativist, anti-intellectual, in thrall to inane economic theories and scientific denialism, and revelling in the nihilism of Congressional Republicans?  If so, yes, she lacks integrity.  If not, why is she still a Republican?

              2. Let’s all be thankful that OTD is certainly NOT representative of Democrats as a whole and Republican “leaders” like Gingrich, Palin, and Limbaugh certainly aren’t representative of the rank and file Republicans.

                Look to our own Senate race to see how emotional the Democrats can get about certain issues when our leaders play to those emotions to further their own agenda.

                I think the conservatives/Republicans who are protesting these mosques aren’t necessarily bigoted or bad people. I think a great many of them may have thought it was tactless but have been manipulated into a mob by the truly bigoted leaders (Palin/Gingrich) and hateful few for political gain.

                1. evidence do you have that “rank and file” Republicans are not aligned with Gingrich, Palin, and Limbaugh?  Aren’t they acknowledged and popular party leaders (or pass for party intellectuals, in the case of Gingrich and Limbaugh?)

                  You may have a point about opposition to the Cordoba Center–but is it really better to be manipulated by bigots than to be a bigot?  Isn’t it likely that the easy manipulability is a byproduct of bigotry?

            2. That’s one of the inane economic theories embraced by Republicans.

              And I don’t see how a party that turns a blind eye to the Fourth Amendment can be called a party that doesn’t trust the government.

              1. lowering barriers for people to provide goods and services to spur the economy is “inane” ?  You think that is a concept with no value whatsoever ?

                As for your fourth amendment remark, I never said Republicans were consistent.  I am sure many do have problems with recent voilations of the 4th amendment in the name of national security.

                1. Take China as an example.  In the absence of most all labor, health, security and environmental considerations they have grown their economy quite well, right or wrong.

                2. is short hand for the belief that lowering tax rates increases tax revenue.

                  “lowering barriers for people to provide goods and services” is mere cant.

                    1. “supply side” is the theory that lowering taxes unleashes economic growth that results in higher revenue–i.e., that lowering taxes increases revenue.  Laffer, for example, is most famous for holding forth on tax rates.

                      It also less commonly encompasses the idea that decreasing regulation unleashes economic growth.  Well yeah–I guess if you allow the sale of tainted food, you spur medical and funeral services…

                      And China?  That’s your economic paradigm?  How about Somalia–there’s a regulation-free state.  What’s its ecomomic growth been?

                    2. it just has been taken to an extreme in our country the past few years at the expense of ordinary Americans.

                      ceteris paribus, a country with less regulation and taxation is going to experience more economic growth than one with more.  We can’t adequately compare Somalia with China since there is no way to factor out all other influences influencing both countries.  

                      Somalia has many problems China does not, which contribute to their economic plight.  Lack of a central authority, regional warlords, violence and lack of security, theft, lack of an established commercial system, lack of currency, etc.

                      Economically China is doing quite well – I wasn’t speaking of any of their social, environmental or health problems.  I didn’t say it is right or wrong either, which is a completely different argument.

                    3. First of all, “economic growth” is not an adequate measure of what is good for a society.  For example, natural disasters (and wars) can produce quite a bit of economic growth.

                      As for whether less regulation is, cetus paribus, economically wise, lets do a quick thought experiment.  Let’s pretend that there are no regulations on toy safety.

                      Since lead-based paints are cheaper, at least some toy manufacturers will market unsafe toys.  Ka-ching–cheaper toys, more toys sold, more profits, more economic activity.

                      But wait–isn’t there a downside?  Well yes–in the form of, say, a generation of lead-poisoned children.  Who grow up a little duller than they would have been, and thus less productive…earning less…consuming less…leading to…slower economic growth.

                    4. Nobody said economic growth on its own is an adequate measure of what is good for a society and I alluded to that, and you just continue down that path wagging your finger.

                      Nevermind.

              1. I took MOTR’s comment as a joke–i.e., that he was presenting his mother as a stand-in for a generic Republican voter (as opposed to Ali Hasan, who fancies himself a Republican leader).

                Two basic errors made by LB and MOTR:

                1.  They both confused the Republican party (as evidenced by the statements and actions of its leaders and the text of its state and national platforms) with individual Republicans.  In other words, they both made the inapt leap that criticism of the party is criticism of all party members.

