Greek Orthodox church Not Allowed to Rebuild at Ground Zero

[Guest]

Greek Orthodox leaders trying to rebuild the only church destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attacks expressed shock this week after learning, via Fox News, that government officials had killed a deal to relocate the church.

The St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, once a tiny, four-story building in the shadows of lower Manhattan, was destroyed in 2001 by one of the falling World Trade Center towers. Nobody from the church was hurt in the attack, but the congregation has, for the past eight years, been trying to rebuild its house of worship.

Though talks between the church and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey stalled last year, church leaders say they've been trying to kick-start discussions ever since. But amid debate over whether a proposed Islamic community center should go forward near Ground Zero, government officials threw cold water on the prospect of any deal with the church -- telling Fox News the deal is off the table.

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."

Arey was referring to the address, about 100 yards away from the original site, where the government earlier proposed relocating the church. 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 archdiocese and Port Authority now offer sharply conflicting accounts of where things went wrong. The Port Authority has 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.

"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.

But Arey said the original site is no good. And 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."

Former New York Gov. George Pataki, who worked with the church as governor, told Fox News on Tuesday that the church should be rebuilt.

George Demos, a Republican candidate for New York's 1st Congressional District, also has drawn attention to the negotiations. He released an open letter to President Obama Tuesday urging him to, as he did with the mosque debate, weigh in on the church discussions.

"While we may disagree on the appropriateness of the mosque, we can surely agree that it is an issue of national importance that the only house of worship actually destroyed on September 11, 2001, the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, be rebuilt," Demos wrote. "Mr. President, please stand up and defend our Judeo-Christian values, express your public and unwavering support for St. Nicholas Church, and ensure that it is rebuilt."

Father Alex Karloutsos, assistant to the head of the Greek Orthodox Church in America, Archbishop Demetrios, told FoxNews.com that the Port Authority "simply forgot about the church" at Ground Zero.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08 ... urch-dead/

This request for rebuilding has been around since just after 911.

Question: Where are the defenders of "freedom of religion" on this one?

[WinePusher]

Greek Orthodox leaders trying to rebuild the only church destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attacks expressed shock this week after learning, via Fox News, that government officials had killed a deal to relocate the church.

The St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, once a tiny, four-story building in the shadows of lower Manhattan, was destroyed in 2001 by one of the falling World Trade Center towers. Nobody from the church was hurt in the attack, but the congregation has, for the past eight years, been trying to rebuild its house of worship.

Though talks between the church and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey stalled last year, church leaders say they've been trying to kick-start discussions ever since. But amid debate over whether a proposed Islamic community center should go forward near Ground Zero, government officials threw cold water on the prospect of any deal with the church -- telling Fox News the deal is off the table.

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."

Arey was referring to the address, about 100 yards away from the original site, where the government earlier proposed relocating the church. 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 archdiocese and Port Authority now offer sharply conflicting accounts of where things went wrong. The Port Authority has 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.

"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.

But Arey said the original site is no good. And 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."

Former New York Gov. George Pataki, who worked with the church as governor, told Fox News on Tuesday that the church should be rebuilt.

George Demos, a Republican candidate for New York's 1st Congressional District, also has drawn attention to the negotiations. He released an open letter to President Obama Tuesday urging him to, as he did with the mosque debate, weigh in on the church discussions.

"While we may disagree on the appropriateness of the mosque, we can surely agree that it is an issue of national importance that the only house of worship actually destroyed on September 11, 2001, the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, be rebuilt," Demos wrote. "Mr. President, please stand up and defend our Judeo-Christian values, express your public and unwavering support for St. Nicholas Church, and ensure that it is rebuilt."

Father Alex Karloutsos, assistant to the head of the Greek Orthodox Church in America, Archbishop Demetrios, told FoxNews.com that the Port Authority "simply forgot about the church" at Ground Zero.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08 ... urch-dead/

This request for rebuilding has been around since just after 911.

Question: Where are the defenders of "freedom of religion" on this one?

I will try my best to refrain from ranting and screaming in all caps.

