Right-wing media falsely declares Imam's Middle East trip a "taxpayer-funded fundraising jaunt"
The right-wing media is attacking Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's upcoming State Department trip to the Middle East to "discuss Muslim life in America and religious tolerance," by falsely claiming he will use the trip as a "taxpayer-funded fundraising jaunt" to finance construction of his Islamic cultural center in New York City. In fact, the State Department has made clear that fundraising of any kind is prohibited during the trip, and Rauf has previously participated in this program, first under President Bush.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Right-wing media baselessly fearmongers about Rauf's "taxpayer-funded fundraising jaunt"
Forbes' Claudia Rosett baselessly speculates that it may not be "coincidence" that Rauf "will spend the rest of the summer touring some of the petro-dollar capitals of the planet." In an August 6 Forbes column, Claudia Rosett reported on Rauf's upcoming trip, and said, "All this comes at a moment when Rauf and his partners in New York are preparing to raise $100 million to build a 13-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero." Rosett later wrote: "Perhaps it's coincidence that instead of haggling over financing in New York, Rauf--Imam Feisal, to his followers--will spend the rest of the summer touring some of the petro-dollar capitals of the planet, including such fonts of potential funding as Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi." Rosett wrote that the Executive Director of the Park 51 project, Daisy Khan denied that fundraising will take place, but asked "What does that actually mean? Fundraising, especially in the bargaining halls of the Middle East, does not always consist of a brusque pitch and immediate handshake."
Washington Times: "U.S. underwrites fundraising tour for Islamic shrine at Ground Zero." In an August 10 editorial, the Washington Times called Rauf's upcoming State Department trip a "fundraising tour for Islamic shrine at Ground Zero" and claimed "important questions are being raised about whether [the Middle East trip] is simply a taxpayer-funded fundraising jaunt to underwrite his reviled project, which is moving ahead in Lower Manhattan." The editorial concluded by baselessly claiming:
The State Department is either wittingly or unwittingly using tax money to support Mr. Rauf's efforts to realize his dream of a supersized mosque blocks away from the sacred ground of the former World Trade Center, which was destroyed by Islamic fanaticism. This ill-considered decision will raise the ire of millions of Americans and illustrates the limits of what the denizens of Foggy Bottom know about diplomacy.
Fox & Friends: "[C]ritics say it's a fundraising mission, why wouldn't he put his hand out?" On the August 10 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade said: "We just told you how the State Department is funding a trip for the imam behind the Ground Zero mosque to take a goodwill mission to the Middle East. However, critics say it's a fundraising mission. Why wouldn't he put his hand out?"
Atlas Shrugs: "State Department Bankrolls Ground Zero Imam Rauf's Middle East Fundraising Tour." In an August 10 Atlas Shrugs post, Pamela Geller wrote, "Yesterday, we learned that the dishonest Imam Rauf was in Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and Qatar for Ground Zero mosque money here. He was not accompanied by his waiter. Today we learn that he was traveling on your dime."(emphasis in original)
National Review: "Strong evidence that...the State Department is effectively paying for him to raise funds for the Ground Zero mosque project." In an August 11 National Review Online blog, Andy McCarthy posted parts of the Times' editorial, and claimed:
It is all worth reading, including the first part, which deals with the strong evidence that, in funding Imam Feisal Rauf's sojourn to the Arabian Peninsula, the State Department is effectively paying for him to raise funds for the Ground Zero mosque project -- broadly opposed by Americans who are also being kept in the dark about its financing.
In fact, Rauf began participating in the program under Bush, and all fundraising activities are prohibited
Assistant Sec. of State Crowley: Rauf is aware of the "prohibition against fundraising while on a speaking tour." In an August 10 press briefing, Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley addressed allegations that Rauf will use the trip to raise funds for Park 51, specifically noting that there is a "prohibition against fundraising while on a speaking tour," a policy of which they have informed Rauf. From the press briefing:
QUESTION: On the issue of the Imam from the Ground Zero Mosque - there was some discussion yesterday - do you have any update on that, the ground rules of the trip, the relationship to fund-raising which some have raised, and anything on the places he's going?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, first of all, Imam Feisal will be traveling to Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE on a U.S. Government-sponsored trip to the Middle East. He will discuss Muslim life in America and religious tolerance. This is part of a program - and yesterday, I actually was in error. I attributed it to our ECA Bureau, Education and Cultural Affairs. It's actually our International Information Programs - IIP, our office that handles this particular program.
