The Imam behind the mosque is the same as the dude burning Qurans.
I’ve written about the Ground Zero mosque before. I’ve given my opinion on it before. I see no need for it and I’ve heard no justification for it. It’s not a constitutional issue…it’s a zoning issue. It’s not about whether it can be built; but should it be built. Well, the Imam behind the mosque gave an interview to CNN yesterday, and provided some interesting insight into the building of the mosque (this from the live blog),
Rauf said that if he knew how controversial the project would be, he ‘never would have done this – not have done something that would create more divisiveness.’
The only way you wouldn’t have known this would stir controversy is if you were mentally ill; and maybe you are. But now you know that your monument to tolerance will do nothing more than make a lot of people angry. So, you’ll move it, right?
However, he said he is convinced he shouldn’t move the center now because ‘our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it and what we do.’
By that, he said, he means that if the controversy forces a move, ‘it means the radicals … will shape the discourse on both sides.’
Of course he won’t move it. And the reason is national security? National security because the radicals will get mad if it’s moved? Newsflash: the radicals were mad on 9/11, when there was no mosque at Ground Zero, and there were lots of practicing muslims in New York. Oh yeah, about that,
O’Brien asked about [the Imam’s] interview with CBS’s ’60 Minutes,’ shortly after the 9/11 attacks, in which he said the United States’ policies ‘were an accessory to the crime.’
O’Brien asked twice, but Rauf deflected the question.
‘The work we have to do now is not about pointing fingers,’ he said, as part of his response.
Apparently he still thinks we were at fault for 9/11. So there’s that.
My issue with the mosque has always been a very practical one: why build it there? The Imam was actually asked that question during his interview:
Asked why he wanted to build the center on the planned spot, Rauf noted he’s already run a mosque about 10 blocks from ground zero for many years.
When asked about the feelings of families of 9/11 victims – such as those who might claim that their relative’s remains have yet to be found at the site, Rauf said: ‘This is not that spot. This is not ground zero proper. No one’s body is in that location.’
‘I’m very sensitive to those feelings,’ he said. ‘As an imam – as any religious person does – we have to minister to the pain and hurt … in our communities. This is part of our intention.’
He said he intends to put a 9/11 memorial in the center.
“No one’s body is in that location” and “I’m very sensitive to those feelings.” About as sensitive as a kick to the groin…of a man. The Imam’s answer says two things. First, it doesn’t actually answer the question, other than to vaguely reference serving the community (that doesn’t want it). The second thing the answer says: screw you and your feelings America.
The fact is, the reason for building the mosque in its current location is becoming increasingly clear; and increasingly dark. If I’m wrong about his motives, then why does the Imam continue to either provide non-answers or simply lie about what the mosque is and why it’s being built in that specific location?
He concludes the interview by calling the Cordoba House a “multifaith center.” Sweet! Does that mean, in addition to a mosque, there will also be a Christian Church and a Jewish Temple available for use by the community? I’m not holding my breath.
And of course, while all of this is going on, we have the pastor in Florida who wants to burn some Qurans. Everyone is up in arms about it. Why? Doesn’t he have a constitutional right to do it? Isn’t that all that matters? The liberal left says “but it’s not about whether he can do it, but whether he should he do it.” O.k, but shouldn’t we be attempting to understand why the pastor wants to burn Qurans and try to help him, instead of simply attacking him? The left says no; he’s only doing it to be devisive. In a surprising turn of events, the left is right. It isn’t about whether the church can do it, but should it? The obvious answer is no. We already know that the only conceivable reason why the pastor would want to burn Qurans is to be divisive.
See, if anyone viewed both of the aforementioned events honestly, they would realize that both are identical. In both cases, we have people using religion to do nothing more than stick their finger in America’s collective eye. The only reason for either the mosque being built at Ground Zero or the church burning Qurans is divisiveness. Of course, while everyone finds the Quran burning to be assinine, the liberal left actually finds the mosque building to be a great thing; a monument to tolerance. Don’t worry though…the contradiction will be lost on them.