Great piece on Slate regarding the Book Burning and the ground zero Mosque

http://www.slate.com/id/2266535/

Quote :

" Two days ago, hundreds of Afghans gathered in Kabul to denounce the United States for burning the Quran. They torched American flags, chanted "Death to America," and carried signs calling for the death of President Obama. Some of them hurled rocks at U.S. troops. A student in the crowd said of the planned Quran burning: "We know this is not just the decision of a church. It is the decision of the president and the entire United States." He's wrong, of course. The Quran burning is the brainchild of a Florida minister and his tiny fundamentalist church. It has been condemned by the White House, the State Department, the commanding U.S. general in Afghanistan, Christian organizations, and countless Americans. But when clerics in Egypt denounce the incendiary plan, we feel the heat. When thousands of Muslims rally against it in Indonesia, they do so outside our embassy. When an imam in Kabul threatens retaliation, he casts a shadow on all of us: "If they decide to burn the holy Quran, I will announce jihad against these Christians and infidels." This is how it feels to be judged by the sins of others who destroy in the name of your faith. You're no more responsible for 30 Christian extremists in Florida than Muslims are for the 9/11 hijackers. Yet most of us, when polled, say that no Muslim house of worship should be built near the site of the 9/11 attacks. In saying this, we implicitly hold all Muslims accountable for the crime of the 9/11 hijackers. "

9/8/2010 1:10:17 PM

Except you are responsible for Christian extremists just as Muslims are responsible for Muslim extremists. If you each would stop perpetuating the destructive idea that belief without evidence is virtuous then we wouldn't have Christian nor Muslim extremists.

And yes, Grumpy, there would still be extremists of some kind. And some humans would still kill other humans over something. And we still would all have differences to squabble over.

9/8/2010 1:29:23 PM

You're right - my personal acknowledgement of the existence of metaphysical phenomena perpetuates Christian extremism.

I also believe in spanking children. Thus, I have perpetuated genocide.

My bad

9/8/2010 2:03:17 PM

You forget, without religions the world would be a magical*, happy place where we used the power of reason to create a utopia.

*-Magic is bullshit

9/8/2010 2:09:18 PM

LOL, I pre-responded to Grumpy's bulllshit and it still wasn't enough. Never have I suggested that the world would be perfect without religion. Only better.

Quote :

"You're right - my personal acknowledgement of the existence of metaphysical phenomena perpetuates Christian extremism. I also believe in spanking children. Thus, I have perpetuated genocide. My bad "

Your personal acknowledgement of the existence of metaphysical phenomena *does* perpetuate Christian extremism. You give them an excuse. You make faith commonplace and acceptable where it should be an abomination.

9/8/2010 2:46:55 PM

Quote :

"If you each would stop perpetuating the destructive idea that belief without evidence is virtuous then we wouldn't have Christian nor Muslim extremists."

Christians don't believe that they don't have evidence for their beliefs, they believe that the evidence is inside of all of us, it's just that you are choosing to reject it because you are too lazy to be a believer/the devil is influencing you/etc..

9/8/2010 3:20:18 PM

Are you trolling me? Evidence must stand up to scrutiny. This type of "evidence" is not evidence. This is not even a matter of semantics. Their "evidence" is wrong in addition to not even being evidence.

9/8/2010 3:34:49 PM

Quote :

"Your personal acknowledgement of the existence of metaphysical phenomena *does* perpetuate Christian extremism. You give them an excuse. You make faith commonplace and acceptable where it should be an abomination."

Not to justify your line of thinking, but for the record, I've never tried to fortify someone's religious beliefs. I ridicule Christianity whenever I get the opportunity. I've only ever made those I encounter second-guess their beliefs, if anything.

But, according to you, I justify and bolster Christian extremism.

Frankly, your belief that a faithless society would be better than current society is a leap of faith in itself. DID I JUST BLOW YOUR MIND?

9/8/2010 4:12:06 PM

It is not a leap of faith to submit that the excise of a bad thing would make the world a better place.

It's called deductive reasoning.

[Edited on September 8, 2010 at 4:52 PM. Reason : .]

9/8/2010 4:26:11 PM

If you acknowledge that religion was not divinely bestowed upon humanity by some god, then you must acknowledge that what we consider to be religions formed naturally from a secular/areligious world. Similarly, if all governments were formed naturally by groups of people, then if you consider things on that large scale, we're living in the natural result of an anarchist society just as we're living in the natural result of a completely non-religious society.

