Say No to the Ground Zero Victory Mosque

This weekend, my home town will be the site of an extraordinary event. Let me beg everyone who is able to make the pilgrimage to Ground Zero on the ninth anniversary of the Islamist mass-murder attack on our country. It is there that thousands of citizens will gather at 3 p.m. at Park Place (between Church and West Broadway) to register their outrage at the attempt by foreign-funded, terrorist-friendly Muslims to build a triumphalist mosque at the site of an Islamist slaughter, replacing a building that was damaged by one of the planes hijacked by 19 orthodox Muslims. (Nineteen is a mystical number in Islamic theology — as significant for them as twelve is for Christians — which seems to be why Osama bin Laden recruited precisely that many terrorists).

The archbishop of New York has compared the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque to that which raged in the 1990s over the Carmelite convent at Auschwitz — and gently asked the mosque-builders to look for another, less inflammatory site, just as Pope John Paul II moved the convent away from the death camp. I am glad Archbishop Timothy Dolan weighed in to make this comparison, and appreciate his courage. In most of the West, Catholic leaders are twisting the Faith into knots to accommodate the most outrageous demands of imperialist Islam. For instance, in North Africa and France, Muslims who wish to convert to Catholicism — and Islam imposes the death penalty for apostasy, enforced in many countries — have found that some priests and bishops are unwilling to baptize them.

Bishops throughout Europe are so desperate to maintain their multiculturalist bona fides that they tacitly support the ongoing influx of orthodox Muslims into their countries and echo the false charges of racism against those who fear the imposition of Islamic law. The Anglican archbishop of Canterbury made himself infamous by supporting the use of Sharia in British courts, but Catholic bishops haven’t been much better. They would rather leave the next generation of Christians to face a burgeoning, chauvinistic Islamic majority than risk opprobrium today telling the truth: Islam is intolerant. It is proudly so, and its own holy book is refreshingly candid about the choices that unbelievers should face: conversion, subjugation, or death. Muslims who believe in religious pluralism and a free society are bad Muslims — and good for them!

 

We are rightly ashamed of the atrocities committed by the Spanish and even the Roman inquisition, the torture and persecution of heretics, and the sinful mistreatment of Jews that Church authorities countenanced, on and off, for centuries. The Second Vatican Council renounced (rather belatedly, it’s true) the right of Catholics to restrict the religious freedom of others, and John Paul performed an act of public penance for these sins. And yet we hear these old crimes repeated by “new atheists,” dissenting Catholics, and other enemies of the Church, as if they had been committed not in the 16th century but during the Bush Administration and John Paul’s pontificate.

The racist anti-Semitism of the Nazis, while it attracted many individual Catholics into its ranks, was firmly condemned and widely resisted by the Church. Indeed, in moving the convent away from Auschwitz, John Paul was bending over backward to show sensitivity for the millions of Jewish victims of the Nazis — a movement led by apostate Catholics who hated the Church as much as Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky hated the synagogue. Auschwitz was not an atrocity committed by faithful Catholics, in the name of the Faith, in accordance with principles widely accepted by the leaders of the Church. It was a sickening criminal enterprise on the part of hell-bound neopagans, half of them sunk in occultism. Nevertheless, because Nazi anti-Semitism emerged from Christian Europe, and had some causal roots in Christian anti-Judaism, John Paul was right to move the convent; it was the Christian thing to do.

The 9/11 attacks, by contrast, were conducted by Muslims practicing the tactic of suicide bombing — which is widely accepted by leaders of orthodox Islam . . . for instance, by the sponsors of the Ground Zero mosque, who have over and over again refused to denounce the terror tactics of Hamas. Just last week, when Hamas shot dead four civilians (including a pregnant woman), Ground Zero mosque founder Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf would not condemn the attack. This is no surprise; Rauf’s close ally, the leading Islamic “civil rights” organization in America, is the Council on American-Islamic Relations. CAIR was named by the U.S. government as an un-indicted co-conspirator in a massive scheme to smuggle money to Hamas — which proudly conducts suicide attacks, just like those on 9/11, against civilians in Israel. Now these groups, which have no problem with murdering civilians who get in their way, want to follow the Muslim tradition of building enormous, triumphalist mosques on the sites of great Islamic victories. It is the Muslim thing to do.

And if we let them build it, 9/11 really will have been the victory that they think it was. They will smell our weakness and fear, sneer at us, and move on to the next and greater outrage. Enabling such arrogance does not amount to turning the other cheek, accepting a minor slight out of love for peace; arguably, that’s what John Paul did in moving the Auschwitz convent. No, supporting Islamic expansion in the West is an act of moral cowardice, which wins people praise as “tolerant” and cosmopolitan, for which the next generation will pay the price. And our children will curse us for it.

 

Image

John Zmirak

By

John Zmirak is the author, most recently, of The Bad Catholic's Guide to the Seven Deadly Sins (Crossroad). He served from October 2011 to February 2012 as Editor of Crisis.

  • Peter

    Seriously? This reads like one big fat emotional reaction trying to find good arguments.

    Would it have been more sensitive to move this thing a few blocks once it became an issue? Yes. But the real reason this is an issue is because right-ringers decided it was and the media went to town. Were it not election season, I question if this would have gotten much attention at all. There are already mosques close to the 9/11 site, and there are mosques going up in other places in this country. Freedom of religion is what this country is all about. And whether it’s in lower Manhattan or another place, you can’t withdraw constitutional rights for one group over another, even if you think it’s poison. This mosque is not going to “prove our weakness and fear” — what are you smoking? Your attitude is exactly what drives more people to turn to radical ideologies and leads to bigotry and persecution.

    I hope for low numbers at that protest. Mayor Bloomberg is right on this one. So is the Archbishop, but he could have been bolder.

  • Jamie Hunt

    September 8 being the Blessed Mother’s birthday, the following links seem appropriate to this topic.

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/OLISLAM.HTM

    http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/islam/Godsplan.htm

    Zmirak’s right when he writes: “… [Islam’s] own holy book is refreshingly candid about the choices that unbelievers should face: conversion, subjugation, or death. Muslims who believe in religious pluralism and a free society are bad Muslims — and good for them!”

    Through the Blessed Mother, an increasing number of Muslims will convert. Good for them!

  • Robert Spencer

    Excellently written as usual, John. My hat is off to you, as always, as il miglior fabbro.

    One thing to note — the rally is at 3PM, not 2. Sorry for the confusion. The police asked us to move it back an hour to accommodate the Communist/Socialist/Islamic supremacist counterdemo!

  • Brian English

    “But the real reason this is an issue is because right-ringers decided it was and the media went to town. Were it not election season, I question if this would have gotten much attention at all.”

    A Mosque being built on the site of a building that was struck by the landing gear of one of the planes would have been no biggy if it wasn’t an election year? Really? Politicians have latched onto this issue, but it was already an issue.

    “There are already mosques close to the 9/11 site, and there are mosques going up in other places in this country.”

    Yes, there are already two Mosques five-to-ten blocks away. So why does this one have to be built two blocks from the hole in the ground where the WTC used to be on the site of a building that was damaged in the attack?

    “Freedom of religion is what this country is all about. And whether it’s in lower Manhattan or another place, you can’t withdraw constitutional rights for one group over another, even if you think it’s poison.”

    This has nothing to do with freedom of religion. The First Amendment protects against government intrusion. The local officials here are very enthusiastic about the Mosque, so there is no danger of that.

    Those opposing the Mosque have a First Amendment right to express their opposition. Imam Rauf, the bridge-builder, can certainly ignore that opposition, but that really calls into question whether he is being truthful about the reason he wants to build the Mosque.

  • Jason Negri

    Oh, come now, Peter. This piece is not as well-documented as John’s usually are, and most of it wasn’t even about the building of the mosque – it also covered history and how Catholicism has moved beyond forced conversions (and, by contrast, how Islam has not).

    But the next-to-last paragraph made some pretty serious actual charges. Do you dispute that Imam Rauf refused to condemn the terrorist attacks of Hamas? If you think this is false, then please say so. If you accept it as true, then knowing that this is the man supporting the building of the Ground Zero Mosque and knowing that he very probably takes the traditional Moslem view of building a mosque to commemorate an Islamic victory over “the infidel”, do you really actually support the building of a large mosque on the site of the attacks?

    It’s not just how you, as an enlightened modernist, view this plan. Are you really indifferent to how the Islamofascists will view it?

  • Donna

    Considering that we are dealing with something which will dishonor the memories of thousands of innocent victims, I’d say that a big fat emotional reaction is warranted.

    The point is that the particular space in question is vacant because of the events of 9/11. The landing gear from one of the hijacked planes crashed into the building that stood there, causing permanent damage. If 9/11 hadn’t happened, the Imam and his group could have bought that building, torn it down, built a mosque, and nobody but a local zoning board would have had a word to say about it. But this site is now an integral part of the scene of a mass murder committed in the name of Islam.

    Perhaps it really was a bridge-building attempt, but, if so, it’s backfiring big time.

  • Mena

    The Left’s love of Islam is stunning given that the spread of Islam means the end of women’s rights, gay rights, and religious freedom. (Is American liberalism suicidal by nature?)

    I don’t dispute the right of Americans to free religious expression, free speech, and private property, and so I think no one can rightly stop the mosque backers any more than anyone can rightly stop the KKK or other hate groups from speaking or buying property. But there should be no end to the 24/7 public pressure applied to this group, just as there should be hot pressure placed upon any radical group. This foreign-financed mosque is a disgusting act of triumphalism over America and the 3,000 innocent noncombatants who were killed on 9/11. Shame on the liberals for their appeasement response. (How can we convince the Left to treat overseas enemies with the same hardball tactics and strategies they use on Republicans??? There must be some way. It would be a major breakthrough.)

    Unfortunately, Islam is dominated by its radicals, and while I wish its moderates would take over the religion, I know it won’t be in my lifetime. We’re likely to see the A-bomb soon in the Middle East, and it’s going to be big trouble for the U.S.A. and our Western allies.

