PDA

View Full Version : Ground Zero Mosque


Pages : [1] 2

jrrtoken
07-14-2010, 05:14 PM
(Or how the global Muslim community is subjecting Islamic jurisprudence in Manhattan)

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/07/new.york.ground.zero.mosque/index.html?hpt=Mid)

Yep, that's right, us Muslims are a crafty folk. For over a millennia we've been scheming to suppress the world under one, united caliphate. Hell, 9/11 was a good revival, but we've taken some pointers from our Jewish brethren in Lichtenstein and their global banking array, and we've gone legit. So, to broadcast our dominion, we're building a thirteen-story mosque over the graveyard of the World Trade Center. Just like the siege of Jerusalem and the ruin of the Temple Mount, is there not a better rallying cry for our fellow Muslim brothers to rise and exterminate the Christian infidels than the raising of a spire upon the skeletal corpse of the American capitalist system?

Or, at least, those are the views that seem to be aggregated from a select few human loudspeakers, who are staunchly opposed to the exercise of unalienable and constitutional civil rights. Here's the picture: a rather well-to-do Islamic society wishes to transform an abandoned department store into an Islamic-based community center. The issue is, it happens to be two blocks away from the site of the former World Trade Center. The reactions have been, well, unsavory, to say the least. Obviously, in the world where all 1.5 billion Muslims think, act, and speak alike, well-formulated analogies are found, like "It's like the Germans building a brewery across the street from Auschwitz".

I'd probably have some sympathies to the opposition party if it was actually built on Ground Zero, but since the abandoned building was never even part of the World Trade Complex, you can say that I don't really see the point. Add some hypocrisy, racism, and conspiracy theories, and I've gained some antagonism to the opposition movement, however. The best arguments s far have been "THIS IS AMERICA, AND WE ARE A CHRISTIAN NATION" and "WE CAN'T LET THEM DISGRACE OUR PATRIOTS WHO DIED THAT DAY BY THEIR HANDS".


TL;DR:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjGJPPRD3u0

Thoughts, gentlemen?

Astor
07-14-2010, 05:34 PM
While I think it's probably not the best way of improving inter-faith relations, at the same time I think it's sad that those opposed to it can't understand that not all Muslims are extremists, although that's probably the point you were going for.

True_Avery
07-14-2010, 06:23 PM
Living in So.Cal most of my life and about as far away from New York as you can get in the US, my opinion doesn't really hold much credibility in a thread like this. Still, I, personally, liked this quote the best:

"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."

I recently did a lot of research on the artist Maya Ying Lin, the Chinese woman who won the contest to determine who would design the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (Memorial Wall). Her design is, artistically, haunting in its beauty... but she received death threats and racial slurs both in letter and on the political stage due to her ethnicity, and the idea that a white man should have designed the memorial. It was finally built (although some questionably offensive additions were made beforehand), and now stands as one of the treasures of our nation.

So... No, I don't have a problem with the community center. I probably wouldn't even have a problem with some kind of understanding/outreach center on the actual (eventual) 9/11 museum site. The event was caused by a blind and ignorant hatred of an entire country and its people and it would be a sad shame to walk away with the same.

Ping
07-14-2010, 06:35 PM
The fact that there is even a controversy about it proves Einstein is right; human stupidity is infinite. Sure, if it were going to be on Ground Zero, that would be a problem, but it's not, and so there should be no problem. Society simply continues to disgust me in every way possible. I don't have a problem with it, and neither should anyone else. If they want a nation where everyone is a practicing Christian, then they should leave and make their own country.

Edit: Wait a sec...are the Republicans supporting having no Mosque, or is it a Republican aligned group?

mimartin
07-14-2010, 06:51 PM
“Kill the Ground Zero Mosque” is a really poor choice of words bordering on hate speech.

Like PsastramiX wrote, it isn’t even being built at Ground Zero, I would have a problem if it was being built there, but of course that goes for any building. However, I also understand the value of the real-estate.

Det. Bart Lasiter
07-14-2010, 09:24 PM
Isn't there a strip club or some such thing there already?

Totenkopf
07-14-2010, 10:07 PM
Edit: Wait a sec...are the Republicans supporting having no Mosque, or is it a Republican aligned group?

Far as I've seen anywhere, the opposition to the mosque is mainly based on proximity, not merely principle. My guess is that if it were being built in Queens, Harlem or just about anywhere else in NY not near the former WTCs, that it wouldn't be an issue, or if you really want to be cynical, one with much resonation.

JediAthos
07-15-2010, 01:34 PM
A chance for me to utter one of my favorite movie quotes:

"A person is smart, people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
(Tommy Lee Jones as Agent K in Men In Black)

It shouldn't, but it often does, amaze me how many people are gigantic hypocrites. They preach about freedom, liberty, and God and then turn around and support oppressive, closed minded ideas. The religion of Islam did not attack the United States...fundamentalists with a perverted sense of Islam attacked the United States. There is a huge difference here!

I don't have a problem with the proposed renovation especially since it would turn a derelict building into something much more useful. People should do some research before they speak or better yet if all that is going to come out of their mouths is bigoted, ignorant ideas then I would encourage them to just not speak at all. Yes, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but imho there are far too many that abuse it.

Tysyacha
07-15-2010, 09:13 PM
I am an American, and I WEEP FOR MY COUNTRY TODAY because of this ad.

First: America is NOT a Christian nation. America is a nation which allows FREEDOM OF RELIGION, no matter WHAT religion you do (or do not) profess.

Second: The majority of Muslims love PEACE and are PEACEFUL people. NOT every single Muslim attacked us on 9/11. Only FUNDAMENTALIST MUSLIM TERRORISTS did. To most Muslims, the terrorists are wrongdoers, not heroes.

Third: The people who want to build the mosque want to build a place to PRAY AND WORSHIP, not a place to engage in acts of violence, debauchery, and hate.

Fourth: As has been said, the mosque will NOT ACTUALLY BE AT GROUND ZERO.

Fifth: Aren't the creators and promoters of this ad being hateful, racist, xenophobic, and UN-CHRISTIAN when they trumpet its dark message?

:facepalm:

Sabretooth
07-16-2010, 07:26 AM
Bet they wouldn't have had a problem with building the headquarters of an arms manufacturer there.

Tysyacha
07-16-2010, 01:48 PM
^^^^^^^^^^

This.

Revan 411
07-16-2010, 10:58 PM
I would have to agree with almost everyone else here. The fact that some people have a problem with it just goes to show you that they are hypercritical, and ignorant fools. And before anybody asks, I do condemn Al-Qaeda's attacks on the World Trade Center, and I do feel sympathy for the victims of the families who did die in 9/11. However, this doesn't give the opposition party an excuse to start posting xenophobic advertisements on the internet, and on the streets. Remember, two wrongs don't make a right.

What these people can't understand is that only a minority of the Islamic Population attacked the U.S on 9/11. The majority are peaceful, caring people who pray everyday, donate 2.5 percent of their income to charity, and want nothing more then cooperation, friendship, and peace.

Keep in mind that I'm not a Muslim, nor am I a Christian, or a Jew (even though I may have Jewish ancestry.) I'm an Agnostic, who would defend any ethnic group of people from ignorant, and racist comments.

mimartin
07-16-2010, 11:41 PM
What these people can't understand is that only a minority of the Islamic Population attacked the U.S on 9/11.
Most of these people do understand that. Their intention is to play upon the hatred, ignorance and bigotry of others to further their political goals. The fact that it isn’t at ground zero or that a majority of Muslims are not the enemy isn’t the point of the video. The entire point is inciting these feelings to get votes for their party. At the same time the political party can hid behind the fact that The National Republican Trust is a political action committee and not affiliated with the Republican Party. Really hypocritical when you consider they portray all Muslims as our enemy despite the fact that only a few Muslim extremist were behind the attacks on America.

Of course, Republicans never were really good at going after Al-Qaeda, which can be seen by our attacking Iraq instead of using our resources ferreting out Osama bin Laden.

Q
07-17-2010, 04:50 AM
Yeah, we should try to spam them with cruise missiles again.

Totenkopf
07-17-2010, 07:06 AM
Yeah, we should try to spam them with cruise missiles again.

Hey, who knows, maybe we'll get lucky and destroy something besides an alleged pill factory or a bunch of rocks. :devsmoke:

mimartin
07-17-2010, 09:42 AM
Yeah, we should try to spam them with cruise missiles again.Still closer than attacking the wrong country in the opposite direction and more conservative too both in the terms of lives and money, not that those in power care anything about the lives under thier command beyond giving them lip service.

Darth Avlectus
07-17-2010, 06:20 PM
@ OP I'm not really opposed to it. A bit detached and decidedly indifferent perhaps. The only gripe I would have is if anyone got preferential treatment over the others and it weren't an equal opportunity, but there's not enough info here to say anything about that.

Far as I've seen anywhere, the opposition to the mosque is mainly based on proximity, not merely principle. I know. Shame they didn't clarify that, either. :(

I'd like to see a community center someplace where they all could come together based upon their common values and beliefs and hard work like earlier Americans. Like sprockets of a wheel. Doesn't seem like Dems have done much to this end. It's we the people that'll have to do something since the 2 party system is broken.

mimartin
07-17-2010, 08:01 PM
Don’t know why anyone would want to build there.
http://www.propertyinvesting.net/cgi-script/csNews/image_upload/specialreports_2edb.New%20York%20Subway%20Map.gif

Lord of Hunger
07-17-2010, 10:01 PM
I do have a problem with this.

It's not that the majority of Muslims are extremist, it's that the Muslim extremists are Muslim. The Mosque would very much be empowering for their cause as much as it would be empowering for moderate Muslims.

Think about it for a moment. The goal of the Muslim extremists is to bring about a global caliphate of Islam.

It doesn't really matter if moderate Muslims are opposed to this, because if we actually had moderate Muslims opposing Muslim extremists then Muslim extremists would be less of a problem, no?

And yeah, saying that something supported by the Republicans is racist or bigoted gets really old, folks. I swear, anything they say at this point gets a racist label in the same way that anything the Democrats say is labeled as socialism. No offense, but I really find this labeling childish.

urluckyday
07-17-2010, 10:41 PM
If we lose our most basic rights after traumatic experiences, what good are those rights anyway? They are free to practice whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else and their mosque follows along with all of the zoning laws (which appears to be the case).

Go ahead, let 'em build...the extremists can call it a victory against America if they want...but hey, they can talk all they want when they have American troops at their doorstep in Afghanistan taking it to 'em everyday.

Remember, people, this is America. It's not just free for one specific group just because we're cautious of the other group(s).

Ctrl Alt Del
07-17-2010, 10:42 PM
It's not that the majority of Muslims are extremist, it's that the Muslim extremists are Muslim. The Mosque would very much be empowering for their cause as much as it would be empowering for moderate Muslims.How so? Like it's some sort of trophy for what they accomplished there? Elucidate for a while here: isn't that the very same kind of labeling you criticize afterwards, regarding Republicans?

It doesn't really matter if moderate Muslims are opposed to this, because if we actually had moderate Muslims opposing Muslim extremists then Muslim extremists would be less of a problem, no?So you have a good portion of NATO fighting said extremists and they're still a nonstate power to be reckoned with. How does the action of isolated moderate muslims gonna end the problem single-handedly?

And besides, how can you make such an assertion? How do you know muslims aren't doing what they can on their end?

JediAthos
07-17-2010, 10:46 PM
I do have a problem with this.

It's not that the majority of Muslims are extremist, it's that the Muslim extremists are Muslim. The Mosque would very much be empowering for their cause as much as it would be empowering for moderate Muslims.

Think about it for a moment. The goal of the Muslim extremists is to bring about a global caliphate of Islam.

It doesn't really matter if moderate Muslims are opposed to this, because if we actually had moderate Muslims opposing Muslim extremists then Muslim extremists would be less of a problem, no?

And yeah, saying that something supported by the Republicans is racist or bigoted gets really old, folks. I swear, anything they say at this point gets a racist label in the same way that anything the Democrats say is labeled as socialism. No offense, but I really find this labeling childish.

First, moderate Muslims are opposed to extremists at least as far as the one's that I've met in any regard. So I'm not sure exactly what you mean...if you're talking about taking up arms, Islam is a peaceful religion and true Muslims would not kill in its name. If you're talking about politically...extremists cannot be reasoned with.

How exactly would this building further terrorist goals? There are mosques all over the United States. If you're simply talking about the location then I suppose I see what you're saying even if I don't agree with it.

I will agree in partial with the labeling thing...but at the same time in my opinion if the shoe fits....

Lord of Hunger
07-18-2010, 12:21 AM
If we lose our most basic rights after traumatic experiences, what good are those rights anyway? They are free to practice whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else and their mosque follows along with all of the zoning laws (which appears to be the case).

Go ahead, let 'em build...the extremists can call it a victory against America if they want...but hey, they can talk all they want when they have American troops at their doorstep in Afghanistan taking it to 'em everyday.

Remember, people, this is America. It's not just free for one specific group just because we're cautious of the other group(s).
Freedom is one of many things America is built upon, and no one value should be held as a holy grail. Their mosque building is fine for them and doesn't harm anyone in the US directly. I have no problem with Muslims celebrating their faith, I even support them in that regard. But in this particular case it will empower Muslim extremists to see a mosque built near a site of their destructive act.
How so? Like it's some sort of trophy for what they accomplished there? Elucidate for a while here: isn't that the very same kind of labeling you criticize afterwards, regarding Republicans?
It is not a label, it is their stated goal. They have deliberately said that their goal is to destroy American ideals that they consider heresy in their faith and establish a global caliphate. The bombing of the twin towers was an act towards that goal. To establish a mosque there would be empowering for those reasons.
So you have a good portion of NATO fighting said extremists and they're still a nonstate power to be reckoned with. How does the action of isolated moderate muslims gonna end the problem single-handedly?
Moderate Muslims standing up in their community and saying no would isolate the extremists and thus diminish their standing. It would put them at risk of death, but it would be a step forward.
And besides, how can you make such an assertion? How do you know muslims aren't doing what they can on their end?
Because if they were Muslim extremists would not be as much of a problem as they are.
First, moderate Muslims are opposed to extremists at least as far as the one's that I've met in any regard. So I'm not sure exactly what you mean...if you're talking about taking up arms, Islam is a peaceful religion and true Muslims would not kill in its name. If you're talking about politically...extremists cannot be reasoned with.
Islam does seem to at least permit its followers to protect the integrity of the faith. I rarely hear about any civil protests over Muslim extremism, just US and Israeli flag burning. In other words, I have yet to be convinced that there is any considerable effort on the part of the moderates as a whole. Individually, I don't doubt it.
How exactly would this building further terrorist goals? There are mosques all over the United States. If you're simply talking about the location then I suppose I see what you're saying even if I don't agree with it.

I will agree in partial with the labeling thing...but at the same time in my opinion if the shoe fits....
It is purely that particular location. If in a few years after a new tower has been fully built, then I would be willing to reevaluate. However, this is far too soon.

Ctrl Alt Del
07-18-2010, 01:08 AM
It is not a label, it is their stated goal. They have deliberately said that their goal is to destroy American ideals that they consider heresy in their faith and establish a global caliphate. The bombing of the twin towers was an act towards that goal. To establish a mosque there would be empowering for those reasons.I mean you're lumping all the muslims in one sack and calling them extremists.

Moderate Muslims standing up in their community and saying no would isolate the extremists and thus diminish their standing. It would put them at risk of death, but it would be a step forward.Kind of hard to do when they are at gunpoint. Or when the State does not exist or reach a certain places and all that passes for law, social and healthcare are those extrimists. Too much to ask for, say, a tribal community which has ony known war against the same targets the extremists claim to fight against.

So:
Because if they were Muslim extremists would not be as much of a problem as they are.
Dunno how you reached that conclusion.

jrrtoken
07-18-2010, 09:31 AM
Freedom is one of many things America is built upon, and no one value should be held as a holy grail. Their mosque building is fine for them and doesn't harm anyone in the US directly. I have no problem with Muslims celebrating their faith, I even support them in that regard. But in this particular case it will empower Muslim extremists to see a mosque built near a site of their destructive act.Conversely, the prohibition of the construction of the mosque would serve as an example of perceived Western oppression and upheaval of Islam. Propaganda is propaganda, regardless of the reason, and in this case, it wouldn't be incredibly inaccurate, although highly embellished.It is not a label, it is their stated goal. They have deliberately said that their goal is to destroy American ideals that they consider heresy in their faith and establish a global caliphate. The bombing of the twin towers was an act towards that goal. To establish a mosque there would be empowering for those reasons.That's too general; al-Qaeda's present aim is to rid the Muslim world of Western influence, of any form. Whether that means the direct upheaval of the West itself, and the propagation of Islam thereafter, is something entirely different. Right now, al-Qaeda's motive are molded as a defensive one; world domination isn't exactly an explicit goal. I suppose that Hamas and Hezbollah could also be lumped into the same, villainous cubby, no?

Secondly, would it not be unreasonable to say that this controversy is all rooted in coincidental real estate, and not idealistic capital? Even if the construction is where it is for a specific reason, would it not be a better way to turn a new leaf than to do so at the figurehead of all misunderstanding of Islam? It's not too different than establishing St. Peter's Basilica over a Roman necropolis, or the reestablishment of the then-polytheist Kaa'ba as a site of worship to God.

Jae Onasi
07-18-2010, 01:08 PM
(Or how the global Muslim community is subjecting Islamic jurisprudence in Manhattan)

Yep, that's right, us Muslims are a crafty folk. For over a millennia we've been scheming to suppress the world under one, united caliphate. Hell, 9/11 was a good revival, but we've taken some pointers from our Jewish brethren in Lichtenstein and their global banking array, and we've gone legit. So, to broadcast our dominion, we're building a thirteen-story mosque over the graveyard of the World Trade Center. Just like the siege of Jerusalem and the ruin of the Temple Mount, is there not a better rallying cry for our fellow Muslim brothers to rise and exterminate the Christian infidels than the raising of a spire upon the skeletal corpse of the American capitalist system?
I always knew you had it in you. :thmbup1:



Thoughts, gentlemen?
There are no girlz on teh interwebz?

mimartin
07-18-2010, 02:23 PM
would it not be unreasonable to say that this controversy is all rooted in coincidental real estateLocation, Location, Location. With 6 subway lines and the South Ferry all within reasonable walking distance, I'd say the location has more to do with conveniences than being coincidental.

jrrtoken
07-18-2010, 08:50 PM
There are no girlz on teh interwebz?Of course not; what a preposterous notion! o_QLocation, Location, Location. With 6 subway lines and the South Ferry all within reasonable walking distance, I'd say the location has more to do with conveniences than being coincidental.Yeah, that too. I really meant that it's probably not agenda-motivated for the mosque to be in such proximity to the WTC, and if it was, it's probably not malcontented.

Totenkopf
07-18-2010, 11:39 PM
Of course not; what a preposterous notion!


