Should we be like Saudis re Religious Freedom?

[LuciferSam]

Should we be like Saudis re Religious Freedom?

Newt Gingrich argues that the US should?like the oppressive theocracy of Saudi Arabia?forbid certain religions from building places of worship in certain places. Specifically, we should reject (?refudiate??) the mosque near Ground Zero.

In essence, his argument is: they're intolerant, thus we should be intolerant.

Do you agree?

Newt Gingrich Statement on the Proposed ?Cordoba House? Mosque at Ground Zero | Newt.org

Newt Gingrich's reasoning is ridiculous and immature. Personally though if I lived in NYC and frequented that area around the time of the attack, I'd prefer to have a more neutral ground where I could be at piece with my own thoughts on the matter. In other words any kind of church and even a memorial would not promote good vibes with me. To me they are just grim reminders of death which I think some of us are already acutely aware of.

 

[30ashopper]

The Masjid al-Haram "Grand Mosque" in Mecca, Saudia Arabia is Islams most holly site.
The current structure covers an area of 990.40 acres including the outdoor and indoor praying spaces and can accommodate up to four million Muslim worshippers.

If the Saudis will let a Catholic church be built within a half mile of the center then I say break ground in NYC. If not then built it somewhere else.

So the United States should drop their standards to equal those of Saudi Arabia?

 

[Yarmap]

So the United States should drop their standards to equal those of Saudi Arabia?

I dont know what the Sudis would say about building a church in Mecca. I don't know what their standards are.

 

[30ashopper]

I dont know what the Sudis would say about building a church in Mecca. I don't know what their standards are.

Who cares? This isn't Saudi Arabia. We have different, better standards we always apply.

 

[ugabuga]

Who cares? This isn't Saudi Arabia. We have different, better standards we always apply.

I'm with 30ashopper on this one. All his posts on this thread reflect my feelings exactly.

 

[30ashopper]

I'm with 30ashopper on this one. All his posts on this thread reflect my feelings exactly.

I honestly can't believe Newt published that. If it were some republican house member or pundit, I'd understand. But Newt should have known better.

 

[LuciferSam]

I dont know what the Sudis would say about building a church in Mecca. I don't know what their standards are.

They have to be built to code.

 

[Gidget]

IMO if there are any other places of worship @ Ground Zero - then yes. If not, then no - keep it secular. You can not say yes to a church, temple or synagogue and no to a mosque. I'd prefer to keep Ground Zero a place where anyone of any faith can go and pray in their own minds and hearts - if that is what gives them comfort. No one needs any building to do that.

So I say again - if any other places of worship are located at Ground Zero then yes, and if not, then no.

This has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia.

What I meant by that 30Ashopper, is that are other places of worship allowed? If any are allowed then of course a mosque should be. If the others aren't then of course nothing should be built. I would imagine they are all allowed - so in that case, yes. (I think I said it in reverse above, but meant the same thing)

I still don't understand WHAT this has to do w/Saudi Arabia which is a point we agree on right?

 

[Gidget]

I honestly can't believe Newt published that. If it were some republican house member or pundit, I'd understand. But Newt should have known better.

It seems very Newtish to me! I wasn't surprised at all.

 

[Lake View Too]

It seems Newtish to me too. To clarify, I think the proposed mosque is within a few blocks of ground zero, and not part of the re-build. I'm not aware that any other churches are involved in the rebuild. I agree with LS that the rebuild of ground zero should have as little memorial as possible. Why be reminded of death and destruction every day? Just move on and try to make things better.