DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: El JoNNo on May 14, 2010, 12:19:30 PM
-
https://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/07/mosque-to-go-up-near-new-yorks-ground-zero/
New York (CNN) -- Plans to build a mosque two blocks away from ground zero have set off an emotional debate among area residents and relatives of victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.
Cordoba House project calls for a 15-story community center including a mosque, performance art center, gym, swimming pool and other public spaces.
The project is a collaboration between the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative, both of which work to improve relations with followers of the religion.
The two groups presented their vision to part of the Community Board of lower Manhattan on Wednesday night.
Ro Sheffe, a board member who attended the meeting, said the project did not need to get the board's approval.
"They own the land, and their plans don't have any zoning changes," Sheffe said. "They came to us for our opinions and to let us know their plans. It was purely voluntary on their part."
The 12 members who were at the meeting voted unanimously to support the project. Community board members are appointed by the borough president and serve as advisers to the borough president and the mayor's office.
Daisy Khan, executive director of the Muslim society, described her vision of a center led by Muslims, but serving the community as a whole.
"It will have a real community feel, to celebrate the pluralism in the United States, as well as in the Islamic religion," Khan said. "It will also serve as a major platform for amplifying the silent voice of the majority of Muslims who have nothing to do with extremist ideologies. It will counter the extremist momentum."
The need for the center is twofold, Khan said, because it will support the needs of the growing Muslim community.
"The time for a center like this has come because Islam is an American religion," Khan said. "We need to take the 9/11 tragedy and turn it into something very positive."
Sheffe said a community center for lower Manhattan residents is "desperately needed." The area was mostly commercial, Sheffe said, but as more people move downtown, the lack of residential amenities is a problem.
The project got mixed reviews from families and friends of September 11 victims.
"I think it's the right thing to do," said Marvin Bethea, who was a paramedic at ground zero. "I lost 16 friends down there. But Muslims also got killed on 9/11. It would be a good sign of faith that we're not condemning all Muslims and that the Muslims who did this happened to be extremists. As a black man, I know what it's like to be discriminated against when you haven't done anything."
Herbert Ouida, whose son was killed in the attacks, supports the project as a way to bridge cultural divide.
"I understand the anger, the bitterness and hatred, but it only generates more hatred," Ouida said. "Such a large part of the world has this faith, and to say anyone who has this faith is a terrorist, it's terrible."
Others decried the idea of building a mosque so close to where their relatives died.
"Lower Manhattan should be made into a shrine for the people who died there," said Michael Valentin, a retired city detective who worked at ground zero. "It breaks my heart for the families who have to put up with this. I understand they're [building] it in a respectful way, but it just shouldn't be down there."
Others such as Barry Zelman said the site's location will be a painful reminder.
"[The 9/11 terrorists] did this in the name of Islam," Zelman said. "It's a sacred ground where these people died, where my brother was murdered, and to be in the shadows of that religion, it's just hypocritical and sacrilegious. "
However, Khan emphasized that the attacks killed Muslims, too.
"Three hundred of the victims were Muslim, that's 10 percent of the victims," she said. "We are Americans too. The 9/11 tragedy hurt everybody including the Muslim community. We are all in this together and together we have to fight against extremism and terrorism."
Cordoba House is still in its early stages of development. The American Society for Muslim Advancement is hoping to raise funds for the center to be completed in three to five years.
I can't see this going over well, I'm obviously against it. My question is are any of you against or for it? Why?
-
Who cares? It's their land to do what they want with.
-
Who cares? It's their land to do what they want with.
Thank you for your contribution, you have been most helpful. :neverusethis:
-
I have no issues with it. Who cares if it enrages the american public? Freedom, right? What better way to show it.
-
I'd say I'm not against it. If the purpose is to try and promote understanding and cooperation then the plan seems like a clear statement against what happened. That victims might feel jilted is understandable, but it is an emotional response that lays blame on too broad a group.
A project like this has a high upside if it is done right, and the article does make it sound like that's what they're going for. If that's true and they have evidence they won't let it fail in short order, becoming a segregated place, then why stop someone trying to build something positive for the whole community?
-
In principle I don't have any problems with this. Private property laws are supposed to mean something in this country.
-
I'd say I'm not against it. If the purpose is to try and promote understanding and cooperation then the plan seems like a clear statement against what happened. That victims might feel jilted is understandable, but it is an emotional response that lays blame on too broad a group.
A project like this has a high upside if it is done right, and the article does make it sound like that's what they're going for. If that's true and they have evidence they won't let it fail in short order, becoming a segregated place, then why stop someone trying to build something positive for the whole community?
:tup
-
I have no issues with it. Who cares if it enrages the american public? Freedom, right? What better way to show it.
In principle I don't have any problems with this. Private property laws are supposed to mean something in this country.
Who cares? It's their land to do what they want with.
All of these. Besides, it wasn't Islam that killed all those people on 9/11, it was maniacal mass murderers.
-
Who cares? It's their land to do what they want with.
Thank you for your contribution, you have been most helpful. :neverusethis:
Well what else is there to say about it? Sorry, but I don't consider someone being uncomfortable with it to be a legitimate complaint.
-
I'm for it, and my reason is that I see no reason not to be for it.
-
I can't see why this would be an issue to any vaguely reasonable person.
-
I don't see a problem with it. Muslim's need places to worship just like any other religion. Let's not forget that some of the victims on that tragic day were also Muslim.
-
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. People should have the freedom to worship any way they choose, as long as nobody's getting hurt. As others have stated, it wasn't Islam that flew planes into the WTC, it was extremists.
I'm obviously against it.
Are you against religious freedom?
-
I don't see a problem with it. Muslim's need places to worship just like any other religion. Let's not forget that some of the victims on that tragic day were also Muslim.
10% is more than some. It really annoys me when I see memorials for 9/11 that put out one US flag for every person that died. It seems so careless for someone trying to say remember those that died and ends up looking like nationalistic blabber.
-
I'm obviously against it.
Are you against religious freedom?
Actually he might be.
-
I can see how people can be offended by it, but there's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do this.
-
I don't see a problem with it. Muslim's need places to worship just like any other religion. Let's not forget that some of the victims on that tragic day were also Muslim.
10% is more than some. It really annoys me when I see memorials for 9/11 that put out one US flag for every person that died. It seems so careless for someone trying to say remember those that died and ends up looking like nationalistic blabber.
Yeah, they should post flags of every nationality that was represented there. After all, it was called The World Trade Center, not the United States of America trade center.
-
I'm obviously against it.
Are you against religious freedom?
He's against religious anything.
-
I'm obviously against it.
Are you against religious freedom?
He's against religious anything.
I bet he's not against religious criminalization. :laugh:
-
I'm obviously against it.
Are you against religious freedom?
He's against religious anything.
I bet he's not against religious criminalization. :laugh:
You got me.
-
Let em build
-
I can see how people can be offended by it, but there's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do this.
-
FYI: The comments, not surprisingly, are very entertaining at the actual page. I've learned some very useful facts in only the first few posts that show up:
The thought of building a mosque adjacent to ground zero has got to be the most INSENSITIVE, SLAP IN THE FACE to America and it's citizens. For you Muslims who come to our country to enjoy freedom that our forefathers died for, you should try to understand and respect this country and it's people. You are taunting us with your ways, and inviting trouble. Being so disrespectful as to plant a Mosque at ground zero will only cause more hatred. You may have some support in areas such as NY where there are thousands of Muslims, good people, I'm sure. But what happened at ground zero was an attack on the USA as a whole. We will not tolerate it! Build your Mosque elsewhere, preferably outside of the USA. If you don't want to live as Americans go back where you came from!
Muslims can build mosques wherever they want in the USA only when Christians can take in bibles and build churches wherever they want in your muslim country !
US = Christendom, oh boy!
That ground is hallowed ground, made sacred by the blood of Americans murdered because of religion. To build a house of worship to give praise to the being in whose name those people were killed is to desecrate American holy ground. This abomination should be stopped.
This is the muslim blame game, try to act stand-offish and then claim victims when they insight it themselves. They are the biggest double standards ever. I am in full support of building a mosque for them to worship, but to be bold enough to build this right where thousands of people died, at the hand of extremists. It's a sensative subject for all Americans, not just New Yorkers.
Most muslims are nice, and open minded and friendly. However the majority still have this backward year 700ad mentality. Get with the times, and be respectful. Christianity is the backbone religion of the American society, the only difference is that Americans do not persecute for others to celebrate their religions. It is set by the majority, and the majority of Americans are christian
-
That ground is hallowed ground, made sacred by the blood of Americans.
That's what happens when you read all Dan Brown books.
rumborak
-
:facepalm: @ those quotes.
Muslims can build mosques wherever they want in the USA only when Christians can take in bibles and build churches wherever they want in your muslim country!
Really? :lol
-
Wow, those comments are really depressing.
-
I'm obviously against it.
Are you against religious freedom?
He's against religious anything.
Being against religious freedom would be stupid, being against freedom is stupid. I'm against religion the concept and the affect on people. That is why i am against the building of the mosque not because of the location or the type of religion but because it is religion. Kind of figured my stance was well known.
-
From a Muslim stand point I find it unnecessary to provoke emotions of simple minded people who don't know the difference between the psychotic mass murdering extremists and our religion, this reminds me of the South Park thing even though I don't think the current situation is intentional, just inconsiderate, but basically it's an uncalled for poke at something that's healing slowly.
So I'm against it and I don't think it has anything to do with freedom, we can't freedom this and freedom that at every turn, there has to be considerations imo.
-
I'm obviously against it.
Are you against religious freedom?
He's against religious anything.
Being against religious freedom would be stupid, being against freedom is stupid. I'm against religion the concept and the affect on people. That is why i am against the building of the mosque not because of the location or the type of religion but because it is religion. Kind of figured my stance was well known.
So if a mosque was being built in Antarctica, you'd be against it.
-
Kind of figured my stance was well known.
Yeah, it is.
-
I'm obviously against it.
Are you against religious freedom?
He's against religious anything.
Being against religious freedom would be stupid, being against freedom is stupid. I'm against religion the concept and the affect on people. That is why i am against the building of the mosque not because of the location or the type of religion but because it is religion. Kind of figured my stance was well known.
That doesn't make sense. How can you be for religious freedom, but be against the building of a house of worship on private property? Just because you have a soured view toward religion doesn't mean other people shouldn't be allowed to practice in peace.
Actually, I really like the concept of this project in general... it would be nice if we could encourage more understanding between the Muslim and western world.
-
I see no problems with this. If it were any other religion nobody would care....
-
Am I the only one to see the dude say "Most muslim are nice..." and then follow up by saying, "but the majority..."
This is stupid. I am pretty much against religion but I understand the people that want to follow it. If Americans think this is a slap in the face...oh boy. I mean, honestly. I seem to be around mostly smart individuals every day. Is the average American this ignorant? This is mind blowingly stupid.
-
Religon not bad, someone's color of their skin is not bad, it is people who can be bad. I have no problem with it. A group of people should not feel oppressed by actions of a few.
-
Am I the only one to see the dude say "Most muslim are nice..." and then follow up by saying, "but the majority..."
This is stupid. I am pretty much against religion but I understand the people that want to follow it. If Americans think this is a slap in the face...oh boy. I mean, honestly. I seem to be around mostly smart individuals every day. Is the average American this ignorant? This is mind blowingly stupid.
I did bold what you quoted, so I doubt it was missed, just not pointed out by others.
Two things with ignorant Americans. First, comment sections are a true calling for vocal, opinionated people. Second, don't underestimate any country's population of having a communal ignorance guided by media, politics, and other outlets. Money yields a lot of power and influence, even for those with opinions that might not be otherwise popular.
-
I somehow also have the suspicion that the people who get all riled up are somewhere sitting in some tiny hamlet hundreds of miles away from Ground Zero. There's nothing better than getting riled up about something that will in no way whatsoever affect you. (gay marriage, anyone?)
rumborak
-
That doesn't make sense. How can you be for religious freedom, but be against the building of a house of worship on private property? Just because you have a soured view toward religion doesn't mean other people shouldn't be allowed to practice in peace.
I’m for religious freedom but against religion. Not really sure how that doesn’t make sense. I’m also against the uneducated, that doesn’t mean I want make post-secondary mandatory or that I hate the people who are uneducated. That would be stupid.
Actually, I really like the concept of this project in general... it would be nice if we could encourage more understanding between the Muslim and western world.
Don’t like the project but I do agree more understanding is needed.
-
That doesn't make sense. How can you be for religious freedom, but be against the building of a house of worship on private property? Just because you have a soured view toward religion doesn't mean other people shouldn't be allowed to practice in peace.
I’m for religious freedom but against religion. Not really sure how that doesn’t make sense. I’m also against the uneducated, that doesn’t mean I want make post-secondary mandatory or that I hate the people who are uneducated. That would be stupid.
That still doesn't make sense to me at all. How can you be for religious freedom but be against the building of houses of worship on private property? Let me allow you to clarify: If you had your choice, would this project be illegal?
-
That doesn't make sense. How can you be for religious freedom, but be against the building of a house of worship on private property? Just because you have a soured view toward religion doesn't mean other people shouldn't be allowed to practice in peace.
I’m for religious freedom but against religion. Not really sure how that doesn’t make sense. I’m also against the uneducated, that doesn’t mean I want make post-secondary mandatory or that I hate the people who are uneducated. That would be stupid.