Yeah, Jae, everyone knows that the only girlz on teh interwebz are always in scantilly clad images. :devsmoke: The rest of 'em are just dirty old pervs that occasionally get caught by Chris Hansen. ;)

As to the center, it's a bad PR move no matter where you come down on the issue. If not for the attack on the Towers, it would likely be a non-issue in the end.

Tommycat
07-19-2010, 11:02 PM
While I'm not affected directly by this, I can see why they oppose it so much. The best thing they could have done was an inter-faith community center, where ALL faiths are respected. Being in close proximity to the WTC location was probably at most "Bad Form" but not further than that. I mean if an extremist Christian group blew up an abortion clinic, I would consider it bad form for them to build a Christian Community center right near by...

mimartin
07-19-2010, 11:13 PM
Would it be bad form to have a U.S. Army recruiter located near the Oklahoma City National Memorial due to the Alfred P Murrah Federal being destroyed by one former U.S. Army Soldier, Timothy James McVeigh?

Tommycat
07-19-2010, 11:32 PM
Would it be bad form to have a U.S. Army recruiter located near the Oklahoma City National Memorial due to the Alfred P Murrah Federal being destroyed by one former U.S. Army Soldier, Timothy James McVeigh?

Not really, McVeigh was no longer a part of the Army. And the Army is an arm of the Fed... you know the ones McVeigh was mad at. Now, if all the terrorists had denounced Islam, and or the muslim faith altogether, then we'd be comparing apples with apples. Instead you're comparing Apples with Cheetos.

mimartin
07-20-2010, 11:05 AM
I think all we are discussing here is fruit and cereals. We are blaming an entire group for what one a few idiots did. We scream to high heaven about freedom and our pride in the constitution, then turn around and flush the First Amendment down the toilet when someone uses those freedom granted by it violates our delicate sensitivities.

Funny I thought the only problem people had with building the Mosque was it was too close to ground zero, guess that isn’t the only reason. Planned Temecula Valley mosque draws opposition (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/18/local/la-me-mosque-20100718) Seems 2771 miles is still a little to close to ground zero. :rolleyes:

jrrtoken
07-20-2010, 11:44 AM
Funny I thought the only problem people had with building the Mosque was it was too close to ground zero, guess that isn’t the only reason. Planned Temecula Valley mosque draws opposition (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/18/local/la-me-mosque-20100718) Seems 2771 miles is still a little to close to ground zero. :rolleyes:There's more than that; Tennessee is also facing the presence of a new "Islamic training center", or at least that's what a congressional candidate Lou Ann Zeleniak calls the proposed Islamic Center of Murfressboro."Until the American Muslim community find it in their hearts to separate themselves from their evil, radical counterparts, to condemn those who want to destroy our civilization and will fight against them, we are not obligated to open our society to any of them," Zelenik says in the statement.Yeah, that kinda already happened immediately after 9/11... or maybe that's just what they want me to believe.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jpkCpfgvAUdm2qAsTfLt60TGfn_gD9GHVD6O2
http://www.tennessean.com/article/D4/20100625/NEWS01/6250319/Sign+at+future+mosque+site+vandalized+again
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/15/tennessee.mosque.controversy/

"In Islam, a mosque means 'We have conquered this country,'" one man told CNN affiliate WTVF. "And where are they? They're in the center of Tennessee. They're going to say, 'We have conquered Tennessee.'"

And everyone's favorite sentient megaphone Sarah Palin has entered the fray... (http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/18858128918)Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healingSarah Palin, I'm truly sorry for being so irresponsible for the behavior of my 7 million, American Muslims hive-mates. I'll be sure to not utilize my constitutional right to freely practice my religion so wantonly again.

JediAthos
07-20-2010, 12:36 PM
Sarah Palin shouldn't be allowed to speak....ever. I can't even begin to speak to the ignorance the speakers of those quotes exhibited and this is the problem I have with way too many of my fellow Americans. Not that they exhibit freedom of speech...by all means speak, but please I beg you, think before you do so or at least do a little research.

*sigh* I suppose it's probably asking too much....at any rate perhaps someday who worships what religion where won't matter any more but I'm not holding my breath for it to be anytime soon..cause I might die if I did that.

Liverandbacon
07-20-2010, 02:29 PM
As long as it complies with zoning laws, which it does, to my knowledge, let them build it. Yeah, some extremists will see it as a mark of victory, but they'd get the same propaganda value from railing against the tyranny of the great satan if we didn't let it get built.

The funny thing is, they wouldn't get any propaganda value at all from it if we hadn't started calling it the Ground Zero mosque. It's far enough away that if a big deal hadn't been made out of it, the extremists probably wouldn't have even realized the proximity.

Tommycat
07-20-2010, 08:23 PM
I think all we are discussing here is fruit and cereals. We are blaming an entire group for what one a few idiots did. We scream to high heaven about freedom and our pride in the constitution, then turn around and flush the First Amendment down the toilet when someone uses those freedom granted by it violates our delicate sensitivities.

Funny I thought the only problem people had with building the Mosque was it was too close to ground zero, guess that isn’t the only reason. Planned Temecula Valley mosque draws opposition (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/18/local/la-me-mosque-20100718) Seems 2771 miles is still a little to close to ground zero. :rolleyes:

I call it bad form. But don't see any real problem with it. I certainly wouldn't protest it being built. Sorry if you thought that about me. Bad form is nothing but me saying, "Meh you should have thought more about it but.. Whatever..."

As for the other one... Some people just don't understand that not all Muslims are terrorists. But then are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to protest the mosque being built?

mimartin
07-20-2010, 08:50 PM
But then are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to protest the mosque being built?I believe people should be allowed be to stupid if they want.

Darth Avlectus
07-20-2010, 08:57 PM
As long as it complies with zoning laws, which it does, to my knowledge, let them build it. Yeah, some extremists will see it as a mark of victory, but they'd get the same propaganda value from railing against the tyranny of the great satan if we didn't let it get built.

The funny thing is, they wouldn't get any propaganda value at all from it if we hadn't started calling it the Ground Zero mosque. It's far enough away that if a big deal hadn't been made out of it, the extremists probably wouldn't have even realized the proximity.
Right on. The name has a bit to do with it, I'd say more than proximity.

I call it bad form. But don't see any real problem with it. I certainly wouldn't protest it being built. Sorry if you thought that about me. Bad form is nothing but me saying, "Meh you should have thought more about it but.. Whatever..."
Also QFT.

Q
07-20-2010, 11:42 PM
As long as it complies with zoning laws, which it does, to my knowledge, let them build it. Yeah, some extremists will see it as a mark of victory, but they'd get the same propaganda value from railing against the tyranny of the great satan if we didn't let it get built.
Yup. I can't help but think that the motives behind this project are extremely shrewd.

jawathehutt
07-22-2010, 11:02 PM
I do have a problem with this.

It's not that the majority of Muslims are extremist, it's that the Muslim extremists are Muslim. The Mosque would very much be empowering for their cause as much as it would be empowering for moderate Muslims.
Are you implying that there's no such thing as extremist Christians or Jews or really anything else?

Think about it for a moment. The goal of the Muslim extremists is to bring about a global caliphate of Islam.
No... thats the goal of some Muslim extremists. Some want other religions out of their Holy Land. Some could care less about a world caliphate and would be fine if Russia stopped bombing them. Some would be fine with just their own country as a caliphate, undisturbed by the west. Some of them want to kill the Sunnis. Some want to kill the Shiites I know the media makes terrorism seem really simple, but terrorists are not in an international league of EVVVVIIIILLLLLLLL. They dont all share the same goals.

It doesn't really matter if moderate Muslims are opposed to this, because if we actually had moderate Muslims opposing Muslim extremists then Muslim extremists would be less of a problem, no?
Youre completely right. Us God fearing Christians are the only ones fighting the terrorists. Its a good thing Christian Pakistan is aiding us. And thank goodness Christian Kuwait let us hang out there before we invaded Iraq. And our military, good thing its 100% non Muslims.

Tysyacha
07-25-2010, 10:13 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
LE GAGNANT (the winner!)

I adore satire! Keep it up, because you made me laugh so hard my belly shook! :)

Ping
08-08-2010, 11:17 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38612000/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times

So, it looks like NY isn't the only place with opposition to Mosques.

Ugh, this makes me sick. People are saying Islam is the enemy and we'll all be Muslim sooner or later. The utter hypocrisy of these guys is just plain disgusting: you can follow whatever religion you want - as long as it's Christianity.

I'm going to quote the Daily Show here:

Go **** yourselves!

Q
08-08-2010, 02:48 PM
Ugh, MSNBC makes me sick.


So does Fox News.

Ping
08-08-2010, 02:53 PM
Ugh, MSNBC makes me sick.


So does Fox News.

It said the article was from the New York Times. If it wasn't from the paper, then I wouldn't have posted it in the first place.

Q
08-08-2010, 03:17 PM
The NYT is no different. They're all propagandist crap, you know.

Totenkopf
08-08-2010, 03:19 PM
The NYT ain't much farther away from credibility than MSNBC, but this is the original link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?_r=2

Two other related links:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/mayor_to_mosque_foes_shut_up_already_88RNBXhPqZa2m TlERJGdzN

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html

jrrtoken
08-08-2010, 07:34 PM
The entire argument in NYC would be completely legitimate if it wasn't for

A) every other mosque protest;
B) the conclusion that every Muslim holds the same outlook as their comrades within a radical minority;
C) the portrayal of a sample population of an entire religion and its adherents as a monolithic bloc by using sweeping, vague terms;
D) the irrational fear of the subjugation of American civilization by said religion, akin to antisemitism and McCarthyism;
E) the view that the U.S. Constitution seems to make an exception with this religious group, questioning whether even natural-born citizens should be allowed to exercise their natural rights as taxpayers.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ping
08-08-2010, 07:44 PM
The NYT is no different. They're all propagandist crap, you know.

And everything else isn't? I think you just want to prove me wrong just because you happen to disagree with me.

Q
08-08-2010, 08:34 PM
And everything else isn't? I think you just want to prove me wrong just because you happen to disagree with me.
You mean I'm debating an issue with you in a debating forum? :p

In this case, I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that you tend to get your info from the most left-leaning sources available, and only from them. In my experience, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle, so the best course of action would probably be to listen to both sides and then make up your own mind. Anything's better than letting some propagandist hatemonger do your thinking for you.

I believe that it's also worth pointing out that you'll also get a lot more adult types, such as myself, to actually take you seriously if you present your argument like this:
The entire argument in NYC would be completely legitimate if it wasn't for

A) every other mosque protest;
B) the conclusion that every Muslim holds the same outlook as their comrades within a radical minority;
C) the portrayal of a sample population of an entire religion and its adherents as a monolithic bloc by using sweeping, vague terms;
D) the irrational fear of the subjugation of American civilization by said religion, akin to antisemitism and McCarthyism;
E) the view that the U.S. Constitution seems to make an exception with this religious group, questioning whether even natural-born citizens should be allowed to exercise their natural rights as taxpayers.
instead of like this:
<snip>
Ugh, this makes me sick.
<snip>
Go **** yourselves!
My opinion on the issue? While I think that the choice of where to build this mosque is indeed a shrewd one, there is no reason why they should be prevented from building it.

Darth Avlectus
08-08-2010, 08:54 PM
If moslems definitively condemn the extremists in their beliefs who carry out these terrible actions, as all others condemn the terrible extremists in their respective religions, then we have some common ground from which to move forward and build a framework for future unity that will be in trust.

Until then, mistrust will continue between one another.

Ping
08-08-2010, 09:34 PM
@Evil Q: Quite honestly, I've never really cared how people perceive me.

Also, I believe that's the only time I've ever used a biased source.

Totenkopf
08-08-2010, 10:22 PM
The entire argument in NYC would be completely legitimate if it wasn't for

A) every other mosque protest;
B) the conclusion that every Muslim holds the same outlook as their comrades within a radical minority;
C) the portrayal of a sample population of an entire religion and its adherents as a monolithic bloc by using sweeping, vague terms;
D) the irrational fear of the subjugation of American civilization by said religion, akin to antisemitism and McCarthyism;
E) the view that the U.S. Constitution seems to make an exception with this religious group, questioning whether even natural-born citizens should be allowed to exercise their natural rights as taxpayers.

Regardless of reasons A-E, the case vs the mosque in NYC is less b/c it's a mosque and almost exclusively b/c of location (as well as legitimate questions....Mayor Bloomberg notwithstanding...about its financing). I don't see the US or various state govts forbidding the building of mosques in the US on principle alone. Nor, for that matter, do I see the govt cracking down on and closing mosques throughout the US. As to anti-semitism, non-sequitur b/c when's the last time a radical Jewish group simultaneously attacked the US at multiple targets? Pre-911, most Americans could've given a rat's ass about where muslims settled or worshipped in the US. Ditto on McCarthyism. He was actually right about the level of penetration of the US by communists (Venona Papers), but managed to alienate too many people in the process of trying to ferret them out.

The problem with the "muslim issue" is the same as with the "immigration issue"......that people concerned about the problem are painted as irrational racists and nativists. I rarely see anyone saying that ALL moslems or even ALL immigrants are "evil", but you wouldn't know that from a lot of media coverage that carelessly or purposely confuses the issues by conflating all muslims as being viewed as radicals and all immigrants as illegal by large sections of the population. Thus, anti-radical Islam is portrayed as anti-Islamic sentiment in general and anti-illegal aliens is labeled anti-immigrant. This only poisons the well.

As for the NYC Mosque-civic center, Gingrich and others have actually made a legitimate observation. If it's merely about healing, there's enough room in a proposed 15 story structure to have an interfaith setup. The building could have multiple religious "buildings" w/in. Temples, chapels, mosques, etc.. that would lend credence to the aforementioned claim. Otherwise, perhaps they could take a page from the Catholic church and not build a convent near a former concentration camp site b/c it's in dubiuous form to do so.

jrrtoken
08-08-2010, 10:46 PM
If moslems definitively condemn the extremists in their beliefs who carry out these terrible actions, as all others condemn the terrible extremists in their respective religions, then we have some common ground from which to move forward and build a framework for future unity that will be in trust.

Until then, mistrust will continue between one another.The thing is, that's been happening immediately after 9/11. Pretty much every Islamic society in the U.S. and even throughout the world immediately denounced al-Qaeda & Co. It wasn't just affluent, Western Muslims, though; even the most conservative and prestigious ulema have labeled bin Laden as a literal apostate. The problem is not why Muslims haven't denounced Islamic terrorism, the problem is no one in the media seems to listen, or they're simply conveniently ignoring it.

This brings up a whole other issue: why should mainstream, moderate Muslims have to apologize for heinous, sinful acts committed by other Muslims near and far? When an abortion doctor is murdered, or a gay bar is bombed, do we see an entire Christian community rise and vehemently apologize for the act, assuring citizens that the crime is not representative of their own religion, in an attempt to dispel and prevent any violent backlash or sentiments of hate? No, that's silly and irrational; just why would it be incumbent on every individual Christian in the world to sound an alarm for a tragedy related by a single thread? Transport that same sentiment, and you can very well see why it's also unreasonable to expect Muslims to repeatedly do the same thing.

As to anti-semitism, non-sequitur b/c when's the last time a radical Jewish group simultaneously attacked the US at multiple targets? Pre-911, most Americans could've given a rat's ass about where muslims settled or worshipped in the US.The contention is not the circumstance or the context, but the reaction to it. For the most part, it has not been singling out a specific minority within Islam, but Islam and Muslims as a whole. Given that; yes, there is a legitimate threat coming from radicalized Muslims, and yes, we Americans should try to combat it, both domestically, and when justified, internationally; this is also incumbent upon Muslims within the U.S.

What is happening is a massive overreaction to a surgical problem. Determining which Muslim is radical or not is difficult, simply put. Should we, however, assume that every Muslim is inherently radical? No, that's irrational; but that doesn't let fear and hysteria get in the way. See Japanese American internment, HUAC, and of course there's the motherload, but that's bringing up Godwin's, so... >_>
The problem with the "muslim issue" is the same as with the "immigration issue"......that people concerned about the problem are painted as irrational racists and nativists. I rarely see anyone saying that ALL moslems or even ALL immigrants are "evil", but you wouldn't know that from a lot of media coverage that carelessly or purposely confuses the issues by conflating all muslims as being viewed as radicals and all immigrants as illegal by large sections of the population. Thus, anti-radical Islam is portrayed as anti-Islamic sentiment in general and anti-illegal aliens is labeled anti-immigrant. This only poisons the well.I agree; it's just as destructive as, say, labeling all Muslims as inherently violent. In reality, only a few, vocal individuals who oppose the mosque in NYC are bona-fide Islamophobes; the rest are either neutral or indifferent, which is probably the same attitude that mainstream America shares. Does this make the opposition inherently Islamophobic? Nope; most have legitimate concerns, and I think that those need to be addressed. That being said, I think that we can leave it safely at that. :)
As for the NYC Mosque-civic center, Gingrich and others have actually made a legitimate observation. If it's merely about healing, there's enough room in a proposed 15 story structure to have an interfaith setup. The building could have multiple religious "buildings" w/in. Temples, chapels, mosques, etc.. that would lend credence to the aforementioned claim. Otherwise, perhaps they could take a page from the Catholic church and not build a convent near a former concentration camp site b/c it's in dubiuous form to do so.I also agree; the planning and PR from the Cordoba Initiative has been poor, to say the least, and much should have been considered and planned before the plans were finalized. So, yes, they're certainly at fault. However, I again feel that they're being criticized by many for completely different circumstances.

Totenkopf
08-08-2010, 11:29 PM
The contention is not the circumstance or the context, but the reaction to it. For the most part, it has not been singling out a specific minority within Islam, but Islam and Muslims as a whole. Given that; yes, there is a legitimate threat coming from radicalized Muslims, and yes, we Americans should try to combat it, both domestically, and when justified, internationally; this is also incumbent upon Muslims within the U.S.

I think there are people that are taking a "damn them all and batten down the hatches" approach, but I don't believe it's the majority. I do realize that elements of the media are doing their utmost to color it that way, however. I'd agree with you in general that it's not fair to lump all people in a group, w/o proof to the contrary, into the same pot.



What is happening is a massive overreaction to a surgical problem. Determining which Muslim is radical or not is difficult, simply put. Should we, however, assume that every Muslim is inherently radical? No, that's irrational; but that doesn't let fear and hysteria get in the way. See Japanese American internment, HUAC, and of course there's the motherload, but that's bringing up Godwin's, so... >_>

I do wonder how much of the internment wasn't also motivated in part by a fear of how the civillian population at large would react to those Americans of Japanese and even Italian and German descent. I'd say that, in the case of the Japanese (nisei, sansei, etc..), the combat record of the 442nd Cbt Rgmt should have put to rest any suspicions about loyalty. Not to mention the fact that many of the Japanese in Hawaii were not sent to internment camps either.

