Mmmmm.  Did you ever watch the 1953 movie War of the Worlds????

Jim , I believe the Muslims have the right to build the mosque where ever they wish. Our fore father's came to this land and created a country based on religious freedoms without persecution.

Jim - while they have the right to build it there that does not make it right. There is no difference with the public protesting the placement of a mosque/community center/whatever name d'jour it is called than for residents protesting the building of a Walmart, or of a church of a different faith, which many places do protest. Or a funeral home, or a city jail. It is done all the time. The only reason there is an outcry is because this is Muslim. As for redlining, this doesn't quite fit the definition.

By the way, when Greg Gutfeld talked about building a gay bar next door, the comments came out about how insensitive to muslims that would be. Talk about irony.

Jim:  I am guessing that perhaps this whole idea about "permitting" this mosque to be in this particular place... might best be served by some sort of "zoning" response by the city of New York.  Just as the local community is not "best served" by certain businesses or store-fronts, or even churches nearby... being in certain locations or proximities, this may very well be the case here.

I believe it is not a matter of yes or no, but a matter of "where."

Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is a good idea... 

Jim, Either you support freedom of speech and freedom of religion or you don't. It is apparent that outside of Manhattan the idea of religious tolerance is over shadowed by religious bigotry. This is not NIMBY issue.  It is welcomed by the Tribeca/ Park Row local community in lower Manhattan.

Karen Anne, Are you suggesting NYC should change zoning laws because people who live in other states will "be best served" by moving Muslims from Tribeca to another community. Are you suggesting they be moved to a "ghetto"? How about moving them to Auschwitz? Where do you suggest moving the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center to? How about the "Jews for Jesus" (oxymoron) 7 story building in Midtown Manhattan? 

Where should Catholic Churches be allowed? Should NYC change it's zoning laws so no Catholic Church can be near any children? The Catholic church has been directly responsible for much of the horror and death that has taken place in the past 2,000 years. The Protestant Church is not far behind.

I mean no disrespect since I support religious freedom and I consider you a friend. I only bring it up because you have mentioned on numerous occasions your nice Catholic girl upbringing. Your position suprises me since you are usually an advocate for equal rights. Perhaps your religious education is where your opposition comes from.

Jim, I agree with your post. Here is one I wrote a few weeks ago: it-s-not-a-mosque-and-it-s-not-at-ground-zero and one from a few days ago No spam intended so feel free to delete them.

.

Mitchell:  I consider you a friend as well.  I have no clue where all of your "where shall we put..." questions came from.  And yes, I have always been in favor of equal rights, and freedom of speech.  Perhaps the best thing for me to do is simply say that, no, I do not have all of the facts, nor have I had the opportunity of living in New York and sharing the New York'ness of your feelings about living there.  Perhaps I should just keep quiet.

I don't know.  I am torn in several different ways over this.  I also fear that this whole issue, including President Obama's speaking out in favor of it, when I feel he should have allowed New Yorkers to handle it, I fear it could, and will be used by the far right as a club to beat up Progressives and Liberals with... this coming November.

Also... I don't recall saying anything about moving any LGBT center anywhere ?  The Catholic Church ?  That was hijacked gradually over the last forty years, and was made much more permanent when the current "pope" was "elected."

I feel there are some Catholic churches that are still living in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council from the sixties... with it's "open'ness" and its general accepting and welcoming spirit... and its recommendation of inclusion of women as full members... and it is with those souls that I align myself.

My opposition does NOT come from my religious education.  At least I do not think it does.  I don't honestly do not think the current "pope" would even consider me a Catholic.  Recovering catholic ?  Battered catholic ?  Who knows.  I value the kindness of the sisters who taught me in elementary and high school, and am oh so grateful to the Jesuits who helped me learn how to think... in my University days.  I consider myself a rare Catholic these days... one who thinks, or at least one who thinks she things.  <smile>

Getting back to the subject... it is just from my viewpoint that I don't think it wise to locate the mosque where the Imam wishes... but then again, it is his constitutional right.  I think it best for me to rely on those closest to the situation... the New Yorkers... whom I generally admire.

Have a great weekend.

Karen Anne, I know you wouldn't suggest moving the LGBT center but there are those who would and have suggested it. That's the point I was trying to make. You can't please all the people all the time. Some one some where finds something offensive. How about Prop8? Same thing in my opinion. Same arguments" "slap in the face" insensitive to marriage also paid for by an out-of state organization. My point was along the line of Jim's title "redlining."

I brought up Catholic school because I've heard som.e horrendous things being taught in Catholic schools dating back to when I was 5 years old. The point is all religions have their faults. Islam just hasn't been around as long. As you always say. "We're not a theocracy".  I agree and absolutely support the US principle of separation between church and state. 

It is unfortunate this has become a national wedge issue. President Obama was correct. Unfortunately, as many people as there are throughout the country who are opposed to the community center, the same amount of people, and likely the same people, also believe President Obama is a Muslim. They believe he was not born in the United States and is not a US citizen. There are just as many who believe Iraq and Sadam Hussein attacked the WTC and that is why we went to war in Iraq. A war BTW Obama just ended delivering on his campaign promise.

If this non issue is now the wedge used against progressives or democrats and they can't make an argument for freedom and liberty for all, then I have no use for progressives. Maybe Mike Bloomberg will run as a pragmatic centrist "Third Way" a leader who obviously "gets it."

The whole issue was invented by a lunatic right-wing blogger named Pam Gellar. She is the leader of "Stop the Islamization of America, She branded it. "Dubbed Ground Zero Mosque" by The NY Post and Fox both owned by News Corp.