That still doesn't make sense to me at all. How can you be for religious freedom but be against the building of houses of worship on private property? Let me allow you to clarify: If you had your choice, would this project be illegal?
No.
-
Ground Zero Muslim Center may get public financing (https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67Q5BW20100828?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher)
Oh boy, this oughta be great! I love it.
I'd also like to call attention to Metty's post, which seemed to have been overlooked, but is remarkably sensible. From a Muslim stand point I find it unnecessary to provoke emotions of simple minded people who don't know the difference between the psychotic mass murdering extremists and our religion, this reminds me of the South Park thing even though I don't think the current situation is intentional, just inconsiderate, but basically it's an uncalled for poke at something that's healing slowly.
So I'm against it and I don't think it has anything to do with freedom, we can't freedom this and freedom that at every turn, there has to be considerations imo.
If I were affiliated with Islam, this is probably exactly what I'd think, as well.
However, I'm not and I absolutely relish the thought of antagonizing the dipshits who don't know the difference. Fuck 'em. Plus, it actually creates a damned interesting competition. We're actually going to get to watch a footrace to see who get's to blow up the other religions shrine first. I initially thought that anybody who officed in the "freedom tower" was suicidal. But at this point, I'd give pretty good odds that the Christians blow up the mosque first. What a world!
-
Thanks Obama! :tdwn
-
What the hell does Obama have to do with it? His only involvement whatsoever was an absolutely textbook display of political non-speak.
-
What the hell does Obama have to do with it? His only involvement whatsoever was an absolutely textbook display of political non-speak.
That's because Obama is a dirty muslim.
-
Thanks Obama! :tdwn
lol I love when people randomly blame politicians for things with no cause, it makes me rofl in real life.
-
Thanks Obama! :tdwn
Stupid Obama, who has nothing to do with this at all. Blasted Muslims acting within their rights as United States citizens, to erect a mosque. Not only act within their rights to build a mosque but take advantage of something that every other religious organization takes advantage of. DAMN OBAMA!!
:neverusethis:
-
I don't want to turn this into a Repub/Dem thing but George Bush would've said No F##king Way! Let these poor families know that someone f##king cares about them. This is not the right place to put this.. end of f##king story!
His only involvement whatsoever was an absolutely textbook display of political non-speak.
It's more than political non speak. I still think most people would like to think that The President has their back. On this issue, he clearly showed that he does not.
-
Except, you know, the muslims.
I'm honestly baffled that you're so against it. I just can't fathom in my head why someone would give so much of a shit about this considering how overblown it is. This whole issue is so blatantly stupid because people are actually against a non disruptive place of worship. If anyone gets offended that it happens to be near the WTC site that's their problem. What's the acceptable "let's not disrespect the families" line? 5 blocks? 10 blocks? I can't be the only one who thinks this is ridiculous. It's not like they wanted to build the damn thing on the WTC site.
-
Except, you know, the muslims.
Muslims aren't american. How many are there in america anyway? 3? 4? Should we really piss off the 99.999% of the population by granting freedom to 4 people? Seems unamerican to me.
-
It's nothing against Muslims, there's 100 mosques in NYC. It's Ground Zero that is the issue. Fuck the mayor too. He's for it as well. Even if they lose a legal battle, stick up for the people.
Maybe Obama is worried about pissing off our Mid East allies (oxymoron!) Maybe that's it.
-
Except, you know, the muslims.
Muslims aren't american. How many are there in america anyway? 3? 4? Should we really piss off the 99.999% of the population by granting freedom to 4 people? Seems unamerican to me.
:rollin :rollin Adami, you're special brand of sarcasm both hurts and tickles.
-
It's nothing against Muslims, there's 100 mosques in NYC. It's Ground Zero that is the issue. Fuck the mayor too. He's for it as well. Even if they lose a legal battle, stick up for the people.
Maybe Obama is worried about pissing off our Mid East allies (oxymoron!) Maybe that's it.
Thank god we worried about not offending white people when black people were fighting for equal rights as well.
-
It's nothing against Muslims, there's 100 mosques in NYC. It's Ground Zero that is the issue. Fuck the mayor too. He's for it as well. Even if they lose a legal battle, stick up for the people.
Maybe Obama is worried about pissing off our Mid East allies (oxymoron!) Maybe that's it.
Thank god we worried about not offending white people when black people were fighting for equal rights as well.
Adami, that's different and you know it. No one is suggesting we deny Muslims rights.
-
It's nothing against Muslims, there's 100 mosques in NYC. It's Ground Zero that is the issue. Fuck the mayor too. He's for it as well. Even if they lose a legal battle, stick up for the people.
Maybe Obama is worried about pissing off our Mid East allies (oxymoron!) Maybe that's it.
Thank god we worried about not offending white people when black people were fighting for equal rights as well.
Except for the right to build a mosque, because it makes you (and others) angry.
Should the WBC be banned from their doings? What if people are offended by any other religious act?
Adami, that's different and you know it. No one is suggesting we deny Muslims rights.
-
Hey man, I don't agree with it that's all. Like I said, there's 100 mosques in NYC. Ground Zero is just not the right place for a new one.
-
Hey man, I don't agree with it that's all. Like I said, there's 100 mosques in NYC. Ground Zero is just not the right place for a new one.
Why not? We can't make laws about offending people.
-
Let's just ban all muslims from even walking within 5 blocks of Ground Zero. Problem solved.
-
It's nothing against Muslims, there's 100 mosques in NYC. It's Ground Zero that is the issue. Fuck the mayor too. He's for it as well. Even if they lose a legal battle, stick up for the people.
Maybe Obama is worried about pissing off our Mid East allies (oxymoron!) Maybe that's it.
Thank god we worried about not offending white people when black people were fighting for equal rights as well.
Adami, that's different and you know it. No one is suggesting we deny Muslims rights.
lol what? How is not allowing them to build a mosque not denying them rights? Also lol at your george Bush comment before. The President probably has no say in this matter at all. His opinion doesn't matter, whether it be Bush or Obama.
-
Hey man, I don't agree with it that's all. Like I said, there's 100 mosques in NYC. Ground Zero is just not the right place for a new one.
You make it seem like Islam killed people on 9/11 and not terrorists. If this were a terrorist bomber shrine, your point would be valid, but it's not, so you're just being stupid.
EDIT: Fuck, even a terrorist bomber shrine is still legitimate and merely an expression of freedom of speech. I'm trying to understand your point and simply cannot.
-
Let's just ban all muslims from even walking within 5 blocks of Ground Zero. Problem solved.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
lol what? How is not allowing them to build a mosque not denying them rights? Also lol at your george Bush comment before. The President probably has no say in this matter at all. His opinion doesn't matter, whether it be Bush or Obama.
His opinion does matter. Maybe not as a practical matter within the legalities of this, but his opinion most certainly matters.
I think it's wrong..I don't know what else to tell you guys.
-
https://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-ground-zero-mosque-debate-makes-no-sense/
-
Let's just ban all muslims from even walking within 5 blocks of Ground Zero. Problem solved.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Cause I was completely serious.
-
Hey man, I don't agree with it that's all. Like I said, there's 100 mosques in NYC. Ground Zero is just not the right place for a new one.
You make it seem like Islam killed people on 9/11 and not terrorists. If this were a terrorist bomber shrine, your point would be valid, but it's not, so you're just being stupid.
EDIT: Fuck, even a terrorist bomber shrine is still legitimate and merely an expression of freedom of speech. I'm trying to understand your point and simply cannot.
woah..back the f##k up. I do NOT feel that way nor have I ever said that.
-
Let's just ban all muslims from even walking within 5 blocks of Ground Zero. Problem solved.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
lol what? How is not allowing them to build a mosque not denying them rights? Also lol at your george Bush comment before. The President probably has no say in this matter at all. His opinion doesn't matter, whether it be Bush or Obama.
His opinion does matter. Maybe not as a practical matter within the legalities of this, but his opinion most certainly matters.
I think it's wrong..I don't know what else to tell you guys.
So because YOU think it's wrong, you think that people should be stopped from worshiping their God. Yup, makes sense.
What would you say if Christian Missionaries in Iraq were prevented from building churches by the citizens because Christian soldiers went in and tore apart the country?
-
Quad..that's far reaching and even further away from what we're talking about. A typical "slippery slope" argument.
hey whatever.....
Good night guys!
-
I'd say that not letting the Muslim Resource Center be built would be playing into the hands of Osama and the terrorists. They want it to not be allowed, so they can point and say to all the moderate practitioners of Islam "You're being oppressed. You don't really have that freedom the US says you have. See?"
-
I'd say that not letting the Muslim Resource Center be built would be playing into the hands of Osama and the terrorists. They want it to not be allowed, so they can point and say to all the moderate practitioners of Islam "You're being oppressed. You don't really have that freedom the US says you have. See?"
Perp, that's the first valid argument "for " it, and I recognize and respect that point of view. Hell, I don't even disagree with it...but if I have to go Yay or Nay, I'm still going "nay".
-
I'm with TAC on this one, I know that 99% of muslim's are good people and that works in all religons but where does common sense come into play. Most americans still feel the pain of that day and if you've ever been their, you'd feel your heart sink for what these people went through dying that day, the pain of the families that lost family members. A center can be built anywhere. Can't people be sensitive to a tragic moment in our history?
-
The point of churches being built in Iraq by christian american organizations is a good one. Should those be banned too?
-
I hate to be that dick but it's been nine years, let's start moving forward. You'd think with the amount of shit muslims got way back then things would've eased up to the point where something like this should be allowed, if not to at least respect the many peaceful practicing muslims whose reputation got severely soiled by something far beyond their control. I mean it's a God damn community center. If they're really worried about groups of muslims getting together in private I'd almost bet there's some kind of muslim run corner store or restaurant just as close where they congregate.
-
The point of churches being built in Iraq by christian american organizations is a good one. Should those be banned too?
Yes.
-
The point of churches being built in Iraq by christian american organizations is a good one. Should those be banned too?
Yes.
Ok then, at least you're fair about it.
Also, would anyone mind if a christian church went up there? Or a catholic church? Or a jewish synagogue?
-
The point of churches being built in Iraq by christian american organizations is a good one. Should those be banned too?
Depends on the laws in Iraq. The United States does have that "freedom of religion", which I believe covers this (could be very wrong).
-
The point of churches being built in Iraq by christian american organizations is a good one. Should those be banned too?
Depends on the laws in Iraq. The United States does have that "freedom of religion", which I believe covers this (could be very wrong).
I wasn't talking about a legal perspective.
-
The point of churches being built in Iraq by christian american organizations is a good one. Should those be banned too?
Yes.
Ok then, at least you're fair about it.
Also, would anyone mind if a christian church went up there? Or a catholic church? Or a jewish synagogue?
No. That place should hold a special place in our hearts. A memorial just like Pearl Harbor would be fine with me.
-
Good thing we don't live in Iraq, every few feet would be another memorial.
-
The point of churches being built in Iraq by christian american organizations is a good one. Should those be banned too?
Adami..OK..I don't know if you're for this/playing devil's advocate/or just stirring up shit...No one is banning the building of mosques. I don't understand why you're not getting this. Who is promoting a ban on mosques? Tell me..who? All I'm saying is Ground Zero is NOT the place for one. That's all.
No. That place should hold a special place in our hearts. A memorial just like Pearl Harbor would be fine with me.
Exactly this!
-
The point of churches being built in Iraq by christian american organizations is a good one. Should those be banned too?
Adami..OK..I don't know if you're for this/playing devil's advocate/or just stirring up shit...No one is banning the building of mosques. I don't understand why you're not getting this. Who is promoting a ban on mosques? Tell me..who? All I'm saying is Ground Zero is NOT the place for one. That's all.
Not my point. Do you think american organizations should be allowed to build churches in Iraq? More specifically, in areas that battles took place.
-
Not my point. Do you think american organizations should be allowed to build churches in Iraq? More specifically, in areas that battles took place.
Off the top of my head....I don't think so.
But the whole Iraq argument is really irrelevant to this thread though.
-
Not really. We're trying to show that you're only against it because it's Muslim, and other random Muslims comitted the act. Thusly, many other christians americans killed WAYYYYYY more Iraqis, so why shouldn't the same rules apply?
-
Good thing we don't live in Iraq, every few feet would be another memorial.
Come on Adami. Let's not get silly now. Look at the damage in England and France from WWII. Is there memorials all over the place? No. There are certain places that do for a specfic event in that war. This is a specific moment that changed things here in America forever.
-
Good thing we don't live in Iraq, every few feet would be another memorial.
Come on Adami. Let's not get silly now. Look at the damage in england and France from WWII. Is their memorials all over the place. This is a specific moment that changed things here in America forever.
I guess I just have a slightly different perspective on 9/11.
-
Holy shit. I actually found something that genuinely pisses TAC off!. Welcome to P/R, amigo. :lol
I gather you accept that it wasn't Islam per-se that brought about the attacks. So what's the difference between a Mosque and the countless other "American" churches that'll be built on that block? Just objecting to it because the hijackers were Muslim would be like prohibiting Christian churches on 5th street in Oklahoma City. "IT"S TOO SOON!"
-
Good thing we don't live in Iraq, every few feet would be another memorial.
Come on Adami. Let's not get silly now. Look at the damage in england and France from WWII. Is their memorials all over the place. This is a specific moment that changed things here in America forever.