Darth Avlectus
08-09-2010, 12:33 AM
The thing is, that's been happening immediately after 9/11. Pretty much every Islamic society in the U.S. and even throughout the world immediately denounced al-Qaeda & Co. It wasn't just affluent, Western Muslims, though; even the most conservative and prestigious ulema have labeled bin Laden as a literal apostate. The problem is not why Muslims haven't denounced Islamic terrorism, the problem is no one in the media seems to listen, or they're simply conveniently ignoring it. Well, now that is true. I do have a 67 year old friend (Persian Moslem) who immigrated here 30+ years ago. He and his mother came here so that they could enjoy liberty, and so that his mother could basically have a nicer place to spend her final years without stigma of being old and single, etc. where they used to live. (To the best of my understanding.)

He is like any other person I know and in fact would probably surprise people with his stances on many issues. Which, yes, would never get coverage.

This brings up a whole other issue: why should mainstream, moderate Muslims have to apologize for heinous, sinful acts committed by other Muslims near and far? When an abortion doctor is murdered, or a gay bar is bombed, do we see an entire Christian community rise and vehemently apologize for the act, assuring citizens that the crime is not representative of their own religion, in an attempt to dispel and prevent any violent backlash or sentiments of hate? No, that's silly and irrational; just why would it be incumbent on every individual Christian in the world to sound an alarm for a tragedy related by a single thread? Transport that same sentiment, and you can very well see why it's also unreasonable to expect Muslims to repeatedly do the same thing.
Very well.

As a whole, they shouldn't have to, unless as a collective whole group they are trying to go forward with something. Then at which point they would need to clarify. Otherwise, it should just be hinged upon the individual when asked of him/her in passing.

Ping
08-14-2010, 05:42 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100814/ts_afp/uspoliticsreligionattacksobama_20100814172344

While the subject of the article is about Obama's support, the one thing that shocked me was the fact that a Church is going to hold a "Koran-burning."

jrrtoken
08-14-2010, 06:28 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100814/ts_afp/uspoliticsreligionattacksobama_20100814172344

While the subject of the article is about Obama's support, the one thing that shocked me was the fact that a Church is going to hold a "Koran-burning."I gotta give the guy credit; he brings forth a good argument. Basically, if you're Christian, you should burn the Qur'an. Islam is of the devil, because, well, Islam is of the devil. He's made some awesome lectures on YouTube, though:

3Tf9M9HRMWk

SoxQp5E41s4

Step aside, Fred Phelps; there's an new sheriff in town...

Ten-96
08-14-2010, 06:42 PM
It's not only the location of the proposed mosque but also the religious leader for the center - Feisal Abdul Rauf. Rauf has been in print and on video as of late and believes the United States Foreign Policy was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Rauf also refuses to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

What about some of the surviving family members of those who died in the 9-11 attacks? Are they racist or bigoted because they oppose? We have the freedom to practice any religion in this country. We do not have the freedom to place our respective religious centers anywhere we want.

I, too, am opposed to the location of this proposed center. Someone here mentioned location, location, location and I found it to be ironic. Let's say a white supremacist group decided they needed a new center for their members. They decide to build the new center in the immediate area of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. Would you all be in support of it? Remember, not all white supremacist group members have engaged in violence against blacks, jews or homosexuals. In fact, the majority of their members are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who just so happen to believe that the white race is superior to all others.

Ping
08-14-2010, 07:49 PM
It's not only the location of the proposed mosque but also the religious leader for the center - Feisal Abdul Rauf. Rauf has been in print and on video as of late and believes the United States Foreign Policy was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Rauf also refuses to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

What about some of the surviving family members of those who died in the 9-11 attacks? Are they racist or bigoted because they oppose? We have the freedom to practice any religion in this country. We do not have the freedom to place our respective religious centers anywhere we want.

I, too, am opposed to the location of this proposed center. Someone here mentioned location, location, location and I found it to be ironic. Let's say a white supremacist group decided they needed a new center for their members. They decide to build the new center in the immediate area of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. Would you all be in support of it? Remember, not all white supremacist group members have engaged in violence against blacks, jews or homosexuals. In fact, the majority of their members are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who just so happen to believe that the white race is superior to all others.

It sounds as if you think white supremecists are better than Muslims, quite frankly. The way I see it, that's pretty much a different case; Islam is not a religion of hate, but white supremecists do hate everyone who isn't white. To me, it appears as if you think all Muslims have been terrorists or broken the law.

Also, you're going to have to back-up the first part of your argument. I personally don't mind people's opinions on Hamas; yeah, they've done pretty questionable things, to put it mildly, though they pale in comparison to al-Qaeda. I have never seen an article saying the guy believed the U.S. State Dept. was behind 9/11.

Ten-96
08-14-2010, 08:20 PM
I never inferred that white supremacists are better than muslims. I gave an example. As far as white supremacy being based on hate, just ask and they'll tell you they do not hate - they believe themselves to be superior to all other races, per se. Nowhere in my post did I allude that all muslims are terrorists nor did I mention the U.S. State Department. However, all of the recent terrorist attacks or plots against the United States have been carried out or attempted by muslims with the exception of Timothy McVeigh. As far as islam not being a religion of hate, we will have to agree to disagree. There are other posts on these boards where I make my opinion known about the islamic faith.

Here is just one article about Feisal Abdul Rauf. (http://neveryetmelted.com/2010/08/13/the-blindness-of-the-establishment/)

Here is another. (http://www.examiner.com/religion-social-issues-in-newark/have-we-been-told-the-truth-about-the-9-11-mosque)

jrrtoken
08-14-2010, 10:00 PM
It's not only the location of the proposed mosque but also the religious leader for the center - Feisal Abdul Rauf. Rauf has been in print and on video as of late and believes the United States Foreign Policy was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Rauf also refuses to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization.Yeah, I've heard that, too. Do I think that he was explicit in citing 9/11 as an inside job? No; I think he's trying to say that U.S. foreign policy has served as a catalyst for Islamic terrorism. When looking at the history of the Middle East in the 20th century, that isn't really a far-fetched claim, to say the least.

He phrased it in a completely horrible manner, but his point still stands.

However, all of the recent terrorist attacks or plots against the United States have been carried out or attempted by muslims with the exception of Timothy McVeigh.Terrorism isn't exclusive to any particular age or ideal; it's a perennial phenomenon. Fifty years ago it was communist sympathizers and white supremacists; a hundred years ago it was federal anarchists; 150 years ago it was radical abolitionists and southern nationalists. Twenty years from now, it might be firearms activists, or PETA militias; stating "Well, we don't see terrorists coming from " is fallacious, because chances are that we have seen or we will see terrorists produced by some ideology.

As far as islam not being a religion of hate, we will have to agree to disagree. There are other posts on these boards where I make my opinion known about the islamic faith. If this debate [i]is going to be about the mosque and the mosque alone, then any conceptions, right or wrong, about Islam should be addressed here before we move any further. :)

Ten-96
08-14-2010, 10:36 PM
He phrased it in a completely horrible manner, but his point still stands.

I'm confused - are you saying you agree with Rauf that United States foreign policy was a catalyst for the 9-11 attacks; ie. we brought this on ourselves?


Terrorism isn't exclusive to any particular age or ideal; it's a perennial phenomenon. Fifty years ago it was communist sympathizers and white supremacists; a hundred years ago it was federal anarchists; 150 years ago it was radical abolitionists and southern nationalists. Twenty years from now, it might be firearms activists, or PETA militias; stating "Well, we don't see terrorists coming from " is fallacious, because chances are that we have seen or we will see terrorists produced by some ideology.

The difference is white supremacists, PETA and environmental groups aren't attempting to bring about the destruction and downfall of the United States. Those groups do not hold the United States as the purveyor of all ills in the world. Call them extremists or radicalized, they get their start in islam.


If this debate [i]is going to be about the mosque and the mosque alone, then any conceptions, right or wrong, about Islam should be addressed here before we move any further. :)

This debate isn't about the mosque, it's about the location of the mosque. I'm sure there are numerous places in Manhattan where they could build this new mosque.

Therein lies the problem. How can someone convince someone else that their view of a particular subject is right or wrong? I'm sure my view of islam differs from yours. It doesn't make my views right or wrong because there's a consensus on the subject.

My posts in the Fort Hood Shooting Thread. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=201379)

jrrtoken
08-14-2010, 11:14 PM
I'm confused - are you saying you agree with Rauf that United States foreign policy was a catalyst for the 9-11 attacks; ie. we brought this on ourselves?No; I am not in any way implying that the U.S. contributed to the 9/11 attack directly, nor Islamic terrorism as a whole. What does factor into the terrorism equation is the development of the narrative behind it; i.e. perceived Western aggression towards Islam, imperialism in the Middle East, etc. All of this propaganda is founded upon the influence of Western powers in the Middle East during the 20th century, which is an undeniable fact.

Take T.E. Lawrence; why do you think the British sent him to Arabia to spur a revolt? To weaken the Ottoman Empire, which collapsed, and was partitioned by the Allies. The nations formed by various Allied powers were eventually installed with Western-friendly governments, like Iran, Iraq, etc. During the Cold War, those reigning were staunchly anti-communist, and those that had presumed communist sympathies were usually overthrown by Western-backed coups; see the re-installment of the Shah. The anti-communist leaders usually weren't better; see Saddam Hussein, and the former example.

I'd go on, but here's the point: America has indirectly contributed to the rise of Islamic terrorism in the 20th century and beyond, and by extension, could be considered a factor to 9/11. This notion does not mean "The U.S. allowed 9/11 to happen" or "It was an inside job", but it does state that the U.S. is very loosely responsible. Now, terrorist organizations have used U.S. influence in the Middle East as propaganda, and the implications of the U.S. have been exaggerated beyond belief, but all propaganda is based on some truth, no matter what.

The difference is white supremacists, PETA and environmental groups aren't attempting to bring about the destruction and downfall of the United States. Those groups do not hold the United States as the purveyor of all ills in the world. Call them extremists or radicalized, they get their start in islam. That's too coddling; many neo-Nazi groups have advocated anarchy on a national level; see The Turner Diaries. Even then, this is a bad argument; totalism like this abstractly redefines "terrorism", and saying that some groups are or are not "terrorist" enough to be considered bona-fide terrorists is rather dangerous. Assassinating a head of state due to political beliefs is as "terrorist" as plotting to detonate a nuke in D.C.; there is no room for subjectivity.

This debate isn't about the mosque, it's about the location of the mosque. I'm sure there are numerous places in Manhattan where they could build this new mosque.Maybe, but there might be other factors considering the location, as others have noticed. Personally, they should've been much more wary of the proximity to the WTC, but that's a dead point. Even if it was built three blocks away, or six blocks away, or nine blocks away, there would probably still be a controversy.

There's a strip club three blocks away from the WTC. I ask you, would that also be seen as an affront to the victims of 9/11?

Therein lies the problem. How can someone convince someone else that there view of a particular subject is right or wrong? I'm sure my view of islam differs from yours. It doesn't make my views right or wrong because there's a consensus on the subject. I will look for the posts I made and provide a link to them when I get a chance.Subjectivity is not equal to objectivity. If you'd noticed when researching Islam, it shares many parallels with Judaism and Christianity, including the "violent" parts. Now, if Islam is considered a "violent religion", then by extension, would this also be applicable to the former two faiths?

And before you respond "Well, in the context of...___... it's OK", then would this not be the same for Islam? if you've read a reliable and objective biography of Muhammad, you'd realize that early Islam has much in common with the perennial plights of the Israelites, or the life of Abraham, or the Exodus. Yes, there's violence, but the adherents of all of these faiths have dutifully denounced these allegations with theological and physical arguments. This is the just same for Islam.

Ping
08-15-2010, 11:01 AM
The difference is white supremacists, PETA and environmental groups aren't attempting to bring about the destruction and downfall of the United States. Those groups do not hold the United States as the purveyor of all ills in the world. Call them extremists or radicalized, they get their start in islam.


By this comment, I'm inferring that you believe all Muslims want the U.S. to be destroyed. That's a narrow-minded view, to put it politely (now, I normally don't sugarcoat things, but I'm doing it to stay on the moderator's good side). Have you even met a Muslim before? They're normal people like you and me. The terrorists are the ones who want to destroy the U.S., not the religion. If you can't or refuse to see that - I'm sorry, but there's no nice way to say this - then that's just plain stupidity on your part.

Ten-96
08-15-2010, 11:07 AM
No; I am not in any way implying that the U.S. contributed to the 9/11 attack directly, nor Islamic terrorism as a whole. What does factor into the terrorism equation is the development of the narrative behind it; i.e. perceived Western aggression towards Islam, imperialism in the Middle East, etc. All of this propaganda is founded upon the influence of Western powers in the Middle East during the 20th century, which is an undeniable fact.

I'd go on, but here's the point: America has indirectly contributed to the rise of Islamic terrorism in the 20th century and beyond, and by extension, could be considered a factor to 9/11.

I may be reading you wrong, but to me; you sound as if you think we're partly responsible for 9-11. I don't mean the "inside job" or "allowing the attacks to happen" - I mean you sound as if you believe our way of life and the things we do here made us a target for terrorism.


That's too coddling; many neo-Nazi groups have advocated anarchy on a national level; see The Turner Diaries. Even then, this is a bad argument; totalism like this abstractly redefines "terrorism", and saying that some groups are or are not "terrorist" enough to be considered bona-fide terrorists is rather dangerous. Assassinating a head of state due to political beliefs is as "terrorist" as plotting to detonate a nuke in D.C.; there is no room for subjectivity.

Those groups target single individuals and corporations, not an entire nation.


Maybe, but there might be other factors considering the location, as others have noticed. Personally, they should've been much more wary of the proximity to the WTC, but that's a dead point. Even if it was built three blocks away, or six blocks away, or nine blocks away, there would probably still be a controversy.
There's a strip club three blocks away from the WTC. I ask you, would that also be seen as an affront to the victims of 9/11?

Was the strip club already there and did the strippers and management happen to have killed about 3000 people beforehand?


Subjectivity is not equal to objectivity. If you'd noticed when researching Islam, it shares many parallels with Judaism and Christianity, including the "violent" parts. Now, if Islam is considered a "violent religion", then by extension, would this also be applicable to the former two faiths?

And before you respond "Well, in the context of...___... it's OK", then would this not be the same for Islam? if you've read a reliable and objective biography of Muhammad, you'd realize that early Islam has much in common with the perennial plights of the Israelites, or the life of Abraham, or the Exodus. Yes, there's violence, but the adherents of all of these faiths have dutifully denounced these allegations with theological and physical arguments. This is the just same for Islam.

There are numerous references to violence in the Bible. Most are either directed by God or carried out by God. Conversely, the qur'an has even more references to violence directed at those who are not islam believers.

Muhammed married an 8 year old child. I'll leave this discussion with a few questions: If islam is a religion of peace, where are the extremists getting their ideas? Are they getting their ideas from a person or group of persons who have corrupted the tenents? Or, are they getting their ideas directly from the qur'an?

It's obvious to me that the majority here still believe islam to be a religion of peace as I used to believe. I know I won't change anyone's opinion of islam but I've had my say and thank you all for haring me out.

Ping
08-15-2010, 11:50 AM
@Ten-96: You fail to realize that the Koran actually says to show tolerance to Christians and Jews.

And you're just giving up? That's telling me you know you can't win, from my point of view. It's tempting to say because of that, you're in denial.

mimartin
08-15-2010, 12:06 PM
Was the strip club already there and did the strippers and management happen to have killed about 3000 people beforehand?Please list the future members of the Mosque that killed 3000 people?

jrrtoken
08-15-2010, 12:21 PM
I may be reading you wrong, but to me; you sound as if you think we're partly responsible for 9-11. I don't mean the "inside job" or "allowing the attacks to happen" - I mean you sound as if you believe our way of life and the things we do here made us a target for terrorism.U.S. foreign policy has inadvertadly earned the ire of would-be terrorists. Does this mean that America has erred, and should be held responsible for it? No, because few foresaw the consequences, and the intentions weren't "evil" to begin with. You're reading far too much into this.

Those groups target single individuals and corporations, not an entire nation.You're dodging the point. Violence is violence and murder is murder and terrorism is terrorism; ideology doesn't matter, the depravity does. It's like comparing Fatah and Hamas, and arriving at the conclusion that Hamas is "more terrorist" just because A) they're more active and more powerful currently; and B) they're Islamic-based while Fatah is nationalist. That's dangerous way to think, because in the end, they're both terrorists.

Was the strip club already there and did the strippers and management happen to have killed about 3000 people beforehand?By that analogy, you're implying that Muslims as a whole are directly responsible for 9/11?

There are numerous references to violence in the Bible. Most are either directed by God or carried out by God. Conversely, the qur'an has even more references to violence directed at those who are not islam believers.That's debatable, and is possibly reliant on misinformation. Besides, that's exceptionist; is it more morally acceptable for, say, the Israelites to massacre the city of Jericho than for the Muslim equivalent of the massacre of the tribe of Banu Qurayza? On what grounds, then; context? The pretty much the same.

Muhammed married an 8 year old child.Ah yes, the hedonist clause. Are you unaware that polygamy and young marriages were common among affluent Israelites, and even by patriarchs?

I'll leave this discussion with a few questions: If islam is a religion of peace, where are the extremists getting their ideas? Are they getting their ideas from a person or group of persons who have corrupted the tenents? Or, are they getting their ideas directly from the qur'an?I'd say it's both. Terrorists like bin Laden and Hasan have been directly influenced by the teachings of radical clerics. These clerics have based their views on the already multi-faceted doctrine of jihad. As your studies of jihad have pointed out, it has been divided upon "lesser" and "greater" jihad, one of which is based on physical defense of Islam and Muslims, and the other representing the daily struggle of temptation and evil, respectively.

You'd also understand that the context of jihad within the Qur'an is based on purely self-defense and defense of others; it explicitly mentions that any wanton slaughter or excessive combat is a grievous sin, as it makes the defender just as sinful as the invader. The period of self-defense must also be in proportion to offense, and if the attacks cease, then so should the defenders declare armistice. This contradicts Islamic terrorism directly, and exposes the illegality of al-Qaeda & Co. within Islamic jurisprudence.

Tommycat
08-15-2010, 02:29 PM
I'll leave this discussion with a few questions: If islam is a religion of peace, where are the extremists getting their ideas? Are they getting their ideas from a person or group of persons who have corrupted the tenents? Or, are they getting their ideas directly from the qur'an?
Actually, this is one area you really don't want to go. They get their extremist ideas from the same place that Extremist Christian groups get their ideas. Misinterpretations of select passages. They make up their own rules based on how they want to interpret it.

VeniVidiVicous
08-16-2010, 03:02 AM
I mean you sound as if you believe our way of life and the things we do here made us a target for terrorism.

With respect, you missed the point here.

It's not the American way of life he was refering to, it was American involvement in Middle-Eastern affairs.

jawathehutt
08-17-2010, 11:00 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0&feature=player_embedded
Usually I avoid 24 hour propaganda channels but this was actually decent, and compared to glenn becks response to it, it makes Keith Olbermann look like a god of debate.

