The second question was not addressed to you it was addressed to a comment Justinian made and he has subsequently answered, dont troll.

You still have not answered the main question

"My point in regards to the Mosque is where do you draw the line? It is not on the site of the evil terror attacks merely in proximity. If they are not allowed to build where they want to where do you suggest? Is there a real distance where a Mosque stops being offensive?"

If Muslims not affiliated in any way with the terror attack cannot build a place of worship within a couple of blocks of the site because it is offensive and a victory trophy as you put it then where can they build? Where is the cut off which you would accept? I am not trying to be inflamatory but genuinly curios? Is 1 mile offensive but 2 acceptable?

Fact: Most Muslims aren't the radicals whose victory mosque I object to. Thought I'd repeat it one more time because it's obvious some of you guys think Muslims are all terrorists. You've said it like 50 times.

Fact: Radical Jihadists will see this proposed mosque as a victory mosque for the greatest violent jihad victory in 300 years.

That second fact doesn't seem to give any of you radicals any pause. Nor the fact that this proposed mosque is only bad for moderate muslims' image, which has already been tarnished by the 9/11 attacks and the fact that much of the Muslim world did not condemn them.

I ignored your question because you're trolling. The question to Justinian I was trolling as well. Both were coupled with ad-hominem attacks. I was objecting to this juvenile spam, not operating under the presumption that the question was addressed to me. It clearly was not.

Building damaged by landing gear = too close. 2 miles away = who cares. How close is the closest mosque anyway? I wouldn't be surprised if it was 2 miles away or closer. The point is that a victory mosque is what it will be seen as by radical Muslims (thanks in part to its radical leadership, though because of its location in any case). The point is that this mosque will only hurt moderate Muslims. So long as everyone who objects to objections to the mosque chooses to ignore these points, I'm just getting bored here. I want to see the deep and insightful explanations of why it's a good idea, despite the damage it does to moderate Muslims that radical Muslims will see it (they're already saying so directly) as a victory Mosque for the most violent Jihadist act in centuries.

> V.Kemp wrote:

Building damaged by landing gear = too close. 2 miles away = who cares. How close is the closest mosque anyway? I wouldn't be surprised if it was 2 miles away or closer.

this map correlates islamic religious facilities (used for prayer, but not necessarily official mosques) in manhattan (not all of NYC) to ground zero:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&source=embed&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=106520383149777542574.00048d68139eb6072d4c2

Im not sure you can say the Mosque IS built by radicals Kemp, one sentence from one man does not make the group radicals.

I personally understand your view point about it being too close and the backlash could affect moderate Muslims in America however I am going to play devils advocate for a second.

To me it shows that America is not a bigoted judgemental country, it can discern between the minority terrorists who claim to be Muslim and the actual Muslims practicing the faith. It sends a clear message that the country is not anti Islamic but anti terror.

It is almost an extension of the "non negotiation with terrorists" policy. Al Quieda are not capable of dictating American policy - they tried to cause a division between Christian and Islamic Americans and look, working in harmony to spread understanding near the 11/9 site.

It also provides a victory for the moderates over the radicals, they are not being treated the same by the Obama administration, the distinction is clearly there - the evil Imams that exist to convert people to radicalism can hardly say look at how America treats us when this Mosque is built.

Nor is it disrespectful to the victims, the Muslims building and praying in the Mosque did not support nor take part in the terror attack, they had no links and will not be glorifying it, the fact they are Muslim does not matter, it would be like war veterens protesting outside Sony America saying that having a Japanese business in America is disgraceful and disrespects the war dead.

Finally, there are many Americans who simply do not understand Islam, ignorance can lead to fear and mistrust, this is an education centre that will encourage non Muslims to visit and speak to the members about Islam - you cannot win the current war on terror through conflict - Afghanistan has proven that (the fact there is negotiation with the taliban now to bring them into the Afghan government), education might help go a step further in ending the terror threat at home for a start.

