home

Greek Orthodox Church Upset That Gov't Won't Pay For New "Ground Zero" Church

Delicious new Fox News controversy:

Confronted with the Port Authority's verdict, Father Mark Arey, of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, said it's the first he's heard that. "Negotiations did break off last year. We were expecting to hear from their lawyers -- we never did. We're still expecting to hear from them," he told Fox News. "We're disappointed. ... 130 Liberty Street was promised to us."

[. . . ] The Port Authority and the church announced a deal in July 2008 under which the Port Authority would grant land and up to $20 million to help rebuild the church -- in addition, the authority was willing to pay up to $40 million to construct a bomb-proof platform underneath. Within a year, the deal fell through and talks ended -- apparently for good, according to the Port Authority.

[. . .] The Port Authority has previously claimed the church was making additional demands -- like wanting the $20 million up front and wanting to review plans for the surrounding area. They say the church can still proceed on its own if it wishes. [. . .] "The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original site, and we will pay fair market value for the underground space beneath that building," a spokesperson with the Port Authority told Fox News.

See? They let them build a mosque but not a Christian church! Sharia Law! The Terrorists Win! Except for the fact that the Cordoba Center is not asking for any money from anyone and wants to build on the site they own. And that the Christian Church can do exactly the same thing. More . .

But to bring in one more faith, let me show you an example of real chutzpah:

Arey [the Greek Orthodox priest] said the original site is no good. Archdiocese officials disputed the Port Authority's claims, saying the church has complied with all conditions. "It's not about money," Arey said. He expressed hope that the project can still be salvaged.

"This little church deserves to be rebuilt. It's symbolic, not just for Orthodox Christians, not just for Christians, but for all Americans," Arey said, calling the mosque debate "helpful" to the church's cause. "I believe that people around the country are asking themselves the question -- why all this talk about a mosque being built near Ground Zero? What about a little church that was destroyed on 9/11? ... This is basically a bureaucratic impasse. This will dissolve in the face of the American public consciousness."

(Emphasis supplied.) Brass ones this priest has.

Speaking for me only

< Peru Appeals Court Orders Lori Berenson Back to Prison | Wednesday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Oy (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 02:31:49 PM EST
    Here's an interesting idea: let's poll the Republican faithful to see how many of them think that Greek Orthodox are real Christians.

    Not too many, (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:04:43 PM EST
    At least not many of the Evangelicals.  We're in the same category as Roman Catholics to them.  And, yes, I was born and raised Greek Orthodox, but I don't think that any government money should be involved.  (But then, I think that churches and other religious organizations should be paying taxes.  If they don't make any money, then there's no tax owed.  If they do, then pay taxes.  And no tax write-offs for those that give to their church/temple/mosque/meeting house/synagogue, etc.)

    Parent
    You guys do the cross backwards though (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:17:24 PM EST
    But we overlook that cuz you don't tell on us for coming to the festival and eating the baklava.

    Parent
    Don't remind me about baklava (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:25:39 PM EST
    In a few weeks, we're having our food festival, and I'm in charge of most of the cooking, and overseeing the cooking.  Pans and pans of baklava, tzatziki sauce with home-made Greek style yogurt, hummus, dolmades (stuffed grape leaves), and chopping all the stuff that goes on our gyros.
    PS  And we think Catholics do their signs of the cross backwards!    ;-)

    Parent
    OMG Mouth Watering Uncontrollably... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:27:03 PM EST
    Well, Greeks can cook (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:49:13 PM EST
    (If I do say so myself), and we love food.

    Parent
    You are making me reminisce to my (none / 0) (#66)
    by BTAL on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 05:48:03 PM EST
    year and half time stationed in Crete.

    Parent
    Do you make your own filo? (none / 0) (#103)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 10:57:54 PM EST
    Used to have a Greek friend who did.  Mind-blowing to watch.

    Parent
    Not for this (none / 0) (#125)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 08:41:20 AM EST
    We make way too much baklava to sell, to make phyllo from scratch- takes too much time.

    Parent
    oh man (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:35:49 PM EST
    can I help?
    at least help load it into the car?


