Decision Not to Rebuild Church Destroyed on 9/11 Surprises Greek Orthodox Leaders

[flash=500,400]http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnplayer.swf?aid=17383[/flash]

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."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/18/leaders-disappointed-government-declares-deal-rebuild-ground-zero-church-dead/

I'm confused: are they trying to rebuild the church, relocate it or both? And what does this have to do with the mosque 'near' Ground Zero if the deal fell apart last year? There has to be more to the story.

Travelista:

I'm confused: are they trying to rebuild the church, relocate it or both? And what does this have to do with the mosque 'near' Ground Zero if the deal fell apart last year? There has to be more to the story.

The following excerpts are the concluding parts.

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/2010/08/18/leaders-disappointed-government-declares-deal-rebuild-ground-zero-church-dead/

^^^ Sorry but if the source is Fox news then I would like another take on the story. There's got to be more to it. Will wait for the full details to emerge.

Sorry don't trust the FNC one bit. Once bitten, ____

It only shows where the policy of the democratic party led government lies, while it is OK for muslims to build their mosque near ground zero the church that got demolished by the muslims is not important enough for Obama to comment on.

Ok, these people are disgusting. They tried to needle extra money out of tax payers and got shot down LAST YEAR; now, they're screaming bloody murder as if they've just recently been turned down. Look at some of the things they were demanding: they wanted more than the $60 million dollars offered and the plans for nearby construction. What on earth made them think they were allowed to see those in the first place? And now, they're holding up their banner and crying, 'Oh, we're a little church, don't forget us!' Too bad, so sad. They were greedy and ended up empty-handed. I'm sure they collected from their insurance company and they can hold bake sales and fundraisers. Better yet, they can call greek Orthodox and Democrat Alexei Giannoulias and hit him up for a loan; his quick to hand those out.

this is nonsensical posturing especially from hypocrites like George Demos. What is to be built on the 9-11 site is not under federal but NY jurisdiction. What has Obama to do with this?

[size=16pt]A BIG MASSIVE NO TO THE GROUND ZERO MOSQUE.
[/size]
This is a complete disregard for the feelings of 80% of the 9/11 Victim families.

Funny enough thousands of decent Muslims worldwide have denounced this crazy plan.

Only the Jihadists and fanatics will go ahead and support this diabolical plot.

Only the Jihadists and fanatics will go ahead and support this diabolical plot.

what makes constructing a mosque close to ground zero, diabolic?

do you consider everything related to islam diabolic

davidylan:

this is nonsensical posturing especially from hypocrites like George Demos. What is to be built on the 9-11 site is not under federal but NY jurisdiction. What has Obama to do with this?

What has Obama got to do with the mosque being built near ground zero?

Travelista:

Ok, these people are disgusting. They tried to needle extra money out of tax payers and got shot down LAST YEAR; now, they're screaming bloody murder as if they've just recently been turned down. Look at some of the things they were demanding: they wanted more than the $60 million dollars offered and the plans for nearby construction. What on earth made them think they were allowed to see those in the first place? And now, they're holding up their banner and crying, 'Oh, we're a little church, don't forget us!' Too bad, so sad. They were greedy and ended up empty-handed. I'm sure they collected from their insurance company and they can hold bake sales and fundraisers. Better yet, they can call greek Orthodox and Democrat Alexei Giannoulias and hit him up for a loan; his quick to hand those out.

If Obama can wade in to the ground zero mosque quagmire why can't he at least say something about the church that got demolished by these muslims that he is quick to support?

frosbel:

[size=16pt]A BIG MASSIVE NO TO THE GROUND ZERO MOSQUE.
[/size]
This is a complete disregard for the feelings of 80% of the 9/11 Victim families.

Funny enough thousands of decent Muslims worldwide have denounced this crazy plan.

Only the Jihadists and fanatics will go ahead and support this diabolical plot.

Do you think they really care about the 911 victims? I will be surprised if your claim that thousands of decent Muslims are denouncing the plan to build a mosque near the spot because only those so called "decent Muslims" who the government are now sponsoring are the same ones who think that the mosque should be built near ground zero.

bawomolo:

what makes constructing a mosque close to ground zero, diabolic?

do you consider everything related to islam diabolic

Do you think that it is a wise decision?

Whether it's a church, mosque or temple, I stand with a


[size=32pt]NO[/size]

OLAADEGBU:

Do you think that it is a wise decision?

Do you?

vedaxcool:

Do you?

Why don't you answer the question, or is it too difficult?

OLAADEGBU:

Why don't you answer the question, or is it too difficult?