>>Im not sure you can say the Mosque IS built by radicals Kemp, one sentence from one man does not make the group radicals.<<

This is one of those things that has been firmly established and I'm not interested in trying to convince you of. You could bury your head in the sand and tell yourself that the 9/11 hijackers weren't radicals either, and I wouldn't bother arguing with you about it. I started to list all of the reasons this is silly to discuss and realized how silly it was to repeat them all again. There's no law against trolling either, but I still say it's undesirable.

>>To me it shows that America is not a bigoted judgemental country, it can discern between the minority terrorists who claim to be Muslim and the actual Muslims practicing the faith. It sends a clear message that the country is not anti Islamic but anti terror.<<

I understand your point and I don't brush it off at all, let alone lightly. But America has no need to show that it is not a bigoted and judgemental country. Name me a Muslim nation (nation predominantly Muslim or a Muslim theocracy) where, in their wildest dreams, they can imagine having our freedoms in their country. I won't hold my breath. The danger here lies in our enemies perceiving us as weak--And they do. With our democratic principles and ignorant/irresponsible leaders who don't hesitate to lie in the interest of extending/securing their power, our enemies see all of our infighting as weakness. And, indeed, it often is, when it results in us acting against our own interests because some politician figured it in his interest to please some fringe group who wants daily spa treatment and X-Box for detainees who want to murder American civilians in the name of Allah.

>>It is almost an extension of the "non negotiation with terrorists" policy. Al Quieda are not capable of dictating American policy - they tried to cause a division between Christian and Islamic Americans and look, working in harmony to spread understanding near the 11/9 site.<<

But they don't perceive it this way. And that's not my novice opinion; they say it openly, all over the place. We're not fighting with someone who could gain support by portraying us as bigoted: our enemies are infinitely more bigoted than US policy or US public sentiment could be remotely compared to since slavery was legal. Such as Imam Rauf, who wants to see America more Sharia-compliant. The proposed mosque will have the opposite effect of promoting harmony. And it's not a secret. And it's hardly debatable. If understanding and harmony were the goals, they wouldn't have chosen this site. They wouldn't have chosen to continue in their quest for funding despite the protests of the victims of the 9/11 attacks.

>>It also provides a victory for the moderates over the radicals, they are not being treated the same by the Obama administration, the distinction is clearly there - the evil Imams that exist to convert people to radicalism can hardly say look at how America treats us when this Mosque is built.<<

First, radical Imams don't give a damn what the USA does. They'll rant and rave against the USA, the great satan, regardless of US actions. It's in their interest. It's good for maintaining their influence, relevance, and power. Why the US continues its massive aid to middle-eastern nations is a testament to political corruption, ignorance, and apathy on a scale I'd rather not think about.

Second, you're proposing that some of the biggest bigots on the globe wouldn't be able to call us bigots if we allow the mosque. They don't support what you're prosing we do to make ourselves look good to them. If they did they'd be busy fighting for those rights in the middle east and wouldn't have time to propose a mosque nobody's paid for here. We should worry that they might call us bigots? They're openly bigger bigots than we'd be if we stoned junkies and cut off pieces of women. You're talking about our need to espouse a value that they don't have in order to appease them. We already own tolerance and nonviolence. We have nothing to prove to Rauf or any supporter of Sharia on the planet.

>>Nor is it disrespectful to the victims, the Muslims building and praying in the Mosque did not support nor take part in the terror attack, they had no links and will not be glorifying it, the fact they are Muslim does not matter, it would be like war veterens protesting outside Sony America saying that having a Japanese business in America is disgraceful and disrespects the war dead.<<

We are no longer at war with Japan. There aren't countless radical religious fanatics in Japan who openly boast that Sony America is a monument to Japan's biggest triumph in centuries. So I disagree. It would not be like that at all.