    Parent
    And just how much (none / 0) (#40)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:48:17 PM EST
    of the food would get to the booth, hmmm?  ;-)

    Parent
    see "gulping" comment (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:54:08 PM EST
    about my old golden retriever in the open.

    Parent
    Oh God (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:40:05 PM EST
    There isn't a Greek Orthodox Church for miles and miles.  Joshua's speech therapist when he was a baby bought a real fixer upper next door to one though in Colorado Springs.  We would set up a decent kid's pool in the frontyard and make a day of it.  It was soooo good.

    Parent
    Home-made Greek style yogurt (none / 0) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:54:07 PM EST
    yum, yum - my favorite

    Send some this way.

    Parent

    I had in mind the Julian calendar (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:28:57 PM EST
    Though, you know, I always thought it was an interesting quirk that Protestants follow the Gregorian calendar.

    Parent
    The Greek Orthodox Church (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:37:24 PM EST
    now follows the Gregorian calendar, as do many (though not all) of the other Orthodox jurisdictions in this country.  In the "old countries," heavily Julian.  Although our Easter is still on a different calendar (interestingly enough, this year it was and next year it will be on the same date- first time I can remember that happening, two years in a row).

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:38:41 PM EST
    and confusing. I guess I was thinking about the Russian Orthodox.

    Parent
    The Russian (none / 0) (#39)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:47:34 PM EST
    Orthodox churches here are Julian, although the Orthodox Church in America (see my post #38) is Gregorian.

    Parent
    The architecture of the (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 04:56:06 PM EST
    Russian Orthodox Churches is absolutely beautiful.

    Parent
    agreed (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 05:05:53 PM EST
    actually why I asked the question about the church

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#104)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 11:03:19 PM EST
    Some of that is actually strong Italian influence.  The tsars started bringing in Italian architects to do more elegant churches in something like the 15th century.  I believe the famous St. Basil's of Red Square was done by an Italian.

    They're mostly quite small, btw.  I believe St. Basil's only holds maybe 200 people at best (all standing, since only pregnant women, old folks and sick people are supposed to sit through the long services).

    Parent

    I think you are referring to Assumption (none / 0) (#116)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:40:36 AM EST
    Cathedral w/i the Kremlin.  Italian architect retained by Ivan the Great.  Kremlin

    Parent
    That's one of the most (none / 0) (#129)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:59:21 AM EST
    beautiful, but it's far from the only one!

    Parent
    But-- no female priests, although male (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:35:15 PM EST
    priests are permitted to be married. And no females beyond a certain point relative to the altar.

    Parent
    question (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:37:15 PM EST
    what is the difference in Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox other than the obvious (if possibly in a paragraph).

    Parent
    Not much (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:45:57 PM EST
    except for administrative differences- all Eastern Orthodox are considered Orthodox and can attend and receive the sacraments at any Orthodox church.  Some differences in language (Greek churches being in Old Testament Greek, Russian churches in church Slavonic, although in America, many Orthodox churches now are predominantly in English), minor differences in the wording of parts of the Liturgy.  Russians are under the Patriarch of Moscow, Greeks in Greece under the Archbishop of Athens (with a few exceptions, which I won't go into), and Greek churches here are under the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople (all right, Istanbul, but we still call it Constantinople).  The Orthodox Church in America is descended from the Russian Patriarchate (the Metropolia, actually), but is now independent, under a Metropolitan.  There's no "Pope" of all Orthodox.  The Ecumenical Patriarch is only primus inter pares (first among equals).

    Parent
    thank you (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:51:11 PM EST
    in spite of my perceived hostility to religion (ok, more than perceived) I am endlessly fascinated by it.
    my house is full of religious art and artifacts.
    my sister keeps saying I have "just never found the right church".  she lives in hope.


    Parent
    Wow. Great info. (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 04:22:32 PM EST
    Different patriarchs. Otherwise--not (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:42:59 PM EST
    on the tip of my tongue.

    Parent
    No female (none / 0) (#42)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:50:31 PM EST
    deacons or altar servers, either.  One of the bones I have to pick with the church.

