RUB BBQ 208 West 23rd Street New York, NY 10011
Hours: Sunday - Thursday 11:30am - 11pm | Friday & Saturday 11:30am - 12am
Posted on 09/21/2011 10:36:17 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
NEW YORK (AP) -- The developer of an Islamic cultural center that opened Wednesday evening near the site of the terrorist attacks that leveled the World Trade Center says the biggest error on the project was not involving the families of 9/11 victims from the start.
People crowded into the center, where a small orchestra played traditional Middle Eastern instruments and a photo exhibit of New York children of different ethnicities lined the walls. The enthusiasm at the opening belied its troubled beginnings.
snip
He called opposition to the center - which prompted one of the most virulent national discussions about Islam and freedom of speech and religion since Sept. 11 - part of a "campaign against Muslims."
snip
Pointing to the inclusivity of a center that critics feared would be polarizing, El-Gamal noted that the featured photographer in the "NYChildren" exhibit is Danny Goldfield, who is Jewish.
The Brooklyn photographer was inspired to create the exhibit by the story of Rana Sodhi, a Sikh who emigrated from India and settled in Arizona. His brother Balbir was killed in a retaliatory hate crime four days after Sept. 11.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Awww, isn't that sweet -- an "It's a Small World After All" magic carpet ride at Ground Zero.
RUB BBQ 208 West 23rd Street New York, NY 10011
Hours: Sunday - Thursday 11:30am - 11pm | Friday & Saturday 11:30am - 12am
Plus the discovery of what is called the “black gold” or oil as well.
I remember the picture showing the Israeli solder who stands in front of the mother with the child to protect them both, while the islamofacist puts both the mother and child in front of the islamofacist.
“Bain Capital, has cut checks totaling $90,000 to Romney’s operation. “
That's like saying that a molehill is the same kind of thing as a mountain.
The reason why our founding fathers voted for a secular government.
How long are you going to promote that Orwellian lie here? None of the Colonists or Founding Fathers seemed to have received your memos on the subject. THEIR view, in contradistinction to YOUR view, was that NATIONS, as well as all CITIZENS, have a DUTY to worship God. Because they were forming a government UNDER GOD, "the great Governor of the universe" they could not have been forming a "secular government". The two concepts are mutually exclusive. THEIR notion of what government is and YOUR notion of it are two different things. Are you a citizen of these United States?
TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1781
The United States in Congress assembled, agreed to the following proclamation:
In times of calamity and impending danger when a vindictive enemy pursues with unrelenting fury a war of rapine and devastation to reduce us by fire and sword, by the savages of the wilderness and our own domestics to the most abject and ignominious bondage; it becomes the indispensible duty of the citizens of these United States with true penitence of heart publicly to acknowledge the over ruling Providence of God, to confess our offences against him, and to supplicate his gracious interposition for averting the threatened danger and preparing our efforts in the defence and preservation of our injured country.
At all times it is our duty to acknowledge the over-ruling providence of the great Governor of the universe, and devoutly to implore his divine favour and protection. But in the hour of calamity and impending danger, when by fire and the sword, by the savages of the wilderness, and by our own domestics, a vindictive enemy pursues a war of rapine
and devastation, with unrelenting fury, we are peculiarly excited, with true penitence of heart, to prostrate ourselves before our great Creator, and fervently to supplicate his gracious interposition for our deliverance.
The United States in Congress assembled, therefore do earnestly recommend, that Thursday the third day of May next, may be observed as a day of humiliation, fasting and prayer, that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and through the merits of our blessed Saviour, obtain pardon and forgiveness: that it may please him to inspire our rulers with wisdom and uncorruptible integrity, and to direct and prosper their councils: to inspire all our citizens with a fervent and disinterested love of their country, and to preserve and strengthen their union: to turn the hearts of the disaffected, or to frustrate their devices: to regard with divine compassion our friends in captivity, affliction and distress, to comfort and relieve them under their sufferings, and to change their mourning into grateful songs of triumph: that it may please him to bless our ally, and to render the connection formed between these United States and his kingdoms a mutual and lasting benefit to both nations: to animate our officers and forces by sea and land with invincible fortitude, and to guard and protect them in the day of battle, and to crown our joint endeavours for terminating the calamities of war with victory and success: that the blessings of peace and liberty may be established on an honourable and permanent basis, and transmitted inviolate to the latest posterity: that it may please him to prosper our husbandry and commerce, and to bless us with health and plenty: that it may please him to bless all schools and seminaries of learning, and to grant that truth, justice and benevolence, and pure and undefiled religion, may universally prevail.◁
I am uncertain as to whether you are indicating that the Protestant Reformation was a molehill, or that the curren upheavals in Islam are a molehill.
Regarding the document, I shall have to do some research on that. It appears the language may represent a compromise among the various members with the use of Creator, Providence, and Governor of the universe more appealing to the Deist faction, and words like Saviour and “bewail our manifold sins” to the Methodist and Baptist faction. At any rate when the Constitution was written the vote was for no establishment of religion, which mistaken or not, I equate with secular.
“Islam...is a political system, too.” And the Devine Right of Kings was not??? And I am not gung-ho for Islam, they are 3 or 4 Centuries behind us, and not in a good way.
FReepmail me if you want on or off my New York ping list.
This is a different Islamic center.
Well, first of all, the Divine Right of Kings is neither a political system, nor has it been extant in at least a century.
And I am not gung-ho for Islam
Secondly, you might -- if you agree -- realize that allowing Islam free reign over here will result in some severe problems. Islam is a political system that has a religious component.
And?