Even if all modern religions were suddenly dismissed by everyone, what's stopping new ones from just forming on their own? If we began in a godless world that led to to the one we're living in now, what's to say that somehow hitting the spiritual reset button would make it stay that way?


It's also worth mentioning that people can show the same degree of fanaticism and irrationality (believing in things without proof/despite contrary evidence is hardly exclusive to religion) in their patriotism or political ideology (or a handful of other things). For some people, they're effectively just religions without the god figure (or with a non-divine god figure, a la Ayn Rand, Obama, or other famous people surrounded by that whole cult of personality). It's important how you're defining religion, because otherwise you're just vaguely talking about all sorts of other group-thought organizations/structures and ideologies.

As I've said before, I think that the whole notion of devoting oneself to some vague in-group and assigning others into broad out-groups is the closest thing we have to a "root of all evil" concept, but group-thought is a component of human nature. It's pretty much hard-wired into our brains, and however much some thoughtful people manage to resist it, it'll always exist in society without some sort of sci-fi style brain altering (and that sort of thing would be a complete violation of human rights). You can't force people to become rational individuals... some of them likely aren't even intellectually capable of it. Also, group association does have the genuinely positive purpose (one that is largely obsolete in first-world nations) of helping others survive/taking care of others, despite all the problems the mentality brings.


...And that's not even saying anything about the stuff McDanger mentioned: That you have no idea how people would behave without religion (they certainly wouldn't all become rational and thoughtful) and the fact that your statements don't acknowledge the charity work done by many non-extreme religious groups (as well as the whole stupid-people-using-it-as-a-moral-crutch thing that could kinda be helpful to society).

9/8/2010 9:38:28 PM

Quote :

"This is how it feels to be judged by the sins of others who destroy in the name of your faith. "

Not my faith.

Quote :

"The video says these "attacks on Muslims," including U.S. invasions of Muslim countries, expose the "hatred of the disbelievers.""

Muslims do not need Floridian rednecks or Danish cartoonists to know how to think of the "disbelievers." They need only to look at their holy book. A central theme - if not the central theme - of the Koran is that the "disbelievers" are destined for a fire "whose fuel is men and stones."

[Edited on September 9, 2010 at 12:04 AM. Reason : ]

9/8/2010 11:54:37 PM

what happens to those in the bible who worship "false" gods?

9/9/2010 12:17:27 AM

Something similar. What's your point?

9/9/2010 8:56:35 AM

Quote :

"If you acknowledge that religion was not divinely bestowed upon humanity by some god, then you must acknowledge that what we consider to be religions formed naturally from a secular/areligious world. Similarly, if all governments were formed naturally by groups of people, then if you consider things on that large scale, we're living in the natural result of an anarchist society just as we're living in the natural result of a completely non-religious society. "

Acknowledged. Moths flying directly into flames was also developed entirely naturally.

Quote :

" Even if all modern religions were suddenly dismissed by everyone, what's stopping new ones from just forming on their own? If we began in a godless world that led to to the one we're living in now, what's to say that somehow hitting the spiritual reset button would make it stay that way?"

My goal is not to make religion evaporate overnight. It's to convince enough people that faith is the wrong way of determine what is and is not true. Over time (and we're talking generations here obviously) the more people that understand this will abandon faith and religion more and more and we'll shift to a more and more secular society.

Quote :

"It's also worth mentioning that people can show the same degree of fanaticism and irrationality (believing in things without proof/despite contrary evidence is hardly exclusive to religion) in their patriotism or political ideology (or a handful of other things). For some people, they're effectively just religions without the god figure (or with a non-divine god figure, a la Ayn Rand, Obama, or other famous people surrounded by that whole cult of personality). It's important how you're defining religion, because otherwise you're just vaguely talking about all sorts of other group-thought organizations/structures and ideologies."

Certainly. And there have been suicide bombers who were not religious. Any ideology is dangerous, but especially those based on falsities because they have absolutely no justification.