It seems the question is proving a Gordian nut for you to untie, better I leave you with the Gordian Nut, since answering simple question Proves Impossible.

vedaxcool:

It seems the question is proving a Gordian nut for you to untie, better I leave you with the Gordian Nut, since answering simple question Proves Impossible.

What is good for the geese is also good for the gander. The answer to the question lies in the wisdom of Pastor Jones' decision to burn qur'ans on 911

manny4life:

Whether it's a church, mosque or temple, I stand with a


[size=32pt]NO[/size]

Obama has dug himself into a hole, he intervened by saying that Muslims have a constitutional right to build a mosque near ground zero but was silent on the wisdom of it. When Pastor Terry Jones threatened to burn copies of the qur'an he quickly voiced out the reasons why it would not be wise to do so. Why didn't he say that Terry Jones had the constitutional right to burn them?

OLAADEGBU:

Obama has dug himself into a hole, he intervened by saying that Muslims have a constitutional right to build a mosque near ground zero but was silent on the wisdom of it. When Pastor Terry Jones threatened to burn copies of the qur'an he quickly voiced out the reasons why it would not be wise to do so. Why didn't he say that Terry Jones had the constitutional right to burn them?

 
  Lol. The existential question of the day. I hope you get a decent attempt at an answer from someone here.

Obama should have not got involved in all of these. By actually getting involved, he catered to the weakness and sensitivity of Islamist fundamentalists. His judgement on this one is flawed in my opinion.

Also on a side note, while the nutter of a pastor has merely threatened to burn a Koran, the Islamist across the world have result to burning American flags, even though the damn Pastor is yet to light a match and most of America appeared to have condemn his planned actions. Who really is a nut case here?


Another thing that seem weird is how burning a koran is nothing but burning a paper and set of black ink. Surely, if you are offended by the fact that he use his own money to burn a piece of paper in his own back garden, then you should seriously check your own beliefs. For all I care, I love ikebe super, but any nutter can buy a million copies and burn it, but as long as it ain't my collection that is burnt, I have no problem with it.


SMH religion is a problem.

I don't know how some people here manage to equate building a recreational center with burning Korans (a book with significance to over a billion people on the planet).

False equivalence

omo~fat:

I don't know how some people here manage to equate building a recreational center with burning Korans (a book with significance to over a billion people on the planet).

False equivalence

Constitutional rights and the morality of both acts are what are in question here.

omo~fat:

I don't know how some people here manage to equate building a recreational center with burning Korans (a book with significance to over a billion people on the planet).

False equivalence

Not quite omo, think about it.

Firstly, the Imam Rauf has himself called it a mosque - not a recreational center.

Secondly, the comparison is absolutely legitimate for these reasons:

1 - both have constitutional rights to proceed with their actions, the problem is the 'sensitivity' or 'wisdom' of proceeding with the said action.

2 - Obama is basing his argument on "not hurting the sensitivities of others". That's all well and good. But he's demanding 'sensitivity' from the pastor in FL, but hasn't demanded the same 'sensitivity' from the ground zero mosque proponents - when it is apparent the harm its done/doing to the victims families. This is a double standard and hypocritical of the president and is just one of the many reasons he's falling out of favor with majority of americans.

when the whole koran burning story first broke, I criticized the pastor sotay, this is not christian and will accomplish nothing . . . but seeing the hypocritical, 2-step, dispproportional response - from muslims and the president, I hope the pastor goes ahead with his plan. I heard one guy call in on the radio saying he was going to barbeque some korans he bought yesterday. I wish him plenty of fire on his grill. Why should one group of people be held to a different standard from others?

I hear you on this "sensitivity"argument. But can I ask you for one second to think about motive.

I very much doubt that when the idea for this mosque (let's even call it that) was conceived, someone somewhere just sat down and thought "you know, what would be a good way to rile up these bloddy americans?, I know! let's build a centrer in new york! yippee!!

That's pastor Jones singular motive, to publicly desecrate and provoke moslems - we can have a discussion about why the moslems have a short fuse, fall for easy provocations and always blow things up later. At least with the "ground zero"mosque that is not quite at ground zero, if one looks hard enough, you can still see "some"good in it. There is absolutely zero good intent about what the pastor proposed to do. Zilch.

Now back to this sensitivity thing:
If a group of your neighbours just suddenly decide to be "sensitive" about you living in that neighborhood and have a problem with you throwing a birthday party for your 18year old son based on the utterly irrational fear that the hood would be swamped with colored folks who talk funny and one of your neighbors had just happened to be carjacked 2 weeks previously by one such colored folk, I doubt you would be catering to their sensitivities. You may very well decide to do so in the interest of peace but most people would want to stand up for themselves.