I guess I just have a slightly different perspective on 9/11.
What's your view?
-
Good thing we don't live in Iraq, every few feet would be another memorial.
Come on Adami. Let's not get silly now. Look at the damage in england and France from WWII. Is their memorials all over the place. This is a specific moment that changed things here in America forever.
I guess I just have a slightly different perspective on 9/11.
What's your view?
Considering that I don't feel like arguing about it, I'll just say that it's a slightly less emotional one.
-
Good thing we don't live in Iraq, every few feet would be another memorial.
Come on Adami. Let's not get silly now. Look at the damage in england and France from WWII. Is their memorials all over the place. This is a specific moment that changed things here in America forever.
I guess I just have a slightly different perspective on 9/11.
What's your view?
Considering that I don't feel like arguing about it, I'll just say that it's a slightly less emotional one.
No sweat. I just think that something of that magnitude should be memorialized. Build 10,000 centers. Just not there. And yes, no damn churchs of any religon there.
-
It's not on ground zero, it's several blocks away. You know what was there before? A Burlington Coat Factory. How are department stores somehow less disrespectful than a cultural center or church?
-
It's not on ground zero, it's several blocks away. You know what was there before? A Burlington Coat Factory. How are department stores somehow less disrespectful than a cultural center or church?
There are all kinds of places considered not respectful around it, adult shops included. Where do you stop when using the "disrespectful" argument?
-
It's not on ground zero, it's several blocks away. You know what was there before? A Burlington Coat Factory. How are department stores somehow less disrespectful than a cultural center or church?
There are all kinds of places considered not respectful around it, adult shops included. Where do you stop when using the "disrespectful" argument?
Mosques appearently.
-
It's also not a Mosque. It's a community center.
There is a prayer center, but calling it a mosque because of that would be like calling a hospital a church because it has a chapel.
-
It's also not a Mosque. It's a community center.
There is a prayer center, but calling it a mosque because of that would be like calling a hospital a church because it has a chapel.
So it's a community center, several blocks away? And people have a problem with that?
-
It's also not a Mosque. It's a community center.
There is a prayer center, but calling it a mosque because of that would be like calling a hospital a church because it has a chapel.
So it's a community center, several blocks away? And people have a problem with that?
Welcome to America.
-
Techincally speaking it's an Islamic Cultural Center.
I'm sure you can guess which part of that people have a problem with.
-
I've never felt more disgusted to be an American right now. There is a little thing called freedom that republicans like to preach about every other second. Well, this is the time when Americans, regardless of their religion, should be able to exercise that freedom. Hell, build a mosque right next to ground zero. They have the right.
-
It's also not a Mosque. It's a community center.
There is a prayer center, but calling it a mosque because of that would be like calling a hospital a church because it has a chapel.
This.
It's not a fucking Mosque, and it's not at Ground Zero. It has been promoted as such by right wingers to get people like TAC or the king riled up over nothing.
It is a community center with a prayer room, not a mosque. It is not at Ground Zero, but blocks and blocks away from there. There are actual mosques closer to Ground Zero than this thing will be. There are also strip joints closer to Ground Zero than this thing will be. Plus, it's on completely private property, so it doesn't matter what the general public thinks about it. It only matters what the property owner thinks about it, as long as it is in line with the zoning laws for that part of the city (which it is).
This is the biggest pre-fabricated non-issue in recent memory. There is simply nothing for anyone to be upset about.
-
Apparently I'm misinformed :lol
Here's Rudy Guliani's thoughts (in italics) on it from a transcript from an aooearance on MSNBC. The interviewer was Matt Lauer.
1. >> what's your problem with it? most people say, look, it's legal, it's within the constitution. we protect religious freedom in this country. why don't you think it should be built there?
>> i agree with all that. and beyond that it's an act of right project as far as i can tell under new york law. they never even had to go through all the reviews they went through. the question here is a question of sensitivity. people's feelings. and, are you really what you pretend to be? as i understand this cordoba house, the idea of it is to healing, to show that muslims care about the same things that christians and jews do. that we're one people. that we should be one. well, if you're going to so horribly offend the people who are most directly offended by this, most directly affected by this, the families of the september 11th victims, who i happen to know and have got ton know, you know, really well, then how are you healing? i mean all this is doing is creating more division, more anger, more hatred, and i mean, there are --
>> are you worried about the imam behind this project ? in terms of his politics, his religious beliefs , do you find him to be anything but the moderate that he's described as by the current administration? and by the way, the bush administration before that?
>> i'm confused by the imam. i see all the things that you're saying. but i also see a man who said that america was an accessory to september 11th . those are the very words that require me to give $10 million back to an arab chic or prince. he gave us $10 million for the 9/11 --
>> let me clarify so people understand what you're saying. shortly after 9/11 on "60 minutes" he said, quote, i wouldn't say the united states deserved what happened, but united states policies were an accessory to the crime that happened on 9/11, because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world.
>> well, that's exactly what the the -- what the arab prince said when he gave me $10 million. that america was an accessory to september 11th because of its foreign policy . america was not an accessory to september 11th . all you've got to do is read about jihad and -- second thing, the second thing he said was, he refused to condemn hamas, with whom he is alleged to have had some ties. a terrorist group . it's recognized by everyone as a terrorist group . and he said america should apologize. so, okay, that's one part of it. the other part of the it is, he has had a history of appearing to be a hero, appearing to be someone that wants to talk about a moderate islam .
>> he's made appearances with condoleezza rice --
>> there are two ways you could interpret the koran. the better way, which is the peaceful way, or the warrior way, which is the way in which you get into trouble with jihad. but those quotes trouble me. but here's what troubles me more. if he's truly about healing, he will not go forward with this project . because this project is not healing. this project is divisive. this project is creating tremendous pain to people who have already paid the ultimate sacrifice.
>> there are a lot of issues are divisive, and yet they have to be tough choices --
>> matt, matt, but not this. that's true. a lot of issues are divisive. but if you want to claim to be the healer, then you're not on the side of the person who is pushing those issues.
>> let me play you something you said on our program, "meet the press" back on december 22nd of 2002 . so about 14 months after 9/11.
>> if you think about the attacks on september 11th , i think everyone will acknowledge that part of the core of that attack was the fact that we have freedom of religion in america . that -- that part of why america was founded. it's part of what we're all about. it's one of the most prominent things about us, that you can be a catholic, a protestant, a jew, a muslim, or no religion at all, and no one's going to interfere with you.
>> and no one's going to interfere with you. by saying that these people shouldn't build their mosque where they plan to build it, isn't that interfering?
>> no, of course not. first of all, they have freedom of religion . they can build it. they have every right to build it. the question is, should they build it? are they displaying the sensitivity they claim by building it? for example, the pope asked the nuns to take the convent back from right in front of auschwitz or one of the concentration camps. they had a perfect right to be there. they had the freedom of religion there. the nuns were sensitive enough to the concerns of jews that they pulled it back. now here's a man who is selling sensitivity. he's got $180,000 in the bank, he wants to raise $100 million. ask me how he's going to do it, i don't know. you don't do it by creating this kind of vicious, sort of angry battle that's going on. the people who are speaking about it --
>> some would say he didn't create the vicious, angry battle. that it's the people who decided to weigh in on it who added it to the battle?
>> i was the first person on september 11th that stepped forward in the heat of battle, that afternoon, my first press conference and said, no group blamed. do not blame arabs. we have to understand this is a small group , and we have to focus on them. but, the reality is, that right now, if you are a healer, you do not go forward with this project .
>> in your gut do you think if we sit down a year from right now the project will be under construction at this site?
>> i think governor paterson had an approach. nice compromise, find another place, have a beautiful mosque there. don't offend easily 80%, 90% of the families are seriously offended. i know people who are crying over this who have lost loved ones. you or i might not even agree. we might say, okay, put the mosque there. but maybe we haven't lost that -- that son, that father, person who is watching their child today, and still remember every day that person is gone. it wasn't an attack in the name of islam . it was a perverted kind of islam . but the kind of prevalent view that goes on in a lot of parts of the world. we've got to be sensitive to everybody here.
-
After finding out that it's not that close to where the twin towers stood, I think it's ok.
Numbers, you should be pissed of at the government as a whole not just one side. They all suck.
-
I actually looked up the other day where this center is planned to be built. Well, it's two blocks away, i.e. you have to go out of your way to see it from Ground Zero (i.e. walk two blocks, go around corner, follow street until you find it).
rumborak
-
Besides, it wasn't Islam that killed all those people on 9/11, it was maniacal mass murderers.
This is the most important part of this issue.
I hate the people in my country sometimes (and you need look no further than that comments section to see why...)
-
Besides, it wasn't Islam that killed all those people on 9/11, it was maniacal mass murderers.
This is the most important part of this issue.
I hate the people in my country sometimes (and you need look no further than that comments section to see why...)
PLM, it has nothing to do with Islamic people but the significance of what happened and where. All for not cause it's not close enough to the spot so it's ok. BTW I'm Lebanese. How my history? Ever race has it's bad apples.
-
I think the argument has a lot to do with Islamic people.
A lot of the negativity about this project seems to be nothing more than some sort of prejudice. As someone pointed out, if a Christian extremist group had attacked us and they wanted to build a church, nobody would cry foul
-
I suppose I'll be the asshole here. I don't care about the significance of ground zero. I think it's terribly over-stated. Normally, I wouldn't bother to care about it, but I actually think it's both embarrassing and insensitive. It troubles me that people are so terrified by the prospect of a random and senseless demise. It troubles me that it's been so incredibly politicized to the point of exploitation. It troubles me that nobody else seems to have mattered at all on that day. There are no memorials for Jesse B. Henson:
Jessey Bernard Henson, 78, of Hurricane died September 11, 2001, following a bravely fought, lengthy illness.
Bernard was born July 10, 1923, the son of the late Alexander and Dora Searles Henson. He served in the United States Air Force, European Theater, having piloted 35 missions in World War II and was retired from C&P Telephone as a field engineer with 40 years of service. He loved children and spent years of service through the Little League Babe Ruth Baseball organization.
He was an active member of Teays Valley Church of the Nazarene where he was a member of the Friends Forever Sunday School Class, the Senior Adult Ministries and was a representative of the church to the Community Food Panty in Hurricane. He also taught adult Sunday school classes for 51 years in the Church of the Nazarene. He loved to sing praises to his Lord and used his talent in leading choirs and singing in various groups for over 55 years.
Sounds like a helluva guy. Shame he didn't have the common sense to be killed by brown people. I'm sure his family would have appreciated a $1.6 million dollar settlement and having Mariah Carey sing that he was a hero.
Most of all, it troubles me to see just how thoroughly 19 imbeciles managed to kick America's ass, and the ass whipping continues to this day.
-
As someone pointed out, if a Christian extremist group had attacked us and they wanted to build a church, nobody would cry foul
While you're correct that a lot of the opposition to this is based on prejudice, this type of statement is totally asinine, implausible, and certainly untrue.
I would have absolutely no problem with this project even if it WERE an actual mosque, but I can't help but be skeptical that the motivation for such a project is completely pure. Either way, it doesn't matter; I don't see what all the fuss is about. *shrug*
And great post, Barto, I agree for the most part.
-J
-
Can't argue with that, Bart.
-
As someone pointed out, if a Christian extremist group had attacked us and they wanted to build a church, nobody would cry foul
While you're correct that a lot of the opposition to this is based on prejudice, this type of statement is totally asinine, implausible, and certainly untrue.
No, its pretty much spot on.
-
As someone pointed out, if a Christian extremist group had attacked us and they wanted to build a church, nobody would cry foul
While you're correct that a lot of the opposition to this is based on prejudice, this type of statement is totally asinine, implausible, and certainly untrue.
No, its pretty much spot on.
The thing is, if a Christian maniac blows something up, it's because he's a maniac. If a Muslim maniac blows something up, it's because of Islam. Nobody wants to believe that their own religion can be problematic and you can't convince them that opposing religions are anything but. The devout are blinded to their own hypocrisy.
-
As someone pointed out, if a Christian extremist group had attacked us and they wanted to build a church, nobody would cry foul
While you're correct that a lot of the opposition to this is based on prejudice, this type of statement is totally asinine, implausible, and certainly untrue.
No, its pretty much spot on.
Exactly what I wanted to say, but just couldn't manage to actually say it :lol
You're on a roll lately.
The thing is, if a Christian maniac blows something up, it's because he's a maniac. If a Muslim maniac blows something up, it's because of Islam. Nobody wants to believe that their own religion can be problematic and you can't convince them that opposing religions are anything but. The devout are blinded to their own hypocrisy.
-
I think we all know that there is bad in all religons and the history of their deeds prove this.
PLM, mabye some people lump all Islamics together. I for one don't. And for anyone to believes this kind of thought process only occurs in the USA has blinders on.
Bart, I get your point but some places, like Pearl Harbor, should be sacred. I would hope for Iraq's sake, they do the same.
-
As someone pointed out, if a Christian extremist group had attacked us and they wanted to build a church, nobody would cry foul
While you're correct that a lot of the opposition to this is based on prejudice, this type of statement is totally asinine, implausible, and certainly untrue.
No, its pretty much spot on.