Totenkopf
08-18-2010, 04:34 AM
Yeah, one more example of a far left lib pundit trying to cast opposition to the proposed location of an Islamic Mosque/Center as mob mentality. Way to go Keith. Seems to me that many of the public figures rallying to the defense of this building are intent to mischarachterize the opposition as to it's being built at all rather than where it's being built. While there are those that would like to see Islam thrown out of America on its backside, most Americans seem to be merely asking for a little sensitivity on WHERE rather than if. Had the Japanese decided to build a Shinto shrine near Pearl Harbor in the 1950s, I'm sure people would have been equally offended. The main questions I've heard from serious people is why the developer is tone deaf on the location issue and where the sources of $$ for the building will be coming from in the end.

jawathehutt
08-20-2010, 11:07 AM
All right since Islam in not the majority religion in the US, lets use a hypothetical situation and tell me what the country's reaction would be to it. A high percentage of those involved with drug cartels in Mexico are Christian. Hundreds to thousands of people are killed in Mexico, the boarder and the boarder states every month. What if people started demanding that churches not be built because their funding was coming from Mexico and possibly sources with vague connections to cartels in the 90s and because its a victory monument to for the Christian cartel monuments. After all, how is this different? So the 9/11 attacks happened 1 day, the drug war has been going on for years. Probably a lot more dead from the drug wars. Isnt it a little insensitive to build churches that cartel fighters and leaders could worship in, even after killing American citizens?

Totenkopf
08-20-2010, 02:14 PM
Perhaps if the drug cartels were committing their violence in the name of Jesus or somesuch you might be better able to make your case. Here, you're merely reaching. ;) I should also add that the majority of the US population IS Christian, so does that mean by extension that all (future?)Christian (or perhaps, more specifically, Catholic) Churches should somehow be banned in the border states under your scenario? I'd agree that in cases where any funding of a church could be linked to specific criminal enterprises that such funding be refused or the project be abandonned (much like the question of where the Park51...ie Cordoba... project funding is coming from). Besides, as an aside, the intransigence that the developers are putting up belies any claims of wanting to "heal" anything.

mimartin
08-20-2010, 05:12 PM
Jon Stewart for President. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-august-19-2010-jennifer-aniston)

Covers the subject pretty well in the first segment

Really like him pointing out that the Pentagon was hit 9/11/2001, hmmmm the Pentagon has a Mosque in it. Not down the block….IN IT!

Ping
08-20-2010, 06:01 PM
Jon Stewart for President. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-august-19-2010-jennifer-aniston)

Covers the subject pretty well in the first segment

Really like him pointing out that the Pentagon was hit 9/11/2001, hmmmm the Pentagon has a Mosque in it. Not down the block….IN IT!

Haha, saw that earlier.

Now that I think about it, we'd probably be better off with him in office.

Totenkopf
08-20-2010, 06:25 PM
As is his comedic forte, he had a few good one liners in his bit. He blindsided me with the Heston choice, as I was set to kill the clip if he cited someone like Obama (but then it wouldn't have been funny had he done so). John can be clever, but I doubt even he would want to be president....I'm sure he'd rather be the poker than the pokee when it comes to comedy. :xp:

mimartin
08-20-2010, 06:54 PM
John can be clever, but I doubt even he would want to be president....I'm sure he'd rather be the poker than the pokee when it comes to comedy. :xp: Agreed, but seriously who in their right mind would want to be President. It is a job where no matter what you do ½ the country is going to hate you sooner or later. :D

Totenkopf
08-20-2010, 07:33 PM
Agreed, but seriously who in their right mind would want to be President. It is a job where no matter what you do ½ the country is going to hate you sooner or later. :D

Yeah, and by the time midterms roll around the haters are more like 60-70%, especially if you've managed to extend your stay at "the asylum" to 2 terms. :p My guess, though, is the perks are too good to pass up, esp now that the prez makes $400K + assorted perks/annum in addition to how well they can clean up as an ex-prez. ;) But, yeah, you've almost got to have a rhino's hide to enter politics in the first place.

Lord of Hunger
08-20-2010, 10:20 PM
Are you implying that there's no such thing as extremist Christians or Jews or really anything else?
No I am not. But those are not the issue at hand. The issue presently presented is Islamic extremism, which is one of the most prominent sources of religion-themed terrorism and currently the strongest threat to USA National Security.
No... thats the goal of some Muslim extremists. Some want other religions out of their Holy Land. Some could care less about a world caliphate and would be fine if Russia stopped bombing them. Some would be fine with just their own country as a caliphate, undisturbed by the west. Some of them want to kill the Sunnis. Some want to kill the Shiites I know the media makes terrorism seem really simple, but terrorists are not in an international league of EVVVVIIIILLLLLLLL. They dont all share the same goals.
The ideology of Islamic Extremism is based upon the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate and the elimination of its competitors. Ethic and local problems are usually excuses to recruit for a larger cause.

But yes, they are not all the same camp. Rather, they are mostly two large camps with the same general goal but two versions of the same religion: Shia and Sunni. Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their supporters are Sunni-based extremists and function more commonly as terrorist and crime groups, thus being the more immediate threat. Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah, and Hamas are examples of the more unified, yet slightly more diplomatic Shia factions that are based out of Iran (admittedly Hamas is Sunni but receives funding from Iran). These groups are closer to semi-legal militias and have a greater sense of integrity. However, the basic intent is the same.
Youre completely right. Us God fearing Christians are the only ones fighting the terrorists. Its a good thing Christian Pakistan is aiding us. And thank goodness Christian Kuwait let us hang out there before we invaded Iraq. And our military, good thing its 100% non Muslims.
-Pakistan harbored the majority of the Taliban outside of Afghanistan and has allowed them to build an illegal state within their borders. Only recently have they begun to address this issue.
-We helped secure Kuwait's independence and security from Saddam Hussein. Allowing us to stage some troops there basically makes us about even.
-I did not say that there are no Muslim moderates opposing Islamic extremism. However, they are a considerable minority.
I mean you're lumping all the muslims in one sack and calling them extremists.
Which I am not doing. Inaction does not mean evil action, though it indirectly serves to remove the obstacles for evil action.
Kind of hard to do when they are at gunpoint. Or when the State does not exist or reach a certain places and all that passes for law, social and healthcare are those extrimists. Too much to ask for, say, a tribal community which has ony known war against the same targets the extremists claim to fight against.

So:

Dunno how you reached that conclusion.
So you know for a fact that this is the situation in every single Islamic community? Taliban Afghanistan is not the example that sets the rule.
Conversely, the prohibition of the construction of the mosque would serve as an example of perceived Western oppression and upheaval of Islam. Propaganda is propaganda, regardless of the reason, and in this case, it wouldn't be incredibly inaccurate, although highly embellished.That's too general; al-Qaeda's present aim is to rid the Muslim world of Western influence, of any form. Whether that means the direct upheaval of the West itself, and the propagation of Islam thereafter, is something entirely different. Right now, al-Qaeda's motive are molded as a defensive one; world domination isn't exactly an explicit goal. I suppose that Hamas and Hezbollah could also be lumped into the same, villainous cubby, no?
Hamas and Hezbollah are similar but not equivalent to Al-Qaeda.

But yes, either way propaganda is propaganda. However, in this situation I'd prefer pro-US propaganda. This country honestly doesn't believe in itself enough, and the only way that the extremist elements of Islam will ever be satisfied is if we convert to Islam. If the moderate elements are moderate, they will not take offense...no?
Secondly, would it not be unreasonable to say that this controversy is all rooted in coincidental real estate, and not idealistic capital? Even if the construction is where it is for a specific reason, would it not be a better way to turn a new leaf than to do so at the figurehead of all misunderstanding of Islam? It's not too different than establishing St. Peter's Basilica over a Roman necropolis, or the reestablishment of the then-polytheist Kaa'ba as a site of worship to God.
Building a religious building of any type would just be a problem for somebody (this is coming from a religious person mind you ;) ), so I'd personally support a ban on any such construction there for at least ten years.

jawathehutt
08-23-2010, 11:59 PM
No I am not. But those are not the issue at hand. The issue presently presented is Islamic extremism, which is one of the most prominent sources of religion-themed terrorism and currently the strongest threat to USA National Security.

So if extremist Christians were the greatest threat you would fully support not building churches?

The ideology of Islamic Extremism is based upon the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate and the elimination of its competitors. Ethic and local problems are usually excuses to recruit for a larger cause.

But yes, they are not all the same camp. Rather, they are mostly two large camps with the same general goal but two versions of the same religion: Shia and Sunni. Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their supporters are Sunni-based extremists and function more commonly as terrorist and crime groups, thus being the more immediate threat. Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah, and Hamas are examples of the more unified, yet slightly more diplomatic Shia factions that are based out of Iran (admittedly Hamas is Sunni but receives funding from Iran). These groups are closer to semi-legal militias and have a greater sense of integrity. However, the basic intent is the same.

No. They're not just split into Sunni and Shia. Once again you're making extremely simplified statements. Are Americans divided into strictly Republicans and democrats? Or are there conservative democrats and liberal republicans(hint, there are). And then there's parties like the green party and libertarian party. And then there's the parties that In areas like the failed state of Somalia, I can assure you that if you walked in assuming you could group everyone into to categories, you might be shot by someone who wants to institute an Islamic caliphate, you might be shot by someone who wants their neighbor to be supreme ruler of Mogadishu and you might be shot by someone who is upset that Americans and just want to defend their home. This isnt the 30 year war here, and if you treat it like it then you wont understand it.

-I did not say that there are no Muslim moderates opposing Islamic extremism. However, they are a considerable minority.

I stopped reading after you said this. I have to ask you, have you ever even met a Muslim? Have you ever seen a mosque in the US? I know quite a few Muslims, a lot who were from the former Yugoslavia. Strange, how despite being subject to ethnic cleansing by CHRISTIANS, they never showed up to school to kill them some Christians. Maaayybe its because the vast majority of Muslims are against extremism. In the book Inside the Jihad, about a French secret service agent sent to infiltrate terrorist training camps, one of his first major obstacles was trying to find a way to be connected to the violent jihad movement. This is in Afghanistan. Not some midwest mosque. That place where supposedly Bin Laden and Cobra Commander and Lex Luthor conspire to create the Muslim caliphate with every other Muslim. No, he didnt find people waving recruitment flags, he found Imams who encouraged peaceful jihad by helping others. Wow, helping others. Strange, I guess the league of Evil better find a better religion to support it.

Lord of Hunger
08-24-2010, 06:23 PM
So if extremist Christians were the greatest threat you would fully support not building churches?
I would not support building a church ON THE SITE OF A RELIGION-BASED TERRORIST ATTACK.

Dear God, I swear at times that people NEED to turn their opponents arguments into broad statements rather than accept the fact that individuals can have situational views independent of a political ideology. :raise:
No. They're not just split into Sunni and Shia. Once again you're making extremely simplified statements. Are Americans divided into strictly Republicans and democrats? Or are there conservative democrats and liberal republicans(hint, there are). And then there's parties like the green party and libertarian party. And then there's the parties that In areas like the failed state of Somalia, I can assure you that if you walked in assuming you could group everyone into to categories, you might be shot by someone who wants to institute an Islamic caliphate, you might be shot by someone who wants their neighbor to be supreme ruler of Mogadishu and you might be shot by someone who is upset that Americans and just want to defend their home. This isnt the 30 year war here, and if you treat it like it then you wont understand it.
Again, I am not saying it is impossible for exceptions to exist. I am saying that these are the more prominent issues in relation to national security. Each group has its own view, but when it comes down to it there are two overarching camps within Muslim extremism based on a fundamental divide of the faith. The Shia-Sunni battle is at the core of Islamic history, usually centering around the inheritance of their prophet's authority. The Shia believe in inheritance based on a series of Imams descended from Muhammad, while the Sunni prefer a sort of election system for their religious authorities.

And yes there are a variety of views in America, but considering that people ACT in a way that only those TWO parties matter, then I think there's little point in discussing those small differences until people begin acting upon them and show some thought independent of the parasites in the DNC and GOP.
I stopped reading after you said this. I have to ask you, have you ever even met a Muslim?
Yes. Why do you assume I haven't? Guess what: I live in Oregon, one of this country's most liberal states. I also happen to be pro-gay marriage, a Catholic who is well-read in Darwin's theory of evolution, neutral on economic ideology, and hawkish on military policy.
*snipped*
1) Do not assume that because I disagree with you that I am somehow ignorant. I can easily bring up some story as well and have it support my point. Furthermore, I can easily cite this story as if it is inherently unbiased and not based by limited sources of information.

2) Stop acting as if the fact that I am opposed to Muslim extremism means that I don't have a problem with Christian extremism. I oppose ANY and ALL acts of evil, from all religions and secular ideologies alike. However, it is important to note that the people who blew up the Twin Towers were not Christians. They were Muslims. Right now, America's enemy is Muslim extremism. If it was a terrorist attack by "The Lord's Army" in Africa (a genocidal militia group of Christian extremists), then Christian extremists would be the enemy. The logic here is not hard.

3) Tell me, if what that French service agent found was the case in every camp, do you honestly think that we would even have this problem of Muslim extremism?

Here's a book for you to read: A Thousand Splendid Suns. It shows that this issue is not a case of "the Muslims are evil" or "the Americans are ignorant". The war we are fighting is not easy, but nor is being a mother and wife in Kabul during three wars and three totalitarian states with their own challenged ideologies.

mimartin
08-25-2010, 12:20 PM
I would not support building a church ON THE SITE OF A RELIGION-BASED TERRORIST ATTACK.I would like to know what would be considered a safe radius from Ground Zero to build a Mosque? 2 blocks, 4 miles, 1000 miles? I really would like to know, since the thread as already shown that some consider Tennessee and California too close to Ground Zero.


I would not support building anything at Ground Zero and since the Mosque is not being built at Ground Zero, I have no problem with it. Surprised no one has post pic of site with sign saying "Future home of Ground Zero Mosque."

The land was for sale, they bought it. As long as they proscribe to zoning and ordinance regulations they should be allowed to build whatever that darn well please on their own land. If people did not want them to build, then they should have bought the land themselves.

Tommycat
08-25-2010, 01:09 PM
I would like to know what would be considered a safe radius from Ground Zero to build a Mosque? 2 blocks, 4 miles, 1000 miles? I really would like to know, since the thread as already shown that some consider Tennessee and California too close to Ground Zero.


I would not support building anything at Ground Zero and since the Mosque is not being built at Ground Zero, I have no problem with it. Surprised no one has post pic of site with sign saying "Future home of Ground Zero Mosque."

The land was for sale, they bought it. As long as they proscribe to zoning and ordinance regulations they should be allowed to build whatever that darn well please on their own land. If people did not want them to build, then they should have bought the land themselves.

To be fair, this building actually had debris hit it from the attacks on 9/11. I believe it was one of the aircraft's landing gear.

As said enough times in this thread. It's not about mosques, as there are other mosques within 4 blocks of ground zero. However it is about the mosque within 2 blocks.

Legally, there is no justification for them NOT to build there. The land was for sale. They bought it. It's a good location. The building being demolished is not a historical building. It's just merely poor taste to do so.

mimartin
08-25-2010, 01:28 PM
To be fair, this building actually had debris hit it from the attacks on 9/11. I believe it was one of the aircraft's landing gear.

No bodies? Anyone killed there because of the terrorist attack?

If not, I see no reason to honor or respect a piece of the plane used as a weapon to kill thousands of people. It was evidence nothing more. (should not have to point this out, but...IMO).

jrrtoken
08-25-2010, 01:29 PM
To be fair, this building actually had debris hit it from the attacks on 9/11. I believe it was one of the aircraft's landing gear.By that logic, the entire lower half of Manhattan Island should also be "landmarked" due to all of the ash and fire from the fallout when the towers collapsed.As said enough times in this thread. It's not about mosques, as there are other mosques within 4 blocks of ground zero. However it is about the mosque within 2 blocks.So what's the specific range of the designated "Muslim-free" buffer zone, then? I'd warrant that even if this same building was a block or two farther from the WTC, we'd still be seeing the same controversy. Even if it wasn't built on Manhattan proper, but say Long Island or New Jersey, it'd still be named "a towering ziggurat to Muslim conquest" or some other reactionary ilk.Legally, there is no justification for them NOT to build there. The land was for sale. They bought it. It's a good location. The building being demolished is not a historical building. It's just merely poor taste to do so.If it's not historical... then how is it morally reprehensible to use it as anyone may please? :confused: If any other organization or corporation bought and demolished this same Burlington Coat Factory, would this also be considered a disgrace, or is this veil of sanctity just applicable to one specific organization?

Lord of Hunger
08-25-2010, 07:26 PM
I would like to know what would be considered a safe radius from Ground Zero to build a Mosque? 2 blocks, 4 miles, 1000 miles? I really would like to know, since the thread as already shown that some consider Tennessee and California too close to Ground Zero.
About 4 miles away would be acceptable in my book. At that distance, there's really no connection to Ground Zero other than sharing the same city.

So yeah, as long as it is at least 4 miles away from Ground Zero, they can build all the Mosques they want and enjoy religious freedom to their hearts' content.
I would not support building anything at Ground Zero and since the Mosque is not being built at Ground Zero, I have no problem with it. Surprised no one has post pic of site with sign saying "Future home of Ground Zero Mosque."

The land was for sale, they bought it. As long as they proscribe to zoning and ordinance regulations they should be allowed to build whatever that darn well please on their own land. If people did not want them to build, then they should have bought the land themselves.
I kind of agree with this. The local population should have at least taken the time to make their stance clear to the city government. However, it's still tactless in my view to build a Mosque there.

jrrtoken
08-26-2010, 12:06 AM
About 4 miles away would be acceptable in my book. At that distance, there's really no connection to Ground Zero other than sharing the same city.How did you arrive at the "4 mile buffer zone" then? How is "too close to Ground Zero" even quantified; this isn't Three Mile Island here. If "4 miles" is appropriate, then shouldn't this be applied to every mosque within the 4-mile-radius of any federal or national building, seeing as they're all under threat from this same Islamic terrorism being propagated through the Ground Zero Mosque?
So yeah, as long as it is at least 4 miles away from Ground Zero, they can build all the Mosques they want and enjoy religious freedom to their hearts' content.Now, it's "You have to be this tall to go on this ride"; what will be the next contention of debate? If it's not a mosque near the WTC, then it's one in Temecula, an ocean away, or Tennessee. This argument of "There, but not here" is borderline xenophobia; it's indirectly discriminating a minority due to the sensibilities of others. The "not in our backyard" mentality has been the most pervasive anti-immigrant sentiment throughout American history, to say the least, and now that it is being reignited is predictably embarrassing. The democratic system in America shouldn't, and never has, operate(d) upon the principle of "unanimous agreement or nothing", and this most certainly applies here.

