Whether the mosque will increase the position of those opposing Islamic special interests, or increase the position of those supporting Islamic special interests, is at the heart of the position of the Catholic archbishop of the area of which it's concerned. In his view, building a mosque by the site, may harm Islamic special interests. He sites a Catholic example, where a Catholic building was not kept, but abandoned nearby a German concentration camp, this out of a view that it was most prudent at the time not to keep the given nearby site for religious purposes. This given the sensibilities, especially due to the positions of some of those promoting Jewish, and other special interests, after the Second World War, which had extended right into 1993, when Pope John Paul II, had the site abandoned.
The New York Times writes on this story:
"N.Y. Archbishop Seeks to Help on Islamic Center
By JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ
Published: August 18, 2010
Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in New York, said Wednesday that he would gladly help mediate between the proponents and critics of an Islamic center and mosque planned for a site two blocks from ground zero.
[contains image by Ozier Muhammad/The New York Times of : "Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, New York's Roman Catholic leader."]
The archbishop said that it was his “major prayer” that a compromise could be reached, and that while he had no strong feelings about the project, he might support finding a new location for the center.
Speaking during an impromptu news conference at Covenant House, a Catholic shelter in Manhattan for homeless youth, Archbishop Dolan invoked the example of Pope John Paul II, who in 1993 ordered Catholic nuns to move from their convent at the former Auschwitz death camp after protests from Jewish leaders.
“He’s the one who said, ‘Let’s keep the idea, and maybe move the address,’ ” the archbishop said. “It worked there; might work here.”
Archbishop Dolan is the most prominent New York religious leader to weigh in on the Islamic center, which has spurred a fierce national debate over freedom of religion and the legacy of 9/11 that has even drawn in President Obama [his support of the mosque may have something to do with 2 lawmakers].
Since the controversy began in the spring, the archbishop has condemned prejudice against Muslims. But in July, the church backed away from a plan to sell a vacant convent on Staten Island to a Muslim group that planned to turn it into a mosque. A Catholic parish there had agreed to sell the building, but after strong local protests, the pastor decided to pull out of the deal and the parish board — which includes Archbishop Dolan — agreed. [Not out of bigotry, it was a local decision, and was possibly contravening Canon Law, as a parish is sacred ground- procedure, not bigotry.]
The planners of the Islamic center in Manhattan, to be called Park51, did not return calls or answer e-mail seeking reaction to the archbishop’s comments. After Gov. David A. Paterson last week suggested finding state-owned land distant from ground zero for the planned center, the developers issued a statement saying they did not intend to build the center somewhere else.
“Those who wonder about the wisdom of the situation of the mosque, near such a wounded site, ask what I think are some legitimate questions that I think deserve attention,” he [Dolan] said.
At Covenant House, Archbishop Dolan said he welcomed Mr. Paterson’s offer to help the developers find an alternative site. The archbishop also said he was proud of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg for his staunch defense of religious liberty.
The center continues to divide Americans. A poll released Wednesday by Siena College showed that 63 percent of New York State voters surveyed opposed the project. The poll, which questioned 788 registered voters from Aug. 9 through Monday, has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.
[...] Mr. Bloomberg this month when the mayor defended Muslims’ right to build the center[... they simply quote a catholic prist who believes the church has hurt Muslims in its stance, the important part is that Bloomberg suports the mosque]"JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ, writing for the New York Times (secular; Independent; American; Promotes Democratic party special interests, and is alleged to have promoted anti-Catholic special interests)18 / 08 | August / 2010
Time Magazine, online version provides what our service was looking for: why the Democrats are actually supporting the mosque: their voters:
"[...] voters have, actually, elected to [sic: two] Muslims to Congress since the 9/11 attacks. Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Andre Carson of Indiana, both Democrats [...]
1. Should the mosque be moved?
Ellison: No absolutely not. I fact I think that if it were to be moved that religious liberty would suffer. I think much, much more than this situation with American Muslims, what's at stake here is the right to practice one's faith. Because this could happen to any minority religion in which hysteria and fear crop up. In fact, they have already: the history of anti-Catholic sentiment in our country, anti-Jewish sentiment, the fear and suspicion of our Mormons. So, the mosque project needs to move right ahead, clearly, where it is. The mayor supports it, several members of Congress support it and I think a plurality of New Yorkers support it. It's been through every community board. I think that it's the constitutional right to build this facility of the owners and the organizers and nothing should be moved. They should do it where it's being done. And for all the talk about insensitivity, how come their people aren't upset by the strip joints or the off track betting. I mean that doesn't honor anyone. And there's been a mosque in the vicinity for years. That mosque itself has been there for a long time. And there's another mosque within four blocks of the Ground Zero site. Nothing should be moved. The project should move forward and it should be a place where religious tolerance is celebrated.
Carson: That's certainly a question that my friends in New York will have to hash out. I'm certainly carrying the banner for religious freedoms, be it for Muslims, Christian, Jewish brothers and sisters here, Hindus, atheists and others. You can go into any community across this the country and see several religious houses of the same denomination or differing denominations under the same religion. People certainly have a right to build as they please on private property. But that is kind of like saying that you have a quota for a certain group of people. It deals with tolerance and not necessarily acceptance: critical differences. I think that we're at a time where we're at a critical cross roads in this country where we're really going to have to deal with the issues that are of importance. On the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, as much as they hail the constitution they seem to have a selective memory in terms of what the founding fathers intended. When it comes to gun rights they want to talk about the constitution and how the constitution and how the constitution is impeccable but when it comes to religious freedom they seem to have a selective memory."Jay Newton-Small, writing for Time magazine online version (Secular; Independent; bsupports Democratic party special interests, allegedly has promoted special interests against the Catholic church)18 /08 | August / 2010
"About Jay Newton-Small
Jay Newton-Small is the congressional correspondent for TIME. Born in New York, she spent time growing up in Asia, Australia and Europe following her vagabond United Nations parents. A graduate of Tufts University and Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism, Jay previously covered politics for Bloomberg News. And, yes, despite the misleading name SHE is a she."Time magazine online versionquoted 19 / 08 | August / 2010