If "Our Commitment To Religious Freedom Must Be Unshakeable", this is a good reason to oppose Orthodox Islam. The Imam spearheading the proposed WTC Mega-Mosque is unabashedly pro-Sharia. He wants Sharia in America. Sharia includes provisions against freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Apostasy from Islam is against Sharia law. There is no freedom of religion under Sharia.

The original name for the proposed "Islamic Center" was the "Cordova Initiative". "Cordova" was the Islamic capital of Spain ("Andalusia") under Islamic rule. And Imam Feisal wants the US to be under Islamic rule. So his goals are the same as the 9/11 terrorists--he is just using different means.

Obama also spoke of "our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us”. He must have been lecturing the organizers of the Mega-Mosque, who have objected to plans to put in a gay bar right next to their mosque. This gay bar would welcome gay Muslims. Evidently, this would "offend Muslim sensibilities". Oh dear!

Just more duplicitous Obamanible lipstick-up "artistry" as he continues to Murder MUSLIMS around the world!

Wow, the true foundation of the USA is being expressed in the form of Islamphobia.

This is an issue which Obama cannot fail to confront head-on. The forces of right-wing intolerance would like us all to forget that while radical Islam is a sworn enemy of the United States, it remains uncertain that it perpetrated the tragic events of 911.

First of all, it is NOT a mosque. Second, the 1st amendment protects Muslims as well.

If Pres. Obama truly believes in Freedom of Religion he should come out against one penny of taxpayer money being given to religious organizations, whether through faith-based initiatives or any other tax break including property and income tax exemptions for religious organizations. The Constitution does not say, anywhere, that people MUST worship, only that they should be allowed to do so according to their own preference.

Every dime that goes to religious orgs. frees their congregants' donations for proselytizing, politicking with the aim of imposing their belief system on all Americans through legislation, banning medical procedures, and meddling in psychiatry, for which their only basis is what they think the God of the Old and New Testaments, the Quran, the Book of Mormon etc.would want.

They should build their buildings with their own money, according to local building/zoning laws, but I resent having my taxes spent on or by any religion. Personally, I want my right to freedom FROM religion protected with as much presidential vigor as he expends on freedom OF religion.

we pay Moslem countries billions in oil revenue we don't steal it,when we or our allies are attacked we do what is necessary to blunt their weapons,remember Mumbai,suicide bombers in Isreal,9/11,lockerbie, there are 1 .57 billion of them in the world what percentage who have not provided aid to our enemies have we touched with hostility,0

in America we have blood sucking lawyers, crowded dockets,none uniform penal codes,under sharia law you got stonings,beheadings ,hangings,take your pick

So allowing any muslim institutions is inviting shari'a law? So show me a religions who's rules don't contradict the separation of church and state, because the christian bible sure as hell does.

Oh, but wait, there are lots of christians who don't take the bible as absolute truth and believe there are many things open to interpretation. But of course no muslims could be equally enlightened.

Putting a church on ground zero would be as bad of taste as putting a muslim community center 'near' ground zero. You know why? Because it wasn't just christians who died that day. It wasn't just american's either. Why do we seem to forget that? Of course we were the ones attacked, but they didn't aim the planes at the Springfield, IL congressional chambers. They went at a target where they were guaranteed to get people of all ethnicities, nationalities and religions. They chose a center of the western world, not just a center of this country. We are being insultingly ethnocentric to pretend it was just christian americans who were attacked and lost their lives. It was an attack on the western world because it defies all fundamental religious principles, not just shari'a.

And do you know what's in worse taste than anything? That we're still arguing what to put in place of the WTC 9 years later. That is a the ugliest gaping whole on the city's (and the country's) landscape.

Good for Obama for having the guts, in this climate, to admit that this is a straw man's argument through and through.

1. Imam Feisal has admitted the Islamic Center WILL contain a mosque. He has put out a lot of disinformation along the way, so its no wonder some people are misinformed. With all of his deception, one should be suspicious about his motives.