  • Elaine

    Peter,

    You use the word emotion like it’s a bad thing. Having emotions about the insensitivity to the victims of 911 and the violence to women carried out in the name of islam and sanctified in the koran is atually a very healthy reaction.

  • Mark

    … the driving force of virtually every movement from the left. The one time that conservatives use it to stop yet another one of their bad ideas, they whine as if “emotion” is a stranger to them — too funny.

  • Peter F.

    I think a strong point that could be emphasized in the piece above is that Catholicism is a self-correcting system, which is something that Islam has yet to prove capable of.
    While our moral philosophers found jesuitical methods to justify burning heretics and to drape holy cloth over weapons, our own moral theology ultimately saved us from our own foolishness. Violence proved ineffective, stupid, and hypocritical. We got over it.
    Islam can’t even get over violence against its own adherents when it is the dominant culture in a geographical region. That can’t bode well.

  • Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick

    A Victory Mosque is being built–by the U.S. Park Service–in Pennsylvania. It incorporates all the essential features of a mosque, and symbolically raises the terrorists to heaven, and consigns the infidel victims to hell.

    http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2007/10/full-riddle-answer-why-only-38-memorial.html

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/911-hero-family-member-ground-zero-mosque-is-the-second-mosque-being-built-on-a-911-site-.html

  • Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick

    “If we allow Muslims to build their Victory Mosque, the terrorists will have won.”

  • Brennan

    This is one reason I am no big fan of religious liberty. As others have pointed out, on what basis, other than protests, do we have to stop what they have a legal right to do? Far better, in my mind, if we were a Catholic country, and Islam’s desire to build mosques was predicated on the fact that it is a false religion. Then at least there would be a solid basis for the refusal of the building of this mosque.

  • RK

    Peter is correct. This article starts with the inaccurate polemical point that 9-11 was an “Islamist mass-murder attack”. Give me a break! Spare me the tired overly emotional rhetoric. 9-11 was orchestrated by 18 men who were engaged in a war against their perceived enemy, the U.S., which was, in their mind an occupier. They happened to be Muslim and 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia. The controversy over the mosque is pure demagoguery. Neo-conservatives are using it as a wedge to continue the now discredited wars in the Middle east.

    The American response has been an intentional overreach since September 11, 2001. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan (nor Iran for that matter) had any direct role in the attack. We have demonized the entire Arab world and the Muslim religion. The event gave us the perfect pretext to occupy the Middle East for reasons having nothing to do with fighting terrorism.

    Let’s quit overreacting; let’s quit being manipulated by our own government. I support building the mosque in lower Manhattan. These people own the property and have gone through the proper channels to build it.

  • traeh

    Here’s a new initiative that could be the seed of something very important in time.

    It’s called the Ground Zero Declaration, which everyone should sign.

    By signing the Ground Zero Declaration, you join in its request of four things from the Ground Zero Imam (Rauf) and his associates:

    1. Rauf and his associates should go through a questionnaire titled “The Qur’an vs. the Constitution: Questionnaire for Muslims seeking free practice of their religion in America.” The questionnaire asks ten questions (each of which highlights an aspect of Islamic doctrine that conflicts with U.S. law, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights) and asks Muslims to answer yes or no, as to whether they repudiate each aspect of Islamic doctrine that conflicts with American law and values.

    2. Rauf and his associates should sign the “Freedom Pledge”. A group of former Muslims is sending The Freedom Pledge to American Muslim leaders and challenging them to sign it. Signing the Freedom Pledge means rejecting Muhammad’s statement, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” The Freedom Pledge opposes any physical intimidation or worldly or corporal punishment for apostates from Islam.

    3. Rauf and associates should demand that Muslim nations grant non-Muslim religions the same freedom to build houses of worship that America grants Muslims.

    4. Rauf and associates should move their planned Islamic Center farther from Ground Zero.

    The Declaration then ends by saying that

    These simple steps would demonstrate their goodwill, and open the door to a productive dialogue with and about Islam. It would establish a clear distinction between a Reformed Islam that is compatible with American values and a jihadist Islam that seeks to destroy them.

    Apart from these steps, we have no reason to believe that the Cordoba House [the Ground Zero Mosque] will in any way be beneficial to American society or inter-faith dialogue. In the shadow of 9/11, the burden of proof is on Imam Rauf to help us understand why we should tolerate an ideology that, at first glance, seems intolerant of everything America stands for.

    If he refuses to supply such proof [for example, by carrying out the four actions listed above], then we ask our city, state and federal leaders to judge them by their own standards and give them no more freedom than they are willing to give others. We do not believe a commitment to freedom means giving our enemies the freedom to destroy us.

    The choice is theirs.
    (my bolding) I like the bolded paragraph a lot, especially since I’ve read the three documents: the Ground Zero Declaration, “Freedom Pledge”, and the Questionnaire: Qur’an vs. the Constitution.

    It should be noted that even if an Islamist lied in answering documents like these, s/he could be held accountable for those lies if exposed. At some point in the future, documents like these could perhaps be given legal force, so that lying in one’s answers could be made a crime, leading in some circumstances to loss of citizenship and deportation.

    The other value of these documents is that they can reveal where a Muslim really stands on human rights issues. For example, a number of “moderate” American Muslim leaders have refused to sign the Freedom Pledge, and that reveals that the “moderate” Muslims in question are not willing to condemn Islam’s death-to-apostates law. That rips off the “moderate” mask and reveals the ugly face beneath for all to see.

    And as for the Questionnaire, it’s a powerful educational tool for non-Muslims and Muslims alike, because the Questionnaire makes crystal clear a dozen specific ways in which Islamic law and culture are in direct conflict with the most basic American laws and values. I think the Questionnaire could use some refinement, but it’s already a powerful beginning.

  • Jeannine

    Thanks for writing this article, Mr. Zmirak! Thanks for having the courage to speak truth to power!

  • Jeannine

    RK, the government is all for the Ground Zero Mosque! So if government manipulation is going on, it’s going on in favor of building the mosque, not the other way around.

  • RK

    RK, the government is all for the Ground Zero Mosque! So if government manipulation is going on, it’s going on in favor of building the mosque, not the other way around.

    I was referring to how we were manipulated into supporting the wars against “terrorsim”.

  • Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick

    Fortunately, baptism doesn’t require a priest, or even a Catholic. Or even a Christian. I hope that people who can’t find a priest willing to baptize them are aware of this.

  • traeh

    Here’s a new initiative that could be the seed of something very important in time.

    It’s called the Ground Zero Declaration, which everyone should sign. This could turn out to be the seed of something very important in time.

    By signing the Ground Zero Declaration, you join in its request of four things from the Ground Zero Imam (Rauf) and his associates:

    1. Rauf and his associates should go through a questionnaire titled “The Qur’an vs. the Constitution: Questionnaire for Muslims seeking free practice of their religion in America.” The questionnaire asks ten questions (each of which highlights an aspect of Islamic doctrine that conflicts with U.S. law, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights) and asks Muslims to answer yes or no, as to whether they repudiate each aspect of Islamic doctrine that conflicts with American law and values.

    2. Rauf and his associates should sign the “Freedom Pledge”. A group of former Muslims is sending The Freedom Pledge to American Muslim leaders and challenging them to sign it. Signing the Freedom Pledge means rejecting Muhammad’s statement, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” The Freedom Pledge opposes any physical intimidation or worldly or corporal punishment for apostates from Islam.

    3. Rauf and associates should demand that Muslim nations grant non-Muslim religions the same freedom to build houses of worship that America grants Muslims.

    4. Rauf and associates should move their planned Islamic Center farther from Ground Zero.

    The Declaration then ends by saying that

    These simple steps would demonstrate their goodwill, and open the door to a productive dialogue with and about Islam. It would establish a clear distinction between a Reformed Islam that is compatible with American values and a jihadist Islam that seeks to destroy them.

    Apart from these steps, we have no reason to believe that the Cordoba House [the Ground Zero Mosque] will in any way be beneficial to American society or inter-faith dialogue. In the shadow of 9/11, the burden of proof is on Imam Rauf to help us understand why we should tolerate an ideology that, at first glance, seems intolerant of everything America stands for.

    If he refuses to supply such proof [for example, by carrying out the four actions listed above], then we ask our city, state and federal leaders to judge them by their own standards and give them no more freedom than they are willing to give others. We do not believe a commitment to freedom means giving our enemies the freedom to destroy us.

    The choice is theirs.

    (my bolding) I like the bolded paragraph a lot, especially since I’ve read the three documents: the Ground Zero Declaration, “Freedom Pledge”, and the Questionnaire: Qur’an vs. the Constitution.

    It should be noted that even if a jihadist/sharia proponent lied in answering documents like these, s/he could be held accountable for those lies if exposed. At some point in the future, documents like these could perhaps be given legal force, so that lying in one’s answers could be made a crime, leading in some circumstances to loss of citizenship and deportation.

    The other value of these documents is that they can reveal where a Muslim really stands on human rights issues. For example, a number of “moderate” American Muslim leaders have refused to sign the Freedom Pledge, and that reveals that the “moderate” Muslims in question are not willing to condemn Islam’s death-to-apostates law. That rips off the “moderate” mask and reveals the ugly face beneath for all to see.

    And as for the Questionnaire, it’s a powerful educational tool for non-Muslims and Muslims alike, because the Questionnaire makes crystal clear a dozen specific ways in which Islamic law and culture are in direct conflict with the most basic American laws and values. I think the Questionnaire could use some more refinement, but it’s already a powerful beginning.

  • traeh

    My above comment had links, blockquotes, and other formatting. The HTML worked in preview, but not when I posted. To find the above documents, google.

  • Peter

    Peter is correct. This article starts with the inaccurate polemical point that 9-11 was an “Islamist mass-murder attack”. Give me a break! Spare me the tired overly emotional rhetoric. 9-11 was orchestrated by 18 men who were engaged in a war against their perceived enemy, the U.S., which was, in their mind an occupier. They happened to be Muslim and 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia. The controversy over the mosque is pure demagoguery. Neo-conservatives are using it as a wedge to continue the now discredited wars in the Middle east.