:lol Care to explain? Not that I endorse fanatical religious behavior of any kind, but I can think of no modern examples of fringe Christians blowing shit up in the name of their religion. Militant Islamic extremists, while not at all representative of Islam as a whole, have frequently openly invoked their beliefs as the motivation for their violence.
While there are some fundamentalist Christian tendencies in this country that can be frustrating, a Christian who started bombing subways or whatever in Jesus's name would absolutely result in a huge outcry. The backlash against Christianity itself would likely not be nearly as intense, but what do you expect? The people of this country are familiar with Christianity; Islam remains a relative unknown which is easy to unite against out of fear and ignorance. This, as El Barto noted, is idiotic and sad, but it certainly doesn't mean that nobody would "cry foul". There is simply no comparison between the two scenarios, at least one of which is completely hypothetical.
-J
-
Interesting distinction. I'm not sure how many Muslims there are to whom Islam is a motivation to blow shit up as opposed to a justification after the fact. My guess is that there are usually social or political reasons which compel them to act and Alla comes in afterward to provide a sense of legitimacy. (Not to mention a recruitment tool to convince the simple-minded to blow themselves to bits) I don't think Eric Rudolph ever said God told him to blow people up. He acted on his own and invoked scripture afterward as a defense.
It's also interesting to note that Rudolph did garner a considerable amount of support from Christians.
Edit: Oh yeah:
Bart, I get your point but some places, like Pearl Harbor, should be sacred. I would hope for Iraq's sake, they do the same.
Interesting point. The extent to which Pearl should be considered sacred ground is the Arizona Memorial, which is of course a tomb. The rest of it is open for business. Business which includes an enormous military presence, countless Starbuck's and McDonalds, and most interestingly of all, a Shinto shrine. Also worth noting that the Pearl Harbor Memorial Chapel also hosts Shento ceremonies.
-
J Makes a good point. Look how much bashing Religion/Christianity took in the 80's with the burning of albums and the Jim Baker stuff.
-
Bart, I'm ok with the center now that I know it's not right at the twin towers area. Just like you pointed out that about the Arizona Memorial.
I also believe that Japan was repentant towards their part in WWII including the attack of Pearl Harbor. i don't think we'll ever hear an apology for 9/11. Though, in truthfulness, That aattack was done by terrorist and not by a country in war. Which mabye leads to a lot of americans so against a mosque.
-
:lol Care to explain? Not that I endorse fanatical religious behavior of any kind, but I can think of no modern examples of fringe Christians blowing shit up in the name of their religion. Militant Islamic extremists, while not at all representative of Islam as a whole, have frequently openly invoked their beliefs as the motivation for their violence.
-J
What about bombing abortion clinics in the name of Jesus? Army of God as a main example.
-
Interesting distinction. I'm not sure how many Muslims there are to whom Islam is a motivation to blow shit up as opposed to a justification after the fact. My guess is that there are usually social or political reasons which compel them to act and Alla comes in afterward to provide a sense of legitimacy. (Not to mention a recruitment tool to convince the simple-minded to blow themselves to bits) I don't think Eric Rudolph ever said God told him to blow people up. He acted on his own and invoked scripture afterward as a defense.
I don't know either, but I'm sure you're right about there being an underlying social or political (or other) motivation. There's an interesting question regarding the psychology of religion in there somewhere. But whether it's a motivating factor or subsequent justification doesn't really make a difference.
:lol Care to explain? Not that I endorse fanatical religious behavior of any kind, but I can think of no modern examples of fringe Christians blowing shit up in the name of their religion. Militant Islamic extremists, while not at all representative of Islam as a whole, have frequently openly invoked their beliefs as the motivation for their violence.
-J
What about bombing abortion clinics in the name of Jesus? Army of God as a main example.
Actually, great example, I hadn't thought of that.
-J
-
Interesting distinction. I'm not sure how many Muslims there are to whom Islam is a motivation to blow shit up as opposed to a justification after the fact. My guess is that there are usually social or political reasons which compel them to act and Alla comes in afterward to provide a sense of legitimacy. (Not to mention a recruitment tool to convince the simple-minded to blow themselves to bits) I don't think Eric Rudolph ever said God told him to blow people up. He acted on his own and invoked scripture afterward as a defense.
I don't know either, but I'm sure you're right about there being an underlying social or political (or other) motivation. There's an interesting question regarding the psychology of religion in there somewhere. But whether it's a motivating factor or subsequent justification doesn't really make a difference.
-J
To you and I, it doesn't make a difference. To the asshats that'll use their actions as a blanket condemnation of Islam, it's a distinction that's very important but lost in the bigger picture.
-
The point of churches being built in Iraq by christian american organizations is a good one. Should those be banned too?
Adami..OK..I don't know if you're for this/playing devil's advocate/or just stirring up shit...No one is banning the building of mosques. I don't understand why you're not getting this. Who is promoting a ban on mosques? Tell me..who? All I'm saying is Ground Zero is NOT the place for one. That's all.
No. That place should hold a special place in our hearts. A memorial just like Pearl Harbor would be fine with me.
Exactly this!
It isn't being built on Ground Zero. it's blocks away. Fine. Let's demolish every business within 10 blocks so it can 'hold a special place in our hearts'
-
The point of churches being built in Iraq by christian american organizations is a good one. Should those be banned too?
Adami..OK..I don't know if you're for this/playing devil's advocate/or just stirring up shit...No one is banning the building of mosques. I don't understand why you're not getting this. Who is promoting a ban on mosques? Tell me..who? All I'm saying is Ground Zero is NOT the place for one. That's all.
No. That place should hold a special place in our hearts. A memorial just like Pearl Harbor would be fine with me.
Exactly this!
It isn't being built on Ground Zero. it's blocks away. Fine. Let's demolish every business within 10 blocks so it can 'hold a special place in our hearts'
I see you haven't read my other posts icy. You should do so before posting what you did.
-
Funny thing is that right after 9/11 happened the jokes started to happen. One of the most recurrent was the one that said something like: "You know how they are going to start building safe skyscrapers in the USA? Two mosques, a tall building. Two mosques, a tall building". Nine years later, and it apparently happened (even though it's not a mosque).
What El Barto, TL, hef, and Adami have said is spot on.
Even if we're talking about private property, this is not the Land of the Free anymore, right?
-
The point of churches being built in Iraq by christian american organizations is a good one. Should those be banned too?
Adami..OK..I don't know if you're for this/playing devil's advocate/or just stirring up shit...No one is banning the building of mosques. I don't understand why you're not getting this. Who is promoting a ban on mosques? Tell me..who? All I'm saying is Ground Zero is NOT the place for one. That's all.
No. That place should hold a special place in our hearts. A memorial just like Pearl Harbor would be fine with me.
Exactly this!
It isn't being built on Ground Zero. it's blocks away. Fine. Let's demolish every business within 10 blocks so it can 'hold a special place in our hearts'
I see you haven't read my other posts icy. You should do so before posting what you did.
I apologize. I read the first few pages (2 or 3) and decided not much opinion could have been changed in one page. I apologized if you all came to a consensus on this, though. :)
-
The point I always make to people who are all "IT'S TWO BLOCKS AWAY, IT'S RIGHT ON SACRED GROUND!!! OH NOES!!" is "Okay, how far away would it have to be for you to feel okay about it?" It then becomes a matter of arbitrary opinion on the other person's part and they never really seem to come up with a defensible answer.
-
The point I always make to people who are all "IT'S TWO BLOCKS AWAY, IT'S RIGHT ON SACRED GROUND!!! OH NOES!!" is "Okay, how far away would it have to be for you to feel okay about it?" It then becomes a matter of arbitrary opinion on the other person's part and they never really seem to come up with a defensible answer.
50,000 light years.
-
The point I always make to people who are all "IT'S TWO BLOCKS AWAY, IT'S RIGHT ON SACRED GROUND!!! OH NOES!!" is "Okay, how far away would it have to be for you to feel okay about it?" It then becomes a matter of arbitrary opinion on the other person's part and they never really seem to come up with a defensible answer.
The distance is irrelevant--it's the affiliation. If the center were built 9 miles away, but named "the September 11th Memorial Islamic Outreach Center," the same people would be just as upset.
"IT'S OUR TRAGEDY!! YOU CAN'T HAVE IT!!"
-
Oh, I know that the distance IS irrelevant. Those that don't care say "It's two blocks away, you can't see it from there anyway!" Those opposed always insist that it's "Hallowed Ground" and they shouldn't put it there. So that's my argument - if not there, then how far away can it be before it makes it okay for you? The distance IS completely irrelevant. That's why it irritates me when people complain about it being on "Hallowed Ground". Because #1) it isn't on "Hallowed Ground" and #2) it probably wouldn't matter to MOST of them where it was built, really.
Also, can a mod or somebody change the title of this thread to "Community Center to go up near New York's ground zero"? Because there is no mosque going up. Calling this a mosque would be like calling St. Mary's Hospital a church, simply because there's a chapel inside it somewhere.
-
The sad part is how accepted populism is in this country, and actually seen as a viable way of doing politics.
Palin is riding on plain anti-Islam sentiment, and gives her supporters crafted lines they can say during rallies so they don't make it obvious.
rumborak
-
The point I always make to people who are all "IT'S TWO BLOCKS AWAY, IT'S RIGHT ON SACRED GROUND!!! OH NOES!!" is "Okay, how far away would it have to be for you to feel okay about it?" It then becomes a matter of arbitrary opinion on the other person's part and they never really seem to come up with a defensible answer.
The distance is irrelevant--it's the affiliation. If the center were built 9 miles away, but named "the September 11th Memorial Islamic Outreach Center," the same people would be just as upset.
"IT'S OUR TRAGEDY!! YOU CAN'T HAVE IT!!"
I believe I contradicted your statement. Truth is, a lot of people like me should look where it was being built oursevles instead of listening to the media.
-
You did. I applaud that, because (as you said) a lot of people blindly take what is spoon fed them from
Fox News, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, the media and have this (IMO) completely unnecessary sense of upset over something that is really not worth getting upset over. When you're that (somehow) emotionally invested in the whole matter, it's not always easy to look at the facts and consider that there just might be another way of looking at things.
[DISCLAIMER] To all members: Yes, I know not everybody blindly goes along with everything they hear, are informed of the facts, and are still entitled to their opinion, yes, I know, yes, I know. I don't believe my opinion is the be all end all of opinions. Don't get pissy with me. [/DISCLAIMER]
Also, a nice piece from the people over ar Cracked (not sure if this was posted yet):
Link (https://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-ground-zero-mosque-debate-makes-no-sense/)
-
And what are we saying to Muslims? That if they were good Americans they would willingly give up their rights?
:tup
-
If they don't end up being able to construct the mosque, I will lose faith in everything America is suppose to represent.
-
Also, can a mod or somebody change the title of this thread to "Community Center to go up near New York's ground zero"? Because there is no mosque going up. Calling this a mosque would be like calling St. Mary's Hospital a church, simply because there's a chapel inside it somewhere.
:tup
-
Very related: https://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990/
He told reporters that the closest he had come to confronting a contrary standpoint was tuning in to the first few seconds of an interview with a moderate Muslim cleric before hastily turning off the television.
"I almost gave in and listened to that guy defend Islam with words I didn't want to hear," Gentries said. "But then I remembered how much easier it is to live in a world of black-and-white in which I can assign the label of 'other' to someone and use him as a vessel for all my fears and insecurities."
-
The Onion knocks it outta the park again. :clap:
-
How many people here are from the NYC/NJ area?
I am.
-
I haven't seen ZGF or Millah in this thread, so to the best of my knowledge, that leaves you and Quad.
Now, is this idle curiosity or will there be a point forthcoming?
-
Very related: https://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990/
He told reporters that the closest he had come to confronting a contrary standpoint was tuning in to the first few seconds of an interview with a moderate Muslim cleric before hastily turning off the television.
"I almost gave in and listened to that guy defend Islam with words I didn't want to hear," Gentries said. "But then I remembered how much easier it is to live in a world of black-and-white in which I can assign the label of 'other' to someone and use him as a vessel for all my fears and insecurities."
We should put The Onion in charge of the country.
-
I haven't seen ZGF or Millah in this thread, so to the best of my knowledge, that leaves you and Quad.
Now, is this idle curiosity or will there be a point forthcoming?
Oh I'm here, I'm just conflicted as to what I think. I am completely against organized religion so it is beneficial for me that this center is not functional. On the other hand if a secular state is preaching (see what i did there?) freedom of speech, then the state has a responsibility to tell the public that it is in the group's right to do whatever they please as long as it's withing the laws of the land and they should disperse.
Also, I like the architecture, it will add to a hideous downtown riddled with abandoned buildings. The only people who actually will see that building are the people who come to visit the ground zero and the people who live in the area. The area was abandoned after 9/11 and all the businesses relocated, so they converted all the buildings to residences. After 8pm, there is not a soul around there since all the businesses cater to the 9-5 wall street.
-
I really think it's New York that needs to decide on this issue, not some Joe Schmoe from across the country who thinks the terrorists created a shrine for him to worship his narrow-mindedness at.
rumborak
-
I haven't seen ZGF or Millah in this thread, so to the best of my knowledge, that leaves you and Quad.
Now, is this idle curiosity or will there be a point forthcoming?
Oh I'm here, I'm just conflicted as to what I think. I am completely against organized religion so it is beneficial for me that this center is not functional. On the other hand if a secular state is preaching (see what i did there?) freedom of speech, then the state has a responsibility to tell the public that it is in the group's right to do whatever they please as long as it's withing the laws of the land and they should disperse.