Totenkopf
08-26-2010, 05:17 AM
Now, it's "You have to be this tall to go on this ride"; what will be the next contention of debate? If it's not a mosque near the WTC, then it's one in Temecula, an ocean away, or Tennessee. This argument of "There, but not here" is borderline xenophobia; it's indirectly discriminating a minority due to the sensibilities of others. The "not in our backyard" mentality has been the most pervasive anti-immigrant sentiment throughout American history, to say the least, and now that it is being reignited is predictably embarrassing. The democratic system in America shouldn't, and never has, operate(d) upon the principle of "unanimous agreement or nothing", and this most certainly applies here.

So, how do you view the opposition of other Muslims (like the head of Al Aribiya, reportedly) to the location? It's not as if all Muslims are monolithic on this issue. Why, when the governor of NY was willing to donate land elsewhere for the mosque/center, do its adherents still try to peddle the racism charge to opposition in general? Most Americans don't seem to be of the mind that Muslims can't be allowed their own places of worship, w/in the confines of the law (zoning, etc..). But that doesn't invalidate opposition to the proposed location of the GZM. I recall similiar fears of "rampant racism" in the wake of the Towers coming down, but it largely didn't happen then either. Besides, it's interesting that Bloomberg and company are content to deny a Greek Orthodox church the right to rebuild for almost 9 years, but are falling all over themselves to accomodate Rauf. Maybe it's just the mayor's fine business sense that's getting in the way.. http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081029/BUSINESS/302158245/1005

jrrtoken
08-26-2010, 07:29 AM
So, how do you view the opposition of other Muslims (like the head of Al Aribiya, reportedly) to the location? It's not as if all Muslims are monolithic on this issue.Yes, I understand that. I'm not talking about opposition to the mosque due to location and location alone, though; it's the hysteria that has been propagated by the few who have used the mosque as a rallying cry for paranoia, portraying Islam and all Muslims as a creeping national threat. This is an undeniable fact. The sentiment has influenced the opinion of others in the opposition, who have masqueraded the fear and hate as a political issue... some aren't afraid to show their true colors, though.
Why, when the governor of NY was willing to donate land elsewhere for the mosque/center, do its adherents still try to peddle the racism charge to opposition in general?I don't believe that the opposition as a whole are racist, but you must admit that a sizable portion is racist, either explicitly and or implicitly. Feel free to watch many of the protests for evidence.
Besides, it's interesting that Bloomberg and company are content to deny a Greek Orthodox church the right to rebuild for almost 9 years, but are falling all over themselves to accomodate Rauf. Maybe it's just the mayor's fine business sense that's getting in the way.. http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081029/BUSINESS/302158245/1005I don't see anything in the link that seems to even allude to your point... :confused:

mimartin
08-26-2010, 10:50 AM
Hate to point this out again, but...

Did this proposed donated land have easy access to 6 subway line and the South Ferry?

If not, then it is hardly comparing apples to apples.

If it does, then it is still too close to Ground Zero for many of the opponents, because beside being close to Ground Zero the real major attraction to this piece of property is it convenience to major public transportation.

Totenkopf
08-26-2010, 11:31 AM
Yes, I understand that. I'm not talking about opposition to the mosque due to location and location alone, though; it's the hysteria that has been propagated by the few who have used the mosque as a rallying cry for paranoia, portraying Islam and all Muslims as a creeping national threat. This is an undeniable fact. The sentiment has influenced the opinion of others in the opposition, who have masqueraded the fear and hate as a political issue... some aren't afraid to show their true colors, though.
I don't believe that the opposition as a whole are racist, but you must admit that a sizable portion is racist, either explicitly and or implicitly. Feel free to watch many of the protests for evidence.

Yeah, I referenced earlier that there are people who are opposed on principle to Islam that are protesting the GZM (and perhaps in CA and TN). What you mean by sizable is another matter entirely. I think that there are people on both sides that are resorting to all manner of politicizing the issue. Whether it is aholes like Ed Shultz on MSNBC pulling the nazi card or the guy wanting to celebrate "burn a Koran day", there are people exploiting this issue for their own ends. Problem w/protests is that they often only involve a microcosm of society at large and the coverage is usually cherry picked by the national media.

I don't see anything in the link that seems to even allude to your point... :confused:

Was implying that it's possible that Bloomberg's stance may have been influenced by his expansion into Dubai. Perhaps he doesn't want to offend his new hosts. May be unlikely, but we'll probably never really know... Still, it brings to mind the old saying, "follow the money".

Liverandbacon
08-26-2010, 03:29 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7966533/Campaigners-say-Ground-Zero-mosque-plans-led-to-taxi-driver-murder-attempt.html

I'm calling BS on the claims made by people on both sides of this argument. Both pro and anti "Ground Zero" mosque people are claiming that this attack was motivated by the mosque. Mainly because it happened to happen in the same city.

Let's look at the facts:
1. Enright was actually a supporter of the "Ground Zero" mosque, at least publicly.
2.Sharif, the stabbed cabbie, was actually against the construction of the mosque.
3.Enright, before stabbing the cabbie, started spouting all sorts of crazy stuff "This is a checkpoint... I need to put you down! (something about the king of Saudi Arabia as well)"
4. At film school, Enright did a lot of projects about PTSD.
5. Enright went to Afghanistan to video a USMC unit, but didn't ever witness attacks, firefights, etc.

This seems much less an attack based on Mosque-related hate, and more the work of an insane person who wishes they had real PTSD for god knows what reason, and decided to pretend.

Just thought I'd lay out the facts behind the situation before someone posted it as anything to do with the Mosque, either for or against. (My personal opinion has not changed since my last post on the topic.)

mimartin
08-26-2010, 03:47 PM
5. Enright went to Iraq to video a USMC unit, but didn't ever witness attacks, firefights, etc.The article you linked said Afghanistan. Did he go to Iraq too?

Anyone that has ridden in a New York City cab could just as easily claim temporary insanity. First off you have to be out of your mind just to get into a cab there (same goes for New Orleans and Raleigh, NC of all places).

Liverandbacon
08-26-2010, 03:58 PM
The article you linked said Afghanistan. Did he go to Iraq too?

Anyone that has ridden in a New York City cab could just as easily claim temporary insanity. First off you have to be out of your mind just to get into a cab there (same goes for New Orleans and Raleigh, NC of all places).

Thanks for pointing that out, I forgot which one, and my memory lied to me. The rest of the post is fact though, and I've edited it to eliminate confusion.

Agreed on the topic of the cabs. I try to walk or take the subway as much as possible, I know too many people who've been ripped off by cabbies.

Lord of Hunger
08-26-2010, 06:07 PM
How did you arrive at the "4 mile buffer zone" then? How is "too close to Ground Zero" even quantified; this isn't Three Mile Island here. If "4 miles" is appropriate, then shouldn't this be applied to every mosque within the 4-mile-radius of any federal or national building, seeing as they're all under threat from this same Islamic terrorism being propagated through the Ground Zero Mosque?
Now, it's "You have to be this tall to go on this ride"; what will be the next contention of debate? If it's not a mosque near the WTC, then it's one in Temecula, an ocean away, or Tennessee. This argument of "There, but not here" is borderline xenophobia; it's indirectly discriminating a minority due to the sensibilities of others. The "not in our backyard" mentality has been the most pervasive anti-immigrant sentiment throughout American history, to say the least, and now that it is being reignited is predictably embarrassing. The democratic system in America shouldn't, and never has, operate(d) upon the principle of "unanimous agreement or nothing", and this most certainly applies here.
You know, I keep hearing the phrase "minority". I'm guessing that if anything is in favor of a "minority", it's okay? But if the majority does not like it, they are racists.

Guess what: Discrimination in some form will always be present when some group wants something and another group is opposed to it. We can have civil liberties and such, but the fact is that LIFE IS NOT FAIR.

So why is it that every time America has a cultural debate the majority must be the ones in the wrong?

The democratic system itself is based on majority rule, but is established to be fair on a basic level to the minority. That doesn't mean that the minority must always be in the right.

I am starting sick and tired of hearing how minorities are being wronged. There is a majority here and now that is being wronged too. Where are their civil rights? Where are the activist groups? Where are the lawyers to sue on their behalf?

I'll tell you why this is the case: It's how the press keeps themselves alive at this point. They're loosing their financial basis, so all they can do is make up this false image of "bigoted Americans" and hope it sells well enough.

When every single group in existence points fingers at the "bigoted Americans", you gotta wonder who the bigots really are.

I for one refuse to believe that all of those people are bigots. I believe that they are normal people who feel betrayed and are then being told they aren't allowed to express that hatred because of laws that are meant to serve THEM.

At the end of the day, I'm guessing that people who were never bigots before probably became bigots after being told over and over again about how bigoted they are.

Ping
08-26-2010, 07:30 PM
@LOH: Life may not be fair, but discrimination is intolerable. To pretty much say "get over it" is rude and disrespectful. Have you ever been the victim of racism? Try saying "get over it" again after you've been ostracized based on your ethnicity, creed, religion, etc.

Also, nobody said the majority were bigots. Yes, some of the people opposing the mosque are bigoted, but nobody said ever one of them was.

jrrtoken
08-26-2010, 08:20 PM
You know, I keep hearing the phrase "minority". I'm guessing that if anything is in favor of a "minority", it's okay? But if the majority does not like it, they are racists.

Guess what: Discrimination in some form will always be present when some group wants something and another group is opposed to it. We can have civil liberties and such, but the fact is that LIFE IS NOT FAIR.

So why is it that every time America has a cultural debate the majority must be the ones in the wrong?Well... they usually are? If you don't believe me, then research every new religious movement and immigration wave, and nine times out of ten, the minority is persecuted. This is the same issue; no more, no less.
I am starting sick and tired of hearing how minorities are being wronged. There is a majority here and now that is being wronged too. Where are their civil rights? Where are the activist groups? Where are the lawyers to sue on their behalf?The "majority" has been irrevocably vocal, activist. You seem to think that this is the "liberal elite prodding the masses" spiel again; clearly, certain members of the opposition have manipulated others indifferent to or slightly sympathetic to their views and have stoked the flames of hysteria. This is compounded by the fact that the leaders of these groups are hailed as "experts" on Islam and are featured on nearly every major news outlet as guest panelists. When groups like Stop the Islamization of America (http://sioaonline.com/) and the English Defence League (www.englishdefenceleague.org) are touted as "civil activist groups" then the original argument has been delegitimized as a wholesale of fear and intrigue.

I'll tell you why this is the case: It's how the press keeps themselves alive at this point. They're loosing their financial basis, so all they can do is make up this false image of "bigoted Americans" and hope it sells well enough.If the "liberal media" can be blamed for covering this, then so can Fox News & Co. be chastised for promoting a narrow outlook.
I for one refuse to believe that all of those people are bigots.Agreed.
I believe that they are normal people who feel betrayed and are then being told they aren't allowed to express that hatred because of laws that are meant to serve THEM.If you by "normal" you mean the majority of the opposition who actually opposes the location and the location alone, then I'm plenty comfortable with that. What troubles me are the ones who wave posters proclaiming "SHARIA" in a diabolic typeface.

Lord of Hunger
08-26-2010, 09:20 PM
@LOH: Life may not be fair, but discrimination is intolerable. To pretty much say "get over it" is rude and disrespectful. Have you ever been the victim of racism?
Yes, I happen to belong to an ethnic minority myself, and have been the subject of several racist remarks.
Also, nobody said the majority were bigots. Yes, some of the people opposing the mosque are bigoted, but nobody said ever one of them was.
Except that is more or less the current cultural message of this country.
Well... they usually are? If you don't believe me, then research every new religious movement and immigration wave, and nine times out of ten, the minority is persecuted. This is the same issue; no more, no less.
I'm not talking about the past. I am talking about the present.
The "majority" has been irrevocably vocal, activist. You seem to think that this is the "liberal elite prodding the masses" spiel again; clearly, certain members of the opposition have manipulated others indifferent to or slightly sympathetic to their views and have stoked the flames of hysteria. This is compounded by the fact that the leaders of these groups are hailed as "experts" on Islam and are featured on nearly every major news outlet as guest panelists. When groups like Stop the Islamization of America (http://sioaonline.com/) and the English Defence League (www.englishdefenceleague.org) are touted as "civil activist groups" then the original argument has been delegitimized as a wholesale of fear and intrigue.
These groups exist when a cultural agenda is being opposed upon the masses. Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that there is no demonization of America's cultural and ethnic majority?
If the "liberal media" can be blamed for covering this, then so can Fox News & Co. be chastised for promoting a narrow outlook.
Fox News is one news corporation out of many major networks, and is the only network that actually represents the political right of the country. They also at least make their agenda known, unlike any other network. Though I do agree that their message has become unnecessarily extremist recently.
If you by "normal" you mean the majority of the opposition who actually opposes the location and the location alone, then I'm plenty comfortable with that. What troubles me are the ones who wave posters proclaiming "SHARIA" in a diabolic typeface.
I don't entirely blame them for those posters. Sharia law as it has been interpreted in the past two centuries has been responsible for countless acts of brutality and evil. Yes, I know such thing occurred under Christianity too, but there are no Christian extremist groups at war with the US right now and Islamic extremism is currently the biggest threat. Where Christianity had the violent Crusades in the Medieval Era, Islam is now having its violent Jihad in the Modern Era.

And at this point, there is only so morally superior we can get at this point.

mimartin
08-26-2010, 09:28 PM
Except that is more or less the current cultural message of this country. Really? When the latest poll says 75% of American's oppose the Ground Zero Mosque, I fail to see how that is possible.

Fox News is one news corporation out of many major networks, and is the only network that actually represents the political right of the country. They also at least make their agenda known, unlike any other network. Yea, the slogan "Fair and Balanced" paints a perfect picture of FoxNews FalseNews. ;)

Lord of Hunger
08-26-2010, 10:11 PM
Really? When the latest poll says 75% of American's oppose the Ground Zero Mosque, I fail to see how that is possible.
Except those Americans don't really control the voice of the country, and the voice of the country says otherwise.

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy. I'm saying that the left hand doesn't really know what the right hand is doing, and etc with every other part of the body. This is mostly the case due to lack of actual leadership.
Yea, the slogan "Fair and Balanced" paints a perfect picture of FoxNews FalseNews. ;)
All networks are biased, but most don't acknowledge it and try to sneak their agenda into unrelated topics. Fox may not be Fair and Balanced, but its bias is obvious.

Darth333
08-26-2010, 10:20 PM
I don't entirely blame them for those posters. Sharia law as it has been interpreted in the past two centuries has been responsible for countless acts of brutality and evil. Huh...I know I wasn't there either for the "past few centuries" (I might already be qualified as "old" to some people but not I'm not that old...yet :p ) but where did you borrowed that "history" book? Anyway, I am sure anyone could borrow a book about "Christiany's sins" in the past few centuries just as easily. Humans are humans...with all their qualities and defects (which are not always at the same place depending on individuals: we're all "unique" ...like "everyone else") and many of such individuals will use whatever they can to get what they want, regardless of others (religion, race, culture, language, etc..) and regardless of consequences.


Yes, I know such thing occurred under Christianity too, but there are no Christian extremist groups at war with the US right now There are many extremist Christian groups within the US and America as whole (I am Christian too but I do not share their views: Christ message was a message of acceptance, peace and tolerance to make human life better as a whole IMHO) and I am as scared of such groups than I am about any Muslim extremist group ). Extremism, whether Christian, Muslim or other is not constructive but divisive. I despise Christian extremism as much as I despise Muslim extremism.

voice of the country" ...wtf does that mean? or even better:"I'm saying that the left hand doesn't really know what the right hand is doing, and etc with every other part of the body? "
Please, I, being a foreigner, indulge me...


Runs away, screaming...runs into some Martians: :beam1: + :devscare: + :lightning = "To self, in a robotic tone" : Back to square one

Totenkopf
08-26-2010, 11:48 PM
..voice of the country ...wtf does that mean? or even better:"I'm saying that the left hand doesn't really know what the right hand is doing, and etc with every other part of the body? "
Please, I, being a foreigner, indulge me...

It might have been more correct to make a distinction between the voice of the "mainstream" mass media (which is predominantly liberal in the US) vs that of Fox and talk radio, or even the public in general. America is basically a "center-right" country, while many in the media and academia tend to come from the left. As to the other, I'm not clear either.




Runs away, screaming...runs into some Martians: :beam1: + :devscare: + :lightning = "To self, in a robotic tone" : Back to square one

Well, as long as you're in outer space, could you teleport me a hunk of precious metal meteroite or asteroid. Could use the $$. ;)

Lord of Hunger
08-27-2010, 12:42 AM
Huh...I know I wasn't there either for the "past few centuries" (I might already be qualified as "old" to some people but not I'm not that old...yet :p ) but where did you borrowed that "history" book? Anyway, I am sure anyone could borrow a book about "Christiany's sins" in the past few centuries just as easily. Humans are humans...with all their qualities and defects (which are not always at the same place depending on individuals: we're all "unique" ...like "everyone else") and many of such individuals will use whatever they can to get what they want, regardless of others (religion, race, culture, language, etc..) and regardless of consequences.


There are many extremist Christian groups within the US and America as whole (I am Christian too but I do not share their views: Christ message was a message of acceptance, peace and tolerance to make human life better as a whole IMHO) and I am as scared of such groups than I am about any Muslim extremist group ). Extremism, whether Christian, Muslim or other is not constructive but divisive. I despise Christian extremism as much as I despise Muslim extremism.
I do not deny the existence of Christian extremists, but between the two groups, which is currently more prone to assault the United States and its allies currently. Muslim extremists are currently the more immediate problem, and once we have that problem under control I would wholeheartedly support focusing on Christian extremism, as well as Jewish extremism, Hindi extremism, and Buddhist extremism (though I doubt those last three are of any major significance compared to the former two).

And also, Christianity has in many ways evolved. I happen to be part Catholic, and just about every Catholic I know does not believe in Genesis-style Creationism and supports sexual education in public schools. Of course, there are a few hold-outs, but their disagreement is very respectful.

I am more fearful of Muslim extremism right now because Islam was the more evolved religion in its beginnings, but has since gone downhill. That, and again the fact that Islamic terrorists are currently among America's greatest enemies.
...wtf does that mean? or even better:"I'm saying that the left hand doesn't really know what the right hand is doing, and etc with every other part of the body? "
Please, I, being a foreigner, indulge me...
It might have been more correct to make a distinction between the voice of the "mainstream" mass media (which is predominantly liberal in the US) vs that of Fox and talk radio, or even the public in general. America is basically a "center-right" country, while many in the media and academia tend to come from the left. As to the other, I'm not clear either.
Totenkopf, you are more or less on the mark. Essentially, most media and educational entities embrace a very leftist view of the world, which is more often than not very hypercritical of the United States (at least in my studies). As for the left hand and the right hand, what I am trying to say is that America has no sense of unity. Ironically, our unity is caused by our diversity, but it doesn't really work in the opposite direction. We've tried to be more united despite diversity, but it only serves to highlight our differences and put them forwards as obstacles. I mostly blame political correctness for this problem: we keep assigning these labels of racism and intolerance, which is going to happen because we are human beings who disagree. I'd rather that we actively disagree, and then find common ground rather than trying to find common ground despite disagreeing. But as long as we have these two camps, we're ultimately going have this duality of "tolerance" and "intolerance" that doesn't really represent what America is.

