Oakvillian

I heard her on the CBC too. How very refreshing to have somebody commenting dispassionately; the expression of knowledge without prejudice seems all too rare in this whole Islam vs the Western World debate.

IMHO it's certainly deliberately provocative to want to put an Islamic centre and mosque right there. But banning it would be rising to that provocation, and would serve nobody. Why, if the Muslim site developers really are as peace-loving and reconciliatory as they claim, can't they build a multi-faith centre with a church and a Synagogue in the same building.

ireland2canada

Can open, worms everywhere. How far do you really want to delve into outsider funding of undesirable, violent activity? Not too far, I'd wager.

Souvy

Let's think.

Church of England
Catholic Church
British Council
The French
CIA
etc........

ireland2canada

Germany
Isreal
USA

I suppose the point is, disagree with the temple being built by all means, but don't stir the murky waters of who is funding it. Especially not in the US!

iaink

Why not? Is it not a central reason to oppose its building? Build a mosque there by all means if it serves an existing local muslim population and there is a need. Thats all covered by "freedom of religion" I would say. But if its being built in that location to prove some political point, then you have to wonder about the motives and sensibilities of those behind it.

I dont think it would go down to well is the Vatican decided to try and build a church in Riyadh, or anywhere else in Saudi Arabia I suppose.

You can make a comparison of various evangelical missions funded by various churches around the world I suppose, but typically those are never in denial of what they are and why they are there.

On the other hand the funding for this mosque is not transparent, and that only adds to the overall fear and suspicion about it. The truth is there are far more mosques under construction than can be explained by the number of muslims who need a place to pray.

And as for the US and Israel, what the Isrealis get away with is absolutely shocking; Its a wonder to me that so many people and organisations turn a blind eye to it. In my mind there is a huge gulf between criticising the Israeli state and being anti semitic, but it seems to me that many people make that link all the time and for no good reason.

Oakvillian

Should I be worried that I find Christopher Hitchens making a lot of sense on this matter?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...d-zero-mosque/

dbd33

World Vision.

Apparently a charity intent on good deeds. In fact an evangelical organisation intent on converting the foreign poor and then sucking them for the little they are worth.

Typically Christian.

iaink

Sure, whatever.

And Al Quida are typically muslim too I suppose.

Alan2005

They thing about religious people is they can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever.

dbd33

Not, please note, that I think any or all branches of Christanity are worse than the Israeli government or those seeking to fund the mosque in question, however the one is no more defensible than the other.

el_richo

They'll be back!!!!

Souvy

Murky is the word. On holiday in Cuba a couple of years back, I went past a resort called Sandals. That's a US company. You won't find that resort on their corporate website but it is clearly of the brand.

iaink

Oh I dont know about that. It the politicising of religion thats the problem, and you can say exactly the same thing about any political fanatic/ extremist or zealot, religous, secular, agnostic or otherwise.

Its extremists that cant be reasoned with, and the problem as I said before is that centrist muslims are not communicating their opposition to the extremists loonies at all well.

dbd33

Which religion is essentially apolitical? Buddhism, maybe. Otherwise religions are political in pursuing public policy, opposition to gay marriage for example, and in structure; centralization of power and wealth in a manner that would make bank shareholders blush.

ireland2canada

I dunno, Iain. I think that the majority of people will object to the mosque for emotional reasons attached to a culture of blame surrounding the Muslim faith. I don't think that objecting to the building based on how it is funded, and by whom, stands up.

Would the mosque be less undesirable if it was funded by some "all-American" organisation? I doubt it.

The problem is that if people really want to delve into how things are funded, and who owns shares in such and such a company, then I expect they would be very shocked indeed.

I recall reading an article about the collapse of US financial institutions, investment companies and so on. It was suggested that the Saudi influence was growing and growing as they bought up shares in ailing organisations. I suppose a great number of people would be upset by things like that, but then again, people in glass houses should not throw stones!