    Parent
    I am with you on the taxing of churches (none / 0) (#60)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 05:33:08 PM EST
    of all varieties.  Many of them do good, but too many cause all the misery we have in this world.  They want to run governments because they think that everyone should do things their way. The Catholics and the Evangelicals and Mormans are the biggest meddlers in the US today.  However, they won't be the last. When the Afghanistan constitution was being drafted there was so much difficulty because Muslim governments are by and large based on religious law. Some of the commentators at the time explained that these governments and their leaders have a poor concept of civil rights as opposed to religious rights.  As an agnostic bordering on atheist, I want to scream sometimes.

    Parent
    tax the churches (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 05:34:59 PM EST
    and probably more importantly all the businesses owned by the churches.


    Parent
    You know you have my vote :) (none / 0) (#77)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 06:43:32 PM EST
    Just when you think there is not another (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 02:55:00 PM EST
    notch on the 'crazy' dial.

    Perfect -- another notch on the 'crazy' dial (none / 0) (#48)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 04:00:26 PM EST
    American public consciousness (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:00:48 PM EST
    would that not more correctly be "American public UNconsciousness"

    from another blog (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 04:46:26 PM EST
    Q: What about the Shrine to Cannibal Anarchy?

    A: It's already there. They call it "Wall Street".

    Hey... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 05:03:04 PM EST
    thats not fair to anarchists...or cannibals.

    But I think I found the page in the playbook to maybe get a casino on that damn island...a mosque but no legal blackjack?  I know some firemen and they like to gamble.

    If I had no shame of course.

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#122)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 04:57:00 AM EST
    think that cannibalism has been highly underrated.
    Add a nice Chianti and you're straight.
    I'm "having a friend for dinner".

    Parent
    Given how quickly I'm sure Greek Orthodox (none / 0) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 02:39:50 PM EST
    people are dying off, I don't even see the point in building a new church.

    And if the church actually really needs government money to keep going, they don't deserve to keep going.

    Feelin the love :) (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:18:13 PM EST
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:20:43 PM EST
    Maybe it is ripe time for a little Sufi/Greek Orthadox Syncretism.. lol

    Parent
    Can't "whirl" in Turkey (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:36:59 PM EST
    unless the gov't.says ok.  

    Parent
    WhAT? (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 05:28:36 PM EST
    Are you saying that the Turkish gov is repressing the Sufi aka Dervishes?

    That is outrageous...

    Parent

    if for no other reason (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 05:30:39 PM EST
    than they are so freakin cool

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 05:34:33 PM EST
    And I am super excited to have found out that they are the ones building the NYC downtown community center...  

    Unbelievable, the ignorance, and right wing manipulation about this group... McCarthism is alive and well...

    Parent

    They are? Why didn't I know that? (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 08:43:37 PM EST
    The Sufis are to the rest to Islam what the Quakers are to Christianity, the way I look at it. That makes the whole NYC "controversy" about 100 time more ridiculous than I thought it was, which is really saying something.

    Parent
    Me Too (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 11:45:23 PM EST
    Yeah, I was shocked when I found out where it actually was, six blocks from the north tower, two blocks from the official WTC plot.

    I thought is was actually going to be build on the actual "hallowed ground".  

    And the great irony is that the we are actually serving the Wahhabi's (OBL etc) interest by hurting their enemy sufi dervishes...

    That makes OBL an ally, sort of..  Put it this way, we are allies with the Saudis.

    Parent

    really! (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 05:36:31 PM EST
    wow
    I would almost come to NY to see that live

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 05:38:20 PM EST
    I realize now, that I saw that group, in downtown in the 80's. Spectacular... flowing white robes, beautiful singing and dancing...  

    Same Imam, I believe.

    Parent

    Since the Konya dervishes were (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:42:54 AM EST
    whirling in Houston while we were in Turkey, I thought it was a "must see" to catch them on tour here.  My friend sd., go ahead.  You can tell me about it.  I am here to tell you whirling quickly becomes monotonous from the point of view of the spectator.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#119)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:07:16 AM EST
    I guess it is better to join in.    