                2.  They see “integrity” as an all or nothing thing when its really a matter of degree.  If MOTR’s Mom (in the abstract, not his or her real mother) makes the decision that she will tolerate the hateful elements because it means lower taxes for her, she doesn’t completely lacks integrity–it’s just that her integrity is less than if she supported more ethical positions across the board.  This, I would note, is an integrity deficit that applies to almost all of us, at least to the extent that we haven’t formed our own parties.

                2. I don’t know how you did it but you got Fidel to sort of  defend supply side economics and you have all kinds of strong progressives defending Republicans in general.  You must be the most annoying Dem, old time or new time, on the planet.  The GOP ought to use you as some kind of insidious secret weapon to get liberals to like them better.

                  2. MOTR’s response to my perfectly true statement about the Republican party was  “you intolerant fuckhead” and “fuck you” — because he cannot see the difference between the Rep party and its adherents.

                    And now he’s threatening me.  Is that the way this site works?  Is that what you’re defending?

  14. Imagine if the twin towers had a Mosque inside them on 9-11.

    How vilified would AlQueda and the Taliban be within the Muslim religion?

    Accepting all religion is an American cornerstone. just because one religion feels insulted by another is no reason to deny the first, anything.

      1. yet this fact is

        1) not widely reported

        2) greatly OVERLOOKED by republicans… especially the wackos.

        3) really makes the proposed Mosque a mute issue.

        4) my original point was that A Mosque is Holy ground to ALL Muslims. attacking one no matter where it is, is a sin. There for just like hiding IN one is as safe as hiding Behind one.

         

          2. So as an anti-terrorism device, we should ingeniously put mosques in airplanes and in every building we have an interest in.

            Here’s a mosque I don’t want to hide behind.  One of the most beautiful and oldest shrines in Shiite Islam.

  15. Don’t you dare call me racist for rejecting a Muslim building at the spot where Muslims killed 3,000 Americans.  What a stick in the eye to accuse the victims!

    1. …and I stand by my words

      I lost an extended cousin in the World Trade Center attacks – the suffering over that attack didn’t just extend to white people and Christians – innocent Muslims lost family, as well

      And my comments are not directed at victims of the attack – with my losing an extended family member, technically, I’m a “victim” under your accusation, marilou – you are using sophistry here, marilou and you’re not using it very well

      My comments are directed primarily at GOP and conservative leadership, but ultimately, yes, anyone who opposes a Mosque near Ground Zero is a bigot, because what grounds should a Mosque be opposed anywhere, other than on grounds of bigotry?

      This idea that a Mosque shouldn’t be allowed because it’s insensitive? Gimme a break! Perhaps we should just outlaw Mosques all over America, because technically, didn’t the tragic 911 attacks hurt us all?

      Just be honest with yourself, marilou – claim bigotry – I’ll always respect a bigot moreso than a dishonest….

    3. Muslim?

      People like you, Marilou, really need to learn that Islam is an enormous religion that, much like Christianity, has a wide range of subdivisions within it.  Some of them are far right, some are what would be described as far left, and most cluster around the middle.  

      To tar an enormous and influential and important religion with one brush reveals you as the bigot you are.

    4. operates by overgeneralization.

      Al-Qaeda is an extremist, fundamentalist, and violent terrorist gang.  They are also Muslims, but there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who have nothing in common with and who do not share the views of Al-Qaeda.  Thus, being Muslim tells you nothing about whether a person is bad.

      Yet, solely on the basis of being a Muslim, you would deny rights.  That is bigotry.

        1. I would have thought that the pronouncements of elected Republicans and the views expressed by Republican pundits and platforms represent the views of Republicans.

          In other words, Republicans speak for Republicans.  Al-Qaeda doesn’t speak for Muslims.

          Do you understand the difference?

          1. But thanks for enlightening me, silly little rube that I am.

            Your compassion, respect and openness to others’ viewpoints are truly a beacon to be emulated – especially on a thread where we’re discussing bigotry.

          2. But thanks for enlightening me, silly little rube that I am.

            Your compassion, respect and openness to others’ viewpoints are truly a beacon to be emulated – especially on a thread where we’re discussing bigotry.