Also, I like the architecture, it will add to a hideous downtown riddled with abandoned buildings. The only people who actually will see that building are the people who come to visit the ground zero and the people who live in the area. The area was abandoned after 9/11 and all the businesses relocated, so they converted all the buildings to residences. After 8pm, there is not a soul around there since all the businesses cater to the 9-5 wall street.
Not all downtown is shit, battery park is nice, city hall area is nice, its that shit in the middle
-
I really think it's New York that needs to decide on this issue, not some Joe Schmoe from across the country who thinks the terrorists created a shrine for him to worship his narrow-mindedness at.
rumborak
new york should have no say in what they build on their property as long as it doesn't damage or diminish anyone else's private property
-
battery park is nice, but none of the downtown has what i would consider nyc level social life. it's pretty dead after a certain time.
-
I haven't seen ZGF or Millah in this thread, so to the best of my knowledge, that leaves you and Quad.
Now, is this idle curiosity or will there be a point forthcoming?
I dont speak much as we know (as that didnt go so well for me). I was more just interested in who was from NYC or works in NYC or lives in very close proximity. I did tons of work in the WTC
have a nice day
-
I really think it's New York that needs to decide on this issue, not some Joe Schmoe from across the country who thinks the terrorists created a shrine for him to worship his narrow-mindedness at.
rumborak
new york should have no say in what they build on their property as long as it doesn't damage or diminish anyone else's private property
Well, that's kinda what I meant. Whoever "owns" the property, be it the city of New York or some private owner, should have the say in this, not some rabble from across the country.
rumborak
-
AFAIK the property was bought by the group who's trying to put the center there.
-
However, I do support the confiscation of private property in NYC if it is taken in order to build a Chik fil a. We need one bad.
-
No. You already have Roy Rogers. There is no fast food fried chicken that can compete with that.
-
No. You already have Roy Rogers. There is no fast food fried chicken that can compete with that.
Kramer will be upset that Kenny Rogers Chicken isn't #1.
-
No. You already have Roy Rogers. There is no fast food fried chicken that can compete with that.
Kramer will be upset that Kenny Rogers Chicken isn't #1.
:tup
-
I'm from the NY area, whoever asked.
-
I wouldn't want to be one of the workers building it. I like my family. I think it could get pretty ugly.
-
Nah, all the protesters will show up at Ground Zero not knowing it's being built two and a half blocks away.
-
I really hope any one thinking of violent actions against the center really reflect on the irony of what they are about to do.
Violence against this center gives a far greater and far more meaningful victory to the terrorists.
EDIT...as a new yorker, an immigrant, and an athiest (who's family is split between hindus, christians, and muslims) I don't see any reason why these people shouldn't have the freedom to establish this center, as long as it is within the bounds of the law.
-
Nah, all the protesters will show up at Ground Zero not knowing it's being built two and a half blocks away.
I would lol so hard if this happened.
-
Nah, all the protesters will show up at Ground Zero not knowing it's being built two and a half blocks away.
I would lol so hard if this happened.
It probably will happen.
-
Nah, all the protesters will show up at Ground Zero not knowing it's being built two and a half blocks away.
I would lol so hard if this happened.
It probably will happen.
I just hope the angry Christians who intend to blow it up make that mistake as well. Now that would be a fucking LOL and a half.
-
Nah, all the protesters will show up at Ground Zero not knowing it's being built two and a half blocks away.
I would lol so hard if this happened.
It probably will happen.
I just hope the angry Christians who intend to blow it up make that mistake as well. Now that would be a fucking LOL and a half.
That will probably happen as well.
-
Nah, all the protesters will show up at Ground Zero not knowing it's being built two and a half blocks away.
I would lol so hard if this happened.
It probably will happen.
I just hope the angry Christians who intend to blow it up make that mistake as well. Now that would be a fucking LOL and a half.
That will probably happen as well.
"what did we just destroy"
"the 9/11 memorial that was being built"
Oh, god, if that happens..... life would be :hat
-
Wait a minute. You mean, it wasn't the Islamic Center for Freedom Tower?
-
Uh oh! Not another religious center encroaching on the "Hallowed Ground" of the WTC!
https://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/30/bigot_establishes_ground_zero_church
Bigot starts ground zero church: Where's the outrage?
A pastor who hates Muslims, Mormons and gays will start preaching Sunday. Will mosque opponents speak out?
By Justin Elliott
AP
A bigoted pastor who has assailed gays and Muslims is launching the "9-11 Christian Center at Ground Zero" a mere two blocks from the World Trade Center site this Sunday, but so far the project hasn't drawn a peep of protest from those who are outraged by the "ground zero mosque."
Pastor Bill Keller of Florida said today he will begin preaching Sunday at the Marriott at 85 West Street . A weekly service is planned at the hotel until the $8 million 9/11 Christian Center finds a permanent space. (Fundraising is going well, Keller told Salon today.)
To get a sense of where Keller is coming from, consider his project's website, which calls Islam a religion of "hate and death" whose adherents will go to hell. It also says: "Islam is a wonderful religion... for PEDOPHILES!"
Keller is the same pastor who hosted a birther infomercial that encouraged viewers to send him and a partner donations to advance the birther cause. His Internet ministry explicitly calls President Obama the new Hitler. He calls homosexuality a perversion. And in 2008, he targeted presidential contender Mitt Romney for being Mormon with a campaign called "voting for Satan."
In short, if critics of the Park51 Islamic community center, which is explicitly welcoming of all faiths, truly believe that there is a "zone of solemnity" around ground zero (as Gov. Pat Quinn put it), they should be horrified at Keller's 9/11 Christian Center.
Ditto for those who believe that religious leaders should not build "deliberately provocative" projects around ground zero, as another mosque opponent put it.
(An enterprising reporter could no doubt find some Sept. 11 families who are offended by Keller's project, just as an enterprising reporter did in the beginning of the Park51 controversy.)
And if there was ever a case of insensitivity to Sept. 11 -- another frequent argument of the anti-mosque crowd -- consider the fact that Keller has a history of seeking to profit from his various projects (one, called Gold for Souls, involved telling people to simply mail him their gold and jewelry). The 9-11 Christian Center appears to be no different. The project's website features a prominent link telling viewers to "Earn $$$ - Click Here!" It goes to a letter from Keller offering people a 10 percent referral cut on donations from their friends to the 9/11 Christian Center.
To be perfectly clear, Keller should be permitted to build anything he wants as long as it's legal.
But the only logic by which Keller's project would not be horrifying to those who oppose Park51 is if they believe all Muslims, including the progressive Muslim Americans behind Park51, should be treated as suspicious or even in the same category as the Sept. 11 terrorists. If mosque opponents' concerns are truly about sensitivity to the neighborhood around ground zero -- and not about Muslims -- we'll hear them denounce Keller loudly in the coming days.
Interesting how things work, isn't it? I have no doubts that most of the people (in general, not necessarily on DTF) who are making so much noise about Park 51 will probably have little to say about it.
-
Does he have the right? Yeah
Should he build a church 2 blocks away from ground zero? Yeah
Should he build it as a fuck you to the New York Muslim community? No
Should this man hang from a tree? Yeah
-
Interesting how things work, isn't it? I have no doubts that most of the people (in general, not necessarily on DTF) who are making so much noise about Park 51 will probably have little to say about it.
Yes and no. If it continues to be described as this article does, the Christians will object to it just as vocally, but mainly because it detracts from their anti-Muslim agenda. If they only go by the douche-bag's website, they'll support it. His website has taken out the most offensive attacks on the more mainstream and really just reads now like a generic Rush Limbaugh page. I didn't see one reference to Mormons or Mitt Romney. Most of the people who actually object to the Park51 project would dig the shit out of this guy's anti-Obama, anti-Islam politics.
Personally, I find his website to me amusing as hell. (https://911christiancenter.com/images/k2.jpg)
Coming soon to a mosque near your home... men marrying baby girls! Islam is a wonderful religion... for PEDOPHILES!
-
See what I mean? The mere mention that a "Christian" somewhere was doing something unsavory in the vicinity of Ground Zero and the P/R side doesn't get a single post in over 24 hours. :rollin
-
Christians are mostly harmless, they are annoying sure, but apart from the super crazies that bomb abortion clinics, they are mild. muslims are far closer to attack in the first mention of pedo prophet they have.
-
Christians are mostly harmless, they are annoying sure, but apart from the super crazies that bomb abortion clinics, they are mild. muslims are far closer to attack in the first mention of pedo prophet they have.
Perhaps this is true, but something that occurred to me yesterday is that while Muslims do seem to be more defensive about their religion, they also seem to be more respectful of others. While doing a bit of research about their "pedophile prophet," I noticed that anytime there was a reference to Moses or Jesus, there's always a blessing to follow. May Allah continue to bless him, Peace & Blessings of Allah be upon Him, etc. It sure seems to me that they're a helluva lot more respectful to the figures of other religions than what they receive. I've never talked to a Christian who doesn't have a seething contempt for "the pedophile Mohammad." Hell, most Christians can't even tolerate other Christians more than a little removed from their own denomination.
-
That's because it's all a part of their religion. Their religion claims Jesus, and Mary and so forth are all blessed and so forth. They'd be insulting themselves, in a sense, if they didn't do that.
-
Since when is Mohammad a pedophile? I've honestly never heard someone describe him in that way.
Is it some random reference to the fact that people married younger back then? Because if it is, then it's a stupid argument, because every married younger women back then, including Christians, etc.
-
Quad, you should look up the definition of a pedo prophet.
-
It's generally believed that Aisha was 6 at the time of her betrothal to Mohammad, and 9 when the marriage was consummated. There are also reasons to be skeptical of that (welcome to the wonderful world of scripture). Regardless, it seems to me that in that era, 9 would have been A-OK. Just another soundbite, if you ask me.
-
It's generally believed that Aisha was 6 at the time of her betrothal to Mohammad, and 9 when the marriage was consummated. There are also reasons to be skeptical of that (welcome to the wonderful world of scripture). Regardless, it seems to me that in that era, 9 would have been A-OK. Just another soundbite, if you ask me.
Hot.
-
:lol
-
The 'Ground-Zero Mosque' and Grand Staircase Escalante
With no end in sight, the controversy surrounding the so-called ground-zero mosque continues to bring out the worst in all of us. As the controversy continues, I'm struck by a parallel between this proposed mosque and another American monument established in 1996.
Background
Almost 15 years ago, President Bill Clinton designated a large expanse of land in Utah as the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. Seen largely as a political ploy to win favor among voting environmentalists, the designation of this national monument immediately halted business development in the area, including a proposed coal mine, and stifled Utah's ability to make use of lands designated to help pay for the state's school system.
Creation of the monument also sparked a conflict between local county officials and the federal Bureau of Land Management over which authorities have jurisdiction over the dirt roads throughout the monument. This controversy continues to this day and is quite emblematic of the frustration felt by many of us in the more rural western United States over BLM practices and fair use of what we see as "our own land."
Make no mistake: these matters are conflicts of law with no easy solutions. The controversy over Grand Staircase Escalante is very much alive in Utah today, with local ranchers and miners still angry about what they see as federal usurpation of important economic resources, and local environmental activists equally as passionate in their support of the monument. However, we must pause to note that this issue no longer has a place on the national stage.
Keep reading... (https://mises.org/daily/4685)
-
The 'Ground-Zero Mosque' and Grand Staircase Escalante
With no end in sight, the controversy surrounding the so-called ground-zero mosque continues to bring out the worst in all of us. As the controversy continues, I'm struck by a parallel between this proposed mosque and another American monument established in 1996.
Background
Almost 15 years ago, President Bill Clinton designated a large expanse of land in Utah as the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. Seen largely as a political ploy to win favor among voting environmentalists, the designation of this national monument immediately halted business development in the area, including a proposed coal mine, and stifled Utah's ability to make use of lands designated to help pay for the state's school system.
Creation of the monument also sparked a conflict between local county officials and the federal Bureau of Land Management over which authorities have jurisdiction over the dirt roads throughout the monument. This controversy continues to this day and is quite emblematic of the frustration felt by many of us in the more rural western United States over BLM practices and fair use of what we see as "our own land."
Make no mistake: these matters are conflicts of law with no easy solutions. The controversy over Grand Staircase Escalante is very much alive in Utah today, with local ranchers and miners still angry about what they see as federal usurpation of important economic resources, and local environmental activists equally as passionate in their support of the monument. However, we must pause to note that this issue no longer has a place on the national stage.
Keep reading... (https://mises.org/daily/4685)
A few issues I might have with it. For one, I thought a majority of New Yorkers opposed the Mosque.
More to his point, though, I'm not sure the two cases are very similar. For one, there could actually be a reasonable interstate commerce rationale behind the Utah situation. I'm not familiar with it, but I can certainly understand situations where Uncle Sammy might have some say-so in such an area. Generally I tend to side with the state if it's inhabitants are stupid enough to want to destroy their own backyard, but I won't automatically rule out federal intervention. And as for the center itself, while I as an outsider don't have any legal place to intervene, if the people of another state wish to do something that I think pretty plainly trounces the law of the land, I have no problem bitching about it. The author speaks of pundits creating controversy. While I often find that an annoying occurrence, I also recognize that often times the controversy is necessary. If the upstanding and enlightened folk in South Carolina decide to enact a law that makes it legal to hang any Croatians on the third Wednesday of every month, would you suggest that people from other states should butt out and mind their own business? If the New Yorkers find a legal method of preventing it, then I'll just write them off as silly and childish and go on with my continued disgust for the masses. If they seek to prevent a legal act by any means necessary, then pundits should be stirring things up and people should be whining about it.
