A Mosque Maligned
By ROBERT WRIGHT

Robert Wright on culture, politics and world affairs.

Just to show you how naïve I am: When I first heard about the plan to build a mosque and community center two blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks, I didn’t envision any real opposition to it.

Sure, I can understand how some people traumatized by 9/11 — firefighters who survived it, or people whose loved ones didn’t — might not like the idea. But I’d have thought that opinion leaders of all ideological stripes could reach consensus by applying a basic rule of thumb: Just ask, “What would Osama bin Laden want?” and then do the opposite.

Bin Laden would love to be able to say that in America you can build a church or synagogue anywhere you want, but not a mosque. That fits perfectly with his recruiting pitch — that America has declared war on Islam. And bin Laden would thrill to the claim that a mosque near ground zero dishonors the victims of 9/11, because the unspoken premise is that the attacks really were, as he claims, a valid expression of Islam.

Apparently I was wrong. Two New York politicians — Representative Peter King and Rick Lazio, a candidate for governor — are ginning up opposition to the project, as is the Weekly Standard.

Their strategy is to ask dark questions about the motivations behind the project (known as Park51 because of its address on Park Place). Those motivations reside in an imam named Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of the Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement, the project’s co-sponsors. So far as I can tell, Rauf is a good person who genuinely wants to build a more peaceful world. (I met him briefly last year at a venue where we had both been asked to give talks about compassion — his from an Islamic perspective, mine from a secular perspective. Here’s the talk he gave.)

But if you think Rauf’s good intentions are going to keep him safe from the Weekly Standard, you underestimate that magazine’s creative powers. Its latest issue features an article about Park51 chock full of angles that never would have occurred to me if some magazine had asked me to write an assessment of the project’s ideological underpinnings. For example: Rauf’s wife, who often speaks in support of the project and during one talk reflected proudly on her Islamic heritage, “failed to mention another feature of her background: She is the niece of Dr. Farooq Khan, formerly a leader of the Westbury Mosque on Long Island, which is a center for Islamic radicals and links on its Web site to the paramilitary Islamic Circle of North America (I.C.N.A.), the front on American soil for the Pakistani jihadist Jamaat e-Islami.”

Got that? Rauf’s wife has an uncle who used to be “a leader” of a mosque that now has a Web site that links to the Web site of an allegedly radical organization. (I’ll get back to the claim that the Westbury Mosque is itself a “center for Islamic radicals.”)

The odd thing is that the author of this piece, Stephen Schwartz, is a self-described neoconservative whose parents were, by his own account, communists. You’d think he might harbor doubts about how confidently we can infer people’s ideologies from the ideologies of their older relatives. You’d also think he might disdain McCarthyite guilt-by-association tactics.

You’d be wrong. Schwartz’s piece goes on and on, weaving webs of association so engrossing that you have to keep reminding yourself that they have nothing to do with Rauf. At one point Schwartz spends several paragraphs damning someone whose connection to Park51 seems to consist of having spoken favorably about it.

If we are going to stigmatize everyone who in any sense supports Hamas, we are going to be tarring with a pretty broad brush.
As for the views of Rauf himself: In Schwartz’s universe, Rauf’s expressions of opposition to terrorism are themselves grounds for suspicion. Rauf, says Schwartz, has “cloaked the Cordoba effort in the rhetoric of reconciliation, describing himself and his colleagues as ‘the anti-terrorists.’”

Rauf has been the imam at a Manhattan mosque for a quarter of a century, so you’d think that, if he actually had radical views, there would be some evidence of that by now. Just to give you some idea of what solid evidence of radicalism looks like: Representative King, who shares the Weekly Standard’s grave suspicions about Rauf, supported the Irish Republican Army back when it was killing lots of innocent civilians. He raised money for the I.R.A. and said it was “the legitimate voice of occupied Ireland” and praised the “brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry” and in various other ways backed this terrorist group. If Rauf’s past looked like King’s past, there would indeed be cause for concern.