Quote :

"As I've said before, I think that the whole notion of devoting oneself to some vague in-group and assigning others into broad out-groups is the closest thing we have to a "root of all evil" concept, but group-thought is a component of human nature. It's pretty much hard-wired into our brains, and however much some thoughtful people manage to resist it, it'll always exist in society without some sort of sci-fi style brain altering (and that sort of thing would be a complete violation of human rights). You can't force people to become rational individuals... some of them likely aren't even intellectually capable of it. Also, group association does have the genuinely positive purpose (one that is largely obsolete in first-world nations) of helping others survive/taking care of others, despite all the problems the mentality brings."

I'm not as defeatist as you, fortunately. If religion can evolve in human society, secularism can as well. It could easily be argued that xenophobia, racism, and misogyny are evolutionary traits that are "hard-wired" into our brains, but we are working to overcome them. Just like the moth to the flame, religion is an evolutionary by-product that we must overcome.

Quote :

"...And that's not even saying anything about the stuff McDanger mentioned: That you have no idea how people would behave without religion (they certainly wouldn't all become rational and thoughtful) and the fact that your statements don't acknowledge the charity work done by many non-extreme religious groups (as well as the whole stupid-people-using-it-as-a-moral-crutch thing that could kinda be helpful to society)."

Once again, I'm not suggesting that the world change overnight into secularism. And religions aggregate benefit (or detriment really) to society is totally irrelevant to it's truth value. I have acknowledged that the statistics bear out that religious people are more charitable than non-religious people. I'm not sure that donations to churches should count in these cases, but it doesn't prove that non-religious people are not altruistic in the least or that altruistic organizations will disappear in a secular world.

But you're right, I have absolutely no idea what the world will be like when we abandon faith. I believe it will be a better place because we will put greater stock in what is true and what is not true. Religion might make some people comfortable, but it is not true. It also is unnecessary, since there are true values of our existence with which we can find comfort, if comfort is even needed at all.

9/9/2010 9:13:22 AM

But doesn't a good society require a devotion to something a bit more than just truth? I mean, as Darwin himself revealed, the truth about life can be pretty cut-throat. For better or worse, religion offers a set of principles, a system of ethics. As far as I know, atheism offer no such thing. Secularism I suppose offers a system of ethics, but a rather limited one.

I agree that a society built on ancient myths is almost certain to have its moral shortcomings. But I also think its incumbent upon atheists and secularists to do the tough intellectual work and come up with a viable substitute before they go tearing down centuries of moral foundations.

[Edited on September 9, 2010 at 9:55 AM. Reason : ]

9/9/2010 9:53:45 AM

A devotion to society itself seems more morally sound to devotion to anything else.

Quote :

"For better or worse, religion offers a set of principles, a system of ethics. As far as I know, atheism offer no such thing. Secularism I suppose offers a system of ethics, but a rather limited one."

Ethics thankfully developed before religion. The idea that we should treat others as well as we'd like to be treated developed long before religion. If a person says that the only reason they are moral is because of the giant surveillance camera in the sky, then I'd find that person morally repugnant. Thankfully, it's obvious that humans are capable of morality independent of religion.

Quote :

"but I also think its incumbent upon atheists and secularists to do the tough intellectual work and come up with a viable substitute before they go tearing down centuries of moral foundations."

Done. Treat others as you would like to be treated because we're all in this together and we only have one life each. Through empathy we can derive morality. (in fact, we already do. Religion is simply an addendum to the human capacity for morality that is evolutionarily driven)

It is certainly true that some people are not moral, independent on the prevalence or non-prevalence of religion in society. That fact doesn't mean we need religion to make us moral. Humans are moral creatures already because we are social creatures and have expanded our populations into positions that * necessitate* morality.

In fact, basic human rights that civilized people recognize have developed wholly independently of religion. Equal rights for women, for example. The abolition of slavery. Both of these fly directly counter to fundamental Abrahamic religious belief. History has shown that the religions that we've been privy to have actually hampered ethical progress. Homosexuals are still not given the rights they deserve thanks to religion (and to a lesser extent, atheists).

[Edited on September 9, 2010 at 10:28 AM. Reason : .]

9/9/2010 10:22:06 AM

I think that's a good starting point, but the Golden Rule can only get you so far; it doesn't really answer the more complex moral questions. "Treat others as you would have them treat you" only works to the extent that we all wanted to be treated the same.

To be sure, I agree with you more than I disagree with you. I just notice a tendency among my fellow atheists and secularists to be a bit flippant when it comes to questions of moral foundations.