    The American response has been an intentional overreach since September 11, 2001. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan (nor Iran for that matter) had any direct role in the attack. We have demonized the entire Arab world and the Muslim religion. The event gave us the perfect pretext to occupy the Middle East for reasons having nothing to do with fighting terrorism.

    Let’s quit overreacting; let’s quit being manipulated by our own government. I support building the mosque in lower Manhattan. These people own the property and have gone through the proper channels to build it.

    RK, my thoughts exactly.

    People here assume that because I disagree with John Zmirak that I’m liberal. Anything but. I already said that I thought it would have been more sensitive to move the mosque to a slightly different location, but it baffles my mind how the commenters here — who call themselves Catholics, presumedly — can hold the views they do. Do any of you people have Muslim friends or family? Maybe you should try it and expand your views and the context in which to understand these issues.

    Jason Negri wrote:

    But the next-to-last paragraph made some pretty serious actual charges. Do you dispute that Imam Rauf refused to condemn the terrorist attacks of Hamas? If you think this is false, then please say so. If you accept it as true, then knowing that this is the man supporting the building of the Ground Zero Mosque and knowing that he very probably takes the traditional Moslem view of building a mosque to commemorate an Islamic victory over “the infidel”, do you really actually support the building of a large mosque on the site of the attacks?

    It’s not just how you, as an enlightened modernist, view this plan. Are you really indifferent to how the Islamofascists will view it?

    Do you know how they are viewing Americans persecuting their religion? Or burning their holy book? Or preventing mosques in various places in the country? Also, who cares about Rauf condemning or not condemning Hamas? Palestinians-Israeli issues are complicated. Both sides have killed innocents. I’ve read many of the comments/speeches by Rauf and I was expecting them to be awful based on what I heard. They weren’t if read in context.

    Anyone who is worried about Muslim take-over should be supportive of American Muslims who are an essential part of eradicating and preventing radical Islam ideology from further developing. But instead, people here take positions that will do the opposite. It is not only unprincipled, in my view, but not forward thinking.

  • Peter

    Peter is correct. This article starts with the inaccurate polemical point that 9-11 was an “Islamist mass-murder attack”. Give me a break! Spare me the tired overly emotional rhetoric. 9-11 was orchestrated by 18 men who were engaged in a war against their perceived enemy, the U.S., which was, in their mind an occupier. They happened to be Muslim and 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia. The controversy over the mosque is pure demagoguery. Neo-conservatives are using it as a wedge to continue the now discredited wars in the Middle east.

    The American response has been an intentional overreach since September 11, 2001. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan (nor Iran for that matter) had any direct role in the attack. We have demonized the entire Arab world and the Muslim religion. The event gave us the perfect pretext to occupy the Middle East for reasons having nothing to do with fighting terrorism.

    Let’s quit overreacting; let’s quit being manipulated by our own government. I support building the mosque in lower Manhattan. These people own the property and have gone through the proper channels to build it.

    RK, my thoughts exactly.

    People here assume that because I disagree with John Zmirak that I’m liberal. Anything but. I already said that I thought it would have been more sensitive to move the mosque to a slightly different location, but it baffles my mind how the commenters here — who call themselves Catholics, presumedly — can hold the views they do. Do any of you people have Muslim friends or family? Maybe you should try it and expand your views and the context in which to understand these issues.

    Jason Negri wrote:

    But the next-to-last paragraph made some pretty serious actual charges. Do you dispute that Imam Rauf refused to condemn the terrorist attacks of Hamas? If you think this is false, then please say so. If you accept it as true, then knowing that this is the man supporting the building of the Ground Zero Mosque and knowing that he very probably takes the traditional Moslem view of building a mosque to commemorate an Islamic victory over “the infidel”, do you really actually support the building of a large mosque on the site of the attacks?

    It’s not just how you, as an enlightened modernist, view this plan. Are you really indifferent to how the Islamofascists will view it?

    Do you know how they are viewing Americans persecuting their religion? Or burning their holy book? Or preventing mosques in various places in the country? Also, who cares about Rauf condemning or not condemning Hamas? Palestinians-Israeli issues are complicated. Both sides have killed innocents. I’ve read many of the comments/speeches by Rauf and I was expecting them to be awful based on what I heard. They weren’t if read in context.

    Anyone who is worried about Muslim take-over should be supportive of American Muslims who are an essential part of eradicating and preventing radical Islam ideology from further developing. But instead, people here take positions that will do the opposite. It is not only unprincipled, in my view, but not forward thinking.

  • Ruth

    Peter,to understand how Muslims view non-muslims in the light of the Koran, read it and an article on The Muslim Brotherhood (100 year plan) in Front Page Magazine by Patrick Poole(2006). You will discover the true intent of Islam–world domination. Their goals show who is intolerant–no religion, government, or laws but those sanctioned by the Koran (and Hadith). Please investigate thoroughly, so as not to be fooled unwittingly. Our children and grand-children depend on our generation to preserve liberty for them. Maranatha!

  • Brian English

    “Peter is correct. This article starts with the inaccurate polemical point that 9-11 was an “Islamist mass-murder attack”. Give me a break! Spare me the tired overly emotional rhetoric. 9-11 was orchestrated by 18 men who were engaged in a war against their perceived enemy, the U.S., which was, in their mind an occupier. They happened to be Muslim and 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia.”

    Were the 1998 Embassey Bombings (simultaneous attacks in three different countries), the Khobar Tower Attack, and the USS Cole Attack also planned, paid for, and carried out by similar groups of unaffiliated young men disturbed by the presence of US troops in the deserts of Saudi Arabia (a presence requested by the Saudi government)?

    Is Osama bin Laden really just a misunderstood philanthropist who just happened to run some very rigorous summer camps for underprivileged Muslim youths?

    Why was the Clinton Administration, hardly a den of Neo-Cons, trying to kill Mr. bin Laden?

    ” The controversy over the mosque is pure demagoguery. Neo-conservatives are using it as a wedge to continue the now discredited wars in the Middle east.”

    Well known Neo-Con, President Obama, has continued both wars, so why the was a wedge issue needed? You really believe that the 70% of Americans who oppose the Ground Zero Mosque are all engaged in demagoguery?

    “The American response has been an intentional overreach since September 11, 2001. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan (nor Iran for that matter) had any direct role in the attack.”

    Afghanistan had no direct role? How about the Taliban’s refusal to hand over bin Laden?

    “The event gave us the perfect pretext to occupy the Middle East for reasons having nothing to do with fighting terrorism.”

    We already had bases in and near the Middle East.

    “I support building the mosque in lower Manhattan. These people own the property and have gone through the proper channels to build it.”

    That strawman refuses to go away. No one is challenging their legal right to build. Their moral right to build is what is being questioned.

  • Brian English

    “Do any of you people have Muslim friends or family? Maybe you should try it and expand your views and the context in which to understand these issues.”

    Just as Islam cannot be judged based upon the actions of al Qaeda, you also cannot judge Islam based upon the nice Muslims you know. The Wahabbist brand of Islam that is followed in Saudi Arabia is being spread all over the world. It is extremely intolerant and has to be confronted.

    “Do you know how they are viewing Americans persecuting their religion? Or burning their holy book? Or preventing mosques in various places in the country?”

    Since fundamentalist Muslims persecute other religions, burn the holy books of other religions, and prevent churches from being built in places like Saudi Arabia, I really don’t care how they feel.

    This country has been extraordinarily tolerant of Muslims since 9/11, despite subsequent terror attacks and plots.

    “Anyone who is worried about Muslim take-over should be supportive of American Muslims who are an essential part of eradicating and preventing radical Islam ideology from further developing.”

    You are right, but Imam Rauf is part of the problem, not the solution. We should be helping Muslims like Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser and the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.

  • AnneM

    Great aticle, very much in-depth.

    Why the rush to have a “victory mosque” built very near Ground Zero? One thing that is overlooked is that there was a Greek Orthodox church in the area where the WTC Towers stood. It was there on September 11th, 2001 when they were attacked and was also distroyed with the two towers. That church, Saint George Greek Orthodox Church Christian community must be rebuilt FIRST. It is a matter of simple justice.

  • Bob

    As Catholics, we know that Jesus Christ is the Saviour and Lord of every person on the planet, regardless of whether they’re Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, etc., or even know who Christ is. Any authentic “Truths” that are located in the Qu’ran or any non-Catholic teaching point right to Christ.

    The ability to reason is a God given gift that is part of the make-up of every human being. God gave us reason to determine right and wrong, and with our free will, to hopefully choose right.

    Moderate Muslims should be engaged with love in this way, and how faith and reason go hand in hand. Does reason tell us that if the bible tells us to “pluck our eye out if it causes us to sin”, or the Qu’ran tells to kill infidels, that it is a passage to be taken literarly, and it is the right (reasonable) thing to do? Apparently many Muslim scholars feel that the Qu’ran has been “hijacked” by extremists who are “misinterpreting” the Qu’ran. Many Muslim scholars applauded heartily at Pope Benedict’s Regensberg speech.

    Like all of us, let Mary lead Muslim to the fullness of her son, Jesus Christ.

  • Brian English

    “Does reason tell us that if the bible tells us to “pluck our eye out if it causes us to sin”, or the Qu’ran tells to kill infidels, that it is a passage to be taken literarly, and it is the right (reasonable) thing to do? Apparently many Muslim scholars feel that the Qu’ran has been “hijacked” by extremists who are “misinterpreting” the Qu’ran. Many Muslim scholars applauded heartily at Pope Benedict’s Regensberg speech.”

    There are certainly some Muslim scholars who argue that the harsher passages in the Qu’ran should not be taken literally, but I think you overstate the case when you claim that “many” do. And even those that argue for a less literal interpration are not regarded as being in the mainstream of Islamic thought.

  • RK

    I know it’s hard for you to believe that the terrorists had any motive other than hatred for Americans, but nonetheless that’s the case. We have been occupiers of their lands for decades and our wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan only accentuate that fact.