But this is simply representative of the double standard employed by the left when it comes to religion. Lets look at a few more:

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

One ONE man shoots ONE abortion doctor, the disgraceful media jumps on him and the christians.

A guy shoots 12 people in the name of Allah and Islam, well, we can't judge him cause he was suffering from pre trauma. We can't jump to conclusions because our journalism ethics have been poisoned with political correctness. It's not a crime to contact Al-Qaeda, Islamc is never a factor in terrorism.

A guy attempts to blow up time square, well, he wasn't realizing any american dream, he was bankrupt, he's the victim of American capitalism. HEY, the media missed the fact that he went to the middle east of 10 times. Maybe thats why he was banrupt, but that doesn't fit their narrative, so they omitt it.

People hijack planes and blow up 3 buildings killing thousands in the name of their Islam, they have a right to build an Islamic worship ceneter right next to it. But the christians, noooo, a church next to the site is a TABOO. A mosque is supported as "bridgebuilding" and "unity." And, anyone who opposes the Mosque is a bigot and Islamaphobe, according to Anita Dunn and the failed network that is MSNBC. How dare these......people........call the 9/11 families bigots.

[Abraxas]

From the article:


""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."

So, as a matter of fact, the thread title is dishonest, they are in fact being allowed to rebuild at ground zero, they just aren't being given 80 million in taxpayer money to do it and design features that would delay construction on the WTC site.

[Guest]

From the article:


""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."

So, as a matter of fact, the thread title is dishonest, they are in fact being allowed to rebuild at ground zero, they just aren't being given 80 million in taxpayer money to do it and design features that would delay construction on the WTC site.

No, The state department is GIVING Rauf money....The US State Department:

he imam behind a plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero is set to depart on a multi-country jaunt to the Middle East funded by the State Department — raising concerns that taxpayers may be helping him with the controversial project's $100 million fund-raising goal.

Feisal Abdul Rauf is taking the publicly funded trip to foster "greater understanding" about Islam and Muslim communities in the United States, the State Department confirmed yesterday.
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/201 ... nds-1.html

So they can give him $100 million (probably more by now) and not $80 million to Greek church? And btw, where is all the usual "separation of church and state" critics on this one?

[ChaosBorders]

he imam behind a plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero is set to depart on a multi-country jaunt to the Middle East funded by the State Department — raising concerns that taxpayers may be helping him with the controversial project's $100 million fund-raising goal.

Feisal Abdul Rauf is taking the publicly funded trip to foster "greater understanding" about Islam and Muslim communities in the United States, the State Department confirmed yesterday.
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/201 ... nds-1.html

So they can give him $100 million (probably more by now) and not $80 million to Greek church? And btw, where is all the usual "separation of church and state" critics on this one?

Paying for a trip is very different than giving someone tens of millions of dollars. Read more carefully. I see no suggestion of taxpayer money past paying for some airline flights. That on its own is perhaps a little annoying, but unless you have evidence of them actually paying tens of millions of dollars, it is not remotely comparable to them not being willing to pay 80 million dollars for the church. For that matter, given the church was offered the 60 million, unless it can be demonstrated that the State Department has actually given over 60 million dollars, I don't see any double standard going on at all.

[Abraxas]

From the article:


""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."

So, as a matter of fact, the thread title is dishonest, they are in fact being allowed to rebuild at ground zero, they just aren't being given 80 million in taxpayer money to do it and design features that would delay construction on the WTC site.

No, The state department is GIVING Rauf money....The US State Department:

he imam behind a plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero is set to depart on a multi-country jaunt to the Middle East funded by the State Department — raising concerns that taxpayers may be helping him with the controversial project's $100 million fund-raising goal.

Feisal Abdul Rauf is taking the publicly funded trip to foster "greater understanding" about Islam and Muslim communities in the United States, the State Department confirmed yesterday.
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/201 ... nds-1.html

So they can give him $100 million (probably more by now) and not $80 million to Greek church? And btw, where is all the usual "separation of church and state" critics on this one?