We have about 1,200 of these kinds of programs every year, sending experts on all fields overseas. Last year, we had 52 trips that were specifically focused on religious - promoting religious tolerance. We will expect to have roughly the same number of programs this year. For Imam Feisal, this will be his third trip under this program. In 2007, he visited Bahrain, Morocco, the UAE and Qatar. And earlier this year in January, he also visited Egypt. So we have a long-term relationship with him. His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well-known and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it's like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States. And our discussions with him about taking this trip preceded the current debate in New York over the center.
QUESTION: And the fundraising issue?
MR. CROWLEY: It is something that we have talked to him about and we have informed him about our prohibition against fundraising while on a speaking tour. We do not expect him to fundraise.
Program is geared towards "promoting religious tolerance" and "bring[ing] a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on" being "Muslim in the United States." Crowley also addressed the program in which Rauf would be participating, noting that its purpose is to promote "religious tolerance" and provide Muslim countries with a "moderate perspective" of being "Muslim in the United States." The State Department describes the program as promoting a "citizen dialogue," in which, "Americans, representing all religious backgrounds, travel overseas to share their experience of living in the United States and to highlight the contributions of Islam and other religions to American society."
Contrary to conservative claims, Rauf will only be traveling to three countries, not five, and will not be visiting Saudi Arabia. Several right-wing media figures have claimed that Rauf will be traveling to five Arab countries during his State Department trip, including travel to Saudi Arabia. In fact, according to Crowley, Rauf's trip is limited to Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE.
Rauf has been participating in the program since the Bush administration. Crowley also reported that Rauf has been a representative of the International Information Program since 2007:
QUESTION: Wait, you said that his first trip under this program was in 2007?
MR. CROWLEY: That is my understanding.
QUESTION: Who was President then? Can you remind me?
MR. CROWLEY: I believe it was George W. Bush.
State Department official confirms "fundraising and business activities" are prohibited during program trips. In a conversation with Media Matters, Paul Denig, the Director of the Office of U.S. Speaker and Specialist Programs explained that the International Information Program sponsors about 1,200 programs per year. Denig further explained that the program sponsors citizens "who represent a broad range of responsible and informed opinions." Denig also confirmed that "all fundraising and business activities" are prohibited during trips.
To share their experience of living in the United States. So we actually sponsor trips such as this and pay people to vacation? Great job. I want it.
Only a government program can get away with being so intentionally vague when rationalizing spending money, taxpayer money.
Whether he fund raises or not, I'd like to see this program up for a good ole' means test.
But the value of this program is NOT the subject.
Once again we see RightON making the first post in an attempt to derail the subject away from the actual topic.
The topic here is how the rightwing media is distorting this trip in order to further demonize this guy.
If you are unable to intelligently address the validity and viability of this program, the "relatively little" cost of it is irrelevant to me, except to say it's "very valuable", then please ignore it.
Your actual contributions are less and less these days as your hysteria increases.
And everyone can see that.
What you tried to do is deflect and distract from the actual topic.
Your personal insults towards me don't magically mask that effort, oh delusional one!
I figured you couldn't.
But you were 100% wrong, AND off-topic, AND rude. You won the trifecta for a paid troll! But not for a legit poster attempting to participate in a reasonable debate on the subject being discussed.
How long are you going to keep doing it?
■■Citizen Dialogue - Americans, representing all religious backgrounds, travel overseas to share their experience of living in the United States and to highlight the contributions of Islam and other religions to American society.
■■Digital Video Conferences and Electronic Speakers - From urban centers to remote villages, American experts and people around the world are connected through digital video conferences, Webchats, Webcasts, and blogs, in English and other languages.
■■Podcasts – Audio files that can be placed on Embassy websites or shared with local radio stations for broadcasts are produced on all topics. Content ranges from interviews with notable Americans, to stories about American society and culture, to features highlighting specific policies.
If you can't understand how this would be valuable in our world, then you're too blinded by your political partisanship! (But, of course, we already knew that you were too blined by that!)
Having other people understand us better makes them like us better. Others liking us better makes our citizens safer when they travel overseas and it makes moderate foreigners less likely to hate us and do us harm.
Oh, except this "Having other people understand us better makes them like us better. Others liking us better makes our citizens safer when they travel overseas and it makes moderate foreigners less likely to hate us and do us harm."; I doubt that's on any official memo.
