Build a mosque in Manhattan?
August 23 2010 by Norman Jameson, BR Editor

What is the issue for Christians in the American debate about whether or not Muslims should be “allowed” to build a mosque in Manhattan?

Such a mosque would not be the first in Manhattan. There already are several and in 1991 a mosque opened at 1711 Third Ave. in upper Manhattan built with money from the governments of Kuwait, Libya and Saudi Arabia

The proposed cultural center/mosque would serve Muslims in lower Manhattan. It would rise 13 stories on the site of what is now an old building that was damaged Sept. 11, 2001 when Muslim extremists flew jets into the World Trade Center towers, killing 3,000 people of many nationalities, races and religions.

That atrocity threw our country into a funk from which a stink cloud still rises. Because we could not bear the insult we justified a pending invasion of Afghanistan and later invaded Iraq.

American response has cost many times more lives than were lost on 9/11 and the long term human toll will color our psyche and our economy for many years. It apparently also is causing Americans to consider disregarding the very principles of our nation’s founding in favor of another dip in the pool of self pity.

Although Christian ethic and morals form the basis of our laws, America is not a “Christian” nation. We do not have a state church and the apparatus of government does not defend or support the church.

If we were a “Christian nation” in the way we think of “Muslim” nations birth certificates would automatically indicate “Christian” as the “faith of birth.”

It would be illegal to convert to another faith. Jews, Native American religions, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons and atheists would be unwelcome. They would need to practice their faith covertly, at great risk of discovery and penalties unto death.

That’s the way it is when a nation defines itself by the predominant faith of its people.

That’s the way it was for Baptists 400 years ago in Europe when they stood for freedom of conscience against the state church and in some cases were chained together and thrown into the river to be “baptized” by immersion.

That’s why our ancestors fled Europe. That’s why Roger Williams eventually had to flee Massachusetts Bay Colony and establish Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.

Baptists must stand for the freedom of conscience for all for which our ancestors died.

Any question of this mosque in New York City is not about the First Amendment’s precious words that the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” 

The issue surrounding this mosque has everything to do with it being manipulated for political positioning among self-absorbed Americans nourishing our pain from 9/11 and continuing to look for someone to blame, for someone to pay, for something to make us feel alright again.

Because the radicalized terrorists who struck at our heart were Muslim, we somehow think that to deny unrelated American Muslims the opportunity to build a worship center close to where the World Trade Center towers once stood is to strike some kind of defiant blow against terrorism.

We think it will raise freedom’s torch higher because we’ve defended the memories of those who died by denying a place to read, swim, meet and worship to people who claim the same faith as the terrorists.

I’m glad that standard doesn’t hold in North Carolina, where more prisoners indicate their faith of choice is “Baptist” than any other faith. As a Baptist, I would be held accountable for their crimes. 

Americans have an irritating penchant for memorializing tragedy. We want to lay wreaths on dangerous highways where fatal accidents occurred.

We put plaques at the site of mass killings. We restore buildings once blown up and put parks around them so people can come and see and remember how awful it was.

A commission argued for months about an “appropriate” memorial for the site of the 9/11 tragedy and a major concern was, “How will the families of the victims feel?”

I’m sorry for those who lost loved ones that day nine years ago. The truth is thousands of families have lost loved ones tragically since that day — not in the same way, but the death is as permanent, the pain as searing.

I’m proud of those families who hold pictures of their loved ones and remember them fondly, bearing no grudge and recognizing that life goes on. If every nation nursed, nourished and fed their injuries like America, the world would come to a grinding halt because human tragedies strike daily: terrorist attacks in markets, suicide bombers in restaurants, murderous horsemen in Sudan and Darfur, genocides, raids on villages to conscript children for the army, train wrecks in India, capsized ferries in Indonesia and the list goes on endlessly.

To be true to our principles as Christians and for other Americans to be true to the Constitution we cannot let the painful memory of a terrorist attack and sympathetic acquiescence to those families whose identity was arrested by the events of that day dictate our responses in the future to situations that — were they unrelated to that day — would be totally unremarkable.
8/23/2010 7:46:00 AM by Norman Jameson, BR Editor | with 22 comments

Nancy Sehested
Thank you, Norman, for this excellent and wise word about the mosque in Manhatten. As a NC state prison chaplain, I particularly liked your line about wondering if all NC Baptists should be held accountable for the crimes of all the Baptist prisoners in our state. Wow! This could open up a whole new mission field right here in our state. This weekend 40 Muslim inmates will welcome me to their feasting table for the Eid al Fitr, the feast that ends the fast of Ramadan. I pray for the day when all of us are gathered around God's feasting table of peace.
9/9/2010 11:16:43 PM
Gene Scarborough
Much of the fear which promotes restriction is simply this: [b]We don't have a clear and comfortable grip on our religion and why we have it!!![/b]

Those who know what they believe and why are far less likely to be fearful some other religion will trump them.