Do you know the history of Cordoba? I'm still having trouble believing that you honestly think anyone who supports this mosque supports it in the name of tolerance and harmony. Even the name rubs it in everyone's faces. Some people choose to put their heads in the sand, not learn their history, and help their enemies mock them while their enemies cheer and laugh at their childlike ignorance. Read up on Cordoba (I can't imagine that you have any knowledge of it) and, in light of what you learn, please explain how the Cordoba House is a fitting name for a project about understanding, tolerance, and harmony. It's obviously not, and anyone who tells you otherwise chooses to remain ignorant or is lying.

Sharia violates every value America stands for. This Imam who supports it doesn't support it and embrace American values. To claim such doesn't even make any sense. They're incompatible. It's incoherent.

This selection of location pleases radicals and offends victims of the attacks. How does either aid in understanding or harmony? Knowingly pleasing radical murderous militants and offending victims (regardless of whether or not the perceived offense is in bad faith or not) seems to me to be about as far from understanding as one could get.

This isn't about Islam. This is about not aiding our enemies openly mocking us while a minority in our country side with our enemies over their own nation (giving them the benefit of the doubt, most are just disgustingly willfully ignorant). They call us weak for our democratic principles and open dissension. They call us ignorant heathens. The last thing we need in our struggle against people who hate freedom, women's rights, and all kinds of other things that we in civilization have agreed upon beyond discussion is for large numbers of us to support them in their open slap to our face to prove they were right. No moderate Muslim wants that either.

It is true that the mosque, now a World Heritage site, replaced a Christian church in the 8th century before becoming a cathedral itself five centuries later, after the Christian reconquest.

However, virtually every historian regards the period when C

I have bought some land next to the largest Mosque in a major Islamic city, can I now build a Church to Christ, of the Christian following there, with a name which symbolizes a major Christian victory over Islam?

>>The distortions and falsehoods being directed against the backers of the Cordoba House (or Park 51) Islamic centre in New York have less to do with religious history than with prejudice against unpopular minorities<<

You keep kickin' that dead horse, pal. You're been beating that straw-man for pages.

>>Oh and Kemp before you make personal attacks about peoples intellect,<<

Please quote me before these ad-hominem attacks to be specific. There's been enough ignorant spam in this thread already.

>>In the worst case that idea results in the black and white ideas V.Kemp seems to have about Islam and Muslim people.<<

Again the ad-hominem attacks with no response to my statements concerning the Imam, Sharia, or this hurting moderate muslims.

Call me ignorant all you want; you're ignoring the content in favor of talking about me. I know everybody loves me, but I'd really prefer that we address the content, not gloss over it and pretend that we had something insightful to say.

They just ignore all of the facts stacked up to more than suggest he's a jerk, and presume the name refers to a "golden age" after Muslim conquest (It just so happens that this golden age was after a conquest. We are not to read anything into that), based upon the presumption that he's not, in fact, a jerk.

That it was converted later was just an example of Christians being scrubs. When the Muslims conquered Cordoba they demolished the church and replaced it with a mosque.

Again you make all these claims based upon the presumption that those proposing the mosque embrace American values. But it's obvious they don't. It's just silly to repeatedly claim they do. And I only speak English. I can't imagine the language they use to describe this in Muslim nations.

"I have bought some land next to the largest Mosque in a major Islamic city, can I now build a Church to Christ, of the Christian following there, with a name which symbolizes a major Christian victory over Islam?"

There's no name that implies a Islamic victory over Christianity. If you honestly think that Cordoba stands for that, it merely shows you know next to nothing about the whole Cordoban Kaliphate.

"Again the ad-hominem attacks with no response to my statements concerning the Imam, Sharia, or this hurting moderate muslims."

I told you before that if the imam is really a problem, you should get him replaced. And the Sharia is irrelevant in the matter of erecting a mosque; They're not asking for the acknowledgement of the Sharia as a valid legal system. Your last claim is exactly what divides us. I do think this mosque says to the moderate muslim people that their religion is accepted and respected in America, despite the problems with Islamic-inspired terrorist groups in the past.