It's not a fundraising jaunt. It's not a flaw in the Obama Administration to invite this guy to participate, since the Bush Administration had him go too. The rightwing has made all of these baseless allegations, and RightON won't address any of them.
I told you that you should have ignored me.
To; DellDolly, Will you?
The solution is for YOU to stay on topic, and to stop making baseless personal attacks as a substitute for debate on the topic under discussion.
But you should feel free to refrain from posting nonsense, of course, in reply to me.
For me, it has NOTHING to do with who you are. My replies are SOLELY for the message in your posts.
I could have predicted it. You have no interest in fair reasonable debate. Right ON gave you a challenge and you cannot bring yourself to do it.
You are hopeless.
The fact that I won't agree to stop calling out RightON when HE fails to honestly attempt to participate in that fair and reasonable debate is NOT evidence that I have no interest in that very same thing. In fact, it's evidence that I am SO VERY INTERESTED in participating in a fair and reasonable debate that I am willing to put myself up for attack by calling him out when he does that!
Pretty much the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you said, in fact.
You are a RightON clone - that's all you post here, is defenses of him or attacks on homosexual issues. I've documented that.
You can't. You never have. Liar.
How is that MY fault? How can that POSSIBLY be my fault?
YOU wanted me to IGNORE you. I said I wouldn't.
How is ME ignoring YOU possibly a fair and reasonable debate? It's YOU getting to say something and ME not being able to challenge it!!!
Gosh, this is NOT rocket science - it's not even kindergarten Dick and Jane reading!
How exactly is ME ignoring the distortions, lies, and omission of relevant information going to help foster a fair and reasonable debate?
It can't. It won't. It never will. It was a insincere offer from you. What NEEDS to happen to clean up the interaction between YOU and I is ALL on you! YOU need to stop pushing the lies, distortions and omissions of relevant data. You need to stop parsing words. You need to stay on topic and stop going OFF-TOPIC. And you need to stop making baseless personal attacks.
If YOU behaved well, you and I could interact JUST FINE.
You are NOT a victim here, doofus. I understand it's got to be frustrating to have one's failings pointed out at every turn. Too bad, so sad. Stop MAKING those glaring errors and no one will be able to point them out!
The solution is for YOU to stay on topic, and to stop making baseless personal attacks as a substitute for debate on the topic under discussion.
But you should feel free to refrain from posting nonsense, of course, in reply to me.
For me, it has NOTHING to do with who you are. My replies are SOLELY for the message in your posts.
Thank you. Thank you for finally asking Right ON and DellDolly to ignore each other. Hopefully coming from you, a reasonable and respectful poster, DellDolly will accept Right ON's agreement to stay away from each other.
It is irritating to read the catfights every day, and the threads would be better served if they took their squabbles to some alley somewhere.
I hope DellDolly agrees, if she does, good for her. If
she doesn't then she has no interest in any reasonable debate, only to trade insults.
Thanks again Pete.
I DON'T GO AFTER HIM.
YOU go after me. So does he.
I go after the nonsense he, and many others, post. It's the content of the post that gets a reply from me. It has NOTHING to do with who makes the post.
On the other hand, YOUR posts are almost exclusively attacks on me. MY POSTS frequently get attacked by thumbs down without regard for the content of my posts - things directly related to who I am, not what I wrote.
And Pete typically IS a reasonable poster, but on this topic, he's not behaving reasonably.
I'd be quite happy, and the board would be a better place, if the baseless personal attacks stopped - you're right.
But that's pretty funny and hypocritical coming from a poster whose sole purpose here seems to be as a clone for RightON to attack me.
Here are some examples of that kneejerk defense of RightON from you. Apparently the only posts from you that aren't about protecting RightON are posts on DADT.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200911100029 - atacking Victor in an unfair way to defend RightON
http://mediamatters.org/research/201004070028 - jumping into the fray without a single comment on the actual subject matter, just like today! Solely here to defend your clone, RightON.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200904020015 - yet another baseless attack on Victor, who apparently goes by the name Max Credits now.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201003080018 - here's one from this past March, where, once again, you didn't even try to discuss the actual topic, but solely attacked ME.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201001140029 - And HERE's one where RightON and Pongowhistelton defend YOU! Imagine that - clones defending clones!
And all these are from just a search of the FIRST page of many on Google.
This is a pattern of yours. Thanks for being unable to restrain yourself from following that pattern.