I have met and discussed in detail the Mormon religion with a N. Atlanta metro leader, but simply told him, "I am content with my 66 books of my Bible and need nothing more to have the joy and peace of my salvation."

It would have been stupid of me to criticize him nor forbid him his freedom of religion--as long as he is willing to respect mine.

We both did and parted friends!!!! Wow!!!! You CAN agree to disagree and still worship God.
9/5/2010 8:17:01 PM
Rev. Leigh Hebbard
This editorial is so meaningful at this time. We who are Baptist have a marvelous and wonderful tradition of championing the freedom of all to practice their faith and religion as they are led by their conscience and their believe in God. This should not have become an issue used by self-serving politicians to raise the ire of their base of supporters or any one else. America, if we are going to remain true to our founding principles, must insist on the separation of politics and religion in all areas of our life and society. Let the churches, synagogues and mosques teach and inculcate their religious tenets freely. If we renege on this principle, the terrorists have won and we are no longer the America envisioned by the Founders.
9/1/2010 4:10:38 PM
Dr. James Willingham
Mr. Scarborough's observation is right that it would be better for SBC and CBF to be together, heading in the same direction. We have an example of uniting two groups in our history as Baptists, the uniting of the Separate and Regular Baptists in 1787, wherein the agreed to drop the terms, Separate and Regular and be called United Baptists thereafter. Fifty years later a church was organized in Missouri,the Old Sardis United Baptist Church which eventually adopted the name of the town which grew up nearby, thus becoming the Elston Baptist Church, which I patored for a bief 18 months in 1965-66. Those folks then were well-able to unite, to make agreements. One of the agreements in 1787 in the union of Separates and Regulars was that the preaching that Christ tasted death for every man should be no bar to communion, clearly implying that the normal precept was that He died for elect, hence, particular redemption or limited atonement (except even the general atonement advocates preach limited atonement, too, as a moment of reflection will indicate - limited by man's choice. In the case of a universalist, limited by the fact that it has not the power to get everyone saved in his life). Mt. Pisgah Baptist Church in the Yates Association now (originally in the Sandy Creek) in its articles of faith speaks only of Crist dying for the Church, not a word about him dying for everyone.

Our problem with union today is twofold, namely, theological and biblical differences and personal affronts. Once offended, a person is even harder to win. And then one must deal with different was of looking at theological an biblical truths. One problem in the latter area is that the whole approach of the Moderate Baptists was th fact that they adopted the approach of Higher Criticism, which scarcely deserves such nomenclature, since it grew out of what was called in the 18th century French Infidelity, the ideas and views and approaches of the Philosophes of the Englightenment (Voltaire and others of France along with their English cousins like Hume and Tom Paine). Behind these latter individuals lay the extreme skepticism and political ambitions of the jesuits who had been ousted by the papacy for about 70 years or so; the aim of the philosophes and jesuits lie more in the political realm and involve control over the lives of every individual, period.