In situations such as these, the govt usually has a moral responsibility to stand up for the minority (there is the oft cited case of George Washington writing that famous letter to the Jews of rhode island). The moslems in NY didn't blow up the twin towers. There were no sensitivies until the situation was jumped upon by the right wing loonies.

I urge you to look at the two cases again. Surely, you can see a difference.

What harm is it doing to 9-11 victim's families? - I heard some family come out against it and I have heard some other family come out in support or atleast indifferent to it. The whole ground zero thing is just an artificial thing to stir up anti-islamic sentiment. The "mosque" isn't even at ground zero.

Can I ask a different question? - imagine this mosque was already built at that location before 9-11 happened, would people be calling for it's demolition now?, because of "sensitivities"??

This is not even a case of two groups been held to different standards. The cases are NOT the same. At all.

Now as to question of why a significant number of moslems get violent at the slightest provocation (or in some cases, non-provocation)? - the same reason some would fly aeroplanes into building. Simply defies logic and explanation.

OLAADEGBU:

Constitutional rights and the morality of both acts are what are in question here.

Both rights are guaranteed under the constitution.

What is immoral about building a mosque/recreational center?

What is moral about deliberately burning the religious symbol for over a billion people (a significant number of whom are easily drawn to violence) ?

omo~fat:

Both rights are guaranteed under the constitution.

What is immoral about building a mosque/recreational center?

What is moral about deliberately burning the religious symbol for over a billion people (a significant number of whom are easily drawn to violence) ?

What is immoral, insensitive and unwise about building the mosque and the burning of the qur'an is that they will both lead to volatile reactions from Americans and Muslims respectively.  If Obama is concerned about not offending the Muslims by pandering to their every request why can't he extend the same sentiments to his fellow Americans? especially those who lost their loved ones on 911 when the Muslim terrorists crying allahu akbar and celebrating worldwide at the news of the attack.  Obama has not even said a thing about rebuilding the church that was destroyed as a result of the WTC demolition, as far as he is concerned the case is closed.

One thing that Terry Jones's threat of burning qur'an achieved was that it exposed the myth that there is anything called peaceful or moderate Muslims.  It exposed the fact that the Imam had no good intentions for building that mosque other than to rub it in the faces of Americans.  He is even citing the violence happening in Afganistan as an excuse why he could not move the mosque which is two blocks away from the Ground zero.  The Florida pastor cancelled his qur'an burning stunt so that peace could reign but the Imam is insisting that the mosque must be built at ground zero for peace to reign, If we are to learn anything from this event at all we at least now know what makes Muslims worldwide show their true colours and the fact that the Obama led government are bent on appeasing their inflated ego for reasons best known to them.

^^^
1. The moslems building the mosque in new york did not attack the WTC.
2. The mosque isn't being built at ground zero.
3. They already have the green light from the relevant local authorities in NYC.
4. How far out do you want them to move it? - 4 blocks?, 5 blocks?, 20 blocks? where would be good enough for you?, flushing?, upstate ny?
5. Assuming there already was a mosque at this same, exact, present location pre-911, would you be calling for its demolition now? - and btw there already is a mosque in the area.
6. What do you want Obama to say about the demolished church? - Is there any opposition to rebuilding that? - What does that have to do with the discussion around the mosque beyond just a rabid demonstration of the Obama Derangement Syndrome?

The whole point of your ignorant post was to equate the Florida madman's book burning stunt to the building of a recreational center which, with all due respect, is quite frankly a retarded position to take.

I'm quite surprised you haven't mentioned that the Imam "threatened" America. I assume you are saving that line for future posts. Incase you didn't know and to save me refuting it in future. It is a big fat lie.

omo~fat:

^^^
1. The moslems building the mosque in new york did not attack the WTC.

Anyone knows that the Muslims who hijacked and attacked America all died with their victims hoping that their will get their 72 virgins and we saw pictures of Muslims around the world celebrating the success of the attack. If your claim is that American Muslims are moderate then the support of your 'moderate' imam of Hamas shows how Muslims support terrorists tacitly. Terry Jones has blown that myth out of the water as they have shown their true colours by insisting to build the mosque inspite of incitement to the terrorists' victims.

omo~fat:

2. The mosque isn't being built at ground zero.

What's the difference between half a dozen and six? Why do you think the victims of the terrorists are clamouring for it to be moved? Do you have to build it on top of ground zero for you to realise that it is insensitive, would you allow Christians to build a church or take a bible into Mecca? Why should you insist on building two blocks away from ground zero if not to ferment trouble?

omo~fat:

3. They already have the green light from the relevant local authorities in NYC.

No one is contesting their constitutional rights to do so Obama even had to jump in to emphasis that but what he did not do is to talk about the sensitivity or wisdom of doing so, he was however quick to talk of the insensitivity of burning the Qur'an and how this might hurt Americans.

omo~fat:

4. How far out do you want them to move it? - 4 blocks?, 5 blocks?, 20 blocks? where would be good enough for you?, flushing?, upstate ny?