    Parent
    So I am sure you would insist that (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 05:37:39 PM EST
    there is NO government's money.... any government... including Prince's and Kings running the government...given to the proposed GZ mosque?

    Right?

    Parent

    certainly (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 05:57:33 PM EST
    who is suggesting such a thing?

    Parent
    Then why the (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 06:22:18 PM EST
    secrecy about who is funding the proposed GZ mosque?

    Parent
    The great secret-Muslim-President (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 10:35:12 PM EST
    conspiracy..

    Though, None Dare Call It by it's rightful name..

    Though, I here tell them Eee-mam's is meetin' in a secret room at the Whitehouse..

    Parent

    You avoid the subject. (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 11:22:49 PM EST
    That means you don't know and don't want the question answered.

    Parent
    your groping, faltering (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:47:48 AM EST
    questions will all be answered when the New World Order goes into effect, infidel.

    Parent
    No, you're surely right (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 11:06:19 PM EST
    It's secret because it's actually a "black" CIA operation to infiltrate lower Manhattan.

    Parent
    GZ mosque (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 06:24:09 PM EST
    I like that

    Parent
    The "GZ" (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 06:37:47 PM EST
    is so Teabaggers only have worry about misspelling "mosque" on  their signs.

    Parent
    Easy (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 06:28:44 PM EST
    Why the secrecy with your bank account, home address, telephone number, social security number, list of assets, and daily log as to where you have gone,  and how you have spent your time over the last 70 years?

    Parent
    Because of nuts like you.... (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 08:43:33 PM EST
    On the other hand my financial records are available to anyone who I ask to extend me credit..

    And that is what we are speaking of.

    ....follow the money!

    Nothing more.

    Parent

    NB: Ted's wife was killed on 9/11 (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 02:39:50 PM EST


    She was a passenger on the plane (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 08:40:19 PM EST
    that was flown into the Pentagon, IIRC.

    Parent
    like wanting the $20 million up front..... (none / 0) (#6)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 02:46:43 PM EST
    Opa!

    Read the article and am still (none / 0) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 02:49:00 PM EST
    confused as to why the church can not be rebuilt at the original site. No mention of whether or not the church was insured. Don't think the government needs to be in the business of building churches with tax payer funds.

    I agree. No taxpayer dollars used in (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 05:57:52 PM EST
    building churches...and mosques. Yet we now find that:

    Americans also may be surprised to learn that the United States has been an active participant in mosque construction projects overseas. In April, U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania Alfonso E. Lenhardt helped cut the ribbon at the 12th-century Kizimkazi Mosque, which was refurbished with assistance from the United States under a program to preserve culturally significant buildings. The U.S. government also helped save the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque in Cairo, which dates back to 642. The mosque's namesake was the Muslim conqueror of Christian Egypt, who built the structure on the site where he had pitched his tent before doing battle with the country's Byzantine rulers. For those who think the Ground Zero Mosque is an example of "Muslim triumphalism" glorifying conquest, the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque is an example of such a monument - and one paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds.

    Link

    Parent

    the moonies (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 06:17:11 PM EST
    would know

    Parent
    You know Howdy (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 06:26:15 PM EST
    dissing the messenger may make you feel good but it doesn't change the facts. Everyone here would scream bloody murder if tax payer dollars were used to build a church anyplace yet you run off and hide when it is shown that we are building mosques.

    Leaving aside the Constitution, how stupid does our elites think we tax payers are?

    And the answer is:

    1. Very

    2. They don't care that we find out and don't like it.


    Parent
    How many extant (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 08:10:54 PM EST
    7th century buildings on the planet do you know of, Jim? You think possibly that mosque might have a little historical significance; outside of the possibility of this being an another example of the great terrorist-appeasing plot to weaken America?

    And don't forget to say hello to your friends at the Unification Church (who, one would hope, never get any special tax breaks from our govt).


    Parent

    Dial A Wingnut (none / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 08:14:55 PM EST
    Wonder where in wingnuttia he gets this stuff.....  

