Daily Muslim prayer services have been held at 51 Park Place since late 2009. We hope to expand services and facilities in the coming months, although a firm date has not yet been set for the opening of Park51. For more information about worship services, see our Ramadan page.”

-from http://www.park51.org/whynow.htm

So, somehow the prayer services have been offered for over 6 months now and no one was bothered. And the notion that the building is set to be dedicated on 9/11/11 is clearly made-up. Now, it’s possible that their may be major services AROUND September 11th, 2010, as Ramadan ends on September 9th/10th. But the dates for Ramadan are based on the lunar calendar, so we’d have to blame the moon for that coincidence.

There is no evidence to support that claim. There was never a dedication date planned. That was drummed up by opponents looking to further demonize the group.

As more evidence surfaces, there is enough real things to question/criticize the imam about. Making stuff up (not saying you did but the folks who put that out there) only dilutes any real opposition that might exist.

Also didn’t they want to dedicate the new building on 9 11 11? I’m sure that was for healing purposes right?

Here’s a satellite photo of the whole damn thing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/World_Trade_Center_Site_9-23-01_with_Cordoba_House_location.jpg

A treaty is an entirely different issue. If a country agrees to do something in exchange for something else and fails to hold up their end of the bargain, then they miss out on what they get in return, or whatever other penalties are written into the treaty. Going forward, it’s unlikely countries will continue to sign treaties with the violating country.

I’m not saying there is no way for such efforts to be accomplished legally, morally, and ethically. I just think we should be careful and make sure we aren’t abandoning one set of principals to achieve another.

Those funds are already being stolen from the people by their corrupt governments in the first place. Nobody in Saudi Arabia is going to suffer if that government can’t spend them on mosque construction here.

No, BSK. It’s something more along the lines of “sorry guys, you can’t be subsidized by that backwards tyrannical terrorist-funding government to import their radical ideology into the United States.”

And I’m still waiting for you to show me exactly where the first amendment says anything about its protections applying to the “right” of a foreign government to promote its state religion and associated political ideology within our borders.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/08/imam-raufs-newly-discovered-explosive-audio-tapes.html

What solution do you propose to have countries live up to their obligations? Saudi Arabia has signed a number of treaties about human rights that they ignore along with ones about the treatment of women. You may have missed this story from the other day.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1304497/Saudi-man-paralysed-countryman-cleaver-faces-having-spinal-cord-severed-eye-eye-punishment.html

I’m sure that violates some of their treaty obligations too.

Something to remember about most third world countries, the government controls a lot of the buisnesses, especially on the international level. So you can use access to our markets as leverage on those governments.

This isn’t an ideal solution of course. I don’t think there is one. But bringing pressure to bear on foreign governments for basic human rights is something governments should do IMO.

Not exactly. People are free to do as you say but with some narrow limitations. You can’t go and give aid to criminal organizations. Nor should you be allowed to. This, as I see it, is just a continuation of the accesory laws we’ve had for along time. If I give a gun to someone I know is gonig to commit a murder I can, and should be, charged as an accessory to the crime of murder. Just because I give it to an organization this doesn’t change. No different if I give money to that group knowing they will use the money to build a bomb to kill someone.

There is an old adage, ‘the right of my fist stops at the tip of your nose’. I think that applies in this case.

I see your concern about denying aid to countries and the people suffering. However that is something that almost always happens. The ruling class rarely suffers from an embargo, look at Iraq during Sadam or North Korea, while the people do. However you also can’t just ignore the actions of the government and do nothing. It’s a lose-lose situation regardless.

Even when we do provide aid many times it goes into the pocket of the ruling class anyways and the goodwill towards the US is brief and not long lasting. After the tsunami in Indonesia the US contributed a great deal while the wealthy Mid East countries barely contributed anything even though Muslim countries were hard hit. Samething in Pakistan with the floods now. Any goodwill we generate will last until the next drone attack. We’ve been funneling large sums of funds to Pakistan for awhile now with little to show for it. If countries want to deny our aid because of our support for Israel that is their choice. Just means we save that money and can pay off our debt so much sooner or lower taxes ( yes that’s a joke ).

I’ve found that when you have to resort to snark or name calling you’ve probably already lost the debate.

I’m speaking more towards the argument about restricting the rights of governments that don’t allow religious freedoms and other types of actions. You are right that terrorism and other criminal activities should be viewed differently. But if we are going to say, “Hey, Saudi Arabia, we don’t like your treatment of women so no one there can send any money here,” I think that is dangerous ground. Obviously, this already happens with many countries, including Cuba, Iran, and previously Iraq. That doesn’t make it right.