You are not some innocent victim who only cares about sticking to the topic, you have just proven that. If all Right ON does is post nonsense then ignoring him would be the way to silence him, anyone knows that. But you have no interest in that, yours is only to trade insults like on some schoolyard.
What is ironic is that you don't need to do that at all. Your opinions are well thought out, your intellect is obvious. But your lack of manners and your invective are louder, and obviously why you are here.
I am not impressed by you at all anymore. I am ashamed that you and I actually agree on many items politically. You are far closer to the right wing blowhards that MMFA highlight here everyday.
They love to hear themselves insult and scream, so do you. Think about that.
She needs to know how sick people are of her. Any points she makes are now lost in the weeds. It's her own fault. I just wanted her to know.
My points are NOT lost in the weeds. People's eyes were opened about RightON by my actions, and that's a very good thing.
I understand you'd rather that I NOT catch you at being his clone. Too bad, so sad.
Ignoring NONSENSE is the same argument that RightON makes, funnily enough!
He says we should IGNORE those people who are nonsensical.
And that's ridiculous. We should debunk their nonsense and MOCK them for trying to get that nonsense past us! And that's what I do.
You blame ME for debunking him and mocking him for his personal attacks? Get a clue, doofus!
And I don't care if you were EVER impressed by me, or if you EVER agree with ANYTHING I've written. That gives you NO credibility, since the issue is NOT who you are, but WHAT you write!
He WANTS his nonsense to be allowed to be published here unchallenged.
Your implication that it's PERSONAL for me is ridiculous.
For me, it's SOLELY about the message, and has nothing to do with the messenger. For him, it's solely about the messenger.
So, get a clue. It's not the same for both of us.
I tried.
She lives to stomp and control and hurl expletives. That's it.
You, on the other hand, respond to ME - the person who made the post, with dishonesty and paid troll behavior.
You have NO credibility here, RightON. And it's YOUR own fault for the way you behave here. I simply pointed it out to everyone, and will CONTINUE to do so.
It's your BEHAVIOR that's the problem. It's not MY behavior that's the problem.
And as such, YOUR commitment to IGNORE me if I will only, please, pretty please, ignore YOU is yet another dishonest attempt to stop being caught doing what you do! Too bad, so sad, NOT going to happen!
Other posters did NOT and DO NOT take on your nonsense nearly as often or with the insight that I possess. I see through your nonsense better than any other posters I've seen here, and so YOUR assertion that others can do it is ridiculous too, and just another example of your dishonesty.
Sue, for god's sake everyone knows you personally attack and engage in little catfights with me because you can't help yourself. Stop with this silly "I never attack" nonsense.
Wake up. I offered to ignore you and let you be. You refused. You will out yourself soon enough, probably when I expose you, and then you will have wished you had ignored me. Too late then.
So, behave yourself. You're on notice.
This is not rocket science, and you've been told this multiple times, and your distortion of reality here is YET ANOTHER example of your typical reply here!
Nope, everyone DOESN'T KNOW that I personally attack you, or anyone else.
And everyone DOES KNOW that YOU personally attack me!
And, doofus, you told me when I started posting here a year ago that I'd be banned soon. And you told me that 3 weeks after I started posting, and 1 month after, and 2 months after, and every other week since then.
You were wrong then, since I'm not Sue, and you're wrong now, and you have NO credibility to "put me on notice", doofus!
You're the one who gets an incredible number of thumbs down from reasonable posters here. You're the one who USED TO have credibility here, but doesn't any longer. I have even MORE credibility now than I had when you and I first interacted 12 months ago.
Gosh, you're desperate for attention, aren't you?
You're not being honest here.
I don't GET into "silly fights" with him.
He makes unfair and baseless personal attacks.
Get a clue.
Diagnosis
What a delusional man you are.
Like it's MY fault that he then made baseless personal attacks when he couldn't refute a thing I said.
Get a clue.
The cost of it is irrelevant.
That's sure to change hearts and minds.
But again, the PURPOSE and the probability of SUCCESS of this program are NOT the topic of this article!
It's not a taxpayer-funded fundraising jaunt!
If the doors were really thrown open, who knows what kind of overseas activity we'd find being funded by the taxpayer? Does anyone know what the heck the CIA really does overseas or what kind of people they give money or other materials to under the guise of keeping us safe? How about pallet loads of Ben Franklins disappearing in Iraq? Mark my words, none of it, including some State Department vacation, will ever see a means test of any kind.
