Greek Orthodox church Not Allowed to Rebuild at Ground Zero

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Guest

Greek Orthodox church Not Allowed to Rebuild at Ground Zero

Post #1

Post by 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?


Image

User avatar
Slopeshoulder
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post #11

Post by Slopeshoulder »

I think it would be nice if they included an interfaith center (perhaps the NY Interfaith Temple could move there?), or make it an entire neighborhood of houses of worship, including a humanist center. I'd like that.

Guest

Post #12

Post by Guest »

ChaosBorders wrote:
SacredCowBurgers wrote:
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.
The Department of Justice that i know is funded by taxpayer money.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... deral-fun/
Last edited by Guest on Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Guest

Post #13

Post by Guest »

micatala wrote:It appears the Greek Church is not being stopped from rebuilding. The issue is public money.
Where do you think the Department of Justice gets their money? Hint: You might check the US budget...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ue-debate/

User avatar
perfessor
Scholar
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 8:47 pm
Location: Illinois

Post #14

Post by perfessor »

Thank you SCB for those links. From reading them, we discover that:

- It's not a mosque;
- It's not at Ground Zero;
- The Imam will be funded to the tune of $19,000 for his trip to the Mideast to promote religious tolerance;
- This will be his fourth such trip; the first two were funded by us through the Bush administration.

I guess that brings some perspective to the issue. I hope that his trip is a success.
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Guest

Post #15

Post by Guest »

perfessor wrote:Thank you SCB for those links. From reading them, we discover that:

- It's not a mosque;
- It's not at Ground Zero;
- The Imam will be funded to the tune of $19,000 for his trip to the Mideast to promote religious tolerance;
- This will be his fourth such trip; the first two were funded by us through the Bush administration.

I guess that brings some perspective to the issue. I hope that his trip is a success.
Wrong on the first two points, but thanks for admitting it was tax dollars even if you want to call it "religious tolerance." (who cares what President it was under?)

As for location, here's perspsective:


[youtube][/youtube]

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #16

Post by micatala »

SacredCowBurgers wrote:
perfessor wrote:Thank you SCB for those links. From reading them, we discover that:

- It's not a mosque;
- It's not at Ground Zero;
- The Imam will be funded to the tune of $19,000 for his trip to the Mideast to promote religious tolerance;
- This will be his fourth such trip; the first two were funded by us through the Bush administration.

I guess that brings some perspective to the issue. I hope that his trip is a success.
Wrong on the first two points, but thanks for admitting it was tax dollars even if you want to call it "religious tolerance." (who cares what President it was under?)

As for location, here's perspsective:


[youtube][/youtube]
No, you are wrong on the first two points.

The building is a community center. It does include a worship space. This does not make it a mosque.

Following your logic, our local hospital affiliated with an order of Catholic nuns is a church since it includes a small chapel and at least one other prayer area.

It is also not at ground zero, as even your video shows. You cannot even see ground zero from in front of the site.

And the tax dollars are not going to the community center, they are going to support state purposes, essentially anti-terrorism purposes.

If my boss sends me to a conference with company supported funds, that does not mean he is helping build the church I attend, or the gym I work out in, or the coffeehouse I frequent.




As far as public funds, the situation with the Greek Orthodox Church seems rather different. They would be getting public money for the actual construction. Most people, and I think the law as well, would view that as a whole different kettle of baklava.



Looking back at the OP, I guess I would wonder why one of the church proponents said the following:

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.
What is wrong with the original site?
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Guest

Post #17

Post by Guest »

micatala wrote:
SacredCowBurgers wrote:
perfessor wrote:Thank you SCB for those links. From reading them, we discover that:

- It's not a mosque;
- It's not at Ground Zero;
- The Imam will be funded to the tune of $19,000 for his trip to the Mideast to promote religious tolerance;
- This will be his fourth such trip; the first two were funded by us through the Bush administration.

I guess that brings some perspective to the issue. I hope that his trip is a success.
Wrong on the first two points, but thanks for admitting it was tax dollars even if you want to call it "religious tolerance." (who cares what President it was under?)

As for location, here's perspsective:


[youtube][/youtube]
No, you are wrong on the first two points.

The building is a community center. It does include a worship space. This does not make it a mosque.

Following your logic, our local hospital affiliated with an order of Catholic nuns is a church since it includes a small chapel and at least one other prayer area.

It is also not at ground zero, as even your video shows. You cannot even see ground zero from in front of the site.

And the tax dollars are not going to the community center, they are going to support state purposes, essentially anti-terrorism purposes.

If my boss sends me to a conference with company supported funds, that does not mean he is helping build the church I attend, or the gym I work out in, or the coffeehouse I frequent.




As far as public funds, the situation with the Greek Orthodox Church seems rather different. They would be getting public money for the actual construction. Most people, and I think the law as well, would view that as a whole different kettle of baklava.



Looking back at the OP, I guess I would wonder why one of the church proponents said the following:

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.
What is wrong with the original site?
Bodys from the WTC bombing were found as far as the East River. Its all ground zero.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #18

Post by micatala »

You answered the wrong question.


Read the posts more thoroughly.

The question was why did the Greek Orthodox church find their original site not suitable? Note they still want to build on the actual Ground Zero site.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Guest

Post #19

Post by Guest »

micatala wrote:You answered the wrong question.


Read the posts more thoroughly.

The question was why did the Greek Orthodox church find their original site not suitable? Note they still want to build on the actual Ground Zero site.
Read more thoroughly? Thanks for the critique but I did not read it all and have not responded to it all yet. but WAS in response to your comment: "It is also not at ground zero, as even your video shows. You cannot even see ground zero from in front of the site."

Post Reply