A big question when reading any Weekly Standard piece about nefarious Muslims is: What is the operative definition of “radical”? This question is worth spending some time on, because if the Standard is defining the term loosely, then the six-degrees-of-separation chains it uses to link people to radicalism are even less relevant than they seem.

Apparently one Weekly Standard criterion for radicalism is support for Hamas. Thus, Schwartz notes that the real estate developer for the project has a business partner who has an uncle (you still with us?) who dramatically affirmed his support for Hamas after the recent blockade-running flotilla incident.

Now, there are a lot of Arabs and Muslims, including Americans, who don’t consider Hamas evil incarnate. You might divide Hamas “supporters” into two camps:

“Hard” supporters say that Palestinians were wrongly dispossessed of their land six decades ago and that brutal tactics are therefore warranted. So what I call a terrorist they consider a freedom fighter.

“Soft” supporters may not approve of all Hamas tactics, but they note the following: In 2006, Hamas, with American and Israeli approval, participated in a Palestinian election and won — and, right after this victory, there were signs that Hamas might be willing to abandon terrorism, at least provisionally. But Israel and the United States decided that, while it was fine for Hamas to participate in elections, winning was unacceptable, and Hamas wouldn’t be allowed to govern. So Hamas seized control of Gaza, and Israel then subjected the people of Gaza to a crippling economic blockade (which, even after the post-flotilla “loosening,” doesn’t let Gaza export anything to speak of). Forced to choose between Israel and Hamas in this standoff, these “soft” supporters side with Hamas.

I can see how Israelis would have a different view of Hamas, which not so long ago pursued a concerted strategy of killing Israeli civilians, and could revive that strategy any day and still hasn’t accepted Israel’s right to exist. It’s understandable that Israelis hate Hamas, and Americans, including the people at the Weekly Standard, have every right to share this hatred.

Still, the point is that, whether the Weekly Standard likes it or not, there are a number of Arabs and Muslims, including Americans, who in one sense or another support Hamas and who aren’t dangerously radical from an American perspective; they didn’t support the 9/11 attacks or the Fort Hood shooting or the would-be underwear bombing. So if we are going to stigmatize everyone who in any sense supports Hamas — or even associates with someone whose uncle supports Hamas — we are going to be tarring with a pretty broad brush, excluding from a crucial American dialogue too many people for the dialogue to be productive. (Thomas Friedman recently made a similar argument in criticizing CNN’s reflexive firing of an editor who tweeted something favorable about a leader of Hezbollah after he died.)

So when Schwartz asserts that a Long Island mosque is a “center for Islamic radicals,” I personally have to suspend judgment until I hear from someone who has researched the matter and has a more useful definition of radicalism than Schwartz does. Meanwhile, I’ll just remind myself that this mosque has nothing to do with Rauf anyway.

One thing Peter King and Rick Lazio demand is that Rauf unequivocally denounce Hamas. In other words, they want him to go beyond just not being a professed supporter of Hamas and, in effect, criticize everyone who supports Hamas in even the “soft” sense.

No doubt Osama bin Laden, if apprised of the situation, would hope that Rauf will cave in to these demands and ritually denounce Hamas. Because the Muslims who are most vulnerable to bin Laden’s recruiting pitch are, it’s safe to say, at least somewhat sympathetic to Hamas. And if moderate Muslims like Rauf can be pressured into adopting Israel’s position, and thus be depicted by truly radical Muslims as Zionist tools, that will make them less effective in their tug of war with bin Laden for the hearts and minds of the vulnerable.

Pathetically, Rick Lazio seems to have made his demand for an “investigation” into Park51 the centerpiece-du-jour of his gubernatorial campaign. Happily, Mayor Bloomberg has shown true moral leadership and opposed Lazio’s demands in clear language. “Government should never — never — be in the business of telling people how they should pray, or where they can pray,” Bloomberg said last week. “We want to make sure that everybody from around the world feels comfortable coming here, living here and praying the way they want to pray.” Amen.