I am all for a strong able military ready to defend our country and our citizens, but to act like there isn't major waste and abuse in defense is ridiculous.
Once again, a call for principled politicians.
How is this so different from other diplomatic programs? Do you really think all diplomacy is a big waste of money, or does this one specifically bother you?
Personally, I am happy to see my money go to something that seems so obviously good. Among other things, such a programs sounds like a great way to counter the equivalent of Fox news in certain countries that no doubt highlights (or makes up) any American intolerance of Muslims.
If so, how to address?
If so, how to address?
It is actually a key aspect.
Do you wish to answer?
He/she proposes that AQ recruits responding to us. And this is demonstrated by the right wing talk media, according to the author. I simply ask if that is true, or if there was aggression towards America first.
Clear?
Even a blind pig finds a truffle now and again.
Why? Because like it or not the taking of this man, whether or not he did so under Bush, raises questions as to his inclusion now. That he went then is irrelevant. What matters is the situation now.
And the situation now is that he is heavily involved in trying to get a mosque built in a place where Muslims killed thousands of people. This is a fact that no one can deny, and so it really does raise serious questions on why he is involved.
Further, reading through the conservative comments in the article, they seem to be merely questioning exactly that-- why he is involved. No one suggested determinatively that he was going to raise money, only that it is a possibility. And it is a possibility and it is also fair for someone to raise the question. Again, that is true even if this guy has gone before.
Situations and circumstances change, and as a result, peoples involvement in one cause or another may well change, too.
So it is with Rauf.
Why say I am mind reading when I am interpreting what has been written and said in this article?
And to answer your question, you are wondering what the hell to do with McCaskill and what your state really thinks about health care. You're a bit concerned with the immediate future of the Dem platform's success in Missouri. :)
Unrelentingly bitter hatred is the most corrosive influence that there can ever be within a nation. The ideal of the foundation of the U.S. was that of a pluralistic nation of equals. It has had to get past a few impediments but the journey towards the Enlightenment vision of the founders is getting closer and closer to fulfillment.
The sad, hysterical caterwhauling of these hate-filled bigots is hopefully the death throe of the nasty Nativist movement that fueled the Knownothings of the mid 19thC.
The group that supports the Islamic destruction of American, or the Americans who do not want to see a religious building of the same religion of the terrorists who sponsored and cheered the events that happened at the exact place where said religious building is to go?
I agree, though, that unrelentingly bitter hatred is corrosive, but as I've said elsewhere at this site today, liberals need to be careful not to forget to see the plank in their own eye and they need to be able to see what it is and why conservatives support the policies they do.
Calling them hate-filled and bigots does not do so. It only labels them.
Your argument wold be true if what you said actually happened. There is a mosque near Ground Zero which predates the world trade center and Muslims died during 9/11. I doubt that Muslims were celebrating like you said. Also you don't take into account the fact that the Pentagon was also attacked, yet they hold religious services for their muslim soldiers and employees nor the fact that there is also opposition to the construction of mosques and Islamic community centers throughout the country, all of them waving the American flag as if somehow opposition to the construction of a mosque (an expression of the religious freedom guaranteed by the first ammendment) were an a patriotic act.
The Pentagon is a public building and is subject to federal laws, and as a part of the military, they must be sensitive to peoples of all faiths.
I think it is blindness to ignore the symbolism of putting a mosque here.
But out of curiousity, what do you think of putting a Cathedral there?
But why the bigroty and cynicism? Why is it offensive for people who also died in the attack; who are part of new york and who are good people like any christian, jew, atheist, etc to wish to have a house of worship? It doesn't even explain why they can't have a mosque in Staten Island, Tenesse or even California, all of it being opposed with a superficial patriotic fervor. One of explanatiosn for the location of the community cenetr is that it'll be close to the already existing mosque near ground zero.
I have no problem with people building a Cathedral near Ground Zero.
You didn't address the symbolism of it.
Don't forget, please, that there is a very real group of people who would love to see our culture, not even just our statehood, but our culture and very existence, wiped out.
Putting a mosque at the place that some view as a great triumph over our culture is indeed a symbol of victory.
There is no need to put the mosque there. None. There is no reason they cannot put the place of worship somewhere else, but they refuse to even consider that. Why the refusal?
A final question, do think these people would accept a Cathedral next door?