    Parent
    Doesn't make any difference (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 08:54:36 PM EST
    The Constitution doesn't give exceptions for old mosques....

    But tell me. Why do you think that we should be building mosques...even beyond the Constitutional prohibition that the government is violating..when we are flat broke and can't take care of our own poor??????

    The answer is, as in the support for de facto Open Borders that destroy the wage base for millions of Americans, the Left, both Professional and Casual, do not have any "skin" in the game. They won't be impacted so they want to, as Obama and Pelosi does, lecture the rest of us.

    Parent

    So (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 09:23:41 PM EST
    you're for cutting off aid to Israel until they stop building settlements, Rev Moon?

    Concurrent with that full investigation into the waste, fraud and outright thievery involved in the revolving door system at the Pentagon?

    Though, it is a relief to see you, after 8 years of constant shilling for the "haves and have mores," finally getting around to wringing your hands over the poor and working people -- conveniently after a Democratic President is in office.  

    Parent

    The Constitution, friend (none / 0) (#107)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 11:11:24 PM EST
    doesn't apply to Egypt. (clearing throat)

    Parent
    The Constitution applies to the actions (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 11:24:46 PM EST
    of the government.

    Of course if you want to use that argument, there goes 99.9% of the complaints about the actions of our troops, rendition, etc.

    Parent

    And how stupid does (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 08:22:28 PM EST
    our elites think we is when they think people don't mind tax dollars going to aid the construction of end-times settlements on the West Bank?

    Parent
    Oh, the horror! (none / 0) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 11:07:37 PM EST
    lol (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:03:53 PM EST
    Wonder how much $$$ they collected from their insurers....

    I don't know about them, (none / 0) (#21)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:21:12 PM EST
    but my local parish has insurance on the building, in addition to liability insurance.  They're idiots if the church wasn't insured.

    Parent
    I Am Sure They Were (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:24:26 PM EST
    They just seem really greedy, imo.

    Parent
    Far too many (none / 0) (#25)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:27:07 PM EST
    "Houses of worship"  are.  Maybe not the Quakers.

    Parent
    I think the issue would be (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 06:28:30 PM EST
    that the attack was an "act of war" thus the insurance was void.

    That was one of the reasons so much money was given to people who should have been covered by private insurance.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#75)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 06:30:22 PM EST
    Got that wrong. It was not an act of war. Silverstein collected, I collected, and all the downtown business and residents who had a loss and were insured collected.

    Parent
    Don't confuse (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 07:18:14 PM EST
    PPJ with the facts, sweetie.   ;-)

    Parent
    lol.. (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 07:19:42 PM EST
    He does try to shill.... really bad at it though, imo

    Parent
    Well, sweetie (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 08:56:43 PM EST
    Kiss my facts....

    And thanks for the info...

    Now I'm really concerned about why we gave millions to people who had insurance...

    Parent

    Isn't there some apples and oranges (none / 0) (#12)
    by BTAL on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:05:55 PM EST
    comparison happening here?

    IIRC, the Greek church was destroyed, but for what ever reason the Port Authority would not let them rebuild on their land/original location.  Hence, the negotiations to replace what they previously possessed.

    Let ,e help you out (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:12:43 PM EST
    "St. Nicholas Orthodox Church has always had and will continue to have the right to rebuild on its original location. The question was whether public money would be spent to build a much larger church at a separate location on the site and ensuring that construction wouldn't delay the World Trade Center further," spokesman Stephen Sigmund said in a written statement. "On that question, we worked for many years to reach an agreement and offered up to 60 million dollars of public money to build that much larger new church. After reaching what we believed was an agreement in 2008, representatives of the church wanted even more public commitments, including unacceptable approvals on the design of the Vehicle Security Center that threatened to further delay the construction on the World Trade Center and the potential for another $20 million of public funds."

    Sigmund said the "final offer" was made last year, which again included $60 million.

    "They rejected that offer," he said

    .

    Parent
    Mkay, then the church needs to rebuild on its (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by BTAL on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:21:05 PM EST
    original location with its own money.

    That should be the end of the story.

    Thanks for the clarification regarding the second location.