            1. My point has been that people should not lend their support to organizations whose goals and methods they don’t support. In other words, if you don’t want to be seen as supporting bigotry–don’t belong to a party lead by bigots.

              It amazes me how bigots and their enablers squeal about being oppressed and disrespected.  Sorry, asshole, but just because you have a viewpoint doesn’t mean its worthy of compassion or respect.

                  1. The irony is so thick in this thread today because of your posts calling all Republicans bigoted.

                    It’s like watching a car accident.

                    Keep posting – you’re really doing great.

                    1. What I said:

                      “the Republican party is bigoted, nativist, anti-intellectual and it’s in thrall to inane economic theories and scientific denialism.”

                      That is evidenced by the statements and actions of its elected leaders and its national and state platforms.

                      What you pretend to have heard:

                      All Republicans are bigoted, nativist, anti-intellectual, in thrall to inane economic theories and scientific denialism.

                      Can you spot the difference?  Can you understand the difference?

                    3. You can’t read (or maybe you can, but you can’t parse a sentence), so I’m intolerant.

    5. It’s several blocks away.  But that’s beside the point…

      Do you propose we ban Christian churches near sites where Christian extremists terrorized and murdered groups of people?  Or do we ban Jewish temples wherever a Jewish extremist has struck?

      It’s simply ridiculous on the face of it.  You might as well declare the whole country off-limits to religious structures over time.

          2. they have every right to build there. I’ve heard that it’s 2 and 1/2 blocks away and that they’ve been in the neighborhood for 27 years. So are we supposed to have a no Muslim zone and how far is it supposed to extend?  

            And wouldn’t the people of NYC, including the families of 9/11 victims, be better off if they put more into rebuilding something vibrant and alive on the site than into arguing endlessly about exactly how the site and surrounding neighborhood should be sanctified with no viable compromise allowing anything after 9 years? Last time I checked one persons right to feel comfortable, even a victim of a terrible crime or act of terrorism, doesn’t cancel out another’s constitutionally guaranteed civil rights.  

    6. And for all the reasons everyone has brilliantly laid out for you.

      Let me ask you some questions though:

      1. How far away from Ground Zero do you find acceptable? Since 600ft isn’t enough, what is? 1200ft? Are Muslims allowed to attend worship services in Manhattan? How about NYC?

      2. What’s the explanation for the same exact reaction, if different excuses, towards the building of a mosque in Temecula, CA? I assume that is far enough away from Ground Zero, so what other than bigotry can be the explanation?

      3. As someone else pointed out, are we going to hold other churches to the same standards in America? Should any Catholic Church near a school be immediately closed and torn down? How about no churches in Salem?

      I look forward to seeing what your answers are. More importantly I hope you think about the stance you’ve taken, the destructiveness of bigotry, and how work done at inter-faith centers (like the one in the proposed site) can bring better understanding to everyone of every faith.

  16. Freedom Matters – no matter the religion.  Escaping religious persecution was at the heart of those who first ventured from Europe to America.  A house of worship is no threat to this great nation regardless of it’s location.  More so, it is perhaps a tribute to who we are as a nation, that it can be built so close to the spot where we were so injured.

    Never give up Ali.

    Mike May

  17. But why in the name of all that is holy did you choose the Huffington Post to publish it?  A more wretched hive of scum and pseudo-science, not to mention knee-jerk knee-jerking, is hard to find.

  18. Glad to see you’re willing to stand up for what’s right here, even when it means facing off with your own conservative allies.

    I think the silence from both sides of the political spectrum has been pretty deafening. It’s mostly been those on the right and left with strong Libertarian cred that have been speaking up.

    It’s good to know you’ve joined those ranks. Well done.

    2. I only saw one rather zany rightie saying it shouldn’t be allowed to be built.

      Like I said, they have the right to build it there, but I wish they wouldn’t.

      I also don’t think there’s any way in hell it ever actually does get built, but we’ll see.

      1. These cretins are on record as being opposed and are quoted in a Slate piece:

        Sarah Palin

        Newt Gingrich

        Peter King – (R-NY)

        Rick Lazrio – R Candidate for Gov of NY

        Rudy Giuliani

        http://www.slate.com/id/2262495/

        I’m sure if I spent more time on it I could find more ‘righties” using this issue to score political points.

        It’s disgusting.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

120 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!