Robert Wright
Robert Wright, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, writes here every Wednesday about culture, politics and world affairs. He is editor-in-chief of Bloggingheads.tv and The Progressive Realist. He is the author of The Moral Animal, Nonzero, and, most recently, The New York Times best-seller The Evolution of God. He has written for The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Time, Slate, and many other magazines and has taught philosophy at Princeton and religion at the University of Pennsylvania.....He is not a religious fanatic or a homophobe and does not fit the loudmouth Elmer Gantry type

Islam Experts: Ground Zero 'Mega Mosque' Is Political Statement
By Michelle A. Vu|Christian Post Reporter

Several experts on Islam, including the Son of Hamas author, are opposed to the idea of building a “mega mosque” near Ground Zero because they say the motivation is political not reconciliation.



“No. Because it will make a powerful political and religious statement.”

Yousef, like several other Christian scholars with expertise on Islamic strategies, warns that despite appealing reasons given for the mosque – such as improving interfaith relations and promoting tolerance – it will stand as a “bold affirmation” of the same Quran cited by the Muslim extremists who brought down the World Trade Center and killed thousands of American civilians in 2001.

“If Cordoba and other Muslim organizations in America would like to ‘do a huge amount of good,’ let them build a hospital instead of a mosque,” proposed Yousef, whose father is one of the founding leaders of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. “Build something that will help the families of the 9/11 victims. Do something productive for humanity in general, instead of challenging liberty and confusing people about the realities of Islam.”

Yousef, who has become a follower of Jesus Christ, is an outspoken critic of Islam after witnessing first-hand how it inspired Muslims in the Middle East to use violence against their enemies. In his book Son of Hamas, Yousef details his life in the West Bank living under the ideology of terrorism and how he was shocked to learn about the teachings of Jesus to forgive and love one’s enemy.

The “Son of Hamas” author describes Westerners as going to almost any length to “avoid offending Islam,” while the Muslim community “appears to think nothing of pouring acid in America’s open wounds.”

Over the past few months, a heated, emotionally-charged debate has been occurring over whether to allow the construction of a 13-story Muslim community center two blocks from the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The Cordoba Initiative, which is behind the proposal for the $100 million Cordoba House, says the center will include a 500-seat auditorium, a swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, as well as bookstores and restaurants.

Opponents of the project say it is insensitive and offensive to the 2,976 victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and their family members.

“We feel that it is a cemetery and sacred ground and the dead should be honored,” said Pamela Geller, a conservative blogger and leader of a group called Stop the Islamicization of America, on CNN’S “America Morning” last week. “To build a 13-story mega mosque on the cemetery, on the largest site in American history, I think, is incredibly insensitive.”

New York’s Landmarks Preservation Commission is in the process of deciding whether to grant the current building on the site landmark status. If it is given landmark status, the Cordoba Initiative cannot raze the current building and replace it with its mosque. They could, however, build on top of the current building if they receive permission to add floors.
The Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement own the property at 45-47 Park Place after paying $4.85 million cash to Soho Properties, a Muslim-run real estate company, last year. They have been using the building for prayer meetings.

“One of the primary means of Da’wah, or Islamic mission, has to do with the planting of Islamic cultural centers and ultimately the placement of a mosque in strategic locations,” said a theologian, who has spent 40 years studying the Islamic world, to The Christian Post on Friday. He requested to remain anonymous.

The Islam expert, who has lived in Morocco and North Africa, said the world’s attention is and will probably always be on the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

“That is a historical marker in American history that is equivalent to the death of John F. Kennedy,” he said. “There are historical markers like that that never escape the memories of people.”

“So this particular location, or the closest they can get to it, is the attempt to establish a historical marker for the visible progress of Islam worldwide, because it was with that event that they established themselves in the eyes of the world as legitimate victims of the West.”

Muslims, the expert said, are using the victim strategy, showing that they have been mistreated by the West, to advance their agenda.