    Parent

    "That should be the end of the story" (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:28:27 PM EST
    HAHAHAHAHA!

    Yes it should.

    I expect we'll hear about it for a while, especially given the priest's willingness to bring in the mosque issue.

    Parent

    Why was it even a question as to (none / 0) (#44)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:52:38 PM EST
    whether public money would be used to build a bigger place on a new site?
    The question was whether public money would be spent to build a much larger church at a separate location on the site a

    Probably there were some public redevelopment funds for the area, but this seems extreme.

    Parent

    Why? (none / 0) (#79)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 07:09:21 PM EST
    should any "public" money be spent building a religious structure of any kind? Why should our tax money be spent supporting religion in any manner whatsoever?

    Parent
    Your facts are wrong according to Fox (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:09:15 PM EST
    Please read again. The Port Authority is quoted as saying they can build anything they want on the site they own.

    Parent
    interesting alternate story (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:13:39 PM EST
    though.
    I wonder how that could  have gotten out there?


    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:16:19 PM EST
    Wait till this one gets out: (none / 0) (#35)
    by Buckeye on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:39:13 PM EST
    "Islamic terrorists can destroy a peaceful Christian church yet our troops aren't allowed to target mosques harboring terrorists."

    Parent
    Or this one: (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:55:31 PM EST
    "Our public money goes to rebuild Muslim sites in Iraq but we can't rebuild churches at home."

    Parent
    It is tough when one doesn't watch (none / 0) (#56)
    by BTAL on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 05:04:00 PM EST
    Fox or use foxnews.com  

    I'll work harder on my ESP skills.

    Parent

    It's even tougher when someone watches (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 08:58:25 PM EST
    no TV or listens to any radio....

    But at least we know why Squeaky says what he says.

    Parent

    really (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 10:01:48 PM EST
    no wonder people like Rush, Hannity and Beck are so much smarter than "literate" elitists like the Founding Fathers, Lincoln, Hawthorne, Dickinson etc

    It's cuz they had such a leg-up with radio and the teevee..

    Parent

    Major strawman burns up.... (none / 0) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 11:26:39 PM EST
    All of your examples used all available sources of information....

    Boy your easy tonight.

    Parent

    that would be "you're" (none / 0) (#114)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:03:10 AM EST
    and perusual, you're (hopefully) playing dumb..

    The salient point being that if you can read and have access to one 'a them new fangled computers, you don't necessarily need to rely on a radio or a teevee to become educated about what's happening in world.

    Parent

    The point is that they used all the (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 08:07:04 AM EST
    available sources of information.

    When you claim to not listen to radio and watch TV and depend on the Internet only you are shutting out sources of information.

    Worse, the Internet is infamous for incorrect information, out right lies and bias.

    Using it for your total information source on current events is not smart. You know that, I know that and I'm amazed Squeaky doesn't know that.

    Parent

    There are also these (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 08:26:21 AM EST
    things you may have heard tell of called books and newspapers..

    Certainly not comparable to the instant enlightenment at everyone's paw and hoof tips available on talk radio and the Fox Network, but still..

    Parent

    Yes, books and newspapers (none / 0) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 08:49:26 AM EST
    are just soooooooo current in today's world.

    I repeat. Shutting out any source of information is like an antelope walking across the plains with its eyes shut.

    Parent

    Right. Anyway all those overrated elitist (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:34:36 PM EST
    scholars and journalists are of negligible use anyway once you know the world was created in six days, communists have taken over one of our major political parties and all non-christians are evil..

    What more information - current or otherwise - could a closed-like-a-steel-trap mind possibly need?

    Parent

    According to a link I posted yesterday, (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:38:50 PM EST
    Wealthy Greek shipping magnates used to stop by when in town.  Open your pockets, guys.



    Well.... (none / 0) (#78)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 07:06:39 PM EST
    it keeps us from discussing the wars or the 10% of our people who can't find jobs.

    Almost as good as Gates/Crowley.

    Parent

    Silly Analogy (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 07:15:11 PM EST
    But, hey, any opportunity to bash Obama, is a good one.