    It’s simplistic of you to assert that I’m defending Osama bin Laden or the 9-11 attacks. Even after nine years we Americans remain intractably xenophobic about the motives for the attacks. American hubris has generated much hatred for the United States.

    The Taliban hasn’t turned bin Laden over because he has been a friend to them for decades, even helping them fight the Soviets (with US support by the way).

    Neo-conservatives are a pressure group in Washington and they work equally well with republicans as well as democrats in service of their goal of keeping the war machine up and running.

    We should take a page from Pope Benedict’s book and decry the burning of the Koran as well as extending a hand of friendship to Muslims seeking to build the mosque. Something tells me that is much more likely to be a successful apostolic gesture than further antagonizing them.

    Actually, Brian, I haven’t been smoking anything other than the peace pipe of truth. Maybe I should take up what you’re inhaling so I can live in the haze of self deception……..Nah, on second thought I won’t.

  • Mena

    ” 9-11 was orchestrated by 18 men who were engaged in a war against their perceived enemy, the U.S., which was, in their mind an occupier. They [just] happened to be Muslim”

    I thought maybe this comment was sarcastic when I first read it, but then again I think many liberals discount Islam’s militant wing—an estimated 300 million people. That militant wing of the religion makes world headline news weekly with a bombing of innocents here or there in some top city around the world. But the Left just shrugs.

    The militant branch of Islam is a threat to world peace and must be stopped. How can the Left ever hope to advance their progressive agenda under Sharia Law?

  • job

    To answer: perhaps because the Left (and Liberalism in general) is envious of any group who are successful at enacting a set of airless, intolerant laws designed, howsoever erroneously, to raise humanity to divinity. Therefore, awed by Sharia’s irrational control of populations, the left would no more want to abrogate Sharia than gasoline could extinguish a fire.

    JOB

  • Becca

    What do liberals have to do with this? All my conservative REpublican friends support the building of this mosque, and deplore the burning of the Korans and the clear prejudice being demonstrated all over the place in this country towards Muslims. It’s very handy to call everyone “liberal” who doesn’t agree with you, but it’s really untrue.

  • Thomas

    There are certainly some Muslim scholars who argue that the harsher passages in the Qu’ran should not be taken literally, but I think you overstate the case when you claim that “many” do. And even those that argue for a less literal interpration are not regarded as being in the mainstream of Islamic thought.

    This is not an overstatement. You need to study Islam from more objective sources and read modern scholarship. The leaders we hear the most from are in one part of the world and have a loud speaker. The media also loves to show these people. But Islam is a faith of over 1.6 billion people covering the globe.

  • Brian English

    “I know it’s hard for you to believe that the terrorists had any motive other than hatred for Americans, but nonetheless that’s the case.

    It certainly is the case. They hate non-Muslims in general, especially Jews, and Muslims who are not as strict in their interpretation of Islamic doctrine as the terrorists are.

    “We have been occupiers of their lands for decades and our wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan only accentuate that fact.”

    What lands were we occupying prior to Osama bin Laden’s declaration of war, which I believe took place in 1998? The Saudi government asked us to be in Saudi Arabia, so we were not occupying anything.

    “It’s simplistic of you to assert that I’m defending Osama bin Laden or the 9-11 attacks.”

    Regardless of whether you consider it simplistic, it is accurate.

    “The Taliban hasn’t turned bin Laden over because he has been a friend to them for decades, even helping them fight the Soviets (with US support by the way).”

    The Taliban was a student group that arose after the defeat of the Soviets in 1989, which did not rise to prominence until 1994. The people the Taliban drove out of power in 1996 were the ones who did most of the fighting against the Soviets.

    Bin Laden brought in foreign fighters to oppose the Soviets, not the Taliban. He went back to Saudi Arabia in 1990, was exiled to the Sudan in 1992, and did not return to Afghanistan until 1996, when he started his relationship with the Taliban.

    “Neo-conservatives are a pressure group in Washington and they work equally well with republicans as well as democrats in service of their goal of keeping the war machine up and running.”

    So how does Obama’s support for the Ground Zero Mosque play into this grand strategy?

    “We should take a page from Pope Benedict’s book and decry the burning of the Koran as well as extending a hand of friendship to Muslims seeking to build the mosque. Something tells me that is much more likely to be a successful apostolic gesture than further antagonizing them.”

    How about decrying both?

    “Actually, Brian, I haven’t been smoking anything other than the peace pipe of truth.”

    I would check out what is in that peace pipe.

  • Brian English

    “All my conservative REpublican friends support the building of this mosque, and deplore the burning of the Korans”

    All of my Conservative Republican friends deplore both. Wouldn’t you acknowledge that most of the support for the Mosque comes from people you would regard as liberals?

    “clear prejudice being demonstrated all over the place in this country towards Muslims.”

    This country has been extremely tolerant of Muslims despite: (1) 9/11; (2) the D.C. Sniper; (3) the Muslim Army Officer who rolled grenades in on his fellow officers in Kuwait at the start of the Iraq War; (4) the Buffalo Six; (5) the Fort Dix Attack Plot; (6) the Arkansas Recruiting Station Shooting; (7) the Seattle Mall Shooting; (smilies/cool.gif the Synagouge Attack Plot in NY; (9) the Fort Hood Massacre; (10) the Underwear Bomber; and (11) the Times Square Bombing Attempt.

    I think it is outrageously unfair to claim Americans in general have exhibited prejudice towards Muslims. FBI statistics since 9/11 show that only 8% of the hate crimes have been against Muslims. In contrast, 68% have been against Jews.

  • RK

    What lands were we occupying prior to Osama bin Laden’s declaration of war, which I believe took place in 1998? The Saudi government asked us to be in Saudi Arabia, so we were not occupying anything.

    OK, I’ll take the bait, Brian, although I know it’s a waste of time. But since you’re so far off the reservation here’s a partial list of Moslem countries conquered by Christians since 1529:

    Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq (the first time), Iraq (again), Iran, Pakistan, East Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, Abu Dhabi, Dubai

  • M Rob

    Peter,

    You are about to be sorely disappointed. This mosque protest is going to draw more people then you have ever seen in your life. Unlike you dhimmis of the world some of us actually know what this mosque is really all about – the celebration of the murder of 3,000 of your fellow citizens Peter. Get a clue you moron.

  • M Rob

    Becca,

    I don’t know any Republicans that support this triumphal disgrace the muslims want to build at ground zero – me thinks you are full of it. There is no clear prejudice against muslims in this country – fact – most hate crimes in this country are against jews – less than 1% against muslims. Fact – in every muslim country they rape, rob, murder, acid attack, beat, kidnap and burn down the homes of christians – common knowledge – do your research.

  • Maclin Horton

    it is outrageously unfair to claim Americans in general have exhibited prejudice towards Muslims

    Indeed. I think there are reasonable arguments on both sides of this, and personally I say let New York decide. At this point, I think Rauf should recognize that pressing the issue is counter-productive, and withdraw. But whatever one thinks about the construction of the thing, the portrayal of a wave of anti-Muslim hatred engulfing the country really is not accurate, and needs to stop, because it’s needlessly inflammatory (like about 60% of the debate, unfortunately).

    Yesterday, apropos a debate on my blog about this, I did some looking around on the web about the situation of Muslims where I live, in Alabama. Results here. This is not a picture of persecution, or anything close to it.

  • Rich Browner

    Jesse Kornbluth has a great start to an article he wrote recently:

    Hard to know whom we’re supposed to hate the most. Mexican immigrants had the lead for most of the year, but Muslims are now at the head of the pack. I’ve seen some blather about “Jewish media.” And as for African-Americans — as Chris Rock says, “That train ain’t never late.”

    http://tinyurl.com/27mk5bb

    The constant drum of anger, resentment, fear and disgust that is being fomented, even on Catholic websites, is astounding to me. I dont know where it will end. Taken to a sadly reasonable conclusion, it almost seems as though people would like another round of crusades. Hell, why dont we foment world war three while we are at it? I cannot count the number of times I have heard students and parents say or mumble, “why dont we nuke em all?”

    It almost appears as if people wished we had more war. Astounding to me.

    Well, if Iran and Israel come do to blows somehow, and 2013 starts to feel like 1913 with the world poised to start another round of world wars — China possibly falling in behind Iran, and the US stuck defending Israel — well, the only thing I will really be afraid of and need to be anywhere near this vociferous about would be Chinese landing in the US on the west coast. Then this kind of Chicken Little stuff might have merit.

    You all can trot out the name Chamberlain if you like, but all this noise is fear mongering. For some reason, we always need someone to be the barbarians at the gate. What the heck evey happened to being peace makers.

    Sure, a mosque is being built, so what? So WHAT? If we had stopped squabbling about the site so much there would be a TOWER that would easily eclipse any tiny mosque that might be built. Victory mosque? Really? Were the tower that is planned rebuilt, and the new mosque going up nearby, it would look puny, and hardly be called a victory.

    Regardless, who cares? All the hemming and hawing, breast beating and whatnot that goes on…good heavens, you would think satan himself is doing this work. What’s that you say? OH, yeah, I forgot, some actually think this. Sigh.

    I can hear the whining, “they are building a VICTORY mosque!” Oh, boo hoo.

    John Zmirak falsely equates a muslim community center being built as “Islamic expansion in the West” and states that any support for this mosque is moral cowardice.

    Whatever. Bad things happen. I am no Polyanna. I do get this. But making more of something than we should, all the while ignoring the affect of our actions on the progress of peace…well, that could also be immoral. John refuses to turn the other cheek, always ready with another reasoned argument to progress down a road that ultimately leads to culture war, and, quite possibly, real war. All of which could be avoidable if we could just NOT overreact.

    Oh well, I will close so the tempered ridicule and questions about what I am smoking can commence.

  • M Rob

    Brian,

    The Koran expressly states that the previous peaceful passages of the Koran are to be strictly overriden by the later violet passages. This is mainstream Islam that is taught throughout the Muslim world and sadly in Europe and now here is America. Do your research and read the Koran is expressly advocates mysogony, slavery, pedophilia, violence, murder, dismemberment, stoning, lashing, etc. I could go on and on. Would you dhimmis please get your heads out of your A$$e$!!

