"There are no Muslims flying planes into your buildings."
Posted on 08/20/2010 5:22:39 PM PDT by Starman417
Daisy Khan, wife of Imam Rauf, says there is too much at stake to back down on the Ground Zero Mosque now.
"There is too much at stake, constitutional rights, the development of the Muslims here, how the world is watching the United States. We tell people America upholds religious freedom. We should not compromise those values."
She maintains that the resistance has strengthened the resolve of the mosque supporters, she states that the supporters worry that if they cave on this issue that they may be next. (Whatever the Hell that means) She emphasizes that Americans must realize that not all Muslims are extremists and they must learn to distinguish between extremists and moderate Muslims and not be ruled by Islamaphobia.
Khan said the organizers "will have a dialogue" with the families of 9/11 victims, but added about the mosque site: "It is private property. To walk away without taking everything into consideration would be irresponsible."Instead of creating enemies, she said, she hopes this controversy will help people better understand Islam. "We are debating about having a healing dialogue, building bridges, and this whole thing has turned into the opposite of what we have envisioned," she said.
Khan said she is completely taken aback by the opposition.
Many people are asking why they are pursuing the project if they only want to build a dialogue with America?
She maintains that partisan strife is causing the conflict and that the Republicans are really going after them. She considers the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque to be a "defining moment" for Islam: hold on babe, isn't it supposed to build a dialogue with Americans and Muslims? I hear warning bells in the background.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
I’m waiting for the graphic geniuses on FR to depict Daisy Mae Kahn in Al Capp style.
use laws against them, check
use their tolerance against them, check
play victim all the time, check
lie that you now live in fear due to death threats, check
They do this all the time
There lies the problem!
Well Daisy Dingbat can take a hike..sounds like she is as likable as her husband
I saw her interviewed a few weeks ago. She was describing the location of the proposed mosque. She said something like this:
Well you know it is a building that was hit by the landing gear of AN airplane. (or maybe of SOME airplane)
Really, Daisy. The landing gears of an airplane? And what airplane did that happen to be, and on what date did this happen?
I couldn’t believe what I was watching.
Americans must realize that not all Muslims are extremists...
I don’t have to realize a Allahdamned thing.
You have too much at stake???? That seems extreme... Who is the one who needs to do the realizing...
Go back to your home and pound sand.
“”We tell people America upholds religious freedom””
Well, perhaps they ought to tell them the truth. We don’t like, we actually resent - foreigners, - especially murderous ones - coming to OUR AMERICA and dictating how we should behave. She and her husband are only here because they know how weak this country is and it’s all about political correctness - the better to take advantage of us, my dear!!!
not all Muslims are extremists
But
nearly all extremists are Muslims
at least the ones who strap bombs on themselves and kill innocent civilians
she is very ugly too...it shows through in her face, her anger and her arrogance and intolerance. A very ugly woman, in all senses of the word.
Now I understand why they want their women in Burkas!
When she says “There is too much at stake” she means it, but not in the context of the constitution. At this point, owning the land with the intent of building a Mosque, they now need a dispensation of sorts from the powers that be in Islam to not proceed. That is not likely.
And, under no circumstances can the site be the location of another religion in the future.
FTW! What have they done for us lately?
She knew. That admission gives away the show.
The First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”
The Constitution does not guarantee that religion can be practiced anywhere. When it comes to siting church buildings, courts have generally upheld the right of municipalities to regulate where churches may or may not locate their facilities. The reasoning has been that facility siting has generally not been found to be fundamental to the “tenet of faith” or a “cardinal principle” of religions but rather is a secular activity. Courts have generally found that, even apart from the siting of religious buildings, zoning laws can be used to regulate religious activities in existing facilities that were built for non-religious purposes. These courts have decided in many cases that zoning ordinances place a minimal burden on the congregations and the ordinances have a reasonable or important governmental interest. This analysis has even been used to satisfy the Shebert compelling interest test and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) requirements.
Zoning laws have also been used to compel churches to maintain structures that have been designated for historic preservation and to prohibit established churches from traditional roles such as feeding the poor or providing shelter for the homeless. Courts have generally discounted the burden that zoning ordinances have on religious congregations which has allowed most zoning ordinances to stand.
The exceptions tend to be grouped where there appears to be some discrimination towards a particular group or an equal protection question. With regards to house meetings in residential areas, exceptions are also found for vagueness of the zoning law in some cases. However, in other cases, the courts have found the zoning ordinances to be valid and the burden on the house meeting to be minimal. This is due to the availability of alternative venues even though they are not in one’s own home.
For instance, the Arizona town of Gilbert, under its zoning code, prohibits churches within its borders from having any home meetings of any size, including Bible studies, three-person church leadership meetings, and potluck dinners. This ban is defended based upon traffic, parking, and building safety concerns.
I think a prohibition forbidding the building of any religious structure near the 9/11 devastation area would be a reasonable solution. This prohibition should be based upon preventing any religion from capitalizing on this sensitive area.
Vile is its own reward.
Good comment.
There is too much at stake to let it go, Daisy. And we will NOT let it go. Push and see....
Daisy,
ESAD
I believe in granting Islam the respect and consideration it grants the rest of the world.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around a muzzie named “Daisy”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.