As to the exclusivism of the Lord Jesus, there is more than one way of stating and advancing such aims. The Baptists adopted that way, when they advocated and implemented religious liberty. Interestingly enough the stories of conversion to the Christian Faith even among people who had not been previously exposed to the Christian Faith can begin before the Gospel arrives on the scene. Several instances of this can be found in A.H. Strong's Systematic Theology. I also found an instance of an American Indian who was converted by the Great Spirit before any Christian ministers ever spoke the message or imparted the message of the Gospel to him. He wound up pastoring the Primitive Baptist Church of Wabash, Indiana for about 40 years. Ravi Zacharias has also told some instances of Muslims being converted in an all Muslim nation without having heard the Gospel, converted by a dream of Jesus which led them to leave their Moslem nation and move to a place where they could profess their faith in the Savior wth being executed for apostasy (a reality that is often enforced by law in those nations where Islam is the state religion). Sharia law, often put into practice in areas within nations of other beliefs in order to enforce and force their practices of not allowing Christians to evanglize as is beginning to be done in England and is being attempted in France, the Netherlands, and other countries of Western Europe. Those who advocate freedom to Muslims to practice their faith need to understand the baggage that some Muslims (I say some, allowing for those with more liberal views) bring with them, baggage that is inimical to our freedoms and even down right hostile to them. Already we have some of this honor killing stuff beginning to occur in America and the restriction on Christian evangelism evidently being attempted in Dearborn, Mi. are cases in point that need to be considered by everyone as they might prove to be our undoing as a nation. After all the Constitution is te supreme law of the land by law and by practice, and a carelessly allowed practice designed to restrict a constitutional right is grounds for undoing all of the rights therein. Those who are speaking so well of the Muslims need to consider how they themselves witll take it when Sharia law restricts their rights. What is you answer, gentlemen?
8/30/2010 10:56:34 PM
Amen, Ms. Hefner. I could not agree more. Tolerance and apathy are destroying the church that is built on the confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
8/30/2010 9:08:07 PM
Sherry Hefner
There is but ONE NAME by which we are saved and that is the name of JESUS CHRIST. Yes, it is a "narrow view"...Jesus himself said it was a narrow way. This is not a deeply theological debate. This is the statement of faith that all Christians must claim.
While we are arguing about the right of a religious group to construct a building, ministers of the Gospel of Christ are being denied the right to pray in public places using the name of Jesus. Until we focus on Christ alone, and His teachings, we will miss the point and purpose of our lives. We must stand up for Jesus or we lose the power by which we can accomplish all things for His glory.
I find this editorial inflammatory and not useful for the purpose of building up Christ's kingdom.
8/30/2010 8:31:45 PM
Louis Parrish
Thanks, Norman for your editorial. We surely need to bring our most thoughtful and prayerful consideration to this issue. In the end we (BR readers) will not decide this issue; that is up to others. However, we can add some enlightened viewpoints. Thanks again for the editorial.
8/29/2010 10:21:57 PM
Gene Scarborough
Since we are having a serious discussion concerning the core of American values and politics, I highly recommend you read this article from August 20, 2010:

What is the problem with backing off the hate and lack of cooperation in favor of helping this economy?

[b]Are we headed in the same direction as the SBC?[/b] The takeover / formation of CBF / continued criticism of one another--when putting the 2 mission efforts together would really show growth rather than decline. It has been 40 years of national and Baptist contention!!!

Hurting and fighting in the face of crisis is a poor strategy, in my opinion.

Will this be an election based on ideas competing? Will we be better off after Nov. 11?
8/29/2010 8:02:23 AM
Dr. Willingham, I agree on Christians being far too passive. Whether it be our own religious freedoms being "eroded away" as you said, or the rights of special interest groups being advanced while Christians raise the white flag of surrender in the name of tolerance. Christians need to grow a spine so that they can "stand up and make a big noise about it."
8/27/2010 10:47:29 PM
Dr. James Willingham
Dishonesty in voting procedures has been a problem from the very beginning of this nation, I suspect. I have heard of chicanery in many elections. We simply have to work, be alert, call attention to the abuses, focus a spotlight on them until people finally get concerned. No one, I repeat, no one, should get away with stealing the voting rights of others in order to advance their own cause. Again, I do call attention to the matter of our religious freedom being eroded away. When will we stand up and make a big noise about it?
8/27/2010 10:34:13 PM
Gene Scarborough

So well said!!!

While a dictatorship or kingship might make things more simple in this country, a Constitution / balance of powers / free press / religious freedom give us the opportunity to pursue [b]the "golden dream" of a government "of the people / for the people / by the people."[/b]

America is the only country on the face of this earth which can have a revolution every 4 years without a shot being fired!

We go to the ballot booth in November, fill out our conscience behind a curtain, insert it into a vote tabulating machine and call it "God's Will."

If anyone paid attention to the HBO special after the Bush-Gore campaign, it proved there was a file in the software which allowed anyone to go in, change numbers, alter the final outcome. The proof was a comparison of hard paper voting records and that which the computer reported (Vote-0-Matic). Where the hard records are required, by law, to be kept for 7 years, the research team found them in the dumpster in a few months in Texas and Florida.

They compared the "hard paper reports" to the computer's ultimate report which determined the election results for Gore/Bush in Florida.

[b]Guess what?????[/b]

[i]The results DID NOT MATCH--in the favor of Republicans!!!![/i]

I'm not grinding my political ax---just telling you what the documentary showed.

We need to be fair and honest if Baptists and America achieves "One Nation Under God" as we like to recite in our pledge.