  • Brian English

    “This is not an overstatement. You need to study Islam from more objective sources and read modern scholarship.”

    I wish it wasn’t, but it is. Name someone who has the stature of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi who rejects a literal interpretation of Islam. Do you know of any Islamic University with the stature of al-Azhar University that rejects a literal interpretation of the Koran? Could you name some of the sources and modern scholarship you refer to?

    “The leaders we hear the most from are in one part of the world and have a loud speaker.”

    And they also have mountains of money to spread their ideology. The Muslims who want to live their lives in peace and tolerance may be in the majority in numbers, but they do not have anywhere near the power and influence of the fundamentalists.

  • Donna

    Has the Imam considered that by building on that site he is making his mosque/community center/whatever a target for every anti-Islamic nutjob in the world ? Is it really wise to put lots of innocent people (including children) in such a place ?

  • Brian English

    “OK, I’ll take the bait, Brian, although I know it’s a waste of time. But since you’re so far off the reservation here’s a partial list of Moslem countries conquered by Christians since 1529:

    Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq (the first time), Iraq (again), Iran, Pakistan, East Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, Abu Dhabi, Dubai

  • Admin

    A reminder from our Terms of Use: “No name calling or personal attacks.” Such comments will be deleted, and the author may be blocked. Stick to the arguments, please. Thanks.

  • RK

    Better yet, why don’t you put together a list of non-Muslim countries conquered or attacked by Islam since the 7th Century? That would be a much more impressive list.

    Glad to. Here’s a partial list of Christian countries conquered by Muslim countries since 1529:
    ….

    No, those children died because evil men misappropriated money and supplied rotten food. Do you have any explanation for why the death rate for children was much higher in the areas where aid was administered by Saddam and Company as opposed to the lower rate in the north, where the UN was in charge of the aid?

    Brian, I find it very funny that you flatly refuse to ever assign blame on the US for anything. Whatever helps you sleep at night……

  • Becca

    I don’t know any Republicans that support this triumphal disgrace the muslims want to build at ground zero – me thinks you are full of it. There is no clear prejudice against muslims in this country – fact – most hate crimes in this country are against jews – less than 1% against muslims. Fact – in every muslim country they rape, rob, murder, acid attack, beat, kidnap and burn down the homes of christians – common knowledge – do your research.

    I’m not full of it. I work in the political realm – conservative Republican, mainly, and a good deal of them (not publicly) don’t think this mosque is a big deal. My point was that it’s completely wrong to label everyone as “liberal” if they support the constitutional rights of the mosque builders.

  • Brian English

    “Glad to. Here’s a partial list of Christian countries conquered by Muslim countries since 1529: ”

    I said since the 7th Century.

    In addition, you do not consider Cyprus a Christian country (conquered by the Turks in 1570 and then attacked and occupied by them again in 1974 following independence)? Crete was conquered in 1669, or do you not count that because it is now part of Greece?

    Moldavia was invaded in 1538. Most of Hyngary was conquered by the Turks after 1529. Buda and Pest in Hungary were taken in 1541. The Turks attacked Malta in 1565, but were defeated. I assume you know that the Turks attacked Vienna in 1683, but were defeated.

    “Brian, I find it very funny that you flatly refuse to ever assign blame on the US for anything. Whatever helps you sleep at night…… ”

    It is preposterous that you think the US should be blamed for the actions of Saddam and his henchmen. But that is typical of your approach, where the US is responsible for forcing people to do all kinds of horrible things.

    I do assign blame to the US for encouraging the Shia risings in southern Iraq following the First Gulf War, and then watching as they were slaughtered. That was disgraceful.

  • Ryan Haber

    Mr. Zmirak,

    I am saddened by how shallow your piece is. It is, as an earlier commentator noted, nothing but emotions in search of reason. Your basic rationale seems to be, “Christianity used to be less tolerant, but now we’re more, so we should not tolerate Muslims to build a monument to their intolerance.” Or am I reading you wrongly?

    Christianity is not the foundation of the West, as something we laid, but rather it is the bedrock, as something that God has laid for us, something firmer than a foundation. The foundation of the West, build up from and upon that Bedrock is something more peculiar and more nebulous than Christianity. Based on the equal dignity of every man, woman, and child before God, the rule of law sought by every culture, had reached unprecedented clarity and universality in the West until its present deterioration set in. Whether in the Common Law or Civil Law tradition, the idea is that we live by rules – all of us – set up by men in an attempt to mimic however faintly and pragmatically the Kingdom of God. Our legal tradition has come unhinged precisely as we have jettisoned this premise, premised as it is upon Christianity and that idea of universal equality.

    Now don’t get me wrong. I hate Islam. I am firmly convinced that it is the religious manifestation of antichrist because it perfectly fits the three criteria of antichrist provided for us by the New Testament. We have been at ceaseless spiritual warfare with Islam, and it with Christianity, since its inception, whether we realize it or no. They deny the divinity of Christ and consider idolators and blasphemers those who worship Him, and we promote a Kingdom in which He is worshipped in spirit and truth, willingly and in clear conscience, by all people. There can be an uneasy getting along, or a willingness to peacefully let each other do our respective tasks, but no compromise, between the two. As a matter of national security, I think we need to become much more careful about who we permit to enter the country from which nation, and under what terms and conditions. I would not admit to citizenship or permanent residency anybody who has not clearly demonstrated a commitment to democratic ideals, the rule of law, and human dignity as generally understood in the West.

    That said, we have a law in our country that applies to all equally precisely because of our commitment to those ideals that are reflections of natural law created by God as He wrought our human nature. The law of the land is that free practice of religion is not be interfered with unless it poses a threat to life, limb, or the security of our citizenry. No serious argument has been made that this atrocity does any of those things. Will it be a national humiliation? Yes. Ought things have come to this pass? No. That said, we only further undo our own culture, further undermine our own heritage, if we exceed and violate our own law by – illegally, it is uncontested by all – using the “law” to block a perfectly lawful humiliation. It is akin to using the “law” to murder unborn children. It is an unearthing of our own foundation and a direct assault upon our own bedrock that only we can accomplish.

    Things ought not have come so far. If after nine years, we have not built something, ANYTHING, suitable in that gaping hole on the Lower East Side, then THAT is the great shame to our nation. That rebuilt, into a new set of towers, a park, a memorial, or whatever, the surrounding district would have been repaired as well. The repairs have been held up waiting for plans for the hole, and plans for the hole have been held up because we have become a nation of petty squabblers, gluttons, and children in men’s bodies.

    That is our great national shame. And just like only we can uproot our own law and culture, only we can inflict shame upon ourselves by our own decadence. This mosque is a black eye that we did not need to receive. We should take it as a kick in the pants to get our national rear in gear: fill in the stupid Ground Zero hole, fill in the stupid hole in our national hearts left by the failure really to address 9/11 in a careful and spiritual way, fill in the stupid hole in our national culture left by the abandonment of God in our daily lives.

    Would these murderous loons give us benefit of law in their country? No. That is what, among other things, I hope still distinguishes us from them, Mr. Zmirak.

  • Sentire cum ecclesia

    I usually like contributions by Mr. Zmirak. They are profound, witty, and deeply Catholic. This one is not, and for the reasons Mr. Haber emphasizes so well. Let us not get seduced by the same type of fanatics (yes, today they tend to be Republicans) that only a century ago, and sometimes up to the present day, discriminated against Catholics. The know-nothings of yesteryear that withheld constitutional rights from Catholics are those that seek to withhold them from Muslims now. It won’t work, and it shouldn’t. Shame on Catholics who participate.

  • Brian English

    “That said, we only further undo our own culture, further undermine our own heritage, if we exceed and violate our own law by – illegally, it is uncontested by all – using the “law” to block a perfectly lawful humiliation.”

    No one is talking about using the law to stop the building of the Mosque. Proponents of the Mosque keep trying to wrap themselves in the Constitution, but that is not an issue here.

    Imam Rauf has a right to build his Mosque. The rest of us have a right to object to it. If he is telling the truth about his motive — to increase understanding and build bridges — he is failing miserably and should consider a different approach.

    If his purpose is to, as you put it, inflict a humiliation on this country, then he is a despicable liar.

  • Billy Bean

    R.K.: I don’t pretend to approach either your historical knowledge, nor Mr. English’s. I do know which way the wind is blowing, and I’d say you’re just about blown out of the water. But let me just encourage you, and Mr. English, and all Christians and Muslims everywhere: find an old video of the 1987 “comedy” (“Ishtar”), starring Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty. You will learn the whole sordid truth of what’s been going on in the middle east, and why it is vital that we remain there.

  • JP Zmirak

    I am not calling for a suspension of the 1st Amendment to stop the building of the mosque. But then, it didn’t take a suspension of the 1st Amendment to stop the Greek Orthodox from RE-building the Orthodox church destroyed by Muslims in the 9/11 attack. It just took bureaucratic obstructionism. That’s what I’m calling for here–nebulous, B.S. bureaucratic nonsense–environmental impact studies, “proof” that it would increase global warming, I really don’t care–to prevent the building of this monstrosity. I mean, the First Amendment would technically protect the right of someone to build a giant video screen on Times Square, that showed, 24/7, videotape of a late-term abortion. Yet something tells me that the City would find a way to stop it. The Victory Mosque is even more offensive. It should be stopped the same way.

  • RK

    R.K.: I don’t pretend to approach either your historical knowledge, nor Mr. English’s. I do know which way the wind is blowing, and I’d say you’re just about blown out of the water.

    Who cares? Nothing interests me less than which way the wind is blowing. The wind carried Hitler to power in Germany and Obama to the presidency. You need to climb out of your neo-con fog. It’s disgraceful how neo-cons are maligning an entire religion to perpetuate these fool wars and folks like Brian English and John Zmirak have fallen for the spin hook, line and sinker.