Yes, and I would like to be adopted by Angelina Jolie. Neither one is happening. You remind me of Huckabee when he claimed that this is the greatest threat that we have ever faced. What a bunch of bed-wetting cowards you righties have become. The greatest threat? Really? Greater than the British, which we beat twice? Greater than the Axis? Greater than the Soviets?
They are terrorists. Terrorists do not conquer. At best, they may be successful in fighting off an insurgency. And they may, through the occasional acts of extreme terrorism, turn the cowards within a country into becoming, out of fear, those things which their principles once stood against. But, they will never actually conquer us with terrorism. I have seen the videos of them training on the monkey bars. I think we can hold Charleston.
We can debate the severity of threats all day and night if you'd like. Even the likelihood of the jihadists succeeding. But that does not change the reality that there are indeed people who want us wiped off the face of the earth, and who will fly planes into our buildings to make it happen, who will do anything they can to get rid of us.
No, it is not a solid military force like the Soviets or Nazis, or even the Red Coats (who, really, we only beat once). But in a sense, their lack of a formal military is all the more problematic. Don't forget Vietnam, which we did not destroy, and we ultimately lost that mission and the whole peninsula became communist.
You say they will never beat us. Lets consider for a moment some possibilities? OK? What does it mean to be beaten and how can that be acheived? To be beaten means you succomb to the aggressor, by surrenduring, or by doing what they want us to do. It can be achieved by means other than by physical force. Have you ever won an argument? Or how about a point of action at work? Have you ever gotten someone to do what you want without the use of physical force?
Yes, I am sure you have. Do not think the terrorists want military victory as the only way to acheive victory. They killed a lot of people on 9/11/01, and did encourage a lot of people to back away in fear. They've manipulated other nations to follow their will.
Might they do that here? Yes, if we let them. And certainly, they can kill a lot more people-- unneccessarily I might add.
What is the answer? I prefer a strategy of direct confrontation. These, I think, are people who will do whatever necessary to take us down, and as long as they sense weakness, they will grow in confidence. Ignoring them does little. We ignored Hitler. We ignored Stalin. Good moves? Nope. Why should we ignore these guys?
To begin pretending as if the old site of a Burlington Coat Factory was somehow a sacred monument. Why? Becaues stopping a Muslim community from building an community center a few blocks from where the World Trade Center once stood will somehow teach the completely unrelated terrorists that we mean business? Of course not. Because you are scared and you think this ridiculously pointless debate will somehow make you able to not have to get into the fetal position to sleep at night.
I suggest you grow a pair. The world is a scary place. There will always be dangers, especially in a free country. There will always be terrorists. Whether they are white christian nationalists or muslim extremists, there will always be people willing to blow up buildings. That is no reason to sacrifice our core principles like freedom of religion and private property! What the Burlington Coat Factory has to do with your idea of direct confrontation with al Qaeda makes no sense to a rational adult. Your comparison of them to Hitler and Stalin is just sad. Your clear and repeated attempts to conflate the entire muslim community that wants a community center in New York to al Qaeda is just pathetic and ignorant.
A Cathedral? If someone owns land and wants to build a Cathedral, that is their business. Can you really be this ignorant of your own country and its principles?
If it bothers you not, so be it.
The cathedral-- what if the city of Manhattan denies a cathedral? What then?
The Burlington Coat factory is not irrelevant. That's the building that opponents are trying to obtain landmark status for and that is the future site of community center.
That detail is not.
Your cathedral nonsense is just flailing and nonsensical.
The arguments against the proposed centre are specious at best - certainly the commentary that I have seen and heard is both ill-informed and inflamatory. In fact most of it is maliciously and malevolently so.
As an Australian who lost a good friend who was working in one of the towers and has actually met and spoken with Imam Feisal I close with the words of Robert Burns, appropriately the closing lines from "To A Louse, On Seeing One On A Lady's Bonnet At Church":
Hate-filled bigots is rather a harsh label, isn't it?
We can discuss the merits of Muslim reaction if you'd like, but hate-filled bigots is over the top and does nothing to help discussion. But I'll say in short as to attaching to all Muslims the idea that they are out for Jihad-- you can't attach them all. That should be obvious, and most people do realize this.
But there are also those who attach to Christianity as being uneducated, foolish and mindless followers, bombers of abortion clinics and haters of gays and worse. Are they hate-filled bigots, too?
Quoting Bobby Burns, do you believe in symbolic acts?