    Some on the right wing, which is now seriously divided, believed that the NYC mosque issue would help get them elected. It is not a diversion, but a political tactic to get votes.

    It is stupid because it will backfire, imo.

    Comparing this to the Gates/Crowley affair is absurd, but I do understand that you are on a mission.

    Parent

    Gates/Crowley affair is absurd... (none / 0) (#84)
    by BTAL on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 07:46:17 PM EST
    Wasn't that the first time Obama waded into a local issue and made it a national topic?

    You really need to pick a standard and stick to it.

    Parent

    Oh Right... (none / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 07:56:39 PM EST
    And in both cases, ummm let's see now... hold on...  minorities were involved..  got it. Oh, I discovered another similarity, both events were all about trashing Obama... got it...

    Wow, glad that some wingers chime in from time to time, otherwise we would be lost...

    Parent

    Gee, I thought it was about (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 09:04:00 PM EST
    drinking beer with the Prez...

    Parent
    What would be interesting (none / 0) (#54)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 04:57:57 PM EST
    is if someone tries to build a Church anywhere near any of the sites of "hallowed ground" on which we have slaughtered thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would like to see the reaction in the USA if there were similar pronouncements in Iraq and Afghanistan on the basis of the avowed Christianity of the politicians-in-chief who are responsible.

    I had an idea a little while ago (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 08:29:51 PM EST
    If people want to consider the WTC site and surrounding area hallowed ground, let's go all the way and consecrate it as a cemetery, much like Arlington or Gettysburg,  for 9/11 victims and their families, veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq, and civilian victims of those wars if they so choose. Get religious leaders of all types to do whatever it is they do, Obama can give a short poignant Ground Zero Address, etc.

    Wait, no one wants to do that because it is valuable property and even as a national monument with a cheesy snack bar it would not make nearly as much money as the commercial property it is now? Well then Fox, just shut up about it and let the residents decide how to run their city.

    I am just soooo sick of the hypocritical sanctimony.

    Parent

    I had (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 04:44:44 AM EST
    the same thought.

    When Obama and the rest intone that stuff about "hallowed ground", I think that what they should do is create a beautiful park with a memorial. I have always felt that way.

    But it seems that this "hallowed ground" is in reality nothing more sacred than another whopping investment opportunity for commercial enterprises.

    As you say, the hypocritical sanctimony is sickening.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#130)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:20:13 PM EST
    The sanctimony is nauseating...  The community, meaning the little people who actually live here, want a park. The fact that it is a mega skyscraper intoning "bring em on" is telling as to who exactly is running things down here, and it is not the community.

    All of this drama is about $$$ and power, all the brokers are exploiting the WTC site and downtown Manhattan for their own personal interests and agendas.

    A park with a small but poignant memorial is the most powerful thing that could have been done. Another gigantic building just melts into the landscape of towers, while a much needed park would stand out alone and mark the spot for centuries.

    Parent

    God-fearing, good old, normal... (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by desertswine on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 09:48:32 PM EST
    white, christian americans would never, ever, erect a "victory" monument on the sacred ground of another people. Ever. Wouldn't even think of it. Ever. Never. Would they?

    Parent
    Of course they would (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 08:53:52 AM EST
    We just object to the Muslim extremist doing it here.

    "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing."

    That's the whole point.

    Ask the Indians. Ask the Nazis.

    Parent

    So much for values and honor (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:54:08 PM EST
    and other obsolete concepts..

    Every once in a while the ugly snout behind the christian smiley face reveals itself.

    Parent

    Absurd - you mecca me laugh. (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by desertswine on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:39:44 PM EST
    Yup (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 07:17:54 PM EST
    And even more interesting, the civilian medical group that was just brutally murdered in Afghanistan, was sent by an evangelical group, that promises it does not postalize in Afghanistan, but the missionaries are devoutly christian.

    Parent
    And you think it was alright for them to (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 09:01:28 PM EST
    be slaughtered?

    Wow.

    That's a bit much, even for you.

    Parent

    I missed the part (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 09:08:26 PM EST
    where someone said they "think it was alright"..