The New York commission is expected to vote in August on the landmark status of the 45-47 Park Place building.

OK ... let's do a little historical review. Just some lowlights:

-Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No
Muslim outrage.
-Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a
burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
-Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school
in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
-Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No
Muslim outrage.
-Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels
in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
-A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No
Muslim outrage.
-Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia.
Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
-Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich
Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
-Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in
Israel. No Muslim outrage.
-Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways
and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
-Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim
outrage.
-Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.
-Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage
-Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of
the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
-Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes,
then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
-Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting
Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.

Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and nurses. Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.

Let’s Judge Islam by its Law, Shariah Law.

Here are some examples of how Shariah is practiced.

• Requires women to obtain permission from husbands for daily
freedoms;
• Permits beating of disobedient woman and girls;
• Permits execution of homosexuals;
• Permits engagement of polygamy and forced child marriages;
• Requires of the testimony of four male witnesses to prove
rape;
• Requires the stoning of adulteresses;
• Requires the lashing of adulterers;
• Requires the amputation of body parts for certain criminal
offenses;
• Requires capital punishment for those who slander or insult
Islam;
• Requires execution of apostates, those that leave the
religion of Islam
• Sets an inferior status for all non-Muslims, known as
Dhimmitude.
• Taquiyya: A Muslim may lie or deceive to advance the cause
of Islam.

Pro-mosque Mike KOs compromise
Calls to 'put our faith in freedom'
By SALLY GOLDENBERG and CARL CAMPANILE


A defiant Mayor Bloomberg, saying there should be no compromise, insisted last night that a mosque be built near Ground Zero, declaring, "We must do what is right, not what is easy.
"And we must put our faith in the freedoms that have sustained our great country for more than 200 years," he told Muslim-American guests invited to Gracie Mansion for dinner to mark the breaking of their fast during the Islamic holiday of Ramadan.
Bloomberg said there is no middle ground when it comes to religious liberty, calling the plan to erect the mosque a litmus test for upholding "American values."
[IMG]http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2010/08/25/news/photos_stories/cropped/mayor_bloomberg--300x150.jpg[/IMG]
IN GOOD FAITH: Mayor Bloomberg receives a standing ovation after addressing Muslim-American guests at Gracie Mansion last night.