  • Tony Wawrzynski

    It should give you some pause, RK, to consider that many of the neo-cons, whose foreign policy positions you rightly despise, are supportive of or indifferent to Muslim immigration to the US and Europe. Wasn’t Bush loudly proclaiming Islam to be a religion of peace? Srdja Trifkovic offers the right strategy for dealing with the Islamic world; stay out of its realm and keep it out of ours. It has the advantages of being common sense and in accordance with Christian morality.

  • J de la Cruz

    I have to agree there is alot of pathos in the article by Mr. Zmirak, which is evident from the numerous comments with different view points.

    But there is also truth in the article.

    Thank you RK and Brian English for the public dialogue as I have learned alot of new information presented from both sides; clearing some of the questions I have with the fabric that connects Saudi Arabia, Taliban, and the U.S.

    It is lawful for Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf in building a mosque near Ground Zero if that is what it takes for America and the world to realize that Islam needs re-hellenization to come back as Robert R. Reilly in his book The Closing of The Muslim Mind, with his first chapter describing the frustration of moderate muslims, that of Islam’s “Intellectual Suicide”.

    There is a paragraph in Reilly’s book that really hits home — like Pope John Paul II’s encyclical [a rel=”nofollow” href=”http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html”]Veritatis splendor[/a]:

    […]Al-Kindi’s views reflected the same rational orientation: “Nothing should be dearer to the seeker after truth than truth itself.” Regarding sources of learning outside Islam, he declared, “We ought not to be ashamed of appreciating truth and acquiring it wherever it comes from, even if it comes from races distant and nations different from us. For the seeker of truth nothing takes precedence over truth, and there is no disparagement of the truth, nor belittling either of him who speaks it or of him who conveys it. [The status of] no one is diminished by the truth; rather does the truth ennoble all.” (page 37)

    To those who are cynical and say Islam is the work of Satan and is a pagan religion — rightly so. Although there can always be truth gained from it and how moderate muslims and those of us who seek interfaith dialogue can turn something bad into good.

    It’s easy to be cynical… so is having hope. Thank God the Catholic Church remains a voice in the world.

  • Brian English

    “You need to climb out of your neo-con fog. It’s disgraceful how neo-cons are maligning an entire religion to perpetuate these fool wars and folks like Brian English and John Zmirak have fallen for the spin hook, line and sinker.”

    This is a conflict that has been 1,300 in the making. Asserting that this was all cooked up by Paul Wolfowitz and company over the last 20 years is a fantasy.

  • Brian English

    “Srdja Trifkovic offers the right strategy for dealing with the Islamic world; stay out of its realm and keep it out of ours. It has the advantages of being common sense and in accordance with Christian morality.”

    I have not read his book yet. How does he suggest we accomplish this? It strikes me as something that could have worked 500 years ago, but I do not see how it could work today.

  • Ryan Haber

    I hope that when Mr. Zmirak wrote

    And if we let them build it, 9/11 really will have been the victory that they think it was,

    he meant that we should oppose it either through popular opposition or by means of law. Popular opposition is clearly not going to work. Rauf is not interested in building bridges, and I have no reason to doubt that he is a despicable liar. What has that got to do with anything in the matter at hand?

    If I giant video screen showing abortions were legal, but obstructed by law, then we will have come to a very bad way indeed, as Americans. I think we have. Using bureaucratic obstructionism is an abuse of the law. If it happens ten thousand times a day, none of that is reason to do it here and now.

    The black eye we are suffering in this is our own fault because of our own cultural and moral inertia. We should never have let things come to this pass.

    That’s the problem.

    What saddens me about the whole thing, why I called Mr. Zmirak’s article shallow and frankly, terribly disappointing, is that it makes no reference to Jesus Christ in its discernment. It never takes its own bearings with respect to the moral compass that He has given us and that has built up the West. We Christians must examine everything in the light of Christ. Jesus Christ is the Bedrock of the West and the West is on sinking sand precisely inasmuch as we have abandoned that Bedrock.

    To argue that we should abandon it further in such times out of emotional response in no way betters our situation in the big picture. “I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety’s sake,” to quote words put into a saintly lawyer’s mouth. We have been dealt a terrible blow. We have not dealt with it though, and are still seething with anger and grief over it. We are not dealing rationally. We are not in a mindset to follow our supreme calling.

    Your contribution, Mr. Zmirak, to use our own bureaucratic bumbling as a weapon, in spite of our own clear law, is no good.

  • Ryan Haber

    Islam is not a religion of peace any more than Christianity is. Our founder, our God, said He came to bring not peace but a sword (Mt 10:34), so I am not insulting anyone by saying we are not religionists of peace.

    Christianity is a religion of love, though, for we believe that God is Love, Love with whom we grow in intimacy first by obedience, then by being remade into a new sort of person – transformed in Christ. Love is a hard thing, as our Lord attested with His own life. No namby pamby endeavor, love is. Because we believe that God Himself is a community of love and co-equality, and that man is made in His image, Christianity is the only religion in which the idea of the dignity of the human person, as such, is fully conceivable, though it is hinted at in Judaism.

    In Islam, to say that God is love is absurd. Allah is one. Simpliciter. That’s all. He’s also in charge, and the only right response is submission. To say that we are made in His image is blasphemy. There can be no image of God. None at all. To say that we are all equal – when to the eye that is the one thing we are not – is absurd.

    The reason that our leadership – Democrat and Neocon – has no problem with Muslim immigration is because they have no problem with Islam. Islam is the perfect religion for people who worship power and can reasonably imagine themselves on top of it all. Christianity – and that terrible, supranational Catholic Church worst of all – has never been very useful to potentates, and has frequently been a real obstacle. Get rid of it. And something new that will provide a flexible, useful, imitation and illusion of law and order can be substituted into its place.

  • Ryan Haber

    Brian, the irony of your statement about living segregated from Islam,

    [block]It strikes me as something that could have worked 500 years ago, but I do not see how it could work today.[/block]

    Is that 500 years ago, the Muslim Turks were feverishly overrunning the Balkans after having in 1453 broken their way through Constantinople. Within another few decades of 1510, they would be beseiging Vienna, in the very center of Europe.

    Our religions are opposed about the very most important thing, and about everything that flows out of it. It is telling that for Christians, a martyr is killed for Christ by violence or by legal process; for Muslims, a martyr dies while killing for Allah. How can two such religions, or their practicioners, every really live in peace while they have contact with each other?

  • Ron Sanches

    I, too, am disappointed with Mr. Zmirak’s piece because there is no mention of what I consider the Godly high ground. It is the only justification for what is going on right now between the mosque builders and the Quran burners.

    What I see is a very strategic battle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. Now, I know that there is no comparison between God and satan and all his minions. I don

  • M

    Let me begin by saying I am a retired worker in the Catholic Church, having served years as a Pastoral Associate at a church on an Indian Reservation, for minimal compensation. I am a devoted Catholic, still busily working in RCIA and Confirmation.
    ” foreign-funded, terrorist-friendly Muslims to build a triumphalist mosque at the site of an Islamist slaughter, replacing a building that was damaged by one of the planes hijacked by 19 orthodox Muslims. (Nineteen is a mystical number in Islamic theology — as significant for them as twelve is for Christians — which seems to be why Osama bin Laden recruited precisely that many terrorists)”
    Except of course that the 20th hijacker had not been able to get into the country and onto a plane. So much for the ‘mystic’ number 19. As for the foreign funding, its source is a person who is a substantial owner of the Fox News’ ownership corporation. As for the Imam being ‘terrorist-friendly’, he was a part of the Bush II administration’s efforts to deal with Islam. As for the mosque being ‘triumphalist’, it seems no more likely than that your local YMCA or YWCA is ‘triumphalist.’

  • Mark

    Since President Obama closed Gitmo over a year ago, why don’t they just build the Mosque there?

  • Brian English

    “Is that 500 years ago, the Muslim Turks were feverishly overrunning the Balkans after having in 1453 broken their way through Constantinople. Within another few decades of 1510, they would be beseiging Vienna, in the very center of Europe.”

    I was really referring to levels of technology and degrees of connection between different parts of the world.

    I do not see how we could create a Fortress America to deal with this issue in the modern world.

    “Our religions are opposed about the very most important thing, and about everything that flows out of it. It is telling that for Christians, a martyr is killed for Christ by violence or by legal process; for Muslims, a martyr dies while killing for Allah. How can two such religions, or their practicioners, every really live in peace while they have contact with each other?”

    Because I do not think most Muslims, especially those in the United States, want to be martyrs in the jihad against the West. I think they want to raise their families and live their lives in peace.

    The issue with Islam, and it is one Muslims in the US should be much more vocal about, is freedom of religion in Muslim countries. The restrictions on Muslim conversion and proselytizing in Muslim countries are completely unacceptable. Muslims who want to “build bridges” should be condemning those practices, not ignoring them.

    The Saudi prohibitions (which arise from Islam) on Bibles and crosses being brought into the country, churches being built in the country, and non-Muslims entering Mecca and Medina are also offensive, as they are premised upon the followers of other religions being “unclean.” These prohibitions should also be condemned by those who want to promote dialogue.

  • Val

    I agree wholeheartedly that there should be no mosque near ground zero! Now to make things fair we need to make another change too and I ask for your support and participation in some protests regarding another religious institution placed so close to another “ground zero” that was the site of another religious fanatic terrorism.

    So who will meet me in Oklahoma City at a catholic church close to the memorial built at the site of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Timothy McVeigh was a religious terrorist that murdered 168 people and injured 450 more. Why should the religious teachings he believed be preached near the site of such horrific devastation?

  • Brian English

    “So who will meet me in Oklahoma City at a catholic church close to the memorial built at the site of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Timothy McVeigh was a religious terrorist that murdered 168 people and injured 450 more. Why should the religious teachings he believed be preached near the site of such horrific devastation?”

    McVeigh was an anti-government terrorist who blew up a government building. His religion had nothing to do with it.