I don't see a problem with that.
What's he whining about anyway? 9/11 was a hate crime against America.
They’re just useful idiots.
Excellent points, BTW.
If a powerful church says that a king has his rights because God says so, how is this not political.
I have no desire for Islam to have free reign in US politics. In fact given the kinds of things (hatred, etc.) the Wahabbi oriented/Saudi financed mosques are reported to be teaching in some places here, I wonder why they are not being charged with contributing to the delinquency of minors.
Thanks for the ping!
I was simply indicating that there is no comparison between what Catholics and Protestants went through 3 or 4 Centuries ago to what factions of Islam are currently going through in terms of scale. More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined. Since the inception of Islam, Muslims have killed more than 270 non-Muslims worldwide, not to mention the Muslims killed by other Muslims.
We are fighting seventh century barbarians and likening Catholics and Protestants to these barbarians is ludicrous, and most particularly on this thpe of thread.
And as the Protestant Reformation was the foundation of the American Revolution in many respects, I certainly was not likening it to a molehill.
... At any rate when the Constitution was written the vote was for no establishment of religion, which mistaken or not, I equate with secular.
You are entitled to your opinion about what the Federal Government ought to but you are mistaken about what it was actually founded as. There is NO historical evidence to support the notion that it was a secular government in the modern sense in which you are using the term:
§ 1868. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.§ 1870. But the duty of supporting religion, and especially the Christian religion, is very different from the right to force the consciences of other men, or to punish them for worshipping God in the manner, which, they believe, their accountability to him requires. It has been truly said, that "religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be dictated only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." Mr. Locke himself, who did not doubt the right of government to interfere in matters of religion, and especially to encourage Christianity, at the same time has expressed his opinion of the right of private judgment, and liberty of conscience, in a manner becoming his character, as a sincere friend of civil and religious liberty. "No man, or society of men," says he, "have any authority to impose their opinions or interpretations on any other, the meanest Christian; since, in matters of religion, every man must know, and believe, and give an account for himself." The rights of conscience are, indeed, beyond the just reach of any human power. They are given by God, and cannot be encroached upon by human authority, without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural, as well as of revealed religion.
§ 1871. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. The history of the parent country had afforded the most solemn warnings and melancholy instructions on this head; and even New England, the land of the persecuted puritans, as well as other colonies, where the Church of England had maintained its superiority, would furnish out a chapter, as full of the darkest bigotry and intolerance, as any, which could be found to disgrace the pages of foreign annals. Apostacy, heresy, and nonconformity had been standard crimes for public appeals, to kindle the flames of persecution, and apologize for the most atrocious triumphs over innocence and virtue.
Document 69Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1865--73 1833
Wow, you just dig your heels in, donchya?
Here is an explanation, by Muslims, that explains how you are comparing apples to oranges:
The Separation of Institutional Religion & the State
As we have mentioned, in Islam God is acknowledged the sole sovereign of human affairs, so there has never been a distinction between religious and state authority. In Christendom, the distinction between the two authorities are said to be based upon records in the New Testament of Jesus, asking his followers to render unto Caesar what was his and unto God what was His. Therefore throughout Christian history until the present times, there have always been two authorities: ‘God and Caesar’, or ‘the church and state.’ Each had its own laws and jurisdictions, each its own structure and hierarchy. In the pre-westernized Islamic world there were never two powers, and the question of separation never arose. The distinction so deeply rooted in Christendom between church and state has never existed in Islam."
So, as you can see by the above reference, Christianity -- by the words of it's founder -- disavows itself of the responsibilities of the State, outright. The fact that some Kings and/or Popes and/or Bishops lied about it, has no bearing on the facts of the matter.
On the other hand, Muslim authorities, Imams and Scholars, will tell you that when they say Islam, they also mean they intend to overthrow the State machinery and replace it with theirs. The Koran states quite clearly that Islam is a total way of life, and political systems and bodies of law are no exception.
Therefore, if you permit Islam to run roughshod unopposed in America, you essentially are condoning an eventual change to Sharia law and the political systems related to it (the Caliphate).
As I stated before, if it had occured to Hitler to include a strong religious component -- Nazism as a complete religion -- not only would he have been far more successful, Nazism would have persisted much more than in does today, and people who take your viewpoint might actually defend it's protection.
I grant your point that Jesus separated Caesar and religion, but that many popes and other authorities did not necessarily honor that. Certainly the Catholic church had major authority over the kings such as Henry VIII, who could not get a divorce until he decided to turn Protestant. This led to a lot of Catholic/Protestant killing depending on who was in power—Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth.
Also I see your point about Islam and government being more of a unity, and I don’t want any religion running my government, which is one reason my son is doing 20 years in Special Forces.
Thank you for the reference. In terms of scale I was not thinking so much about the Inquisition as about events like the Albigensian Heresy, wherein the Pope used the French king’s greed to wipe out the prosperous Albigenses and steal their realm. I think the figure I read there recently was from 200,000 to a million dead. The many Jewish pogroms over more than 1000 years may have killed 3 1/2 million. After the 30 Years War the population of Germany had shrunk from 18 million to 4 milllion. It is estimated that as many as 2 million “witches” were killed over a number of centuries. I tried to find more information, but Google refused to give me any more sites. I think your figure of 270 non-Muslims killed by Muslims must have been a mistype. At least a million Armenians were killed by the Turks. Multiple millions were killed by both sides in the India Pakistan split. I am not comparing modern Christians, I am looking at history which is not pretty, and am making the point that horrific as it is, Muslim excesses now resemble those of our thankfully long gone past.
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.