-
The 'Ground-Zero Mosque' and Grand Staircase Escalante
With no end in sight, the controversy surrounding the so-called ground-zero mosque continues to bring out the worst in all of us. As the controversy continues, I'm struck by a parallel between this proposed mosque and another American monument established in 1996.
Background
Almost 15 years ago, President Bill Clinton designated a large expanse of land in Utah as the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. Seen largely as a political ploy to win favor among voting environmentalists, the designation of this national monument immediately halted business development in the area, including a proposed coal mine, and stifled Utah's ability to make use of lands designated to help pay for the state's school system.
Creation of the monument also sparked a conflict between local county officials and the federal Bureau of Land Management over which authorities have jurisdiction over the dirt roads throughout the monument. This controversy continues to this day and is quite emblematic of the frustration felt by many of us in the more rural western United States over BLM practices and fair use of what we see as "our own land."
Make no mistake: these matters are conflicts of law with no easy solutions. The controversy over Grand Staircase Escalante is very much alive in Utah today, with local ranchers and miners still angry about what they see as federal usurpation of important economic resources, and local environmental activists equally as passionate in their support of the monument. However, we must pause to note that this issue no longer has a place on the national stage.
Keep reading... (https://mises.org/daily/4685)
A few issues I might have with it. For one, I thought a majority of New Yorkers opposed the Mosque.
(https://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/09/03/nyregion/03poll-graphic/03poll-graphic-popup-v2.gif)
Pay special attention to the very last graph.
-
Is there a parallel being drawn between lack of extended education and potential for racism? Not being a dick, but honestly not certain if that is or is not the implied idea with that last graph.
-
Is there a parallel being drawn between lack of extended education and potential for racism?
Wait, you wouldn't agree with that regardless of the graph?
-
That last graph made me :lol and :\ at the same time. It just goes to show that the uneducated, are...well...uneducated.
-
Is there a parallel being drawn between lack of extended education and potential for racism? Not being a dick, but honestly not certain if that is or is not the implied idea with that last graph.
I don't think it's a potential for racism exactly. Racist tendencies will be present in the entire group. The difference is that as intellect increases, so does the ability to better see the nuances. In this case, I suspect the more educated are more able to say "yeah, it sucks, but denying them would be even worse." The dipshit doesn't see anything but his own narrow point of view in stark black & white. The educated will see the whole picture including the shades of gray. I'd simply view it as shallow reasoning vs. complex thought.
-
I would say even more than reasoning and complex thought, education simply exposes you to a lot of different ideas, and it shows you that what you think as the right thing is not necessarily the only option, and that the other options can equally as valid to other people.
rumborak
-
I would say even more than reasoning and complex thought, education simply exposes you to a lot of different ideas, and it shows you that what you think as the right thing is not necessarily the only option, and that the other options can equally as valid to other people.
rumborak
I agree with this. But at the same time, I do think that if someone is racist, they probably haven't been educated at all :lol
Basically I'm reiterating the same thing you're saying. :tup
-
I would say even more than reasoning and complex thought, education simply exposes you to a lot of different ideas, and it shows you that what you think as the right thing is not necessarily the only option, and that the other options can equally as valid to other people.
rumborak
Yeah, I'd consider that idea a fine example of the complex thought that I was referring to. The ability to go outside of one's own perspective isn't exactly common among the simple-folk.
Upon further consideration, I suppose that racism actually would be more prevalent amongst the uneducated. It's basically just another example of binary thinking. If you can boil a problem down to something as big and obvious as race, then the subtler and more complicated factors merely get in the way.
-
I think that all politicians should shut up about it. It's not a matter of government or public policy whatsoever.
-
I didn't read this entire thread (and, I'm not going to), so this point might have already been made. If it has, well, sorry.
They obviously have the 'right' to build the mosque. As far as I know, they have the Constitutional right to do it. However, there's a difference between, "constitutional" and, "ethical." I have the 'right' to do a lot of things. It doesn't mean I SHOULD do those things. This is my opinion here - are there NO other places in NYC that this place could be built? I mean, really? GROUND ZERO? That's the ONLY place that a freaking MOSQUE can be built? Really?
I understand that, "not all Muslims are maniacs" and, "not all of them are terrorists." I get that. But, it really doesn't matter. The people who did it - i.e., the hijackers - SAID they were Muslims. So, the fact that there's a MOSQUE there - or, the type of place that the HIJACKERS went to worship - is just a wee bit insensitive; not only to the families of those who died, but to all Americans, in general. In my opinion, they could find another damn place to build the Mosque. What's the big deal? They seem to be fighting pretty hard over it for a reason!
Also, one point that a lot of people don't bring up is that Muslims expect everyone to be sensitive to them, but they don't have to respect or adhere to anyone else. Example: Muslim woman works at Disney Land for two years. Once she becomes a citizen, she sues them because she wants to start wearing her Islamic garments and they refuse, even though a) she didn't wear that stuff for two years and b) she signed a contract with a dress code for Disney employees. So, basically - if a woman went to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or someplace like that, she'd HAVE to wear all that stuff, but over here, THEY can sue our private companies even though they sign contracts saying they have to adhere to the dress code. Oh, okay.
-
Oh, then there's the whole, "everyone in the world has wronged the Muslims and therefore everyone needs to pay for eternity because, well, the Muslims were wronged," even though Muslims have done just as much of that stuff to other people as other people have done to them. But, I won't get into that here.
-
It would have been helpful to read the thread, but I'll sum it up.
1. It's not a mosque, it's a community center
2. It's blocks away from ground zero.
-
3. Islam was merely a characteristic of the attackers; not their motivation.
4. The hallowed ground thing is silly and overblown.
-
1. It's not a mosque, it's a community center
I have been reading it as a, "mosque" from every news source that has mentioned the story, so that's why I called it that. After I read your post, I looked it up. It's a community center that includes as mosque.
2. It's blocks away from ground zero.
Still close enough to be insensitive.
3. Islam was merely a characteristic of the attackers; not their motivation.
Eh, I'm gonna have to disagree with this. Their motivation was that, "the west has persecuted Islam." If you read all the stuff they said in the lead up to September 11th, it was all religious reasons. They believed that, by killing themselves, they were getting rewarded in the afterlife. How is that not a motivation?
4. The hallowed ground thing is silly and overblown.
Just so I understand your point, you're saying that, when people call Ground Zero, "hallowed ground," it is silly and overblown? I think calling it hallowed ground is kind of melodramatic. I just call it insensitive.
-
I don't think they should have to be that sensitive.
-
Well, we have to be sensitive toward them. So, why shouldn't they have to be sensitive toward us?
-
Well, we have to be sensitive toward them. So, why shouldn't they have to be sensitive toward us?
Telling them that they're not allowed to build a community center is not being sensitive.
-
No one said they can't do it. People are saying they shouldn't do it. They, on the other hand, tell people that they can't make cartoons parodying Muslims without getting blown up or stabbed in the middle of the street.
-
No one said they can't do it. People are saying they shouldn't do it. They, on the other hand, tell people that they can't make cartoons parodying Muslims without getting blown up or stabbed in the middle of the street.
No, they're not.
-
I still want to know how far away something like this needs to be to not be insensitive. What block does the Sphere of Mockery end?
-
No one said they can't do it. People are saying they shouldn't do it. They, on the other hand, tell people that they can't make cartoons parodying Muslims without getting blown up or stabbed in the middle of the street.
No, they're not.
Newt Gingrich suggested that the federal gov't make the area a 'battlefield memorial' to prevent the mosque from being built, and that the city council stall the bureaucracy of it's construction for years. Yeah, people are trying to stop it from being built, not just saying they shouldn't do it.
-
Newt Gingrich suggested that the federal gov't make the area a 'battlefield memorial' to prevent the mosque from being built, and that the city council stall the bureaucracy of it's construction for years. Yeah, people are trying to stop it from being built, not just saying they shouldn't do it.
Okay, that's fine, although a little different than outright saying that they, "can't" build it there. At least he's trying to do it through congress or through the attorney general.
edit..
And, I'm certainly not saying they can't do it, either. I just think they shouldn't.
-
I still want to know how far away something like this needs to be to not be insensitive. What block does the Sphere of Mockery end?
You don't think that this one is just completely obvious? I agree that some people are too sensitive with certain things.... but, this one is just a no brainer in my opinion.
-
I don't think it's obvious. How many blocks away does it need to be to appease SnakeEyes?
-
I can't believe we are having to go through all of this again just because
I didn't read this entire thread (and, I'm not going to)
-
No one said they can't do it. People are saying they shouldn't do it. They, on the other hand, tell people that they can't make cartoons parodying Muslims without getting blown up or stabbed in the middle of the street.
All Muslims are really the same 10 people wearing convincing disguises.
-
hef - you're right, that was stupid of me to reply without reading the whole thread and also to say that I wasn't going to. BUT, I did just read through the whole thing annnnnd..... well.... no one made the points I made, sooooo.... I'm not exactly sure what you mean when you say, "we have to go through this again...." when no one made the points I made in the first place?
-
I don't think it's obvious. How many blocks away does it need to be to appease SnakeEyes?
-
Just read the whole thread. The opposition to this is sickening; I'm glad most of us are for it. Oh, and I'm from New York. My father was down there when it happened.
-
1. It's not a mosque, it's a community center
I have been reading it as a, "mosque" from every news source that has mentioned the story, so that's why I called it that. After I read your post, I looked it up. It's a community center that includes as mosque.
2. It's blocks away from ground zero.
Still close enough to be insensitive.
3. Islam was merely a characteristic of the attackers; not their motivation.
Eh, I'm gonna have to disagree with this. Their motivation was that, "the west has persecuted Islam." If you read all the stuff they said in the lead up to September 11th, it was all religious reasons. They believed that, by killing themselves, they were getting rewarded in the afterlife. How is that not a motivation?
4. The hallowed ground thing is silly and overblown.
Just so I understand your point, you're saying that, when people call Ground Zero, "hallowed ground," it is silly and overblown? I think calling it hallowed ground is kind of melodramatic. I just call it insensitive.
1. St. Mary's hospital is a church then.
2. How far away does it have to be? Should we just ban muslims from NYC?
3. ITT: There are no such things as patriotic muslims.
4. Its been nearly a decade. I know I'm coming off as a jerk saying this, but I think its time to get over it.
-
hef - you're right, that was stupid of me to reply without reading the whole thread and also to say that I wasn't going to. BUT, I did just read through the whole thing annnnnd..... well.... no one made the points I made, sooooo.... I'm not exactly sure what you mean when you say, "we have to go through this again...." when no one made the points I made in the first place?
I just re-read your OP, and every point was actually addressed.
As we're figuring out, it doesn't matter where they build it, it's the symbol itself that get's people's panties in a bunch. If they agreed to move it another 2 blocks away, people would still object because now it's associated with "America's National Tragedy."
I understand that, "not all Muslims are maniacs" and, "not all of them are terrorists." I get that. But, it really doesn't matter. The people who did it - i.e., the hijackers - SAID they were Muslims.
So all that matters is the religion of the bad-guy? Why haven't we gotten riled up about Christian churches being built in the vicinity of Centennial Park in Atlanta. It was also pointed out that there is a Shinto shrine in the vicinity of Pearl Harbor, and the Pearl Harbor memorial chapel hosts a Shinto service. This is nothing but bigotry.
As for the last part, it seems pretty pointless and unrelated, so I'm not sure there's any need to reply to it. However, I suggested that Muslims actually tend to be quite respectful of other religions, they're just fanatically protective of their own. Christians and Jews don't have to worry about getting stabbed by drunken art students in Iran.
-
I've really been trying to boil what SnakeEyes is saying down, and I think this is the best I can do.
"It's okay for 'us' (I guess, assuming that we're all white Christians) to be bigoted towards Muslims, because the majority of them are bigoted toward us."
I really fear the implications this kind of thinking could when applied to other race related issues.
-
I just re-read your OP, and every point was actually addressed.
I read the whole thread and I didn't see anyone address this particular point (the bolded part in particular):
Also, one point that a lot of people don't bring up is that Muslims expect everyone to be sensitive to them, but they don't have to respect or adhere to anyone else. Example: Muslim woman works at Disney Land for two years. Once she becomes a citizen, she sues them because she wants to start wearing her Islamic garments and they refuse, even though a) she didn't wear that stuff for two years and b) she signed a contract with a dress code for Disney employees. So, basically - if a woman went to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or someplace like that, she'd HAVE to wear all that stuff, but over here, THEY can sue our private companies even though they sign contracts saying they have to adhere to the dress code. Oh, okay.
Not to argue with you or anything because I could have missed it, obviously, but could you show me where someone addressed this?
As we're figuring out, it doesn't matter where they build it, it's the symbol itself that get's people's panties in a bunch. If they agreed to move it another 2 blocks away, people would still object because now it's associated with "America's National Tragedy."