  • Mark

    Timothy Mc Veigh’s father was a practicing Catholic, but Mc Veigh left the Church at a very young age and has been quoted as telling friends

  • J de la cruz

    M

  • Ryan Haber

    The Greek Orthodox church cited above has not been rebuilt, according to the NYC Port Authority, because the church has insisted upon a sum considerably higher than that offered by the PA to help rebuild. Something like $40 million more than the PA offered, which was already a hefty sum. The city has not been obstructionist; the parish seems to be overdemanding.

    Why the PA would be paying to rebuild private properties, I cannot imagine. But then, why the Dept. of State would be flying this imam around on a good-will tour I cannot imagine either.

  • Ryan Haber

    Brian,

    The issue with Islam, and it is one Muslims in the US should be much more vocal about, is freedom of religion in Muslim countries. The restrictions on Muslim conversion and proselytizing in Muslim countries are completely unacceptable. Muslims who want to “build bridges” should be condemning those practices, not ignoring them.

    The Saudi prohibitions (which arise from Islam) on Bibles and crosses being brought into the country, churches being built in the country, and non-Muslims entering Mecca and Medina are also offensive, as they are premised upon the followers of other religions being “unclean.” These prohibitions should also be condemned by those who want to promote dialogue.

    Those practices are not extrinsic or accidental to Islam, but essential to it. You are asking them to gut their own religion, as sure as you ask a Catholic to gut his religion if you ask him to cease evangelizing or writing apologetics or serving the poor.

    Naturally, such a request is entirely unacceptable.

    Sharia is not a legal overlay to Islam; nor is it an excisable section of the Qu’ran. It IS Islam and it IS the Qu’ran – every bit as much as the Mosaic Law IS Deuteronomy and vice versa.

  • Brian English

    “Those practices are not extrinsic or accidental to Islam, but essential to it. You are asking them to gut their own religion, as sure as you ask a Catholic to gut his religion if you ask him to cease evangelizing or writing apologetics or serving the poor.”

    I do not see how they are “essential” to the religion. There have to be Muslim religious leaders out there who can interpret the tenets of Islam in a way where you do not have murder your daughter if she converts to Christianity or behead the guy with the Bible preaching on the corner in a Muslim neighborhood.

    “Naturally, such a request is entirely unacceptable.”

    Well, it had better become acceptable, because freedom of religious belief is a fundamental human right. I am sure there are Muslims who believe that, and they have to start directly challenging Muslims who do not.

    “Sharia is not a legal overlay to Islam; nor is it an excisable section of the Qu’ran. It IS Islam and it IS the Qu’ran – every bit as much as the Mosaic Law IS Deuteronomy and vice versa.”

    Once again, there has to a way to interpret around this. Sharia could be considered a code by which individual Muslims live their lives. The penalties under Sharia, to the extent they involve the use of force, have to be discarded.

  • J de la cruz

    Ryan Haber:

    Islam is not a religion of peace any more than Christianity is. Our founder, our God, said He came to bring not peace but a sword (Mt 10:34), so I am not insulting anyone by saying we are not religionists of peace.

    I disagree with you because Christianity IS a religion of peace. You took Matthew 10:34 as sola scriptura, without using reason.

    Remember that God gave us the Ten Commandments and the sixth commandment is ‘You shall not kill’. In the Cathechism of The Catholic Church [which non-christians and Catholics should read to understand the Catholic faith] it explains:

    2305 Earthly peace is the image and fruit of the peace of Christ, the messianic “Prince of Peace.”99 By the blood of his Cross, “in his own person he killed the hostility,”100 he reconciled men with God and made his Church the sacrament of the unity of the human race and of its union with God. “He is our peace.”101 He has declared: “Blessed are the peacemakers.”102

    2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.103

    (Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/…2a5.htm#II)

    The crisis in Islam today is that koran and Shariah laws cannot be interpreted because muslims [the majority] believe the koran is uncreated, that it has always been with God who is omnipotent and is perfect, and only His will which is everchanging. To interpret the koran is heretical. Muslims therefore live, practice, and use violence based on sola scriptura of the koran, hadith, and Sharia laws (barbaric and medieval if one compares it to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

    In contrast, Christianity uses reason. As Robert R. Reilly describes in his book “The Closing of The Muslim Mind” page 57:

    The reason Christianity was insulated from an obession with God’s omnipotence was the revelation of Christ as Logos in the Gospel of St. John. If Christ is Logos, if God introduces himself as ratio, then God is not all-powerful, He is reason. While the Mu’tazilites claimed something similar, they did not have scriptural authority of similar significance to confirm their position in an unassailable way, while their opponents [Ash’arites] had ample scriptural material to oppose them.

    Also, Christian revelation claims that everything was created through Christ as logos that all things were created, creation carries the imprint of its Creator as reason. […]Because it is primarily His word which creation rests — rather than solely His will — creation has a steady, rational foundation upon which man can rely. This view constitutes an open invitation to examine the rules and laws of creation in order to know the Creator [emphasis mine], an invitation very familiar from the Old Testament (Wisdom 13:1-6)

    I believe in order to seek peace, we need to use reason by trying to understand Islam, know common terminologies muslims use, know what fallacies are and history. Without reason, pathos can only go so far to move the minds and hearts of the world.

    Most of all, we need to pray to Mary Immaculate: Patroness of America.

    Here are some articles that has helped and continues to guide me towards understanding and truth:

    “When Islam Abandoned Reason: A Conversation with Robert R. Reilly”
    http://www.insidecatholic.com/…eilly.html

    “Godless Morality: Why Judeo-Christianity Is Necessary for Human Rights”
    http://www.insidecatholic.com/…ights.html

    “Is Islam Part of God’s Plan?”
    http://the-american-catholic.c…-gods-plan

    Pope Benedict’s Regensburg address [I keep re-reading this, so rich in truth. Papa Benedict is awesome!]:
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_fat…rg_en.html

  • Todd

    What about saying “no” to puff pieces like this?

  • Samuel

    “supporting Islamic expansion in the West is an act of moral cowardice, which wins people praise as “tolerant” and cosmopolitan, for which the next generation will pay the price. And our children will curse us for it.”

    AMEN!

  • Ryan Haber

    Brian,

    I do not know how familiar you are with the Qu’ran or with Islam. The Qu’ran, as a book, is only faintly analogous to the Bible. Sharia cannot be interpreted metaphorically or as a personal moral code because it itself precludes such interpretations. It insists upon a literal interpretation of itself, and most of its laws require social implementation.

    J de La Cruz,

    Thanks for you insight. I was not using a sola scriptura approach, but I did use the cited passage as a proof text. As a proof text, though, I think it highly representative of our Lord’s teaching. He did not make oddball, out-of-context statements. This one is part of the passage about being willing to hate even mother and father for his sake. Of course, I am not saying that Christianity demands violence – quite the contrary. But it is not a religion of world peace precisely because it is not a religion terribly interested in the affairs of the world except in as much as they affect persons and souls. Our Lord lived in a terribly violent time or place and phrases like “just get along,” or “live and let live,” or “let’s all be friends,” never appear in his preaching. He sent a group of soldiers on its way without any preaching about beating their swords into plowshares.

    Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages,” (Lk 3:14)

    Jesus seems to have taken the same attitude as most of the Church Fathers from the earliest days: war is an unadmirable, but not necessarily immoral, fact of existence in a fallen world.

    The Popes launched Crusades, and those wars were not, as is taught by modern secularists, wars of murderous intolerance. They were entirely justified wars of self-defense. Christians have never commanded but always condoned self-defense, for instance. The Catholic Church has never forbidden the death penalty.

    Christian faith brings immense interior peace, and from this interior peace an outward peace, at which the world cannot even guess, begins to flow. That peace has is not a peace that the world has to offer, and it is not the sort of peace that the world is even looking for, though (Jn 14:27).

  • Brian English

    “I do not know how familiar you are with the Qu’ran or with Islam. The Qu’ran, as a book, is only faintly analogous to the Bible. Sharia cannot be interpreted metaphorically or as a personal moral code because it itself precludes such interpretations. It insists upon a literal interpretation of itself, and most of its laws require social implementation.”

    Well, that is certainly the Islamic fundamentalist approach, but that is itself an interpretation. There are clearly many Muslims who do not want to live in countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Iran, so they have every reason to reject a literal interpretation of the Quran. They have to present their alternative interpretation and fight for it, probably literally.

    I am not optimistic this will happen, but the alternative is perpetual conflict. Some Muslims realize this, but they have to get much louder and confrontational with the Islamic fundamentalists.

    I suppose my basic point is

  • ASDDDDD

    PLEASE KEEP THE BIGOTRY UP. STAND UP AGAINST THAT MOSQUE! YOU’RE HELPING ADVANCE SECULARISM BY SHOWING THE WORLD WHAT COLLECTIVIST TYRANTS YOU ARE.

  • Perry Mason

    John, I am dissapointed. I expected more sophistication from you.

    Let’s break this down nice and easy:

    1 – the current administration is suffering on multiple fronts

    2 – the news media, being the lapdogs they are, created a non-story about a non-mosque being built at non-ground zero.

    3 – there is no evidence that Osama Bin Laden, or any devout Muslims, had anything to do with 9-11 outside of the testimony of a man that was waterboarded 180 times.

    4 – private property, private property, private property

    5 – 9-11 was likely committed by elements within the US Government or military (yes, lame conspiracy theories notwithstanding, the box cutter arabs who cannot fly is and always has been a bad joke)

    Let’s use the mosque logic to demonstrate the utter nonsense of John’s argument. Timothy McVeigh supposedly blew up a building, and he was anti-government and pro-science. A group that believes in limited government wants to fund a science research lab in downtown OKC. All Americans now must protest the lab because it triumpantly spits in the face of the victims of the OKC bombing.

    The reality is that the world’s #1 perpetrator of murder is the United States Government and its constituent parts. Thus, every single monument, every single flag, and every single honor given to this terd is an insult to anyone and everyone of good sense. I will thank God the day this place goes broke from its grotesquely brazen evils, much like Rome.

  • lol

    “I will thank God the day this place goes broke from its grotesquely brazen evils, much like Rome. ”

    Proof that Christians are unAmerican!