[Edited on September 9, 2010 at 10:31 AM. Reason : ]

9/9/2010 10:29:15 AM

And that seems like a extremely solid foundation for ethical devotion. All people should be treated equally and with equal respect. There are basic fundamental human rights which all people have and should not be impinged by any other person. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights seems like a much better moral foundation than the Bible or Koran.

The bottom line (and I'm speaking not necessarily directly to you, but to anyone who wonders how we can have morality without religion) is that it is better to derive morality from truth about how we affect one another than ancient texts that have no factual basis.

[Edited on September 9, 2010 at 10:42 AM. Reason : .]

9/9/2010 10:33:13 AM

Imam fears moving NYC mosque could inflame tension
(AP) – 20 hours ago

Quote :

"NEW YORK — The imam behind a proposed Islamic community center and mosque near ground zero cautioned Wednesday that moving the facility could cause a violent backlash from Muslim extremists and endanger national security."

Quote :

"'The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack,' he said, but he added that he was open to the idea of moving the planned location of the center, currently two blocks north of the World Trade Center site. 'But if you don't do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world,' he later said, predicting that the reaction could be more furious than the eruption of violence following the 2005 publication of Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jEincsjPzkZo6_gBr4jVuVlkB_OwD9I45DSG0

Well, Hell's bells, we must build the mosque near Ground Zero now! If we don't, some Muslims might burn the goddamned world down! You know, in a manner similar to when a guy dared to draw a cartoon of their god.

[Edited on September 9, 2010 at 8:04 PM. Reason : Wink, wink! Threat, threat!]

9/9/2010 8:02:14 PM

^ wow, you grossly mischaracterized his statements (or is that what you actually think it says?).

You could work for Fox News.

[Edited on September 9, 2010 at 8:05 PM. Reason : ]

9/9/2010 8:05:19 PM

^ Actually, I did nothing of the sort. I quoted the imam accurately--and the headline and this quotation are AP's doing:

Quote :

"NEW YORK — The imam behind a proposed Islamic community center and mosque near ground zero cautioned Wednesday that moving the facility could cause a violent backlash from Muslim extremists and endanger national security."

9/9/2010 8:08:15 PM

^ you did actually, it’s your M.O. in fact.

9/9/2010 8:10:36 PM

^ Posting it doesn't make it so. How did I mischaracterize the imam's statements, "grossly" or otherwise?

[Edited on September 9, 2010 at 8:17 PM. Reason : Go back to reading Media Matters' talking points. ]

9/9/2010 8:16:50 PM

why is it that conservatives have such limited capacity for abstract thought?

only the most concrete thinker could even begin to equate Burning Korans with building a Mosque.


since you seem to have such difficulty, hooksaw, let me explain to you the basics. here's they way NORMAL people understand these issues hooksaw.



Yes, Pastor Chucklefuck has the right to burn as many Korans as he likes.

No, he should not do so, because it is unethical and he should have the common sense to understand how it is outrageous and insulting to desecrate a holy book that is revered by that culture to be physically sacred.

No, he should not do so, becasue the end result will be to stir up a bunch of poorly-educated religious nutjobs.

Yes, he's also a poorly educated religious nutjob.

No, it should not be our country's goal to sink to the Lowest Common Denominator.



Yes, Imam Whats-his-nuts has the right to build a mosque on private property.

Yes, he should be concerned to build where it would be most welcome/effective

No, he should not have to fear an outrage for using an old Burlington Coat Factory building which has nothing to do with the World Trade Center site.

No, flag-waving Jesus-loving Americans should have nothing to fear from nor be outraged by a cultural/recreation/religious center being built in an old Burlington Coat Factory building that has nothing to do with the World Trade Center site.



Yes, our Constitution protects rights for everyone.

No, you dont get to pick and choose based on who agrees with you

No, Freedom of Speech does not include the right to engage in hate speech or incite violence

No, building a mosque (with goal of increasing understanding and tolerance within a local population) does not equate to maliciously burning Korans (with goal of instigating and alienating an entire global population)

9/10/2010 3:50:56 PM

How is burning a Quran unethical?

9/10/2010 4:07:36 PM

Quote :

"No, Freedom of Speech does not include the right to engage in hate speech or incite violence"

Uhhh, I'm pretty sure hate speech is protected. Threatening hate speech, no, but hate speech yes.