New York has over 1,000 mosques built why is ground zero so important to you, do you want more blood?

omo~fat:

5. Assuming there already was a mosque at this same, exact, present location pre-911, would you be calling for its demolition now? - and btw there already is a mosque in the area.

The fact is that there was no mosque their in the first place, the church that was demolished as a result of your heroic terrorists' acts has not been mentioned neither has the government got any plans for it to be rebuilt all for their so called political correctness.

omo~fat:

6. What do you want Obama to say about the demolished church? - Is there any opposition to rebuilding that? - What does that have to do with the discussion around the mosque beyond just a rabid demonstration of the Obama Derangement Syndrome?

Did you read what the OP was all about in the first place before jumping to conclusions?

omo~fat:

The whole point of your ignorant post was to equate the Florida madman's book burning stunt to the building of a recreational center which, with all due respect, is quite frankly a retarded position to take.

If you read the OP you will realise who is taking a retarded position as the post was originally about the greek orthodox church that got demolished by your terrorist heroes and shows the government's hypocrisy by killing the deal to rebuild it.

omo~fat:

I'm quite surprised you haven't mentioned that the Imam "threatened" America. I assume you are saving that line for future posts. Incase you didn't know and to save me refuting it in future. It is a big fat lie.

The clip below shows the subtle threat by your so called imam if America refuses to allow them build the mosque.

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTdedJQWrsY?fs=1&hl=en_GB[/flash]

Questions to Ponder

1) Did Muslims die in the twin towers?

2) Did Muslims die on the ground?

3) Were their muslims in flights that were hijacked (apart from the hijackers)

4) Has there been an Islamic Center in the location

5) Where do people get the claim that the US was built on Christianity

6) What do the American Indians have to say about question 5

OLAADEGBU:

Anyone knows that the Muslims who hijacked and attacked America all died with their victims hoping that their will get their 72 virgins and we saw pictures of Muslims around the world celebrating the success of the attack. If your claim is that American Muslims are moderate then the support of your 'moderate' imam of Hamas shows how Muslims support terrorists tacitly. Terry Jones has blown that myth out of the water as they have shown their true colours by insisting to build the mosque inspite of incitement to the terrorists' victims.

If Terry Jones is your latest hero for Christianity then I will have to reserve my comments.

The imam did not support hamas. You really have to stop watching hannity.

What's the difference between half a dozen and six? Why do you think the victims of the terrorists are clamouring for it to be moved? Do you have to build it on top of ground zero for you to realise that it is insensitive, would you allow Christians to build a church or take a bible into Mecca? Why should you insist on building two blocks away from ground zero if not to ferment trouble?

You keep repeating this nonsense about the victims of the terrorists clamouring for it to be moved. For every genuine victim who has asked for it to be move, there are 3 who couldn't care less if it was there or not. For goodness sakes, Ted Olson, chief attorney for Bush in Bush v Gore, whose wife died in the attacks has come out forcely to throw the canard of an argument when it belongs. But you keep repeating it like it's some kind of doctrine.

No one is contesting their constitutional rights to do so Obama even had to jump in to emphasis that but what he did not do is to talk about the sensitivity or wisdom of doing so, he was however quick to talk of the insensitivity of burning the Qur'an and how this might hurt Americans.

You cannot keep equating burning the koran to building a community center. I'm sorry. You can't.

New York has over 1,000 mosques built why is ground zero so important to you, do you want more blood?

The fact is that there was no mosque their in the first place, the church that was demolished as a result of your heroic terrorists' acts has not been mentioned neither has the government got any plans for it to be rebuilt all for their so called political correctness.

The government isn't building the mosque
The government isn't building the mosque
The government isn't building the mosque
The government isn't building the mosque

repeat after me:

The government isn't building the mosque

STOP TELLING (REPEATING) LIES

Did you read what the OP was all about in the first place before jumping to conclusions?

If you read the OP you will realise who is taking a retarded position as the post was originally about the greek orthodox church that got demolished by your terrorist heroes and shows the government's hypocrisy by killing the deal to rebuild it.

Travelista has already called you out on this particular piece of your BS but I will repeat just in case you missed it the first time.

The church had a tentative agreement with city officials in 2008. They would get 60 million dollars in public money [/b]and move to a larger spot half a block away. [b]They (the church) rejected the offer.

The government is NOT building the mosque! - STOP LYING