[b]The "golden dream" is beautiful! The harsh reality is. sometimes. below what my "call to honesty" conscience wants to require. [/b]
8/26/2010 9:27:47 PM
Dr. James Willingham
Even the previous Chief Justice of the Supreme Court went back and did research on the issue and came to a rather positive conclusion. I think D. James Kennedy had a copy of that research. We really need a republication of Charles Beard's History of the United States (originally published around 1848, I think). The issue we are going to really have with the Muslims is over Sharia law and its intolerance toward Christian evangelism. Will we give up our religious freedom to accomodate their antipathy toward what we regard as a biblical truth? And when will we reassert our role in the matter, insisting that we have by right of history, by right of constitutional law, by right of heritage, family, etc., the right of religious liberty? No one is even commenting on that issue....and all the while it is surely being eroded away! One day we will wake up in prison or in a ghetto, if we wake up at all, with no freedom left and a severely circumscribed existence with extremely few outlets to have even the basic necessities of life. Personally, my hope and prayer is for a Third Great Awakening, the one sure means to a transformation of society, the ground for tue renewal. O by the way, the ferment, the conflict, just means were alive. The gentleman from Wake Forest, Dr. Leonard, cited a Episcopalian about how Baptists in the 1700s were always fussin' and during that time of fussin' they won the great liberties, helped to established the greatest nation in history, launched the Great Century of Missions, united Separate and Regular Baptists, got the General Baptists who were neither very evangelistic or missionary minded to become Particular/Regular Baptists who were both, employed educated and uneducated ministers, and more. So our ferment just means we are live and active. Silence would be indicative of fear and/or death. Chew on that thought.
8/26/2010 3:22:47 PM
Gene Scarborough

Thanks for clarifying your position. You seem like a well-reasoned and compassionate person.

To clarify my position on Heaven for non-Chistians: "I am willing to leave the judging up to God / I believe Jesus is the Christ and (at age 64) have no worries about not passing God's muster / I just don't know (and don't think any of us ever will) the exact and total basis of God's judgement nor His mind.


A well-reasoned commentary with your usual detail of explaination which is worth taking the time to read!

I am interested in how we view the founding of this country and whether it is a "Christian Nation" or not. Based on some inhumane treatment of fellow citizens in my lifetime, I think we say one thing and do another far too often. The good thing is that we seem to eventually correct horrible inconsistency.

It seems to me our greatest dilemma over the Mosque/Cultural Center is whether we believe in religious freedom enough to give Moslems their rightful place under Freedom of Religion.

I have to agree that, with typical emotional "overkill," us Christians have received muzzling by atheists and other new religions--as if Congress and the Supreme Court HAS made laws against our public prayers. I call it "reverse discrimination."

Us Americans seem to just love fussing and fighting. I probably proves we have too many Baptists in this country---especially the South! (Said in jest!!)

I am ever-impressed with the level of intelligence and considerate debate which is going on with this emotional and delicate matter. It is such a joy to now live in NC with so many considerate and thoughtful people. I was birthed in SC / grew up and was educated in GA & NC / I have served churches in all 3 states.

With Baptist polity, I observe that NC is, by far, one of the states championing a Baptist freedom. I will really believe it when the NCBSC and CBF can be kind and considerate of one another---and rejoice that we are both majoring on Missions and minoring on Theological debate.

8/26/2010 6:05:07 AM
Dr. James Willingham
I read the other comments, thanks to the link, and with all due consideration and respect to the editor and my friend Gene Scarborough, there are somethings they seem to be overlooking. Let me say first, I agree about the religious liberty issue: The Muslims can have their cultural center/mosque in a free nation which America is supposed to be, but it would be advisable to consider the feelings of those who lost loved ones at ground zero. In view of the fact that the Pope was willing to advise the nuns to move elsewhere in being sensitive to the Jews, it would seem proper for the Muslims to have the same consideration. And I do not think it was very considerate on anyone's part to sully the memory of those who perished by being abrasive to their grieving survivors. Tonight after church, we learned of a former Marine member who is going to Nebraska for the funeral of a Marien friend killed in Afghanistan. Sadly, Westboro Church from Kansas will also be there concerning the homosexual issue, a bit of utter insensitivity to a grieving family. As to the protest of of the editor and my friend there is, indeed, some justification for being abrasive about some of the issues involving us in the wars in Iraq and Afghanstan. We do have leaders on both sides of the aisle who seem to be serving at the behest of some party that wants/needs war to continue to exercise power and secure profits from the same.