9/10/2010 4:18:51 PM

Quote :

"How is burning a Quran unethical?"

How is intentionally insulting your mother and making her cry unethical?

You two are great evidence for misguided theists who think that atheists are amoral pricks. The fact that you don't understand basic respect is ridiculous and juvenile.

[Edited on September 10, 2010 at 4:29 PM. Reason : .]

9/10/2010 4:29:15 PM

It's a tough sell to me to call causing non-lasting psychological insult as unethical. Wouldn't quite call it inflicting suffering.

Note the non-lasting. It's definitely possibly to inflict psychological suffering but it ought to take more than an insult.

Quote :

"You two are great evidence for misguided theists who think that atheists are amoral pricks. The fact that you don't understand basic respect is ridiculous and juvenile."

Another patented McDanger ad hom. Congratulations. The problem with calling insults unethical is that everyone has different sensibilities. Me drinking Dr. Pepper could be considered an insult to someone. Should the line of ethics be drawn at simple offense? I think not.

You need to define suffering at which point the line of ethics should be drawn at inflicting that suffering on another person. An insult is not inflicting suffering given any reasonable definition of suffering.


[Edited on September 10, 2010 at 4:36 PM. Reason : .]

9/10/2010 4:32:02 PM

Quote :

"How is intentionally insulting your mother and making her cry unethical?"

What if your mom is on crack and gets offended when you call her on it?

9/10/2010 5:11:53 PM

Clearly unethical.

9/10/2010 6:25:10 PM

Quote :

"How is burning a Quran unethical?"

burning a Koran is unethical because he is violating multiple basic professional obligations as a clergyman and violating basic expectations as decent member of his community.

he is also clearly violating the basic moral code expected of even a nominal christian, by any standards of mainstream Christianity, but that is a question of religious morality and is tangential to the main issue.... the main issue, of course, of just being a decent motherfucking human being.





[Edited on September 10, 2010 at 9:46 PM. Reason : ]

9/10/2010 9:45:26 PM

Quote :

"Another patented McDanger ad hom. Congratulations. "

Congratulations on not even knowing what the fuck an ad hominem is.

[Edited on September 10, 2010 at 10:38 PM. Reason : Are you being remotely fucking serious? Step your game up you fucking clown.]

9/10/2010 10:36:58 PM

Quote :

"You two are great evidence for misguided theists who think that atheists are amoral pricks. The fact that you don't understand basic respect is ridiculous and juvenile."

Yeah, disco, you know how you get miffed when Jesus F. Jones tries to convert you and threatens you with hell? That road goes both ways.

It's possible (not that I've done it, mind ) to come away from a conversation with you muttering, "Fucking atheists piss me off." This may be less than ideal for recruitment.

I can only imagine how evangelically religious I'd be if my atheist dad had had your attitude. As it was, he shrugged, and you don't see me out in the Brickyard yelling about women wearing pants or whatever.

9/10/2010 11:30:11 PM

Fox asked today if it was wise to build a mosque there. Here is the President's response:

9/11/2010 3:30:59 AM

He has also provided an answer to the longstanding question: Justice, or just us?

9/11/2010 3:36:50 AM

You can also notice the subtle differences between the news agencies. The Fox News guy asks if its wise to build a Mosque at ground zero, but CNN labels the question on screen as about the Islamic Center.

9/11/2010 5:02:36 AM

I don't understand why people are coming down on me for defining suffering as something greater than personal insult.

And McDanger and your claims that I am an amoral prick are totally unfounded. See every thread that I bring up the advantages of secular morality, humanity's innate capacity for altruism, etc. In fact, in this very thread I'm the only one who is seeking to define what constitutes an unethical interaction between two people.

And yes, I do get offended when people proselytize false things at me, and I understand that believers will get offended by me telling them their beliefs are false. Neither interaction is unethical and if anything the believer in question's offense doesn't mean as much to me as the 3rd party observers who may be sitting on the fence and convinced that false belief is wrong.

But that's fine, anecdotes about atheists and attacks on my character seem like a much stronger argument anyway.

