so u punish all muslims bc of a group of radicals?

thats not logical.

i agree, they've said all along that it would be open to inspection at any time.
bloomberg just pissed me off with the comment that it was "un-american" to look into where they get their money. i think it would be unamerican not to look into it.

Yes, there were Muslims that died along with other nationalities. Thats why I wrote..."in the shadow where so many HUMANS died and suffered." Still makes no diff. AGAIN, Terrorists attacked us based on this religion and Allah.

Ok and where is your rational ...The center has always been there? Then why all this hoopla. Its because the Muslims wanted to change it somehow to suit their needs, which is fine in theory. BUT not to practice a religion that the same terrorist used.

No but I sure don't want the SAME religion being practiced in the shadow of the attack. And how are we punishing them? Im fine if they move it out more.

who is being punished? if the majority of the people in new york says they don't want it there, they should move it...the muslims say it is a symbol of peace and enlightenment, to bring all cultures together, and it is just pissing people off. it has already failed in that respect. if the muslims want peace and enlightenment, they should put it somewhere else.

And, not including the hundreds, or possibly thousands, of first responders, voluteers, and civil servents (firemen, police, medical crews,...) who have already succumbed, or will, to illnesses brought on through inhaling the debries as they worked.

THANK YOU! I AGREEE!

yes but where do u draw the line? it is moved out. its 3 blocks away. how many blocks away must it be before its okay to have it there? u see what im getting it. the rationale to keep it? bc it shouldnt matter what religion is there. i didnt hear people flipping there lid when a christian church was built by an area that christian extremists attacked.

the majority of new yorkers say it? well unfortuantely it doesnt matter what they think bc its private property. if it is true that the majority of new yorkers feel that way then they should have a vote..but they cant..bc its private property and theres nothing that should be done about it. its like get over it.

and maybe hats harsh but my brother died there and i dont give two ***** if its built there.

Yea, you might be right about that - if there's a possibility that funds can be taxed, the government definately wants to know.

DRAW the line? Are you kidding me? Ok I'll play. Anywhere in the shadows or where the towers once stood!

IT DOES matter that THAT religion is being practiced there. AGAIN!!! THE TERRORIST ATTACKED US ON THAT DAY BASED ON THEIR BELIEF IN THE MUSLIM RELIGION!

As far as the christian church stuff...well if they weren't flipping out I guess they had no problem with it. That was their choice at their time.

You know there comes a time when common sense has to come into play. And we stop using excuses of what implications there are.

the whole idea of this mosque is to bridge cultures.. that is a good thing, right? the bridges are being destroyed before they are even being built. not everyone is as understanding as you. not me, for sure.if the muslims really want to build bridges, they would understand the people they are building bridges for wont use them while the mosque is in that spot. if they build it anyway, then it is just showing their trophy to all the americans they killed there 10 years ago. weather you realize it or not, there is a hidden war going on in their minds, and it is not going to get any better anytime soon.

thank u i rest my case






There is no mosque being built on the site of Ground Zero. It's a simple fact, but one that news consumers can be forgiven for missing.

In covering the growing controversy over the proposed Islamic community center in lower Manhattan, the national media, led by the big cable networks, have by default shaped the increasingly heated debate by repeatedly referring to the project as the "Ground Zero mosque." An MSNBC spokesman said that describing the project is a "show-by-show decision," while a CNN spokesperson said the network guides anchors in written copy to refer to the project as "an Islamic center that includes a mosque that is near Ground Zero, or is two blocks from Ground Zero." Of course, political pundits may stray from the network's phrasing and inaccurately describe the location of the planned building at the center of the furor.

But Phil Corbett, the New York Times' standards editor said, "Given how politically volatile this discussion has been, we think it's important to be accurate and precise," in explaining the paper's consistent references to the planned structure being two blocks from the Ground Zero site.


The "Park51" project, as it's officially dubbed, is in fact planned for a site two blocks from where the World Trade Center towers fell, amid other lower Manhattan establishments whose names have never featured the words "Ground Zero." If built, the 13-story community center and mosque project will be one of hundreds of buildings located within blocks of Ground Zero — a densely populated area that already includes a couple of mosques, along with less "hallowed" institutions, like strip clubs, bars and Off Track Betting operations.

But Park51 is getting all the attention downtown — and now, nationwide. President Obama affirmed the constitutional right to build a mosque on private property Friday, breathing new life into an already long-raging controversy. In covering Obama's recent remarks — and the past couple months of debate — the media's played a pivotal role in framing the issues at hand. Here's a rundown of how the media covered the debate as it took shape.

Location, location, location

News organizations make conscious decisions when they describe a construction work-in-progress as either located on the site of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history or two blocks away. The New York Times — except for one blog headline — has consistently described the mosque in headlines as not being built at Ground Zero but "near" the site.

Corbett, who oversees the Times standards on such questions, told The Upshot that he hasn't issued any formal guidelines but has discussed that particular phrasing with editors.

"To call it the Ground Zero Mosque not only would give you the impression that it's on the site of the Trade Center," he continued, "but it might even give you the further impression that it's part of the rebuilding process to that site."

The Times appears to be in the minority, judging by headlines related to Obama's remarks.

Many news organizations ran headlines this past weekend describing a "Ground Zero mosque," including the Associated Press, Huffington Post, Washington Post, Fox News, New York Daily News, Politico, and AOL's Politics Daily site. (Yahoo! News, linking to an AP story on the remarks, similarly went with "Ground Zero mosque.")

Several other news organizations routinely place "Ground Zero" in quotation marks, which is more of shorthand way of describing the debate without pinpointing the location.

Maybe you dont give two ***** about it. But I do, especially considering that my 19 year old nephew was critically injured when an IUD went off blowing their vehicle in Afganistan. Why was he in Afghanistan...because we are still trying to get the leaders of who provoked this attack. It is still a fresh wound that keeps being opened. So you can be all non chalent but my nephew did not almost lose his life for some disrespectful place of worship.

Some scholars estimate that there are as many as 32,000 different sects of Christianity - they all call themselves Christians. Yet they obviously do not ALL hold the same religious perspectives or values.

How many differing perspectives of the Muslim faith are there? A little research, sometimes a lot, helps to cure bias.

it's called an opinion... everyone has one.

"A little research, sometimes a lot, helps to cure bias." I am well aware that there are sometimes many factions of one religion. My opinion has not changed.

No State refferendum can override the Constitution. Of course the State could declare a certain radius surrounding the center of devastation as some kind of historical ground. But then the State would be responsible for all the laws governing every building, and activies in that areas. Not to mention the State would be responsible for maintaining the grounds per thier guidelines. Talk about an increace in taxes!!!! Not gonna happen.

However, I will agree that IF the majority of New Yorkers do not want it there but it is built anyway then the majority will not utilize the fcilities being offered. In a way this could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the community center is not utilized it will not serve the purpose for which it was intended.

What a shame it would be to miss out on an opportunity to find common ground among people of many religions and of diverse cultures.

A shame to miss out on what? Having to drive a little further to another site to experience this common ground? Just move it out of the shadows of where the towers where and all will be good with me. Practice awayyyyyyyyyyyyyy

That's not surprising, but it is that kind of inflexibilty that prevents us from gaining new knowledge or exploring the unknown.