Well, yeah, actually it does matter. There are mosques all around NYC - NOT near Ground Zero. I don't see anyone complaining about them or calling for them to be torn down. Sometimes, there isn't a specific answer to something. It's like saying, "how many cigarettes does it actually take to get cancer?" Who the hell knows? Does it mean that cigarettes aren't bad for you just because you can't determine an exact number of how many it would take to kill you?
Well, that's kind of what this situation is like. I can't tell you "how far" would be "far enough away." It's not the distance, it's the attitude, the blatant disregard for the feelings of those who were affected. They simply don't care. If they were like, "you know, we didn't realize how much this would offend people - maybe we can move somewhere else," I think a lot of people would be more open to it. But, there's a certain stubborness and arrogance about it that's just disrespectful.
So all that matters is the religion of the bad-guy? Why haven't we gotten riled up about Christian churches being built in the vicinity of Centennial Park in Atlanta. It was also pointed out that there is a Shinto shrine in the vicinity of Pearl Harbor, and the Pearl Harbor memorial chapel hosts a Shinto service. This is nothing but bigotry.
No, it's not 'bigotry.' To call it bigotry is ignorance. Your point of Christian churches and the park in Atlanta - I have no idea what you're referring to there. Feel free to explain, I'll listen.
With Pearl Harbor, I can't agree with that. Remember that Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor BECAUSE of a religious ideology as the people who attacked us on 9-11 did. It was for political reasons. Plus, Japan has apologized for Pearl Harbor and they have been our friends for many decades. When you think of Pearl Harbor, you don't think of "Shinto," you think, "Japanese government/ political reasons." A religious shrine based on what they believe is kind of irrelevant to anything, especially beacuse they expressed remorse for Pearl Harbor.
As for the last part, it seems pretty pointless and unrelated, so I'm not sure there's any need to reply to it. However, I suggested that Muslims actually tend to be quite respectful of other religions, they're just fanatically protective of their own. Christians and Jews don't have to worry about getting stabbed by drunken art students in Iran.
You must have missed all that Muslim violence a couple of years ago when the cartoonist made some pictures mocking Islam and they all got pissed off, flooded the streets and violently protested it because they were offended. Or, the guy who WAS stabbed in the middle of the street because he did something that was critical of Islam.
-
So all that matters is the religion of the bad-guy? Why haven't we gotten riled up about Christian churches being built in the vicinity of Centennial Park in Atlanta. It was also pointed out that there is a Shinto shrine in the vicinity of Pearl Harbor, and the Pearl Harbor memorial chapel hosts a Shinto service. This is nothing but bigotry.
No, it's not 'bigotry.' To call it bigotry is ignorance. Your point of Christian churches and the park in Atlanta - I have no idea what you're referring to there. Feel free to explain, I'll listen.
With Pearl Harbor, I can't agree with that. Remember that Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor BECAUSE of a religious ideology as the people who attacked us on 9-11 did. It was for political reasons. Plus, Japan has apologized for Pearl Harbor and they have been our friends for many decades. When you think of Pearl Harbor, you don't think of "Shinto," you think, "Japanese government/ political reasons." A religious shrine based on what they believe is kind of irrelevant to anything, especially beacuse they expressed remorse for Pearl Harbor.
I think Barto's point, which he touched on a page or two ago, is that whatever people say, we don't actually *know* what their motivation is for their actions. The root of the 9/11 attacks was obviously at least partially political in nature; maybe Islam was more of a justification than a core motivator. I think it's a legitimate point, although I don't think the examples he used in the above post are particularly good or relevant.
-J
-
Well, we know what they have said. That's what I'm going by. And, based on what we know, it's more religious than anything.
-
I was referring to Christian terrorist Eric Rudolph who blew up some people at the Summer Olympics in Atlanta. He used the Bible to justify his acts, too. Of course, as was stated earlier in the thread, Christian maniacs that blow people up only act because they're maniacs. Muslim maniacs only attack because of Islam. Quite hypocritical, if you ask me.
And who would you expect to apologize for 911. It's pretty easy for a government to crank out apologies left and right (except ours), but these guys weren't affiliated with any government. To the best of my knowledge, the Muslims don't have a Pope-like figure to represent them. Your run of the mill Imam doesn't have anything to apologize for, but they've been pretty outspoken about condemning the acts.
You must have missed all that Muslim violence a couple of years ago when the cartoonist made some pictures mocking Islam and they all got pissed off, flooded the streets and violently protested it because they were offended. Or, the guy who WAS stabbed in the middle of the street because he did something that was critical of Islam.
I'm very familiar with it, and I don't see how it had anything to do with disrespecting other religions. As I said earlier, the Muslims are very tolerant of other religions, they just get fanatically defensive about their own. Frankly, they seem to be 1000 times more respectful of Christianity than Christians are to them.
The root of the 9/11 attacks was obviously at least partially political in nature; maybe Islam was more of a justification than a core motivator. I think it's a legitimate point, although I don't think the examples he used in the above post are particularly good or relevant.
-J
Why is Eric Rudolph not a reasonable example?
-
The root of the 9/11 attacks was obviously at least partially political in nature; maybe Islam was more of a justification than a core motivator. I think it's a legitimate point, although I don't think the examples he used in the above post are particularly good or relevant.
-J
Why is Eric Rudolph not a reasonable example?
He is; I only saw the Pearl Harbor one, my bad. Which I don't think is a good comparison because Shintoism wasn't in any way involved in that scenario. Although on second thought, you could argue that its influence helped shape modern Japanese political thought and ideology, which led to the actions, etc.
-J
-
Well, that's kind of what this situation is like. I can't tell you "how far" would be "far enough away." It's not the distance, it's the attitude, the blatant disregard for the feelings of those who were affected. They simply don't care. If they were like, "you know, we didn't realize how much this would offend people - maybe we can move somewhere else," I think a lot of people would be more open to it. But, there's a certain stubborness and arrogance about it that's just disrespectful.
I don't think they come across as arrogant and stubborn so much as the people with your exact line of thinking are completely overreacting. They're not seen as stubborn and arrogant because they are stubborn and arrogant, they're seen that way because they bought some property and when they laid out what they wanted to build there people freaked and called them insensitive when I'm almost positive they had no ill intent. This attitude and blatant disregard doesn't actually exist, it's manufactured inside the mind of someone who jumps to ridiculous conclusions without consulting, you know, logic.
-
There are mosques all around NYC - NOT near Ground Zero.
Yes there are. There are mosques closer to Ground Zero than this will be. There are also strip joints closer to Ground Zero than this will be. Also, this is not a mosque, and it doesn't contain a mosque - it contains a prayer room.
And also, it isn't at Ground Zero. It is several blocks and around a corner from Ground Zero - you can't even see either location from the other.
So again, SE, how many blocks away is close enough to appease you?
-
I don't think they come across as arrogant and stubborn so much as the people with your exact line of thinking are completely overreacting. They're not seen as stubborn and arrogant because they are stubborn and arrogant, they're seen that way because they bought some property and when they laid out what they wanted to build there people freaked and called them insensitive when I'm almost positive they had no ill intent. This attitude and blatant disregard doesn't actually exist, it's manufactured inside the mind of someone who jumps to ridiculous conclusions without consulting, you know, logic.
The only thing I will say in response to this is that Muslims are never the stubborn, arrogant ones. They're always in the right. Americans, on the other hand, are always the arrogant ones. If you choose to respond to this, that's fine, but it seems like one of those things that's kind of pointless to debate. You see it one way, I see it another way - I don't know how productive it is to argue about it. But, feel free if you wish.
Yes there are. There are mosques closer to Ground Zero than this will be.
From what I read in a few articles, the closest mosque to Ground Zero is twelve blocks away, which is pretty far, and has already been there for a while (before September 11th, I would imagine). What would really matter, though, was whether it was built AFTER September 11th and I really don't think there have been any mosques built near Ground Zero after that day.
There are also strip joints closer to Ground Zero than this will be.
Was it strippers that hijacked the planes and flew them into the WTC?
Also, this is not a mosque, and it doesn't contain a mosque - it contains a prayer room.
Isn't a "prayer center" just a mosque? I mean, I consider a chapel in a hospital to be a church, just a very small church.
And also, it isn't at Ground Zero. It is several blocks and around a corner from Ground Zero - you can't even see either location from the other.
It's close enough that debris from the attacks HIT the building that will be the home of this new Islamic establishment. Some pictures:
(https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/DrLoomis/GroundZero1.jpg)
And:
(https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/DrLoomis/GroundZero2.png)
So again, SE, how many blocks away is close enough to appease you?
I have already replied to this in a previous post - it's only a few posts back, in case you care to read it.
-
What would really matter, though, was whether it was built AFTER September 11th and I really don't think there have been any mosques built near Ground Zero after that day.
----
Was it strippers that hijacked the planes and flew them into the WTC?
What do these have to do with Ground Zero being "hallowed ground"?
Either the presence of these things are insensitive or "disrespectful" or not.
-
I don't think they come across as arrogant and stubborn so much as the people with your exact line of thinking are completely overreacting. They're not seen as stubborn and arrogant because they are stubborn and arrogant, they're seen that way because they bought some property and when they laid out what they wanted to build there people freaked and called them insensitive when I'm almost positive they had no ill intent. This attitude and blatant disregard doesn't actually exist, it's manufactured inside the mind of someone who jumps to ridiculous conclusions without consulting, you know, logic.
The only thing I will say in response to this is that Muslims are never the stubborn, arrogant ones. They're always in the right. Americans, on the other hand, are always the arrogant ones. If you choose to respond to this, that's fine, but it seems like one of those things that's kind of pointless to debate. You see it one way, I see it another way - I don't know how productive it is to argue about it. But, feel free if you wish.
You're right, it is pointless because I don't like arguing with exaggerated "playing the victim" responses. Why even include the 'always' when we're talking about one specific instance? That made no sense whatsoever.
-
Technically I guess they have the right to build the building but I don't think they should.
-
I think they should if their intention is to help the community.
America needs to end this grudge, so do muslim rebels. I consider Osama and his group to be rebels for they felt we were trying to destroy their culture, by drilling for oil and all that weapons bullshit. They had enough and felt the only was through violent means. But just because they did this doesn't mean they are all like that. Most will probably agree what they did was wrong and Could've been done by other means. That's also probably why Obama pulled out to let them rebuild they don't need us, let them reconstruct their OWN land the way they want. it's theirs not ours
-
I think they should if their intention is to help the community.
America needs to end this grudge, so do muslim rebels. I consider Osama and his group to be rebels for they felt we were trying to destroy their culture, by drilling for oil and all that weapons bullshit. They had enough and felt the only was through violent means. But just because they did this doesn't mean they are all like that. Most will probably agree what they did was wrong and Could've been done by other means. That's also probably why Obama pulled out to let them rebuild they don't need us, let them reconstruct their OWN land the way they want. it's theirs not ours
Osama seemed to have no problems with USA when he was getting funded by CIA to drive out the Russians, I think you are being very naive if you really think they do anything they do to protect their culture or religion.
-
Osama seemed to have no problems with USA when he was getting funded by CIA to drive out the Russians, I think you are being very naive if you really think they do anything they do to protect their culture or religion.
I agree with this, BUT I think we have to make a distinction between the people who planned the attacks and the people who carried out the attacks. In my opinion, the ONLY way someone gets on an airplane and flies it straight into the side of the World Trade Center is through religion. I fully believe that the hijackers were sold an ideology [a religious one] and that's why they did it.
-
Oh, and I just did a little reading on Eric Rudolph. From what I read, it looks like he denied that his motivations were religious. Anyone have more information on this?
-
Osama seemed to have no problems with USA when he was getting funded by CIA to drive out the Russians, I think you are being very naive if you really think they do anything they do to protect their culture or religion.
I agree with this, BUT I think we have to make a distinction between the people who planned the attacks and the people who carried out the attacks. In my opinion, the ONLY way someone gets on an airplane and flies it straight into the side of the World Trade Center is through religion. I fully believe that the hijackers were sold an ideology [a religious one] and that's why they did it.
Why do suicide bombers have to be religious? There were plenty before who had no religious modivation, and I'm sure many more to follow.
-
Osama seemed to have no problems with USA when he was getting funded by CIA to drive out the Russians, I think you are being very naive if you really think they do anything they do to protect their culture or religion.
I agree with this, BUT I think we have to make a distinction between the people who planned the attacks and the people who carried out the attacks. In my opinion, the ONLY way someone gets on an airplane and flies it straight into the side of the World Trade Center is through religion. I fully believe that the hijackers were sold an ideology [a religious one] and that's why they did it.
The Kamikaze weren't acting out of religious beliefs. Their motivations could best be described as patriotic. I imagine, just like the hijackers, their religious beliefs made it much easier for them to act, but that doesn't equate to their reason to act; only their willingness. The only reason that one could indict Islam for the attacks is if it specifically compelled them to act. They had a variety of reasons, and while probably the defense of Islam was one of them, that doesn't make the religion itself dangerous. Any religion can make people do damn-fool things.
Oh, and I just did a little reading on Eric Rudolph. From what I read, it looks like he denied that his motivations were religious. Anyone have more information on this?
Very similar to what I just explained, Rudolph denies that Christianity compelled him to act. The thing is, much like the hijackers, he was convinced that the Big Guy would take care of him because he was doing God's work, protecting the precious little lambs from being slaughtered.