The problem with that Libertarian arguement is that what you are implying is that money from any source should not be a concern of the government. If that were the case we’d have have toss all our money laundering laws. If someone knowingly receives money from the Mafia shold that be ok? I know there is a case going on with Naomi Campbell receiving ‘blood diamonds’. Should we have no concern about where those diamonds came from?

A year or two ago we had the Holy Land case where some Islamic Charities were funneling money to terrorist groups. If the libertarian arguement is that we shouldn’t be concerned where groups receive their money from, should we also not be concerned where they send it?

Personally I see far to many problems with that view. People and groups tend to fund like minded groups for the obvious reasons. So when terrorist groups support something they probably should be looked at with a critical eye. I tend to doubt that Hamas funds groups just to win Hearts and Minds.

And your evidence for this is???

Show me a list of nations across the world, BSK, that persecute other religions as state policy. Next tell me how many of them are muslim.

Fair enough, though it is also generally true that questionable characters tend to fund questionable causes more often than not. And while it is equally fair to hold that people should be able to give as they please to whatever they please, when enforced to its logical end this position would also see no wrong in the use of a slush fund to finance criminal activity until after it inflicts physical harm. Surely you wouldn’t suggest that it’s okay to use an offshore bank account to purchase large quantities of plutonium, only subject to scrutiny after the bomb it is used for actually goes off.

Is this a slippery slope to the extreme case? Certainly, but no more so than your suggestion that American pressure against Islamic state-sanctioned religious persecution would cause half of the world to cut off American charities in protest over Israel (in fact, that scenario would likely not happen simply because it is in the self-interest of those other nations to receive American charity aid, considering that it is so abundant relative to the rest of the world).

My point is that there can and should be a line on what we accept for the use of foreign government money for ideological and religious purposes in another country. There is a reason why we don’t allow foreign governments to donate to our internal election campaigns. There’s also a reason why most of us here (and I suspect this includes you, matt) find it objectionable when our government spends money to bombard other parts of the world with pro-America propaganda, even when we admit that its target regime is pretty awful.

We are under no obligation as a country to permit a foreign government to heavily subsidize the promotion of a religion in our borders, and certainly not when that same government has a horrendous track record of state-sanctioned religious persecution.

The NYC situation isn’t really all that local… the neighborhood residents really don’t care. A lot of the protestors are out-of-towners.

I constructed no straw man. You specifically referred only to Muslim nations and I said your proposal is one I find objectionable and would likely also prove unconstituional. Others offered more content-neutral suggestions which I said I could likely get behind. How is that a straw man?

I also noted that I don’t know the specifics of how the Vatican views other religions in their country. I do know they welcome visitors of all faiths. I said it would likely put some Catholic institutions at stake, not that it definitely would. So, there, I was a bit off-base as I wondered aloud.

In general, I find it interesting how non-libertarian this conversation has gotten. While such laws may be constitutional, I am troubled at the notion that we should have our government limit the actions of others (individuals, groups, and countries alike) because we don’t like how they do things. Obviously, private groups ought to be entitled to choose who they accept money from, but do we want the government to say, “Sorry guys, you can’t get money from those folks because we find them deplorable?” Kind of a scary premise. Even if the group is immensely deplorable.

If you believe in personal freedom, then you should believe that individuals should be free to intereact with whoever they want, exhange goods and services with whoever they want, and recieve and give charity with whoever they want.

Just because someone receives money from questionable characters doesn’t mean that money will be used in that manner. You hold people accountable for the crimes that actually cause harm to others, not for the actions that might or could or that you don’t agree with.

If countries started creating these reciprocity laws as suggested above, half the countries on this planet would refuse charitable donations from Americans because of our government aid to Isreal. I don’t think people of need should be denied charity from individuals becuase of what their governments do. This seems like a dangerous and slippery slope.

It’s also LOCAL. There are local protests, etc, about ALL KINDS OF THINGS, including Christian churches upon occasion. The one in NY is the only one getting any national attention, and, as has been repeatedly pointed out, there are some very good reasons (the easiest one being that Islam has a long history of building a mosque on battlefield sites to proclaim victory and “own” the site forever, but there are several other reasons I’ve seen listed in the comments on this very site).

You may certainly disagree with those reasons, but to simply call people who in good faith hold those as their reasons “bigots” (as you have done a great deal) is simply dishonest.