9/11/2010 8:49:39 AM

Islamic Center Developer Evicted from SoHo Office
Sep 15, 2010

Quote :

"More troubles for the proposed Islamic Center and mosque near Ground Zero arose today, as Sharif El-Gamal, the head developer of the project, is being evicted from his SoHo office, allegedly for failing to pay rent. A Manhattan Housing Court filing shows that El-Gamal, who runs the SoHo Properties real estate firm, was sent an eviction notice last month after running up $39,000 in back rent, The New York Daily News reported today. Management company Royal Crospin Corp., who runs 552 Broadway, the building that El-Gamal leases, said in the filing that they had warned him in July that his rent was past due. They had given them until Mid-August to pay the tab, the News said."

Quote :

"For his part, El-Gamal's legal woes have also included arrests for disorderly conduct, driving while intoxicated, and attempted petty larceny. His real estate company has been in trouble with its rent before, as it was sued by Royal Crospin Corp. last year for nearly $89,000 in back rent. The case was settled for $56,000."

http://tinyurl.com/2eua62u

New Jersey lawsuit opens against imam planning NYC Islamic center
September 16, 2010

Quote :

"(CNN) -- Initial court proceedings began Wednesday in a lawsuit against Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who plans to build an Islamic community center near ground zero, and his company, Sage Development. The suit, brought by Union City, New Jersey, alleges that Rauf's company failed to properly maintain two buildings there."

Quote :

"According to paperwork filed Tuesday at Hudson County Superior Court, Union City authorities responded to at least 30 complaints in the past 14 years from tenants because of 'various health and safety concerns, including ... mold inside apartments, garbage issues, bedbugs, foul odors, dirty hallways and the lack of utilities/heat.' One of the buildings has been vacant since a fire in February 2008. According to the lawsuit, fire officials issued 12 code violations in the year prior to the fire. In the other building, it was revealed that at least two units were infested with bedbugs following complaints of improperly stored garbage."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/16/new.jersey.imam.lawsuit/

What great tenants/property managers.

9/16/2010 7:17:46 AM

30 compaints in 14 years? My girlfriend alone can top that in one year, while living in a pristine apartment-building.

I'm sure the national smear effort against Rauf will dig up worse things yet.

9/16/2010 9:18:24 AM

^ So, the Democratic state senator and mayor of Union City, New Jersey, and the all-Democrat board of commissioners are involved in a "smear effort"? Furthermore, I doubt that a "pristine" apartment has serious complaints such as "mold inside apartments, garbage issues, bedbugs, foul odors, dirty hallways and the lack of utilities/heat."

[Edited on September 16, 2010 at 10:41 AM. Reason : Context matters.]

9/16/2010 10:40:29 AM

Well, hell. We've had water stains on the ceiling, termites, dead animals in the central air, gas-leaks and appliance-to-wall connections. We've had to call the city once to get them to fix something. Problems get fixed. Anyone sittin' in our place is feeling safe and clean and all "this is a satisfactory domicile that any American would be happy with".

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the company was being less than kind to tenants, but that story just rings of "make a mountain out of a mole-hill".

9/16/2010 11:32:35 AM

This entire story is about making a mountain out of a mole hill. A mountain big enough to hide the overt racism.

9/16/2010 11:38:50 AM

^^ Okay, so why are those Democrats allowing it then?

^ Anything to toss out yet another despicable "RACISM!!1" charge, right?

[Edited on September 16, 2010 at 12:53 PM. Reason : And I think you got your libelous comments confused. You meant "bigot," right?]

9/16/2010 12:52:45 PM

Uh, because they're not in a position to pass judgement on the lawsuit?

9/16/2010 12:57:49 PM

^ Well, which is it? You posted that the suit against Rauf was part of a "smear effort," didn't you?

9/16/2010 1:00:39 PM

Why can't it be both?

9/16/2010 1:16:31 PM

^ That's absurd.

Oh, look--the developers of the mosque near Ground Zero have now changed the wording on their Web site and the site itself (this was how it read as of late August 2010):

Quote :

"a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community"

http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm

And now:

Quote :

"prayer space, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community"

http://blog.park51.org/?page_id=23

Imam Rauf, The Word Doctor.

[Edited on September 16, 2010 at 6:50 PM. Reason : SO WHAT?!]

9/16/2010 6:24:16 PM

http://www.911hardhatpledge.com/

9/20/2010 10:19:10 AM

"Andy and a growing number of American's agree..."

9/20/2010 10:23:11 AM

^^What a crock of shit.

9/20/2010 11:03:00 AM