Totenkopf
08-27-2010, 04:51 AM
Problem w/protests is that they often only involve a microcosm of society at large and the coverage is usually cherry picked by the national media.

http://bigjournalism.com/alafferty/2010/08/25/report-from-the-front-lines-apparent-abc-employee-in-confrontation-with-ground-zero-mosque-protestor/

Perhaps I should have also included "attempting to create" in addition to cherry picking....

JediMaster12
08-27-2010, 03:30 PM
I have read the article from the Times magazine that my mother gets from her school since they do Times for current/history events. The article was entitled 'Are Americans Islamophobic?' Out loud I actually said that it seems yes Americans are becoming Islamophobic. I don't mean that all are that way but it seems that there is a vast majority out there and increasingly in my family of bigot hypocrits that will bad mouth Arabs and Muslims.

The issue of building a mosque two blocks from where the World Trade Center was (I refuse to call it Ground Zero) is frankly stupid. According to the article, the building in question has been used as a prayer gathering for Muslims long before the events of September 11th. If anything I have observed is that America in general has a short memory. Personally I would think that our founding fathers would be weeping at the thought that their descendants are forgetting the reason their forefathers came to this country, to secure freedom both politically and religiously.

While Totenkopf and others have been talking about a moderate America in terms of alignment, it is hard to conceive it when your personal reality is surrounded by uber conservatives. I commented that my family contains bigoted hypocrites and it is sadly true. I say hypocrites because they preach about "being Christian" when they go and turn around and use ethnic slurs deliberately as an insult and an excuse for the problems of the country. I am sure that there are other people out there whose realities seem different than what the overall reality is. All a matter of perspective.

This business about the mosque is just another thing that will bring us down. I am tired of hearing that America is a Christian nation. Truth is, it is not. The founding fathers were deists at best with about 46 of them being Freemasons. Oh ye sthey believed in God but I don't think in the fervor that our homegrown Christian extremists think. The mosque is not going to hurt anyone. That building was being used as a place of worship long before September 11 and the World Trade Center fell. This business is messy indeed.

Ping
08-27-2010, 04:18 PM
I have read the article from the Times magazine that my mother gets from her school since they do Times for current/history events. The article was entitled 'Are Americans Islamophobic?' Out loud I actually said that it seems yes Americans are becoming Islamophobic. I don't mean that all are that way but it seems that there is a vast majority out there and increasingly in my family of bigot hypocrits that will bad mouth Arabs and Muslims.

The issue of building a mosque two blocks from where the World Trade Center was (I refuse to call it Ground Zero) is frankly stupid. According to the article, the building in question has been used as a prayer gathering for Muslims long before the events of September 11th. If anything I have observed is that America in general has a short memory. Personally I would think that our founding fathers would be weeping at the thought that their descendants are forgetting the reason their forefathers came to this country, to secure freedom both politically and religiously.

While Totenkopf and others have been talking about a moderate America in terms of alignment, it is hard to conceive it when your personal reality is surrounded by uber conservatives. I commented that my family contains bigoted hypocrites and it is sadly true. I say hypocrites because they preach about "being Christian" when they go and turn around and use ethnic slurs deliberately as an insult and an excuse for the problems of the country. I am sure that there are other people out there whose realities seem different than what the overall reality is. All a matter of perspective.

This business about the mosque is just another thing that will bring us down. I am tired of hearing that America is a Christian nation. Truth is, it is not. The founding fathers were deists at best with about 46 of them being Freemasons. Oh ye sthey believed in God but I don't think in the fervor that our homegrown Christian extremists think. The mosque is not going to hurt anyone. That building was being used as a place of worship long before September 11 and the World Trade Center fell. This business is messy indeed.

100% agreed.

Lord of Hunger
08-27-2010, 04:26 PM
http://bigjournalism.com/alafferty/2010/08/25/report-from-the-front-lines-apparent-abc-employee-in-confrontation-with-ground-zero-mosque-protestor/

Perhaps I should have also included "attempting to create" in addition to cherry picking....
Why I am not surprised this happened, or should I say happens?

Oh, and more news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_newyorkcity_mosque;_ylt=Au2Iv58ZriMqTTJApPFdLLC s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNwMjJ1NDFwBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTAwODI 3L3VzX25ld3lvcmtjaXR5X21vc3F1ZQRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wd WxhcgRjcG9zAzcEcG9zAzQEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9 oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNncm91bmR6ZXJvbXU-

It looks like our Federal Government is going to help pay for it. :¬:

mimartin
08-27-2010, 05:07 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_newyorkcity_mosque;_ylt=Au2Iv58ZriMqTTJApPFdLLC s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNwMjJ1NDFwBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTAwODI 3L3VzX25ld3lvcmtjaXR5X21vc3F1ZQRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wd WxhcgRjcG9zAzcEcG9zAzQEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9 oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNncm91bmR6ZXJvbXU-

It looks like our Federal Government is going to help pay for it. :¬:No Spin Zone. :roll2:

Tax free finance does not mean the Federal Government is paying for it. :rolleyes: I actually thought all churches got such financing if they could prove their benefit to the community (oh wait, the article says as much).
Tax Laws allow such funding for religiously affiliated non-profits if they can prove the facility will benefit the general public and their religious activities are funded separately.
Personally I’d be all for changing that tax law so that all religious institutions were taxed.

What are you implying that they should not do this practice for a Mosque? But continue for other religious institutions?

Liverandbacon
08-27-2010, 06:12 PM
Out loud I actually said that it seems yes Americans are becoming Islamophobic. I don't mean that all are that way but it seems that there is a vast majority out there and increasingly in my family of bigot hypocrites that will bad mouth Arabs and Muslims.
...
While Totenkopf and others have been talking about a moderate America in terms of alignment, it is hard to conceive it when your personal reality is surrounded by uber conservatives.

Luckily, I believe that you're right that your perception has been skewed by the environment you live in. The vast majority of US citizens are not like your family.

I'd go out on a limb here (going out on a limb because this is very much based only on personal experience) and say that even the vast majority of hardcore conservatives aren't like your family. Though the Army is a bit more diverse than many give it credit for, the majority of people in it do fall on the right-hand side of the political spectrum (I tend to oscillate between sides depending on the issue). Most of the people I worked with were pretty reasonable about Islam, and any ethnic slurs used (I'm not going to pretend they weren't used) were directed solely at the enemy, not your average Afghan or Iraqi on the street.

So yeah, I seriously disagree with the notion that the majority of the US is Islamophobic. Personally, I'm just afraid of people with more conviction than sense, no matter what set of beliefs.

I do agree with you on hating when people call the US a "Christian nation". I just point out that the US is a constitutional nations, and the US being a "Christian nation" would be a clear violation of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

Lord of Hunger
08-27-2010, 06:54 PM
No Spin Zone. :roll2:

Tax free finance does not mean the Federal Government is paying for it. :rolleyes: I actually thought all churches got such financing if they could prove their benefit to the community (oh wait, the article says as much).

Personally I’d be all for changing that tax law so that all religious institutions were taxed.

What are you implying that they should not do this practice for a Mosque? But continue for other religious institutions?
Again, I am not debating principle. I am debating a specific case.

Here, the Government is helping along the finances for a mosque to be built a ground zero. This is not their job, as they have plenty other things to worry about.

I am all for anyone building a mosque, church, shrine, anywhere else and getting the tax exemption as normal. But not here. We haven't even built the Freedom Tower yet, and they're already considering supporting the finances of an act that is very much against the interests and happiness of the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

And as for a "Christian nation", I think that refers to the fact that the vast majority of Americans are Christians, including family heritage.

mimartin
08-27-2010, 07:17 PM
You're not debating anything.


1. The Mosque is not being built at Ground Zero.

2. The Government is not helping.

3. You cannot pick and choice who gets Tax Free Financing. (Either they qualify or they don’t.)

1st that would be discrimination

2nd the location as nothing to do with Tax Law (as they are written today), you cannot change the law after the fact – See Clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution (or Google EX POS FACTO LAW).

You are saying it is against the interest in the case of the Mosque. However, the law was not written for this particular case. Like I wrote above, I'm all for taxing EVERY church, but any politician saying that would be committing political suicide. A law only against Muslims or this Mosque would also be unconstitutional.

VeniVidiVicous
08-27-2010, 07:35 PM
I am all for anyone building a mosque, church, shrine, anywhere else and getting the tax exemption as normal. But not here. We haven't even built the Freedom Tower yet, and they're already considering supporting the finances of an act that is very much against the interests and happiness of the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

You're either for tax exemption for religous institutions or you're not, you can't just support paticular religions.

Personally I wouldn't financially support any religous organisation.

jrrtoken
08-27-2010, 10:50 PM
Ron Paul says that the protests of the mosque are "Islamophobic". (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014453-503544.html)

Ya'll 've been exiled.

Totenkopf
08-28-2010, 12:00 AM
Ron Paul says that the protests of the mosque are "Islamophobic". (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014453-503544.html)

Ya'll 've been exiled.

The gadfly has spoken, apparently. :xp:

As to taxing religions and churches/temples/mosques/etc., that would appear to be a convenient violation of the "hallowed concept" of seperation of church and state. If they can be taxed, they and their activities can also be funded by govt money or use of govt property as well.

As far as the concept of "christian nation" goes, that's more a reflection of America's cultural beginnings, not a statement about its form of govt. Being a "place your religion here" nation does not axiomatically make you a theocracy, which is a form of govt that most of us here would oppose.

Arcesious
08-28-2010, 12:10 AM
Go ahead and let religious institutions not have taxes. Its not really a big deal. Besides, religious institutions do provide a great deal of charity anyways.

I suppose that on principle of fairness many would like a taxing law passed to tax religious institutions, but IMO, the whole issue should just be left alone.

mimartin
08-28-2010, 12:32 AM
Ron Paul says that the protests of the mosque are "Islamophobic". (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014453-503544.html)

Either I need to rethink my position or I believe this is the first time Ron Paul and I have agreed on anything. By some strange coincidence this is also the first time Ron Paul has ever been right.

Churches in the U.S. can be taxed and taxed constitutionally, Christian Echoes Ministry (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&invol=561&vol=404)loss it tax exempt status for endorsing Barry Goldwater in 1964. The IRS revoked the exemption because churches are not allowed participate actively in political campaigns. The decision was affirmed by the Tenth Circuit Court in 1972.

In 1993, Old Time Gospel Hour (Jerry Falwell) also had its tax-exempt status removed for 1986 & 1987 and was fined $50,000 for illegally funneling money to conservative political candidates.

Also in 1993, a church in Binghamton, New York had it tax-exempt status removed for taking out a political ad in USA Today and The Washington Times against Bill Clinton.

I’m sure there are others, but there are three that clearly show churches are allowed to be tax-exempt and it is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Lord of Hunger
08-28-2010, 01:04 AM
You're not debating anything.

1. The Mosque is not being built at Ground Zero.
Every indication says it is.
2. The Government is not helping.
The President has spoken in support of this mosque.
3. You cannot pick and choice who gets Tax Free Financing. (Either they qualify or they don’t.)

1st that would be discrimination

2nd the location as nothing to do with Tax Law (as they are written today), you cannot change the law after the fact – See Clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution (or Google EX POS FACTO LAW).

You are saying it is against the interest in the case of the Mosque. However, the law was not written for this particular case. Like I wrote above, I'm all for taxing EVERY church, but any politician saying that would be committing political suicide. A law only against Muslims or this Mosque would also be unconstitutional.
I am not saying against Muslims or Mosques in general, just THIS MOSQUE.
You're either for tax exemption for religous institutions or you're not, you can't just support paticular religions.
Please do not misrepresent my views. This has nothing to do with any particular religion. It has to do with the extremists of a particular religion being supported by the construction of a particular building.

Let me make myself clear on my position, since I personally feel that something is not being understood:

This Mosque is being built on the site of the 9/11 attacks, which were caused by Muslim Extremists.

Most (not necessarily all but at least the vast majority of) Muslim Extremists promote the destruction of Western Civilization and the establishment of a global caliphate in order to realize a Sharia Utopia, and have stated this to be their goal.

The majority of the American people feel this is disrespectful to them, those who died in the attack, and the nation in general. Our President and other government officials have ignored their feelings and are supporting the construction of the Mosque.

Therefore, in the interests of national security, in support of our military opposing the forces of Islamic Extremism, and out of respect of the American people past, present, and future, THIS MOSQUE should not be built.

To clarify further the definition "THIS MOSQUE": It is a Mosque built upon the site of 9/11. The range of this site varies from individual view, but I personal see it as anything within about 4 miles.

To further clarify, I do not oppose Mosque construction in any other part of the country, or the free practice of any religion. I oppose THIS MOSQUE alone.

And yes, I believe exceptions to such laws should be possible when they are just. This is such an example, which is very rare. And no, I am not making up this as I go. I have never believed that laws should be absolute from day one, and I still don't.

mimartin
08-28-2010, 01:20 AM
My definition of Ground Zero is the site of the World Trade Center.

The President and the government is not disrespecting those that died on September 11th, 2001. First this is not a federal issue, it is a New York State and New York City issue. 2nd if you really want to use that logic, if the government persecuted one religion because of what extremist did, then they would be disrespecting everyone that has ever fought, was wounded or died defending the freedoms this country stands for.

For the record, I do not support Al-Qaeda building a Mosque anywhere in the United States, however Al-Qaeda is not building this Mosque in New York.

Lord of Hunger
08-28-2010, 03:17 AM
The President and the government is not disrespecting those that died on September 11th, 2001.
How is that not disrespect?
First this is not a federal issue, it is a New York State and New York City issue.
The Federal Government has made it a Federal Issue by expressing support.
2nd if you really want to use that logic, if the government persecuted one religion because of what extremist did, then they would be disrespecting everyone that has ever fought, was wounded or died defending the freedoms this country stands for.
I am having a tough time understanding this: Why are you defending an American principle when it is clearly in this situation contrary to the interests of the American people? Are they not the reason why those laws exist?

Again, why take the moral high-ground when the enemy has already asked for spiritual damnation from their own religion (considering Islam in literal, unbiased translation condemns such dishonorable behavior)? I think we can afford to fight dirty.

And as for offending the Islamic community, the idea that they can be offended by that is bull. We have the right to feel hurt from this act of evil.
For the record, I do not support Al-Qaeda building a Mosque anywhere in the United States, however Al-Qaeda is not building this Mosque in New York.
They aren't building a mosque, but building a mosque there is support for their cause as they wanted a mosque there in the first place. Hell, another terrorist group, Hamas, wants that mosque built too (their leaders actually said such).

Tommycat
08-28-2010, 12:00 PM
LOH. I'm going to be pretty blunt, so please forgive me.

Just because extremist elements within a religion attack us does not automatically relieve us of the obligation to remain on the high road. In fact it is even more reason to keep the high ground. We need to step up and be the bigger people. While those who are out to destroy us tell theworld how bad we are they lose credibility when we turn around and forgive.

You talk of Christian values, but Jesus himself says to turn the other cheek. Forgiveness is divine.

And mimartin while it isn't "a mosque " in name. It does have a prayer room that can hold 1000 people at once. That is an awfully big prayer room

mimartin
08-28-2010, 12:46 PM
The only way Muslim extremist will defeat the U.S. is if we allow our fear to destroy the principles this country was founded on. It is not the high road, it is the right road.

As to the government speaking out in favor of the Mosque, well they took an oath to defend the Constitution, so they dang well should speak up in defending the 1st Amendment. I find it really funny that the “so-called” Socialist is the one stepping up to defend property rights, while the conservative talking heads seem to be against property rights.

As for hurting someone’s feelings, I could care less about feelings or if someone’s feelings are hurt. This is about property rights and discrimination. They bought the property and as long as they abide by all existing laws and ordinances then they have the right to do with it what they want. The government cannot stop them from building just because they are Muslim. That would be discrimination (which frankly LOH you seem to be advocating). The Constitution protects individual rights, so the majority not liking it is a moot point, unless you are also advocating changing the Constitution, because as I pointed out before you cannot pass a ex pos facto law.

And mimartin while it isn't "a mosque " in name. It does have a prayer room that can hold 1000 people at once. That is an awfully big prayer roomNever meant to imply otherwise, only meant to imply that it was not at ground zero.

Tommycat
08-28-2010, 01:49 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zm6JXvXXze4/TGgAJacKGQI/AAAAAAAAMuk/eN77T7O33H4/s1600/GroundZeroMosquelocation.jpg

Here's the aerial view for reference. It's technically only two blocks from the WTC complex. One block from the destruction. Even many New York Muslims are opposed to the location. A notable one was the cab driver that was stabbed recently.

mimartin
08-28-2010, 03:03 PM
Here's the aerial view for reference. It's technically only two blocks from the WTC complex. Which only proves the Mosque site is not at ground zero. Ground Zero – 1. Exact point where a nuclear explosion happens. 2. A place at the center of fast or violent change. The photo clearly shows the Mosque is not at the center.


A notable one was the cab driver that was stabbed recently. I do not dispute that people are against it (I’m not on the extreme right), I don’t have a problem with opinion polls that do not coincide with my opinion. I don’t know anyone in the real world that are actual for the building of the Mosque (Texas). However, that all means nothing. The only thing I’m looking at is if it can be legally built or not. Do they have the right to build it? Personally if I was a decision maker, I would not build it there because of backlash. However, I would defend their right to build it with my last breathe. I don’t like people burning the Flag either, but I strongly support their right to do it.

JediAthos
08-28-2010, 04:19 PM
I am strongly with Mimartin on this issue. I served in this country's military and then and now I hear and see people do things and say things that I don't agree with. When I enlisted I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and while I may not be active anymore I no less believe in the founding principles of the country, including the Bill of Rights.

Lord of Hunger
08-28-2010, 04:45 PM
LOH. I'm going to be pretty blunt, so please forgive me.
There is nothing to forgive, mate. I'm passionate about my arguments because I don't see the point of doing otherwise.
Just because extremist elements within a religion attack us does not automatically relieve us of the obligation to remain on the high road. In fact it is even more reason to keep the high ground. We need to step up and be the bigger people. While those who are out to destroy us tell theworld how bad we are they lose credibility when we turn around and forgive.

You talk of Christian values, but Jesus himself says to turn the other cheek. Forgiveness is divine.
We've been forgiving them quite a bit though. Hell, once we crush the governments that sponsor them, we help rebuild those countries with hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars. Our soldiers risk their lives and our ability to win the war for their innocent civilians that they routinely brutalize and murder. We gave those civilians civil rights and the ability to practice their religion in an environment without fear.