What really troubles me the most is that no one has taken any notice or written any real protest about the fact that our religious liberty has been recently curtailed....curtailed witout a real outcry! Note te fact that the State Legislature' abrupt dismissal of a Christian minister from praying in their assembly, because he prayed in the name of Jesus. Note also the ACLU's legal effort, aided or backed by some Jews and Moslems, to stop prayer in the name of Jesus in a city/county government organization in the Winston Salem area where Imams also prayed in the name of Allah and Jews in the name o Elohim or which ever other name for God in the Old Testament they deemed appropriate. So they hand us our heads on a platter, metaphorically speaking, saying the one name you can't pray in is the name of Jesus. Now that is a clear cut case of denying to all Christians the freedom to pray in public in public functions in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. I noted an article in the newspaper recently about a place in the Pentagon for Moslems to pray in the name of Allah and yet I have been told that there are efforts being made to restrict chaplains from praying in the name of Jesus.

Interestingly enough, I believe in the freedom of the Jew to pray in whatever name for God from the OT that he or she deems appropriate, and the same for a Moslem praying in the name of/to Allah. Like wise for the many millions of gods of the Hindus and Wiccans. And I totally disagree with Mr. Jameson, because the reason why one has that freedom in this nation is because it has a Christian background and has been declared to be a Christain nation by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1790s and again in the 1890s in actually court cases. The first synagogue in th New World was built in Rhode Island, because of religious liberty having been established by law by two Baptists (one a Baptist minister temporarily but still a Baptist in sentiment (I have looked at his works where he said so) and the other a Baptist minister for most of his life. I refer to Rger Williams in the first case and Dr. John Clarke in the second). That synagogue according to the last information I had some years ago is still standing and in use. Freedom to practice involves public involvement, and for any one to tell me I cann't in a public function pray in the name of Jesus is to deprive me of my religious freedom...just as much as if I insist that they pray in the name of Jesus or not pray in the name of Elohim or Allah or one of the many Gods of Hinduism. To limit any one from praying in their preferred name for God or not to pray to one of the saints as Catholics do is to utterly deny the principle of religious liberty.

Folks, about a 20 minute trip from Winston-Salem to Greensboro would have taken that judge, the ACLU, and its backers to a battlefield where at least one of my ancestors served in the second line of battle, the Virginia Colonial Troops as a 2nd Lt. He served throughout the war and drew a pension for his service from Congress in his last years. Another relative of mine joined the DAR on the basis of another ancestor. My grandmother who raised me was a Craig (She gave our son her maiden family name). The Craig Clan came to America in such numbers that every member of one whole regiment of Colonial troops in Virginia boe h ast nme of Craig according to the records that I saw in the Volumes of the DAR in Arkansas back in the '80s. I dare say not a one of my ancestors and predecessors (in the Baptist ministry of the Revolutionary Period), except for the very few (the ones I know about I can count on the fingers of two hands and not use all of them)who did not support that civil war against a duly constituted government, not a one, I repeat of the supporters but what would strenuously object to any denial of their descendants and successors not being able to pray in the name of Jesus. Even General and President Washington and Thomas Jefferson and others of the Founding Fathers demonstrated by example that they certainly would allow and expect such practices. I mean, if Jefferson would attend church services in the capital building while serving as Preident, it follows that he would allow the same.

Gentlemen, you are so concerned about the Muslims and their freedom which I, too, believe in though I see reason for consideration of the feelings of those who lost loved ones in 9/11, but why not a singe word abou a far more serious deprivation of our rights and even of your own to pray in the name of Jesus....unless you think the feelings of others who have extreme prejudice against your praying in the name of Jesus while keeping thei own right to pray in the name of the deity they deem suitable?
8/26/2010 12:10:29 AM
First, let me be clear that I was not being critical concerning the original 55 comments missing; I simply did not have them to refer to. Obviously, this is not the original post as Ms. Cagle explained, so that makes sense. Mr. Scarborough, thank you for your response. I understand different religions have a variety of deities, but I disagree that Allah and God are the same. There is only one true God and the differences between our God and Allah go way beyond a name.