    I think someone's skipping over the written word and reading the pictures in their mind. Again.

    Parent

    Then explain this comment. (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 11:28:25 PM EST
    was sent by an evangelical group, that promises it does not postalize in Afghanistan, but the missionaries are devoutly christian.


    Parent
    First I'll explain your comment: (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 11:51:29 PM EST
    you want so badly to make some point about "the Left" hating christians, that you're recklessly and shamelessly trying to turn a neutral description of what could be any group of missionaries, into a death wish for them.

    Where are the words that give any indication that anyone thought it was "alright" that they were killed?  

    Parent

    Analogy (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 04:54:15 AM EST
    What I mentioned in my original post meant to say that currently the Muslims are being asked to build their Mosque somewhere else because it is too close to the site of the WTC disaster. The avowed religion of the hijackers is being associated with them as well.

    I meant to draw an analogy with the pompous and pious assertions of both Bush and Obama about their Christian beliefs and their cruel actions that continue to slaughter thousands of civilians in Muslim countries.

    What this has to do with missionaries being killed in Afghanistan I don't know. All Christians are not to be tarred with the same brush as those who slaughter in the name of Christianity - but the same should hold for Muslims and Islam. Or so it seems to me.

    But I do think that American institutional Christianity considers itself as being way more holy and worthy than Islam or anybody else.

    Parent

    It's a Religious Enigma (none / 0) (#115)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:18:46 AM EST
    For you to solve.

    Parent
    I prefer to think of it as (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:11:24 AM EST
    a Religious Enema for Jim

    Parent
    I think he needs a few (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:45:43 PM EST
    of the real kind, before he works his way up to the religious kind.

    I'd recommend Reagan's secret recipe: half water and half Royal Crown Cola.

    Parent

    The church isn't being publicly funded (none / 0) (#135)
    by truthseeker13 on Mon Aug 23, 2010 at 09:05:12 AM EST
    New member, former lurker. I hope I don't get banned for trolling. I don't think disagreeing or discussion is trolling, but some sites don't see it that way.

    The $20 million being offered is a genuine purchase for the land under the church that the Port Authority is using as an entrance and scanning location for a parking area.  The parking area is being developed for the WTC site.  So the church isn't receiving public funding to rebuild, but being forced through eminent domain to sell the ground under their property.  The $40 million explosion deck to go as a foundation isn't a gift or anything either.  Given that their church underground will used as an entrance to a building that was destroyed before, in an incident that destroyed their building in the first place... I'd say it's the least they can do.

    Now as far as the stalled talks... all this talk of "it's their property, they can do what they want with it" in regards to the mosque should also apply for the church.  However the Port Authority has restricted the size, design and other facets of the building reconstruction.  For instance, they are not allowed to build higher than the memorial.  So what about "Freedom of Religion" and freedom to do as they wish with their own property?  Does this not apply to the Church too?  We have to be considerate of the WTC memorial for a church that had been on that spot for 80 years, but feelings don't matter on an Islamic Mosque?

    Now I personally think that the mosque isn't my concern.  Yeah, it's in poor taste and doesn't help my opinion of the religion itself.  But if it owns the property, not anyone's concern.  However, let's not get involved in debating without all the facts of the issue.  It doesn't help anyone.

    Thanks, and I enjoy your site.

    See, there you go again. (none / 0) (#137)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 23, 2010 at 02:56:22 PM EST
    Facts will get you nowhere around these parts...

    Parent
    Poor Taste? (none / 0) (#136)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 23, 2010 at 09:24:27 AM EST
    As for those who counsel the Park 51 Muslims that now is not the time, that Manhattan is not the place, that they should not hurt feelings, they are taking exactly the same line as the clergymen who wrote Martin Luther King to urge him to desist from his direct action campaign in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963, as a result of which he had been jailed.

    King wrote in "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." . He says that they called his campaign "unwise and untimely," characterized it as "outsiders coming in," and asserted that negotiations would be better than direct action. They implicitly accused him of impatience, of rocking the boat, of hurting the feelings of white folk who were not ready for his message.

    Juan Cole