I think whatever divine forces there are can excuse us for leaving the high road for one moment.
The only way Muslim extremist will defeat the U.S. is if we allow our fear to destroy the principles this country was founded on. It is not the high road, it is the right road.
There is no fear involved. This is grief, frustration, and quite a few other well-deserved emotions.

Tell me, will one refusal suddenly destroy our principles and permanently ruin our name for all eternity and incur the judgment of the divine powers?

It's not like they can't build it somewhere else.
As to the government speaking out in favor of the Mosque, well they took an oath to defend the Constitution, so they dang well should speak up in defending the 1st Amendment. I find it really funny that the “so-called” Socialist is the one stepping up to defend property rights, while the conservative talking heads seem to be against property rights.
Again, you argue for principles when those principles have no meaning when in opposition to those they serve.
As for hurting someone’s feelings, I could care less about feelings or if someone’s feelings are hurt. This is about property rights and discrimination. They bought the property and as long as they abide by all existing laws and ordinances then they have the right to do with it what they want. The government cannot stop them from building just because they are Muslim. That would be discrimination (which frankly LOH you seem to be advocating). The Constitution protects individual rights, so the majority not liking it is a moot point, unless you are also advocating changing the Constitution, because as I pointed out before you cannot pass a ex pos facto law.
The Government in all reality can do whatever it wants, and already has broken plenty of parts of the Constitution for less noble deeds. And it's not as if we need to ban Mosques from the United States, or even stop this Mosque. JUST MOVE IT AWAY FROM GROUND ZERO. The Constitution won't turn to dust and the Founding Fathers won't return in chariots of hellfire with a plague of bald eagles behind them if we at least just move it away from Ground Zero. Hell, if it is really meant to support religious tolerance then I am happy for it to be built, I'll visit it if I happen to go to New York. Just don't build it at Ground Zero.

Oh yes, and here's another reason not build such a Mosque: What's to prevent some homegrown American terrorist cell (as in, overzealous pro-US militants) from burning the thing to the ground once it's built?

Which is the worse scenario in regards to foreign relations:

1) We force the site to be MOVED and life goes on.

2) The Mosque is built, only to be destroyed.

mimartin
08-28-2010, 05:30 PM
Again, you argue for principles when those principles have no meaning when in opposition to those they serve.Prrinciples have no meaning now? Law has no meaning?

Since you have decided to disintegrate the topic to complete silliness now, I’ll take my leave. You wish to respect and honor those that died on September 11, 2010, but yet choice to dishonor those that served this nation. Laws, honor and principles may mean nothing to you, but that attitude ruins the only decent reason you have given for not building the Mosque near Ground Zero. Because with out those, honor and respecting the dead means nothing.

I’m starting to agree more and more with Ron Paul and Time Magazine.

HockeyGoalie35
08-28-2010, 07:31 PM
I will not argue if the mosque is built. 1rst amendment right. But I am against it personally, knowing servicemen who have died for our country. To protect us from Muslim extremists

Lord of Hunger
08-28-2010, 07:38 PM
Prrinciples have no meaning now? Law has no meaning?

Since you have decided to disintegrate the topic to complete silliness now, I’ll take my leave. You wish to respect and honor those that died on September 11, 2010, but yet choice to dishonor those that served this nation. Laws, honor and principles may mean nothing to you, but that attitude ruins the only decent reason you have given for not building the Mosque near Ground Zero. Because with out those, honor and respecting the dead means nothing.
So you misrepresent my views and then get offended by your own misrepresentation? Wow.

I'll make my position clear yet again: Principles and laws are meaningless WHEN THEY ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THOSE WHO THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO SERVE.

Forgive the repeated use of the shift key, but I find it silly that we value a document over the populace that the document was created for. Those who have died for laws, honor, and principles died not so that we'd just have laws, honor, and principles, but so that we'd have them for the benefit of the people.

Democracy...it means RULE of the PEOPLE. Not rule of the documents. That would be engrafocracy (engrafo is the Greek word for document according to Google Translator).

The Founding Fathers didn't make a bunch of laws for the sake of having laws. Those laws exist for the sake of the American people. Their worth is only as far as they accomplish what they were made for.

And the Constitution is not a perfect document. It is made by man and thus is only as functional as man has made it. Hell, it's a 200 year old document. Following it to the letter will not solve all of our problems. Understanding its reasoning, benefits, and limitations is a far greater service to our country.

VeniVidiVicous
08-28-2010, 08:18 PM
Please do not misrepresent my views. This has nothing to do with any particular religion. It has to do with the extremists of a particular religion being supported by the construction of a particular building.

Let me make myself clear on my position, since I personally feel that something is not being understood:

This Mosque is being built on the site of the 9/11 attacks, which were caused by Muslim Extremists.

Most (not necessarily all but at least the vast majority of) Muslim Extremists promote the destruction of Western Civilization and the establishment of a global caliphate in order to realize a Sharia Utopia, and have stated this to be their goal.

The majority of the American people feel this is disrespectful to them, those who died in the attack, and the nation in general. Our President and other government officials have ignored their feelings and are supporting the construction of the Mosque.

Therefore, in the interests of national security, in support of our military opposing the forces of Islamic Extremism, and out of respect of the American people past, present, and future, THIS MOSQUE should not be built.

To clarify further the definition "THIS MOSQUE": It is a Mosque built upon the site of 9/11. The range of this site varies from individual view, but I personal see it as anything within about 4 miles.

To further clarify, I do not oppose Mosque construction in any other part of the country, or the free practice of any religion. I oppose THIS MOSQUE alone.

And yes, I believe exceptions to such laws should be possible when they are just. This is such an example, which is very rare. And no, I am not making up this as I go. I have never believed that laws should be absolute from day one, and I still don't.

I get where you're coming from but i'm sticking to my original statement. I believe you support all religous institutions or none.

I know others have said this already but i'm going to say it again anyway, Near Ground Zero is not Ground Zero.

Liverandbacon
08-28-2010, 08:39 PM
I am strongly with Mimartin on this issue. I served in this country's military and then and now I hear and see people do things and say things that I don't agree with. When I enlisted I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and while I may not be active anymore I no less believe in the founding principles of the country, including the Bill of Rights.

Pretty much my exact feelings.

The only reason I have heard for not building the mosque that doesn't dissolve under scrutiny is the claim of insensitivity. And when it comes to that, hurt feelings are not enough to justify violating the Constitution.


Oh yes, and here's another reason not build such a Mosque: What's to prevent some homegrown American terrorist cell (as in, overzealous pro-US militants) from burning the thing to the ground once it's built?

Should we restrict abortion because people might kill abortion doctors? Should we not build buildings because someone might launch a plane into them?

Giving in to terrorists is bad enough without us giving in to potential terrorists.

Totenkopf
08-28-2010, 09:46 PM
@LOH--frankly, to do what your suggesting w/the Constitution is pretty much what many liberals argue for....it's just an evolving document that must conform to the times. Rendering it utterly meaningless as its interpretation shifts with the wind. I agree w/mimnartin and others in the sense that if all the laws/ordinances are followed properly, there is no legal reason they should be denied the right to build. However, that argument is something of a strawman in this debate, where the argument has NOT been that they don't have the RIGHT to build. Most of the protests I've seen have been exhortations of DON'T build it there and not that they're not legally allowed to do so (again, all things being above board). Many in the support of the mosque/center (even BO) have attempted to portray it otherwise in an an attempt to discredit the opposition as well as other reasons of their own. While it would have been smarter for the president NOT to weighed in on what's essentially a local issue, once he did so he shouldn't have merely stopped at his strawman argument and should have told them (the muslims at that dinner) that he also believed (or does he?) that placing the center there might not have been a good idea as well.

As to the whole "ground zero" moniker and the "late" Burlington Coat Factory building:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-05-07-mosque-ground-zero_N.htm. It might not have stood right in the epicenter, but was damamged by the attacks.

Lord of Hunger
08-28-2010, 11:06 PM
I get where you're coming from but i'm sticking to my original statement. I believe you support all religous institutions or none.
So you don't believe that there are situational issues?
The only reason I have heard for not building the mosque that doesn't dissolve under scrutiny is the claim of insensitivity. And when it comes to that, hurt feelings are not enough to justify violating the Constitution.
I'll leave this point alone as I've already argued over it with Mimartin.
Should we restrict abortion because people might kill abortion doctors? Should we not build buildings because someone might launch a plane into them?

Giving in to terrorists is bad enough without us giving in to potential terrorists.
I'm saying that is particular scenario has significant risk of triggering a terrorist attack by American terrorists.
@LOH--frankly, to do what your suggesting w/the Constitution is pretty much what many liberals argue for....it's just an evolving document that must conform to the times. Rendering it utterly meaningless as its interpretation shifts with the wind.
No, I am saying that there should be at least a degree of flexibility so that it may adequately reflect the interests of the American people.

JediAthos
08-29-2010, 08:49 AM
It's been almost nine years since Frank Tatum lost his mother on 9/11. "I think about it everyday. I miss her warmth and her smile. She was probably the most unselfish person I've ever met in my entire life" says Tatum.

While many family members who lost loved ones on 9/11 share the same feelings on those that they lost, they differ in their opinions on an Islamic mosque proposed just blocks away from Ground Zero.

"I think it's important not to give into the hysteria. We do have religious freedom. I know the wounds are still very open, me myslef included but you have to look at the big picture. You can't practice these freedoms only when it suits us. You have to practice them all along" says Tatum.

(source: http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/lost-1277413-tatum-met.html)


Families of September 11th victims teamed up with community leaders Wednesday to express their support for the proposed Islamic center and mosque near the World Trade Center site.

The group, 9/11 Families for a Peaceful Tomorrow, held a rally with more than 40 religious and civic organizations in Lower Manhattan.

They say the center is a perfect fit for the neighborhood because the imam preaches tolerance and interfaith dialogue.

"My kid was only one. They left her there. And I will tell you, that I am not leaving behind my country," said Donna O'Connor, whose daughter perished in the terrorist attacks. "People who speak up for American civil liberties now are really living what we were always told in this mythic way American meant. So I will tell you, please don't try to place 9/11 families against one another. We're not."

(source: http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/124348/rally-held-in-support-of-lower-manhattan-islamic-center)

Those excerpts are quotes from people who lost loved ones on September 11th 2001 who rallied and have come out in support of the building of the islamic community center.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I've stated my agreement with Mimartin on this issue and I won't waver from that. To say that these people cannot build their community center on the property they LEGALLY PURCHASED simply because there is some insignificant chance that an extremist might pop up there is ridiculous. To say that we should back off the guarantee of religious freedom that we have in the United States is equally as ridiculous. It's not something you get to support when it suits you. This entire issue is surrounded by so much hype, hysteria, and grandstanding it is absolutely insane.

As for the "will of the American people" most of the news stories I've seen quoting polls talking about "a majority of those surveyed" or a % of the respondents. How many people did they survey? 100? 1000? There are over 300 million people living in this country, so unless you've spoken to all of them I tire of hearing about the "will of the American people." It seems to me there are plenty of people for this project including families of the victims of that horrible day as I pointed out.

If they were trying to build this on the World Trade Center site I'd say take a hike. As it is they are taking a building that was damaged, and abandoned and making it useful again. As far as I'm aware there were no deaths in the building associated with the terrorist attacks so the notion that it is somehow directly connected to those that died is a little off to me as well.

mur'phon
08-29-2010, 09:31 AM
@LoH: Just curious, do you believe that the constitution should only be folowed in cases where it supports "the american people". If so, how do we determine their will/interests? Don't we allready elect politicians to represent those interests? Finaly, assuming the will of "the american people", means the majority, what about the rights of the minority, whoose rights the constitution(among other things) are meant to defend?

Sabretooth
08-29-2010, 10:07 AM
@LoH: Just curious, do you believe that the constitution should only be folowed in cases where it supports "the american people". If so, how do we determine their will/interests?

Sorry to encourage a tangent, but I'd just like to further add that: isn't the constitution put down to ensure that interests of the American people (i.e. residents of the USA) are chalked out explicitly and so that they may not change with every passing leader?

Tommycat
08-29-2010, 11:18 AM
@mimartin: I think we're arguing on the same side here. While I think it's in poor taste to build it there, there is nothing the government should do about it BUT to defend their right to build it there. It is also within people's right to protest it.

I also feel this may cause even more hard feelings between the two sides. The vast majority in New York do not want it there. It will likely stress the tensions far more than they should. But again. There is no LEGAL justification to block it. If the government were to step in and block it, EVEN I would have a problem with that. You cannot remake the laws for just one religion.

@LOH: Don't you dare start letting the government rewrite the friggin Constitution. You really think those buggers in office would hesitate to rewrite it into a wholly unrecognizable document that takes away freedom's we currently take for granted. I mean who's to say thatnthis government or the next might restrict free speech to the point where all news outlets mustn't speak ill of those in office.

mimartin
08-29-2010, 01:57 PM
So you misrepresent my views and then get offended by your own misrepresentation? Wow.Where did I say I was offended? Already wrote I could care less about hurt feelings and that includes my own.

Lord of Hunger
08-29-2010, 07:07 PM
Sorry to encourage a tangent, but I'd just like to further add that: isn't the constitution put down to ensure that interests of the American people (i.e. residents of the USA) are chalked out explicitly and so that they may not change with every passing leader?
Yes, but to a degree it needs to be flexible so it can actually be of service. Perhaps, there should be small, sensible exceptions to certain rules. I am not entirely certain on this issue.
@LOH: Don't you dare start letting the government rewrite the friggin Constitution. You really think those buggers in office would hesitate to rewrite it into a wholly unrecognizable document that takes away freedom's we currently take for granted. I mean who's to say thatnthis government or the next might restrict free speech to the point where all news outlets mustn't speak ill of those in office.
I'm not saying "rewrite the Constitution". I'm saying the laws that exist within the Constitution should be somewhat flexible so that we aren't been screwed over by our own laws.
Where did I say I was offended? Already wrote I could care less about hurt feelings and that includes my own.
Since you have decided to disintegrate the topic to complete silliness now, I’ll take my leave.
This was not a direct, "your views offend me", but I got the impression that you highly value principles and did not wish to discuss whether one should act on them. Also, "complete silliness"? Please correct me if I am wrong, but when that sort of label is assigned it is usually because the labeling party is offended.

Det. Bart Lasiter
08-29-2010, 09:42 PM
i wish someone would flex your 1st amendment right to free speech so you couldnt pollute the internet with your dumb argument

Darth333
08-29-2010, 10:51 PM
We've been forgiving them quite a bit though. Hell, once we crush the governments that sponsor them, we help rebuild those countries with hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars. Our soldiers risk their lives and our ability to win the war for their innocent civilians that they routinely brutalize and murder. We gave those civilians civil rights and the ability to practice their religion in an environment without fear.
You've never been out of town very often, did you? This is one of the most arrogant and uninformed statement I've read on these boards...at least it's just words...

I think whatever divine forces there are can excuse us for leaving the high road for one moment. How original! :rolleyes: History continues to repeat itself ...How about opening a history book and traveling a little?

I'm saying the laws that exist within the Constitution should be somewhat flexible so that we aren't been screwed over by our own laws. Oh boy! Ever heard of Constitutional Law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_law

mimartin
08-29-2010, 10:54 PM
This was not a direct, "your views offend me", but I got the impression that you highly value principles and did not wish to discuss whether one should act on them. Also, "complete silliness"? Please correct me if I am wrong, but when that sort of label is assigned it is usually because the labeling party is offended.

Nope, principles have nothing to do with it. Laws do, the founding fathers provided the blue print for what the government can and cannot do. In doing so, the majority does not always rule. I suggest you read the Bill of Rights, particular the 1st Amendment. So to me the silliness was arguing that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were merely principles and advocating discrimination because the majority is in favor of it. There is no way you would ever convince me either one of those were legal, ethical or fair, so further debate was a waste of my time and energy.

So you are completely wrong, I was not offended, just tired of wasting my time.

VeniVidiVicous
08-29-2010, 11:50 PM
So you don't believe that there are situational issues?

I'm saying the principal overrides possible situational issues.

Either you've tax exemption for ALL religions or you don't have any exemption for ALL religions, it's literally that simple.

Lord of Hunger
08-30-2010, 12:34 AM
i wish someone would flex your 1st amendment right to free speech so you couldnt pollute the internet with your dumb argument
And I respect your opinion too.
You've never been out of town very often, did you? This is one of the most arrogant and uninformed statements I've read on these boards...at least it's just words...
So every single act done by US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is inherently Satanic? We've done some good there, and it's not like there aren't insurgents pouring in reversing a lot of that good.

And yes, that's what they do. We build schools for women, they tear 'em down and brutalize the students. We rescue captives, they use human shields. Need I go on?
How original! :rolleyes: History continues to repeat itself ...How about opening a history book and traveling a little?
So you are assuming that the slightest flexibility with laws will result in the Third Reich all over again or am I missing something?

And yes, I have opened a history book. Many actually. While my classmates forgot theirs, I read mine front to back about ten times. And I have been to other countries.
Oh boy! Ever heard of Constitutional Law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_law
Yes, and I am proposing the idea that it may not work all the time. I suppose that makes me a heretic according to the mainstream view of American law, but I was under the impression that we tolerated all views.
Nope, principles have nothing to do with it. Laws do, the founding fathers provided the blue print for what the government can and cannot do. In doing so, the majority does not always rule. I suggest you read the Bill of Rights, particular the 1st Amendment.
Done so, along with the entire Constitution, the Amendments, the Federalist Papers, and a few other gifts for our law makers. Admittedly my memory is not the best, so I admittedly forget the exact wording of certain amendments on occasion.
So to me the silliness was arguing that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were merely principles
I did not say merely principles. You said that. I am arguing that principles should benefit those who they are built by and for. You know, "By the people, for the people"? Or does that have no importance?
and advocating discrimination because the majority is in favor of it.
Again, that's you and you alone who presented that notion. If it was a Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist religious site, I would not support it either, especially if extremists from that religion were responsible for the terrorist attack in the first place. I could care less if it is a religion or a secular ideology either. I merely support my country and oppose her enemies.
There is no way you would ever convince me either one of those were legal, ethical or fair, so further debate was a waste of my time and energy.
Especially since you insist on misinterpreting my stances, yes it is a waste of time.
So you are completely wrong, I was not offended, just tired of wasting my time.
Then feel free not to reply. At this point, I'm only posting because people reply to me and I do not like to leave posts unanswered.

However, it does look like we must agree to disagree at this point. Thank you for the debate.
I'm saying the principal overrides possible situational issues.

Either you've tax exemption for ALL religions or you don't have any exemption for ALL religions, it's literally that simple.
Thank you for clarifying. I respectfully disagree, and at this point that's all I have to say without repeating myself.