But the mayor -- who previously had said opponents of the project should be "ashamed of themselves" -- dramatically toned down his rhetoric toward critics.
He noted there are "people of good will on both sides" of the debate, and said the pain of those who lost loved ones on 9/11 is "too terrible to contemplate."
Speaking just hours after Gov. Paterson and Archbishop Timothy Dolan met to discuss finding a solution to the controversy, Bloomberg said he understood the "impulse" of many to find a compromise to put the mosque farther away from Ground Zero.
But that wouldn't end the debate, the mayor insisted.
"The question will then become, how big should the 'no-mosque zone' around the World Trade Center be? There is already a mosque four blocks away. Should it, too, be moved?" Bloomberg asked.
"There are people of every faith -- including, perhaps, some in this room -- who are hoping that a compromise will end the debate," he said. "But it won't."
With two key organizers of the mosque in the audience -- Daisy Khan, wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, and developer Sharif el-Gamal, of Soho Properties -- Bloomberg said moving ahead with the project would exercise the freedoms envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
"If we say that a mosque and community center should not be built near the perimeter of the World Trade Center site . . . we would undercut the values and principles that so many heroes died protecting," he said.
"We would send a signal around the world that Muslim-Americans may be equal in the eyes of the law, but separate in the eyes of their countrymen."
He added, "And we would hand a valuable propaganda tool to terrorist recruiters who spread the fallacy that America is at war with Islam." Bloomberg noted that innocent Muslims, too, were killed on 9/11 and recognized one of the guests, Talat Hamdani, whose paramedic-son, Salman, was killed at the World Trade Center.
Bloomberg said guests who may be "disturbed and dispirited" by the noisy controversy should remember how Catholics and Jews also had to overcome prejudice as newcomers to the United States.
He mentioned President John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, overcoming concerns that he would impose papal rule on the nation.
The mayor also praised Rauf -- acknowledging that the imam has made some controversial statements in the past, but recalling that Rauf spoke at the interfaith memorial service for Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, a Jew murdered by terrorists in Pakistan in 2002.
Rauf expressed solidarity with Pearl by declaring that he, too, was a Jew.
"In that spirit," Bloomberg said, "let me declare that we in New York are Jews and Christians and Muslims, and we always have been. And above all of that, we are Americans, each with an equal right to worship and pray where we choose.
"There is nowhere in the five boroughs that is off limits to any religion."
The mayor received a standing ovation from the crowd of nearly 100. Among those attending was Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.
Calling Bloomberg's talk "extremely important," Khan said afterward, "He delivered a passionate speech . . . in defense of our deep American values."
Gamal gushed, "[Bloomberg] touches my heart every time that I get to hear [him speak] on our rights as Americans and his brave and unwavering statements."
But the Muslim developer refused comment when asked if he would meet with families of 9/11 victims.
Sheikh Moussa Drammeh, of the Islamic Cultural Center of North America in The Bronx, said he and other guests "went crazy" over Bloomberg's speech.
"He's someone . . . who deserves to be president," Drammeh said.
Half a dozen demonstrators across the street protested the mosque's proposed location.
"We think this is sacred ground," protester Marion Dreyfus said. "They could choose someplace less provocative."
Meanwhile, the White House said yesterday that President Obama won't discuss the mosque issue anymore.
Archbishop Dolan, after meeting with Paterson, told reporters that he was concerned the debate had become too angry and polarizing.
Additional reporting by David Seifman and Jennifer Fermino


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/pro_mosque_mike_kos_compromise_SzQcRzaYlcIFVwJAfguV7K#ixzz0xcdP8PMy

Imam Rauf and Moderate Islam
To some extent, the controversy surrounding the Cordoba Initiative’s Lower Manhattan venture is really a controversy about how non-Muslim Westerners should relate to the would-be spokesmen for a moderate (or “moderate,” depending on your point of view) Islam. One school of thought, prominent among conservatives but associated with liberal thinkers like Paul Berman as well, holds that anything short of an absolute commitment to Enlightenment values is unacceptable from such figures, and that moderate Muslims must demonstrate this commitment, and prove their secular bona fides, by making a frontal assault on Islamic culture as it currently exists. To this school, explicitly-liberal figures like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Irshad Manji represent the beau ideal of moderate Islam, because they’re forthright in their critiques of Muslim societies’ failings, and unstinting in their insistence that the Western way of faith and politics is ultimately superior. A high-profile bridge-builder like the ubiquitous Tariq Ramadan, on the other hand, is much more suspect, and possibly beyond the pale — because he tends to use different language and strike different notes depending on his audience, because he often seems to be making excuses for illiberalism in the Islamic world, because he’s less-than-forthright in his condemnations of certain kinds of extremism, and so on down the line. To his critics, such bobbing and weaving is proof enough that his “moderate Islam” project is really just a flowery fraud and a Trojan Horse for Wahhabism, with no redeeming value whatsoever. And this critique is easily extended to many other self-described moderates as well — including, lately, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who arguably has a stronger claim to moderation than Ramadan, but who seems to share some of his more evasive qualities when the conversation turns to, say, Hamas or the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This school of thought strikes me as misguided. Manji and Hirsi Ali are brave and admirable, but what they’re offering (Hirsi Ali especially) is ultimately a straightforward critique of Muslim traditions and belief, not a bridge between Islam and the liberal West that devout Muslims can cross with their religious faith intact. If such bridges are going to be built, much of the work will necessarily be done by figures who sometimes seem ambiguous and even two-faced, who have illiberal conversation partners and influences, and whose ideas are tailored to audiences in Cairo or Beirut or Baghdad as well as audiences in Europe and America. That’s how change — religious, ideological, whatever — nearly always works. I hold no particular brief for Tariq Ramadan, and his critics have provided ample evidence of his slipperiness over the years. But we have to be able to draw intellectual distinctions on these matters, and if we just lump a figure like Ramadan — or any Muslim leader who has one foot solidly in the Western mainstream but a few toes in more dangerous waters — into the same camp as Islam’s theocrats and jihadists, then we’re placing an impossible burden on Muslim believers, and setting ourselves up for an unwinnable conflict with more or less the entirety of the Muslim world. The Andy McCarthy conceit, which holds that anyone (like Ramadan, and like Rauf) who cites or engages with illiberal interpreters of Islam automatically forfeits the title “moderate,” seems out of touch with the complexities of religious history; moreover, it’s a little like insisting circa 1864 that Pope Pius IX’s critique of religious liberty and church-state separation requires American Catholics to immediately sever all ties to the pope. It’s both dubious in theory and self-defeating in practice.