Concerning Jesus being the only way, I was not referring to children who die before the "age of accountability," as it is often referred to, or those who die without hearing. The question was related more to folks who follow a false religion having any hope of salvation. You seemed to imply that even Muslims will go to Heaven and we should not consider their belief as inferior. I would certainly disagree with that view and again, maybe I misread your statement.
8/25/2010 10:07:17 PM
Dianna Cagle
I apologize about the link above; the comma threw it off. Here is the link:
8/25/2010 12:41:45 PM
Dianna Cagle
The "original" comments are not on this editorial because this is not the original piece written by Norman Jameson. He originally wrote something for his Spoke'n Editor's Journal on the Biblical Recorder web site here:, but rewrote it for the editorial in the Aug. 28 print issue. This posting is that editorial from the Aug. 28 print issue. Mr. Jameson is in Haiti this week and unable to check the comments as closely as usual.
8/25/2010 12:40:31 PM
Gene Scarborough
By the way--the elimination of 55 earlier comments is likely a product of website limitation by the system.

They were all intelligent and added to the discussion, in my opinion.
8/25/2010 9:59:31 AM
Gene Scarborough

I believe there is but one God--We use that term / Muslims use Allah / the biblical Hebrew viewed the name of God a sacred and used their letters:YHWH for it = Jehovah. The particular name for God in various cultures is not of ultimate importance. Most societies have some sort of diety as a core of their religions.

I am willing to leave the judging to God as to who gets into Heaven. It is a narrow view which states ONLY THOSE who believe Jesus is the Christ get into Heaven.

What do you think God does with souls never having the opportunity to hear the Gospel?

Are they all destined to Hell simply because they didn't know?
8/25/2010 9:55:36 AM
Not sure what happened to the original 55 comments to this article, but Mr. Scarborough you made some of those comments and I wanted to clarify. Do you believe that Christians and Muslims serve the same God? Perhaps I misread one of your comments but I believe that is what you stated. Second, do you believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven?
8/24/2010 10:32:32 PM
Gene Scarborough
A good friend of my son's, who is a USAF Crew Chief, sent me some gun camera footage. It was from an Apache helocopter monitoring a bridge in Iraq.

On that bridge were trucks and people. For the life of me, I can't detect any one of them carrying a gun. You assume they are "the enemy," but the picture won't prove it.

[b]The footage is gruesome:[/b] It shows the gun cross hairs as they scope out the scene with night vision cameras. A man among 3 walks over behind the bridge abutment. As he steps into the open the gunnery officer centers on him and asks the pilot for permission to "smoke him." Given the authorization to fire, that human body explodes into a pile of mush!

The gun then goes to the front of a truck. Again they fire with the front of the truck exploding. Out from under it staggers another person--obviously mortally wounded. The "smoke him" order is given and his body is turned into a 2nd pile of mush only a brown paper bag could contain!

[b]Now, here is the question:[/b] Were they enemy combatants or innocent civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time?

[b]Second question:[/b] If we are on a "peace keeping" mission in the Middle East, what will the relatives think of the menacing Apache destroying the body of a son / brother / uncle / beloved relative?

If you ever wondered what "hell fire" meant, you are seeing it in the hands of American pilots at the controls of a deliverer of hell fire!

[b]As I watch, it I ask another question:[/b] Would we be winning the Peace in the Middle East if missionaries and doctors from America were helping instead of the helocopter?

I know we have compassionate members of our Military picking up stray dogs and children to give them medical attention--and all the things like food which starving people crave.

What is our real mission against terrorism? To capture Osamma ben Laden after all these years of hiding and being known clearly as the originator of 9/11. Isn't there a better way to win the Peace?

[b]Would a more kind attitude toward Muslims in a country supposedly based on religious freedom be more wise?[/b]

I hate what happened on 9/11, [b]BUT[/b] it was an act of terrorism by people using Jihad as their cry in the face of a Koran more focused on joy and peace than on holy war. Would we be more wise to "turn the other cheek" to a Muslim community dedicated to prayers with head turned toward Mecca?

The answers are not simple, nor is Rush Limbaugh my spokesman--spawning American hate!
8/24/2010 2:06:07 PM
Brent Hobbs
They do and should have the right to build a mosque/community center two blocks from ground zero. However, it is in poor taste and inconsiderate to build on the particular site - and there is legitimate reason to believe that's exactly why this site was chosen.

There's no reason for them not to move slightly farther away to the site the NY governor is offering.

I wonder, Norman, what advice you would give to Iraqi Christians who might want to build a church building on the site an American bomb fell in their country? (A hypothetical situation I don't think would ever really happen.) I think you might tell them they can and should find a more appropriate site.
8/23/2010 11:43:22 PM
 Security code