2. We don't have to wonder what kind of Muslim Imam Feisal is, he has written a book advocating Sharia Law in the US.

3. If "all religions are based on the same principles", 21:24, does this make them all acceptable? Should we accept religions that require human sacrifice? I think NOT! Should we accept religions that include a system of religious law with provisions for killing apostates and blasphemers? Of course NOT! Of course there are all types of Muslims and most are good people. However, the MAINSTREAM of Islam in THIS COUNTRY has not ever rejected death or other penalties for apostates. Check out the website of Former Muslims United. They have sent a "Freedom Pledge" to every significant Muslim organization in the US, asking them to sign to show their support for freedom of religion for apostates. The only two who have signed are fringe reform groups. None of the large mainstream Muslim groups have signed.

4. 21:03, you compare Muslims now with Christians in the Middle Ages. Yes, that comparison is a fair one. However, some of us have gone beyond the Middle Ages. Do we really want to bring a barbaric ideology into our midst? Over the Centuries, Islam has conquered more than one civilization that was far more advanced and sophisticated than the Muslim conquerors were. Do not underestimate them. People like Imam Feisal who advocates Sharia for this country (by his own words) are just as dangerous--or more so--than the terrorists. They have the same goal, after all, and it isn't freedom of religion (in the long run). We should not be helping him.

a failed 13 trillion stimulus package failed,75 thousand dollar a day vacation in Spain,and now pacifier to the Moslem world ,has he struck out yet?

If freedom of religion could be enforced throughout the Muslim world, so that Muslims would be free to leave Islam and express their views without fearing for their lives, Islam would not be a problem. There would be a world-wide apostasy movement as the good people would flee Islam and speak out freely about why they left Islam. However, even in this country apostates from Islam fear for their lives and most stay quiet about their beliefs. Imam Feisal has made clear his support of Sharia and his desire for US laws to be Sharia compliant. All schools of Sharia have a death penalty for apostasy. So Obama is correct to support freedom of religion, but incorrect to use the Islamic Center as an example of it.

I don't see the issue as being one of freedom of religion, but rather, as freedom of religion being used to blur the accompanying presence of sharia law. Invoking religious freedom acts in much the same way as using Afghan women to justify a military surge: both appeal to conscience over reason, when this is a false choice. The true choice, I believe, is between religious freedom and religious law, where the appropriate response to Islam in the US is tolerance of the one and refusal of the other. If the men behind the mosque(s) aren't held to constitutional law, then it would seem vital to learn why.

The matter of the separation of religion and state also needs to be put to any Christian seeking power, including and especially Sarah Palin, who claims to believe that the Bible is our founding document.

The protests against the building of a Muslim mosque at a location two blocks from ground zero is not anti-Muslim. Not in a city that has a multitude of Muslim mosques. The problem is that the location shows a lack of sensitivity for the for the feelings of outrage over the actions of some of the more extremist practitioners of that religion by many Americans both New Yorkers and not. Something that they have no problem complaining about when it is something that affects them such as the proposed opening of a gay bar next door to their mosque. Muslims at the least should either respect the sensitivities of others and not build there or practice the same tolerance they expect when the gay bar opens next door.

Banning my comments because they don't appeal to your style of communication and political opinions is a real indicator that you yourself are not so secure with Obama's positions -- either. It also takes a lot of balls to claim to want viewer donations and then systematically blacklist comments at your whim. I stopped donating to T.O. long ago because of CONSTANT WARFARE with the editing department. We have some real uptight Democratic Centrists (Right Wing Democrats) at T.O.

16:59

Trying to change the subject?

thank you for sharing..

Deko Muhendislik

Mary, who you callin' stupid? It's frightening that people as jingoist and uninformed as you can find your way to TruthOut with such a disturbing notion. Thought that one up all by yourself, did you? Met any Fundamentalist Christians? Is that what you're basing this foolish notion on?