But making these kind of distinctions doesn’t require us to suspend all judgment where would-be Islamic moderates are concerned. Instead, dialogue needs to coexist with pressure: Figures like Ramadan and now Rauf should be held to a high standard by their non-Muslim interlocutors, and their forays into more dubious territory should be greeted with swift pushback, rather than simply being accepted as a necessary part of the moderate Muslim package. (This is particularly true because Westerners have a long record of seeing what they want to see in self-proclaimed Islamic reformers, from the Ayatollah Khomeini down to Anwar Al Awlaki, and failing to recognize extremism when it’s staring them in the face.) And what’s troubling about some of the liberal reaction to the Cordoba Initiative controversy is that it seems to regard this kind of pressure as illegitimate and dangerous in and of itself — as though the First Amendment protects the right of Rauf and Co. to build their mosque and cultural center, but not the right of critics to scrutinize Rauf’s moderate bona fides, parse some of his more disturbing comments, and raise doubts about the benefits (to American Islam as well as to America) of having him set up shop as an arbiter of Muslim-Western dialogue in what used to be the shadow of the World Trade Center.

So Jonathan Chait, in a representative post, suggests that what’s at stake in the Cordoba debate is whether American Muslims “should be presumed to be terrorists unless proven otherwise … or whether they should be afforded the same general presumption of innocence enjoyed by other religions.” But surely these two options don’t exhaust the ways that non-Muslim Westerners can react to a figure like Rauf, and a project like the Cordoba mosque. Surely respecting Muslim Americans doesn’t require pretending that all religious cultures are identical, or that the intellectual climate in contemporary Islam is no different from the intellectual climate in Judaism or Christianity, or that the West doesn’t have a particular reason to worry about what’s said and done by high-profile clerics in high-profile mosques. Surely in an age of Islamist terror, there’s a particular kind of scrutiny that’s appropriate to religious entrepreneurs who insist that they can represent the Islamic world to the West, and the West to the Islamic world. And surely, when it comes to a seemingly complicated and now extremely high-profile figure like Feisal Abdul Rauf, we can trust but also verify.

GREAT IDEA!!!!!!!!



If it is true that the mosque near Ground Zero is to promote tolerance;

It was suggested that a gay nightclub be opened next door to the mosque.

Two names suggested are;
"The Turban Cowboy", and "You Mecca Me Hot".

On the other side they should open a butcher shop that specializes in pork!
And across the street a store that sells and displays bikinis or ladies lingerie on manikins...or live models.



Tolerance must go both ways.

What to do if seated next to a jerk on an airplane...

1. Take out your laptop.

2. Slowly open your laptop.

3. Turn it on.

4. Make certain your neighbor is watching.

5. Open your Internet browser.

6. Close your eyes for a few moments, open them, and then look up to the sky, or the heavens, if you will.

7. Breathe deeply and open the following site: http://www.myit-media.de/the_end.html

8. Look at the expression on your neighbor's face.