  • Alex

    It is not a “ground zero” mosque. Sad. And even if it were, “ground zero” is a ground fully desecrated by the oceans of infidel blood Americans have spilled in the last nine years. Sadder. And even if there were no unjust American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to begrudge them the mosque is to begrudge us a cathedral. Saddest.

  • J de la cruz

    Robert Haber:

    Thanks for you insight. I was not using a sola scriptura approach, but I did use the cited passage as a proof text. As a proof text, though, I think it highly representative of our Lord’s teaching.

    I disagree with you. There is a quality that you share, perhaps unknowingly, with the majority of muslims [especially that of Sunni Islam Wahhabism] as they have the literalist belief of the Koran, hadith, sharia laws, to inflict violence, anti-semitism, destruction of the human dignity, oppression of the right to religious freedom [see: Saudi Arabia ] and inhumane/barbaric methods of punishment such as stoning of women. In your case, you use sola scriptura of the bible to impose your own interpretation of Catholicism.

    The problem lies in your interpretations of biblical passages which are sola scriptura, since you do not look to outside sources except your own intellect, to see if it corresponds to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

    So, I will try to cover all the points you have written, and as children of God, we shall discover Truth together.

    The beauty of Catholicism is that Catholics rely not only on the bible but also the authority of the Catholic Church to help them discern the Living Word of God. This links Catholics throughout the ages, since Jesus appointed Saint Peter as the first Pope, to declare with utmost pride and humility they are living a faith grounded on Saint Peter

  • J de la cruz

    The Cathechism of The Catholic Church (CCC) thus states:

    85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
    86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”48
    87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

    (Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PM.HTM)

    Furthermore, the CCC describes in brief:

    96 What Christ entrusted to the apostles, they in turn handed on by their preaching and writing, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to all generations, until Christ returns in glory.
    97 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.
    98 “The Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes” (DV 8 # 1).
    99 Thanks to its supernatural sense of faith, the People of God as a whole never ceases to welcome, to penetrate more deeply and to live more fully from the gift of divine Revelation.
    100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

    (Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PN.HTM)
    Robert Haber:

    This one [Matthew 10:34] is part of the passage about being willing to hate even mother and father for his sake.

    Remember the Ten Commandments given to us by God. The fourth commandment is

  • J de la cruz

    To illustrate the best example of the perfect relationship between mother and son, look to John 19-28 as Jesus joins and tells us to love his mother, Mary:

    25
    10 Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.
    26
    When Jesus saw his mother 11 and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.”
    27
    Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.

    Let me provide Monsignor Bill [from St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church], who reflects and expounds Matthew 10:34 based on Luke (12:49-51):

    [

  • J de la cruz

    The Beatitudes that Jesus Christ preached is not isolated in the historical time period in the bible. As Catholics we try to live the Beatitudes today. It is a social doctrine for us to help the poor, those who mourn, the low, those who hunger and thirst, the persecuted, and to give ourselves to the world and to share the love and peace and joy that only God can provide.

    The Catholic Church and Catholics are concerned for the world AS much as the individual. She has done so since Jesus walked the earth. There are hospitals, orphanages, schools, universities, homeless shelters like Casa Juan Diego in Houston, Texas that are run and maintained by the Catholic Church to reach out to the world, seeking the very people Jesus spoke of in the Beautitudes.

    Mother Theresa of Calcutta helping and loving the untouchables that are looked down upon. The poorest of the poor.

    If you are still ignoring the Holy Spirit working through the Catholic Church and to Pope Benedict and its faithful, metaphysically and physically

  • marie

    ive read all the comments and they have made good reading. im not american and im a lapsed catholic, disillusioned with the church over child abuse, but i still belieive that jesus is god and i am appalled at the idea of a mosque at ground zero. what an insult to the victims and their families( who werent all americans, some of them were english and irish, and other nationalities)i hope that democracy wins the day and it is NEVER built. and as someone who used to live in an asian area in britain and have talked to a fair few moslems believe me they only have time for democracy when it gets them what they want, if they were in charge they would not extend the tolerance they have been getting from us to anyone else! any way i will continue to pray to our lady for the conversion of muslims.pleasepray for the protection of christians and christian based culture. god bless

  • Mind Bird

    Web Application Development Bangalore proceeds easily from their website fall into the web based business category. Web Application Development Bangalore is naturally online retailer’s submission of various products for sale from an online catalogue. The needs of Web Application Development Bangalore businesses go far away from simply provided that product information and collecting customer feedback.

    Web Application Development Bangalore

  • Mind Bird

    Web Application Development
    Bangalore has
    been fuel by modernization of the market world and the outburst of internet
    technologies that determine the customer’s relationship to the company. Web Application Development Bangalore is important for the company to be connected
    to their clients’ at all possible times. Web application development
    Bangalore is affirmatively updated to the varied
    improving Web solution technologies.


    Web Application Development Bangalore

  • Mind Bird

    Windows Application development Bangalore allows us to put this experience to work-creating high quality custom solutions for your organization. Windows Application development Bangalore delegated authentication technology allows a user to delegate authority to a particular application for a specific set of resources. Windows Application development Bangalore can specify the duration that the application will be able to access the resources. Windows Application development Bangalore service offerings will require that the application accessing the data identifies itself in a unique way.

    Windows Application development Bangalore

  • Mind Bird

    Web Application Bangalore in the Web solutions for the websites developed at Web Application Bangalore have become more relevant for key problems wherein incorporation of practical web solutions play the key role in customer satisfaction. Web application Bangalore highly specialized and focused area requiring a lot of research and brainstorming. Web application Bangalore is providing an optimized and most cost-effective website design for the developed website.

    Web Application Development Bangalore

  • Mind Bird

    Ecommerce Development Bangalore typically offer e-commerce plans for businesses wishing to venture into the world of online retailing. The quality and cohesiveness of the Ecommerce Development Bangalore fundamentals in your website says a lot approximately you and your online business. A successful Ecommerce Development Bangalore not only looks good, but also performs in bringing revenue. Ecommerce Development Bangalore can provide enormously, cost-effective development without compromising on quality.

    Ecommerce Development Bangalore

  • Mind Bird

    Seo Bangalore makes website more search engine affable. Seo Bangalore services give you long-lasting results that extend beyond a quick, short-term boost in rankings. Seo Bangalore helps you achieve better visibility, better rankings, increased traffic, and more sales. Seo Bangalore introduces a major part of visitors to your site. Seo Bangalore stands at an edge compared to other companies. Seo Bangalore researches your industry, your competition, target areas and the keywords you want to target. Seo Bangalore provides regular, detailed updates on your website’s rankings and traffic.

    Seo Bangalore

  • Mind Bird

    Web Design Bangalore is more of an experienced art form in today’s situation with an escalation of number of growing sites offering this service. Web Design Bangalore Hardly ever do these sites provide to a reasonable range of approval thereby putting off the plan undulating. Web Design Bangalore with modifying promotion situation for all aggressive products. Web Design Bangalore is more of a skilled art form in today’s scenario with an escalation of number of emerging websites providing this service. Web Design Bangalore rarely do these websites deliver to a decent scale of acceptance thereby putting off the agenda in totality.

    Web Design Bangalore

  • Mind Bird

    Website Design Bangalore dedicated in beautiful design and programming affordable price. Website Design Bangalore comprises many different skills and disciplines in the production and maintenance of websites. Website Design Bangalore is a communal of designers and site owners sharing free web design templates, website templates.

    Website design Bangalore

  • Mind Bird

    Website Designing Bangalore Web
    page overhauling is an absolute necessity for fulfilling dependable client
    conservation. Website Designing Bangalore allows
    customers to mix-and-match compare or choose a best-suited product/solution. Website Designing Bangalore
    Customize solutions with configurations based on pre-set permutations &
    combinations. Website Designing Bangalore Connect
    with the customer’s interests and generate qualified leads.

    Website
    Designing Bangalore

  • Mind Bird

    Ecommerce website designing is effective call-to-action based ecommerce websites to online payments and delivery. Ecommerce website designing can be assured that your customers will have a powerful yet easy-to-understand shopping experience. Ecommerce website designing services follow some simple yet effective rules. A typical on-line shop must do the following for your customers.

    Ecommerce website designing

  • Mind Bird

    Ecommerce website development has tremendous expertise in providing e-commerce websites with unified facilities of shopping cart software Ecommerce website development centered alternatives help in offering their desirable at the first in a simple and easy way. Ecommerce website development has enhanced an easy-to-use and evident feature which thereafter benefits the customer to effortlessly end their transaction

    Ecommerce website development

  • Mind Bird

    Website Design Bangalore instilled with Web Solution has provided more
    effective and productive solutions for our clients in recent past.
    Website Design
    Bangalore submission Logo Design, Web site
    Designers, Designing to small and
    medium businesses in Bangalore

    Website
    design Bangalore

  • mind bird solutions

    I want to get across my admiration for your kind-heartedness giving support to those individuals that need help on this particular area. Your special dedication to passing the solution along ended up being quite helpful and has consistently permitted i…

    Luxury Mattress Bangalore

  • mind bird solutions

    I want to get across my admiration for your kind-heartedness giving support to those individuals that need help on this particular area. Your special dedication to passing the solution along ended up being quite helpful and has consistently permitted i…

    Buy Online Mattress

  • mind bird solutions

    I want to get across my admiration for your kind-heartedness giving support to those individuals that need help on this particular area. Your special dedication to passing the solution along ended up being quite helpful and has consistently permitted i…

    Premium Mattress Bangalore

  • mind bird solutions

    I want to get across my admiration for your kind-heartedness giving support to those individuals that need help on this particular area. Your special dedication to passing the solution along ended up being quite helpful and has consistently permitted i…

    Mattress in Bangalore

  • mind bird solutions

    I want to get across my admiration for your kind-heartedness giving support to those individuals that need help on this particular area. Your special dedication to passing the solution along ended up being quite helpful and has consistently permitted i…

    Prestige kew gardens pre launch

MENU