Again, not what it actually says. It does not say the state department, or any other department, will be paying for the project, it says they paid for a goodwill mission to wherever. This has raised concerns about taxpayers funding it at "Moonbattery" but nothing from sources like AFP:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... UshJLGF9ZA

Indicate any kind of public financing. I do oppose taxpayer funds being spent on any religion, including both Christianity and Islam.

[micatala]

It appears the Greek Church is not being stopped from rebuilding. The issue is public money.

They should certainly be allowed to rebuild, if possible, on the original spot, assuming they own the land.

Public money should not be involved in building a church, either for the Greeks or the Muslims.

We should differentiate between a community center and a mosque. This is a digression, as the community center does not seem to be getting any public money, but if they were in part serving secular non-sectarian purposes, a case might be made they could get some form of public support. I am not saying this should happen, just that, in my view, the blanket prohibition against public support for houses of worship does not necessarily apply to other buildings erected by religious groups.

That being said, with respect to places of worship the situations should be treated equally provided all the circumstances are the same.




I won't comment on specific previously made comments except this one.

People hijack planes and blow up 3 buildings killing thousands in the name of their Islam, they have a right to build an Islamic worship ceneter right next to it.

This comment reflects a very unfair and insulting equivalence between the people who committed the atrocities on 9-11 and those wishing to build the community center. I fear I cannot say more at this point without risking breaking forum rules, except to say I feel very, very angry that this type of comment gets made anywhere, on the forum or not. I fail to see any justification for this equivalence which seems to be based on nothing more than the common professed faith of the two groups.

[WinePusher]

People hijack planes and blow up 3 buildings killing thousands in the name of their Islam, they have a right to build an Islamic worship ceneter right next to it.

This comment reflects a very unfair and insulting equivalence between the people who committed the atrocities on 9-11 and those wishing to build the community center.

The equivalence is not as unfair as you suggest. Considering the man wanting to build this mosque has made radical comments and is not a friend to this country nor is he a moderate.

To be very clear, radical Islam attacked us on 9/11, and now radical islam wants to build a mosque next to the site. Moderate Islam condemns 9/11 and moderate Islam disapproves of this mosque. I have no problem with the latter.

[micatala]

Delete duplicate post

[micatala]

People hijack planes and blow up 3 buildings killing thousands in the name of their Islam, they have a right to build an Islamic worship ceneter right next to it.

This comment reflects a very unfair and insulting equivalence between the people who committed the atrocities on 9-11 and those wishing to build the community center.

The equivalence is not as unfair as you suggest. Considering the man wanting to build this mosque has made radical comments and is not a friend to this country nor is he a moderate.

To be very clear, radical Islam attacked us on 9/11, and now radical islam wants to build a mosque next to the site. Moderate Islam condemns 9/11 and moderate Islam disapproves of this mosque. I have no problem with the latter.

There are still several problems here.

One is whether your characterization of the imam in question is correct. Many declare he is a moderate. Evidence for this includes:

- The state purpose of the Cordoba Instsitute
- The fact he has assisted the FBI in combatting terrorism
- The fact he was sent by the Bush Administration on at least one good will mission to the Middle East.

The only evidence I have seen that he is a radical is based on an interview done by a "reporter" with World Net Daily, a notoriously biased and unreliable organization.



The second problem is that you are holding a large group, even if you restrict it to "radical Muslims", essentially guilty or at least implicated in the actions of a few. This is inherently unfair, and if done in certain contexts, illegal as it is against eequal protection and due process under the law.


Thirdly, the first amendment does not come with caveats about a religion not having to be "radical", whatever that means. Even radicals, like Farrakhan or Phelps, have their rights under the first amenmdent.



I'll repeat, it is absolutely unfair and I would say un-American to hold an entire group, however defined, implicitly guilty or to treat them differently or unequally because members of that group have committed a crime.

It is even more reprehensible when that is done on the basis of dishonest information, as is pretty clearly the case with Gellar and those at the New York Post who have been pushing this for months.