I wonder if Newt Gingrich and the "so-called Patriots'" know their favorite network FOX is part owned by a Suadi Prince whose family rules by Sharia law. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns a controlling interest in News Corp — the parent company of Fox News — making him the largest shareholder outside the Murdoch family.

Remember right after 9/11 this prince offered Mayor Rudolph Giuliani a big multi-million dollar check to rebuild and Giuliani turned it down because this prince was blaming America for what happened on 9/11. Maybe Fox will pay for the community center. Interesting twist huh?

Jim, Thanks for reading my blog. I've only deleted unrelated spam too. I enjoy open discussions with opposing views.

Mitchell... the employees of Fox News do not have a say in who chooses to buy stock.  And the company doesn't control who purchases it...  But apparently the Saudi who bought it doesn't mind... 

Too bad the Saudis won't allow any religious tolerance in their country.

Lane, Employees do not have a say in who owns/buys their company just like they don't have a say when their boss/owner dictates what they can or can not report. Australian Murdoch had to become a US citizen when he bought US TV stations. The company had a "poison pill" so rival John Malone of Liberty Media could not get control of the company. The Prince did not purchase stock on e-trade. Murdoch sought the investment/alliance. They are business partners. News corp made a deal in sharing content with Prince Al-Waleed’s conglomerate Rotana Audio Visual Company, which operates TV channels in the Middle East.

The prince can broadcast Saudi-produced materials directly into America on Murdoch’s satellite. Of course the Saudi doesn't mind. Rotana will be able to beam its programs into U.S. cable boxes without interference from federal regulators, or anybody else. In addition to his powerful Fox News outlet, Thanks to the US Supreme Court decision, Alwaleed and other foreign investors were given the power to impact American elections.

The prince issued a press release stating that the prince’s Kingdom Holding Company had discussions that "touched upon future potential alliances with News Corp. The  Prince called it an “alliance” with the Murdoch family and explained why he has a personal stake in influencing American politics:

– On continuing America’s dependence on fossil fuels, Saudia Arabian oil: “Saudi Arabia’s strategic alliance with the United States will continue and as a derivative of that, the link with the oil between oil and dollars is there. The bulk of our GDP, the bulk of budget comes from oil and oil is still a dollar based commodity.”

just sayin....

Too bad the Saudi's our "dear friends and allies" won't allow religious tolerance in their country. Too bad 15 of the 9/11 terrorist's were from Suadi Arabia. Too bad we went to war in Iraq by mistake.

BTW: Feisel Rauf, has been the Inman of a mosque at 245 West Broadway a few blocks from the WTC in Tribeca since 1983. He is from Egypt.

Free Americans should be more concerned about where they're getting their news from than worrying about a mosque that has been near the World Trade Center for more than 25 years.

It's obvious from reading this discussion there will be no compromise on this Mosque issue.  If I am understanding this correctly, we all agree the Mosque has a Legal right to be built.  So that discussion should be over. 

And, if I understand these discussion correctly, this is only a Manhattan issue and shouldn't effect the rest of our Country since living outside Manhattan makes you religiously intolerant and a religious bigot.  If you question the rightness of the Mosques location and you are Catholic your perception somehow is clouded, or you are a right-wing lunatic.  Americans are hhypocrites because we put up monuments on our own land in our own country to honor our dead, when, where and why they died. And, Fox news is bad for our Country because of one of New Corps owners.

WOW, now I truly understand what tolerant means; no seeing both sides here.

I feel I have just be educated on how wrong, bad and misguided we are as a Country (other than acknowledging Religious Freedom).     

I am very sorry you feel this way about your Country Jim.

Odd, those that are preaching 'tolerance' assume that anyone that doesn't agree with them MUST be a bigot.  Kind of prejudiced, no?

The real reason why this should be a non-issue is that the morons who flew the planes into the tower are not Muslims. The Muslim religion is a religion of peace. We do not advocate the killing of innocent people or people of other faiths. To even state that there is some ties to the morons and the Muslim faith is a slap in the face to all Muslims around the world. Why can't anyone understand that?

If the Muslim faith promotes or advocates the murder of innocent civilians, then we should not let ANY mosque to be built, REGARDLESS of location.

Jim, your point about not wanting to bomb "Boise, Idaho because of the Neo-Nazi beliefs of Richard Butler in Northern Idaho who's beliefs were not shared by most people here in Boise!" is exactly the same argument in this situation. The extreme, few crazy people do not represent the religion and faith of the peace loving Muslim religion.

Lois, Since you left comments on my blog, and I've never seen you on activerain before, I've since read your blogs. Your blog posts are mostly members only, partisan political posts that are not real estate related or even about local politics. You even wrote a post about political labels. You have the right to write about whatever you want.

My blog, on the other hand is about real estate in Manhattan. Real estate is local. I write about local real estate and real estate related issues. Real estate is about location, location, location. Yes this is a local Manhattan real estate issue.

I'm currently working with a church as a client to find them a new space. Their particular religion or denomination is of no interest to me since I provide equal professional service to all, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, national origin or other protected status of any prospective client, customer or resident of any community or particular location.

I don't preach tolerance I practice it. I have made a pledge to Fair Housing and I take it seriously. I am not interested in "sensitivities" or "warm and fuzzy feelings" or perceived "understanding of tolerance". I refuse to tolerate non-compliance.

Congressman Ron Paul Republican, libertarian and Tea Party founder today released the following statement on the construction of an Islamic Center and Mosque in New York City: He gets it! He reiterated my post, Jim's post and my comments. Thank you Ron Paul.

"All About Hate, Islamaphobia"

Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives’ aggressive wars.

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.