-
The Kamikaze weren't acting out of religious beliefs. Their motivations could best be described as patriotic. I imagine, just like the hijackers, their religious beliefs made it much easier for them to act, but that doesn't equate to their reason to act; only their willingness.
From Wikipedia:
In 1944–45, the Japanese were heavily influenced by Shinto beliefs. Among other things, Emperor worship was stressed after Shinto was established as a state religion during the Meiji Restoration. As time went on, Shinto was used increasingly in the promotion of nationalist sentiment. In 1890, the Imperial Rescript on Education was passed, under which students were required to ritually recite its oath to offer themselves "courageously to the State" as well as protect the Imperial family. The ultimate offering was to give up one’s life. It was an honor to die for Japan and the Emperor. Axell and Kase pointed out: "The fact is that innumerable soldiers, sailors and pilots were determined to die, to become eirei, that is ‘guardian spirits’ of the country. [...] Many Japanese felt that to be enshrined at Yasukuni was a special honour because the Emperor twice a year visited the shrine to pay homage. Yasukuni is the only shrine, deifying common men, which the Emperor would visit to pay his respects".[26] Young Japanese people were indoctrinated from an earliest age with these ideals.
I would say that the 9-11 hijackers were "more" religious - or, more passionate - about their cause, but to say that the Japanese didn't fly suicide missions for any religious reason is not accurate.
The only reason that one could indict Islam for the attacks is if it specifically compelled them to act. They had a variety of reasons, and while probably the defense of Islam was one of them, that doesn't make the religion itself dangerous. Any religion can make people do damn-fool things.
I didn't "indict Islam" or say that Islam is dangerous. What I said is that the hijackers used Islam as the reasoning for what they did.
Very similar to what I just explained, Rudolph denies that Christianity compelled him to act. The thing is, much like the hijackers, he was convinced that the Big Guy would take care of him because he was doing God's work, protecting the precious little lambs from being slaughtered.
Well, I never heard about anyone complaining about Christian churches being built in the areas that be bombed. Did you?
-
The Kamikaze weren't acting out of religious beliefs. Their motivations could best be described as patriotic. I imagine, just like the hijackers, their religious beliefs made it much easier for them to act, but that doesn't equate to their reason to act; only their willingness.
From Wikipedia:
In 1944–45, the Japanese were heavily influenced by Shinto beliefs. Among other things, Emperor worship was stressed after Shinto was established as a state religion during the Meiji Restoration. As time went on, Shinto was used increasingly in the promotion of nationalist sentiment. In 1890, the Imperial Rescript on Education was passed, under which students were required to ritually recite its oath to offer themselves "courageously to the State" as well as protect the Imperial family. The ultimate offering was to give up one’s life. It was an honor to die for Japan and the Emperor. Axell and Kase pointed out: "The fact is that innumerable soldiers, sailors and pilots were determined to die, to become eirei, that is ‘guardian spirits’ of the country. [...] Many Japanese felt that to be enshrined at Yasukuni was a special honour because the Emperor twice a year visited the shrine to pay homage. Yasukuni is the only shrine, deifying common men, which the Emperor would visit to pay his respects".[26] Young Japanese people were indoctrinated from an earliest age with these ideals.
I would say that the 9-11 hijackers were "more" religious - or, more passionate - about their cause, but to say that the Japanese didn't fly suicide missions for any religious reason is not accurate.
The only reason that one could indict Islam for the attacks is if it specifically compelled them to act. They had a variety of reasons, and while probably the defense of Islam was one of them, that doesn't make the religion itself dangerous. Any religion can make people do damn-fool things.
I didn't "indict Islam" or say that Islam is dangerous. What I said is that the hijackers used Islam as the reasoning for what they did.
Very similar to what I just explained, Rudolph denies that Christianity compelled him to act. The thing is, much like the hijackers, he was convinced that the Big Guy would take care of him because he was doing God's work, protecting the precious little lambs from being slaughtered.
Well, I never heard about anyone complaining about Christian churches being built in the areas that be bombed. Did you?
You're making my point.
Emperor worship. Nationalist sentiment. Oaths to offer themselves "courageously to the state, as well as to protect the imperial family." Honor to die for Japan and the Emperor. "Guardian spirits of the country." Enshrined where the Emperor would pay them a visit.
None of these reasons are directly related to Shintoism. Shintoism was merely a bonus and a convenient means of getting the people riled up. If some people use religion, be it Christianity, Islam, or Pastafarianism to convince the simpleminded to do something naughty, it's not the religion that's to blame. Eric Rudolph blew shit up, and while he wasn't acting on the behalf of God or scripture, he does view himself as blessed. None of these are different than the Muslims currently deflowering their virgins.
Quote
I didn't "indict Islam" or say that Islam is dangerous. What I said is that the hijackers used Islam as the reasoning for what they did.
Saying that the community center/mosque shouldn't be built because it is a symbol of Islam and [allegedly] the reason behind the attack is an indictment of Islam. And again, there's a huge difference between a reason and a justification.
Well, I never heard about anyone complaining about Christian churches being built in the areas that be bombed. Did you?
That's my whole point. Nobody cares about the Christian maniac because he's a maniac and not a christian. People get high and mighty about Muslim maniacs because they're Muslims; not maniacs.
-
Everyone who opposes this 1.) does not have a single Muslim friend and 2.) has probably never met-- actually met, i.e., "gotten to know" a Muslim in their entire life.
Seriously.
I can't imagine how anyone who's ever known and learned to befriend a single Muslim person could allow themselves to foster such principled hatred and discrimination against an entire group of people. Unfortunately, I've learned to expect this kind of hatred SnakeEyes is espousing from the anti-rational side of the right-- and the left.
9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING
-
Isn't a "prayer center" just a mosque? I mean, I consider a chapel in a hospital to be a church, just a very small church.
I'm not familiar with the terminology "prayer center" and it isn't what I used. I used "prayer room," which is what will be in this community center. And no, it isn't a mosque. If you consider a chapel in a hospital to be a church, then you're just wrong. Not sure what else to say on that front.
-
I think whether it's a cultural center or mosque is not the issue for the opposers, the main issue would be that it is a location for extremists to gather. there is no difference between the two for a group to gather, though i'd think it would be a stupid location for a gathering to begin with as far as easy surveillance would go hahaha.
-
Haha why would they gather in the most obvious place? I'm sure a bunch of extremists would try to get together somewhere, you know, secret.
-
I think whether it's a cultural center or mosque is not the issue for the opposers, the main issue would be that it is a location for extremists to gather. there is no difference between the two for a group to gather, though i'd think it would be a stupid location for a gathering to begin with as far as easy surveillance would go hahaha.
I doubt the opposers have even give thought to the idea that extremists will gather there. They hate it because it is muslim, and muslims killed some americans a while ago.
-
I don't remember if I posted in this thread or not but I think the idea is incredibly stupid and pointlessly provocative, I have no doubt in my mind that Islam had nothing to do with 9/11 but you have to consider the feelings of the average Joe, the street man, this guy was told by the media that the evil people with beards who live on the other side of the world killed 3000 of his fellow Americans and want to kill more because they hate that we're so hip and free, we can't ignore what he feels just because he's stupid, uneducated or not well-read, he's human and occupies space and builds up rage that can explode anytime, so the claim that "oh the opposers are ignorant" shouldn't really register as a "Go ahead" for this project, most of us are ignorant about something.
-
metty: Too cool for periods.
-
:lol
-
:lol
Don't laugh, he just called you a post menopausal woman.
-
Metty, you're not allowed to post in other topics until you finish the frontman survivor.
-
heh good idea.
-
BTW, this community center will also have Christian and Jewish prayer rooms.
-
BTW, this community center will also have Christian and Jewish prayer rooms.
what about an atheist prayer room! man, the discrimination >:(
(or maybe that room is the pool, in that case yay!)
-
BTW, this community center will also have Christian and Jewish prayer rooms.
That only matters if the christian prayer room is bigger than the other two.
-
BTW, this community center will also have Christian and Jewish prayer rooms.
Why does that matter?
-
BTW, this community center will also have Christian and Jewish prayer rooms.
Why does that matter?
It doesn't, but most naysayers are focusing on the fact that it has a Muslim prayer room. It would be nice to get this fact in the limelight (nugget!) to silence, or at least, simmer the protesters. They can stop calling it a Mosque. Semantics, sadly, are such a big part of debates these days.
-
BTW, this community center will also have Christian and Jewish prayer rooms.
Why does that matter?
Because having a synagogue in downtown New York is insensitive to those who have suffered from pastrami sandwiches.
-
BTW, this community center will also have Christian and Jewish prayer rooms.
Why does that matter?
Because having a synagogue in downtown New York is insensitive to those who have suffered from pastrami sandwiches.
And having a church there is insensitive because clearly muslims stole the idea of god from the christians, who first came up with it.
-
BTW, this community center will also have Christian and Jewish prayer rooms.
Why does that matter?
Actually, I suspect that the inclusion of other faiths would, by definition, prevent it from actually being a mosque.
-
yeah, i doubt a true mosque would go for the faith inclusion
-
BTW, this community center will also have Christian and Jewish prayer rooms.
Why does that matter?
Actually, I suspect that the inclusion of other faiths would, by definition, prevent it from actually being a mosque.
This, although it already wasn't really a mosque.
-
But I'm not sure how that would make a difference to a good many of the people who object to this.
-
It wouldn't, but then again what would?
-
But I'm not sure how that would make a difference to a good many of the people who object to this.
The majority of people who object to this don't give a shit what it is; only that it's Islamic. Akhmed's Apple Pie and Ice Cream Parlor wouldn't be welcome in down town right now.
-
I think we have to stop worrying about people's feelings. People can "feel" whatever they want as long as they don't do anything illegal. The mosque cannot be stopped in a free society. If they have the dough and meet the zoning ordinance, they must be allowed to build. The average "Joe's" feelings be damned. Freedom is more important than feelings.
-
BTW, this community center will also have Christian and Jewish prayer rooms.
Why does that matter?
Because having a synagogue in downtown New York is insensitive to those who have suffered from pastrami sandwiches.
Oh my god... :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin
-
But I'm not sure how that would make a difference to a good many of the people who object to this.
I don't know that it would.
-
I did read all of the posts and only have a few things to add.
If some people use religion, be it Christianity, Islam, or Pastafarianism to convince the simpleminded to do something naughty, it's not the religion that's to blame.
I think this is a bit of a misleading argument. Justification and reward can be found throughout the Bible and the Qu'ran for terrorist acts, it all depends on which you want to act upon. If a person already believes that they will die a matyr and go to heaven for the killing of "infidels", taking advantage of this seed that is already planted is smart. Is there still an evil person behind coercing the simpleminded? Yes of course, but the evil that is the religion has already existed for hundreds of years already. Whether you like it or not, religion is to blame for much of it, not all of but much.
To alleviate all the blame off religion is just silly.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
-- Steven Weinberg
I think we have to stop worrying about people's feelings. People can "feel" whatever they want as long as they don't do anything illegal. The mosque cannot be stopped in a free society. If they have the dough and meet the zoning ordinance, they must be allowed to build. The average "Joe's" feelings be damned. Freedom is more important than feelings.
THis.
People need to realize you have freedom of speach/religion and many other freedoms in U.S.A. One thing you DO NOT HAVE IS FREEDOM FROM BEING OFFENDED!
My opinion is they should be able to build it if they want to it is there freedom. Do like? No. With all these rights and freedoms the less favourable events occur and sometimes the favourable occur but times it is the right thing to uphold.
-
Correct.
The Mosque should be built.
The Qurans should be burned.
And everyone should just STFU, feel however they feel, and rededicate themselves to Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech.
-
Respecting freedom of speech by shutting up. Interesting concept.
-
Respecting freedom of speech by shutting up. Interesting concept.
Actually it is respecting freedom of speech by allowing it.
-
Do you not feel freedom of speech covers people voicing their opinion that people should not do an act they feel to be misguided, stupid or just plan wrong?
-
Do you not feel freedom of speech covers people voicing their opinion that people should not do an act they feel to be misguided, stupid or just plan wrong?
Absolutely. As long as it ends with voicing their opinion. The essential freedoms to build the mosque and burn the qurans must remain inviolate.
-
Do you not feel freedom of speech covers people voicing their opinion that people should not do an act they feel to be misguided, stupid or just plan wrong?
Absolutely. As long as it ends with voicing their opinion. The essential freedoms to build the mosque and burn the qurans must remain inviolate.
You're missing the point. Its not about taking away those freedoms. Rather, it simply about criticizing those that use those freedoms without thought or regard to the consequences that they can have. Basically telling idiots to think before they act, even if they have the right not to do so.
-
Do you not feel freedom of speech covers people voicing their opinion that people should not do an act they feel to be misguided, stupid or just plan wrong?
Absolutely. As long as it ends with voicing their opinion. The essential freedoms to build the mosque and burn the qurans must remain inviolate.
Au contrare, there are plenty of Americans who are MORE than willing to use the political system to stop the mosque. THAT is the point. It is those Americans we need to educate.
You're missing the point. Its not about taking away those freedoms. Rather, it simply about criticizing those that use those freedoms without thought or regard to the consequences that they can have. Basically telling idiots to think before they act, even if they have the right not to do so.
-
Basically telling idiots to think before they act speak, even if they have the right not to do so.
When you edit your remark to cover the actions of a lot of the protestors, interestingly, the same principle applies.