Sabretooth
08-30-2010, 02:56 AM
we help rebuild those countries with hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars.
Really, the US does? Because if they spent even $5 million rebuilding Afghanistan after their not-so-covert war against the Soviet Union, none of this Islamic terrorism mess would have ever come into place. The CIA-ISI-created mujahedeen would have been dissolved, Afghan kids would have been educated by books instead of bullets and the country wouldn't have had to suffer everything you had to fight a second war to "liberate" it from.

Our soldiers risk their lives and our ability to win the war for their innocent civilians that they routinely brutalize and murder. We gave those civilians civil rights and the ability to practice their religion in an environment without fear.
Not to mention making matters worse by treating the symptoms and leaving the core free. Those thousands of tax dollars go into the pockets of corrupt leaders of puppet governments who're more interested in being the new king of the ghetto and less of stopping the carnage they've known all their lives.

So while you fight the good fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and put up sentimental posters of the American soldier suffering for someone else, you throw a few buckets of aid money at Pakistan, who use the money to fund the same ****ing terrorists killing Americans. (Why yes, I know you just checked my Location).

Again, you argue for principles when those principles have no meaning when in opposition to those they serve.
Principles always have meaning, especially so when in opposition to those they serve. Because if they didn't, they could be easily replaced with more pertinent principles such as, say, 24/7 surveillance, Mao suits and regular SS patrols.

The Constitution won't turn to dust and the Founding Fathers won't return in chariots of hellfire with a plague of bald eagles behind them if we at least just move it away from Ground Zero.
It's worth a shot - I'd move to the US if something like that happened.

What's to prevent some homegrown American terrorist cell (as in, overzealous pro-US militants) from burning the thing to the ground once it's built?
The thousands of tax dollars that go into public security? The FBI? The police? Alternately, commission the Swiss Guard.

Forgive the repeated use of the shift key, but I find it silly that we value a document over the populace that the document was created for.
I'm sure it finds you silly as well.

Those who have died for laws, honor, and principles died not so that we'd just have laws, honor, and principles, but so that we'd have them for the benefit of the people.
To be honest, I don't think they were thinking that much when they died.

Democracy...it means RULE of the PEOPLE. Not rule of the documents. That would be engrafocracy (engrafo is the Greek word for document according to Google Translator).
Literally, yes, it means that. But in practice, most modern democratic systems are in fact, about representation of communities, and rule of the majority with explicit provisions for the minority. A proper "rule of the people" would be more akin to Swiss democracy, where every citizen has a say in what the country does. In the US, Obama represents the people of the US, but is not singularly, the people of the US (even though some suspect of him having mind control).

SUPER BONUS PRO TIP: People didn't come up with words like democracy and oligarchy using Google Translate.

The Founding Fathers didn't make a bunch of laws for the sake of having laws. Those laws exist for the sake of the American people. Their worth is only as far as they accomplish what they were made for.
Laws aren't made to accomplish something, they're made to regulate behaviour in a society. If zero crime rates can be considered a sign of accomplishment of laws, then, that's that. Doesn't mean you'll just revoke the laws then and let everything be lollipops and sunshine, because it won't be.

And the Constitution is not a perfect document. It is made by man and thus is only as functional as man has made it. Hell, it's a 200 year old document. Following it to the letter will not solve all of our problems. Understanding its reasoning, benefits, and limitations is a far greater service to our country.
This makes me wonder if you've even read the constitution, any constitution, not just the American one.

So every single act done by US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is inherently Satanic? We've done some good there, and it's not like there aren't insurgents pouring in reversing a lot of that good.

And yes, that's what they do. We build schools for women, they tear 'em down and brutalize the students. We rescue captives, they use human shields. Need I go on?
The nobility brings tears to me eyes... since most of those insurgents are being paid with US dollars.

So you are assuming that the slightest flexibility with laws will result in the Third Reich all over again or am I missing something?
No, it will lead to the Fourth Reich. And it probably won't be called Reich, because Americans don't speak German.

I did not say merely principles. You said that. I am arguing that principles should benefit those who they are built by and for. You know, "By the people, for the people"? Or does that have no importance?
I think that people came up with the principles in that book. You know, for people.

Again, that's you and you alone who presented that notion. If it was a Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist religious site, I would not support it either, especially if extremists from that religion were responsible for the terrorist attack in the first place. I could care less if it is a religion or a secular ideology either. I merely support my country and oppose her enemies.
Goddamn Buddhist extremists and their acts of terror

Why wouldn't you support if was some other religious site? Because the area surrounding Ground Zero is a religion-free zone for some reason? I sense an atheist mass emigration soon.

JediMaster12
08-30-2010, 03:15 AM
I am arguing that principles should benefit those who they are built by and for. You know, "By the people, for the people"? Or does that have no importance?

They would have importance if people realized how far we have let elected officials decisively and conviently ignore some parts while paying attention to others. Such would be the whole issue of the Iraq war itself which under the Constitution is illegal. There is a certain section of the Constitution that states that any treaties/charters/agreements signed by the United States shall become part of the supreme law of the land. Well when the United States joined the United Nations, they signed a charter that includes a section about the rules of engagement in a war. One was that a nation can retaliate against the offending nation in self defense and two war can be declared if there was substantial proof of harm to nations of the world.

Well Iraq didn't attack us. The terrorists were declared to be from Afghanistan. There were no WMDs in Iraq and really the shelf life of anthrax is not 30+ years, more like a year max. No case could be made that the security council bought. So what do we do? Well we go in and invade Iraq anyway.

We may have that phrase "By the people, for the people" in our minds but how does it benefit anyone when we agree to our laws and then break them at our own convenience? To deny the Muslims of that community the right to build an official mosque on property that they already own contains serious implications that we don't really respect the laws and ideas that were drawn up by the Founding Fathers. THey are not just whimsical ideas. The intention is "to place before mankind the common sense of the subject. In terms so plain and firm so as to command their assent" (1776).

mimartin
08-30-2010, 12:05 PM
I did not say merely principles. You said that. I am arguing that principles should benefit those who they are built by and for. You know, "By the people, for the people"? Or does that have no importance?

Last I checked, the people the founding fathers were speaking of were American Citizens. You can be a Muslim and a American Citizen. So Muslims are the “people” too.
I did not say merely principles.
Nope you wrote principles first, not me. I was talking about tax free financing.
Again, I am not debating principle. I am debating a specific case.
Again, you argue for principles when those principles have no meaning when in opposition to those they serve.
**************************
You keep saying I’m misrepresenting you. Are you not advocating that the government of the United States stop the building of this Mosque near ground zero because of your perceived national security threat and the majority of Americans are against it, even though there is no legal means for the government to stop it and doing so would violate our own rule of law? You think we should give up our own laws and outright violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in order to do this?

To further clarify, I do not oppose Mosque construction in any other part of the country, or the free practice of any religion. I oppose THIS MOSQUE alone.. Therefore, in the interests of national security, in support of our military opposing the forces of Islamic Extremism, and out of respect of the American people past, present, and future, THIS MOSQUE should not be built..
The majority of the American people feel this is disrespectful to them, those who died in the attack, and the nation in general.
Again, you argue for principles when those principles have no meaning when in opposition to those they serve.
Looks pretty clear to me that you are advocating not allowing this Mosque to be built because the American people do not want it to be built, Constitution and the Bill of Right be dammed, just don’t let them build that Mosque, how exactly is that misrepresenting what you wrote?

If I’m incorrect, please point out the law that would give the United States government the power to stop the building of this Mosque. “Because they can” is not a law and would most likely not win over the justices when this was taken before the Supreme Court, because as you know after reading the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is they limit the power of what our government is allowed to do.

Darth InSidious
08-30-2010, 02:43 PM
Are they clinging to their crosses, Mr. Hunger?
Where the yellow cab-fleet tosses, Mr. Hunger?
Do they, fasting, trembling, bleeding,
Wait the call of the muezzin?
Do they fear the Muslims breeding,
And feel majority receding?
If the voice of Glenn Beck falters,
If the Muslims mosques will monger,
Do they tremble for their altars?
Do they, Hunger?

It would greatly, I must own, soothe me, Hunger!
If you left this theme alone, haughty Hunger!
With lugubrious eye-swivel
You do fight with stern decree;
For your God or dream or devil
You will answer, not to me.
So you may go and play the hero,
(I'd critique if I were younger);
On the subject of Ground Zero... Chuck it, Hunger!

(With apologies to Mr. Chesterton.)

Lord of Hunger
08-30-2010, 05:25 PM
Last I checked, the people the founding fathers were speaking of were American Citizens. You can be a Muslim and a American Citizen. So Muslims are the “people” too.
And I have never said they were not "people". Again, they can feel free to build their Mosques wherever they want, just not at Ground Zero.
Nope you wrote principles first, not me. I was talking about tax free financing.

**************************
You keep saying I’m misrepresenting you. Are you not advocating that the government of the United States stop the building of this Mosque near ground zero because of your perceived national security threat and the majority of Americans are against it, even though there is no legal means for the government to stop it and doing so would violate our own rule of law? You think we should give up our own laws and outright violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in order to do this?
I was saying that in this one very specific case, and ONLY this case alone, we make one exception to the rule. It has nothing to do with their race, their religion, or anything other than opposing the goals of terrorists and supporting the American people in general.
Looks pretty clear to me that you are advocating not allowing this Mosque to be built because the American people do not want it to be built, Constitution and the Bill of Right be dammed, just don’t let them build that Mosque, how exactly is that misrepresenting what you wrote?
Because I am not saying Constitution and the Bill of Rights be damned or simply because the American people don't want it to be built. I am saying maybe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were built by imperfect men and cannot account for every situation, and that it is to respect the American people both living and slain.
They would have importance if people realized how far we have let elected officials decisively and conviently ignore some parts while paying attention to others. Such would be the whole issue of the Iraq war itself which under the Constitution is illegal. There is a certain section of the Constitution that states that any treaties/charters/agreements signed by the United States shall become part of the supreme law of the land. Well when the United States joined the United Nations, they signed a charter that includes a section about the rules of engagement in a war. One was that a nation can retaliate against the offending nation in self defense and two war can be declared if there was substantial proof of harm to nations of the world.

Well Iraq didn't attack us. The terrorists were declared to be from Afghanistan. There were no WMDs in Iraq and really the shelf life of anthrax is not 30+ years, more like a year max. No case could be made that the security council bought. So what do we do? Well we go in and invade Iraq anyway.

We may have that phrase "By the people, for the people" in our minds but how does it benefit anyone when we agree to our laws and then break them at our own convenience? To deny the Muslims of that community the right to build an official mosque on property that they already own contains serious implications that we don't really respect the laws and ideas that were drawn up by the Founding Fathers. THey are not just whimsical ideas. The intention is "to place before mankind the common sense of the subject. In terms so plain and firm so as to command their assent" (1776).
I do not think the Founding Fathers viewed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as perfect documents either. And nor do I believe these are whimsical ideas, however they are ideas conceived by human beings and are technically only as good as how human beings constructed them. That's not to say, conveniently ignore the document whenever we want. I only advocate one exception alone.
Really, the US does? Because if they spent even $5 million rebuilding Afghanistan after their not-so-covert war against the Soviet Union, none of this Islamic terrorism mess would have ever come into place. The CIA-ISI-created mujahedeen would have been dissolved, Afghan kids would have been educated by books instead of bullets and the country wouldn't have had to suffer everything you had to fight a second war to "liberate" it from.
I am aware of this, but the actions of some administrations do not equal the acts of others. And we don't know for a fact that the mujahedeen would have shut down after their war with the Soviets if we had supplied them money. It may be perfectly possible that they would have used it to take over as they did anyway (admittedly after much infighting leading to the rule of the even more extremist Taliban).
Not to mention making matters worse by treating the symptoms and leaving the core free. Those thousands of tax dollars go into the pockets of corrupt leaders of puppet governments who're more interested in being the new king of the ghetto and less of stopping the carnage they've known all their lives.

So while you fight the good fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and put up sentimental posters of the American soldier suffering for someone else, you throw a few buckets of aid money at Pakistan, who use the money to fund the same ****ing terrorists killing Americans. (Why yes, I know you just checked my Location).
Obviously we have been ineffective in controlling our money and where it goes in regards to foreign affairs. Therefore, we have to be more careful about it.
Principles always have meaning, especially so when in opposition to those they serve. Because if they didn't, they could be easily replaced with more pertinent principles such as, say, 24/7 surveillance, Mao suits and regular SS patrols.
So we must follow the Constitution to the absolute letter or we'll become a military junta?

France is actually considering a ban on the burka in order to protect women's rights. Will they automatically become a totalitarian state as a result?
The thousands of tax dollars that go into public security? The FBI? The police? Alternately, commission the Swiss Guard.
I suppose, but you'll have to have more or less 24/7 surveillance around the thing, and that could just provoke an even stronger outcry. There are already extremist elements in the Right that could use this as further justification of their views (which are essentially that the Administration supports our enemies).

Though if worst comes to shove the Swiss Guard would be extremely effective....
I'm sure it finds you silly as well.
I was being sarcastic. I've had some annoying (admittedly unrelated) cases recently were people didn't listen/read all of what I was saying, but took parts of it and misinterpreted it.
To be honest, I don't think they were thinking that much when they died.
True.
Literally, yes, it means that. But in practice, most modern democratic systems are in fact, about representation of communities, and rule of the majority with explicit provisions for the minority. A proper "rule of the people" would be more akin to Swiss democracy, where every citizen has a say in what the country does. In the US, Obama represents the people of the US, but is not singularly, the people of the US (even though some suspect of him having mind control).
This is true, but our representatives are supposed to act on our interests. I know that doesn't usually happen (I've seen the opposite in many cases) because politicians either have to make judgment calls on an issue or they had less pure interests in mind.
SUPER BONUS PRO TIP: People didn't come up with words like democracy and oligarchy using Google Translate.
No, which is why I used these: " ". It wasn't meant as a serious word, which I probably should have clarified. My mistake.
Laws aren't made to accomplish something, they're made to regulate behaviour in a society. If zero crime rates can be considered a sign of accomplishment of laws, then, that's that. Doesn't mean you'll just revoke the laws then and let everything be lollipops and sunshine, because it won't be.
Yes, but sometimes laws meant to regulate behavior cause unforeseeable problems.
This makes me wonder if you've even read the constitution, any constitution, not just the American one.
Again, I have.
The nobility brings tears to me eyes... since most of those insurgents are being paid with US dollars.
See earlier statement.
No, it will lead to the Fourth Reich. And it probably won't be called Reich, because Americans don't speak German.
My point is that I doubt one exception will lead to the transformation of the United States into a fascist dictatorship, military junta, communist oligarchy, or any such totalitarian state. Hitler's Reich, Mao's Cultural Revolution, etc., did not occur over night. They were gradual changes caused by a COMPLETE elimination of the previous law.
I think that people came up with the principles in that book. You know, for people.
And I doubt they wanted us to blindly obey those principles and not question the effectiveness of our laws at all.
Goddamn Buddhist extremists and their acts of terror

Why wouldn't you support if was some other religious site? Because the area surrounding Ground Zero is a religion-free zone for some reason? I sense an atheist mass emigration soon.
It's purely dependent on what ideology or religion we are talking about. The idea is to oppose validating the goals of whatever extremists have assaulted this country, be it Muslim, Christian, communist, fascist, etc..
Are they clinging to their crosses, Mr. Hunger?
Where the yellow cab-fleet tosses, Mr. Hunger?
Do they, fasting, trembling, bleeding,
Wait the call of the muezzin?
Do they fear the Muslims breeding,
And feel majority receding?
If the voice of Glenn Beck falters,
If the Muslims mosques will monger,
Do they tremble for their altars?
Do they, Hunger?

It would greatly, I must own, soothe me, Hunger!
If you left this theme alone, haughty Hunger!
With lugubrious eye-swivel
You do fight with stern decree;
For your God or dream or devil
You will answer, not to me.
So you may go and play the hero,
(I'd critique if I were younger);
On the subject of Ground Zero... Chuck it, Hunger!

(With apologies to Mr. Chesterton.)
Um, thank you for the poetry? :thmbup1:

mimartin
08-30-2010, 05:31 PM
I was being sarcastic. I've had some annoying (admittedly unrelated) cases recently were people didn't listen/read all of what I was saying, but took parts of it and misinterpreted it.Wasn't me, since you pretty much proved with your last post that I was interpreting you correctly. :)

Liverandbacon
08-30-2010, 06:43 PM
I was saying that in this one very specific case, and ONLY this case alone, we make one exception to the rule.
...
That's not to say, conveniently ignore the document whenever we want. I only advocate one exception alone.


The problem is, once you let politicians make "one exception", whether you want them or not, they're going to make more. And you can bet that they'll do them all in the name of "the will of the American people". There's never a such thing as "just one exception".

VeniVidiVicous
08-30-2010, 06:52 PM
Thank you for clarifying. I respectfully disagree, and at this point that's all I have to say without repeating myself.

That's fair enough.

I will say one thing though, I'm going to geuss you're a christian here.

If the Iranian government were to block Churchs from being built in Iran (whatever the circumstances) would you think they'd be entitled to do that? :raise:

Ping
08-30-2010, 07:41 PM
The problem is, once you let politicians make "one exception", whether you want them or not, they're going to make more. And you can bet that they'll do them all in the name of "the will of the American people". There's never a such thing as "just one exception".

Honestly, that can apply to any person in the world.

Lord of Hunger
08-30-2010, 07:59 PM
The problem is, once you let politicians make "one exception", whether you want them or not, they're going to make more. And you can bet that they'll do them all in the name of "the will of the American people". There's never a such thing as "just one exception".
True enough, I suppose. I won't contest this point any further.
I will say one thing though, I'm going to geuss you're a christian here.
Sort of. I am actually half-Catholic, half-Buddhist with Jewish ancestry. Also, I am not an active church-goer, as I'm somewhat more individualist about my faith at the present.
If the Iranian government were to block Churchs from being built in Iran (whatever the circumstances) would you think they'd be entitled to do that? :raise:
Well, I'm guessing that they already have that sort of power already. Would it be deserved? I don't know, as I am forming my view by circumstance.
Wasn't me, since you pretty much proved with your last post that I was interpreting you correctly. :)
...

No comment.

Darth333
08-30-2010, 08:25 PM
So every single act done by US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is inherently Satanic? I disagree with the American invasion but please, let me know where I've said that it was " inherently Satanic", because I don't know :confused:

[...]and it's not like there aren't insurgents pouring in reversing a lot of that good.

And yes, that's what they do. We build schools for women, they tear 'em down and brutalize the students. We rescue captives, they use human shields. Need I go on? *sigh* this is where opening history books and traveling - not just as a tourist - comes in handy, at least as a weapon against total ignorance... I'll always remember this American student in Cambridge, UK *(obviously his marks were high enough to have "made it" ) commenting about the name of the town (ok maybe it was after a few beers and a dip in the Cam river): "it's funny that people name their small towns after our famous towns" (you have no idea of how much I wanted to hide under something - the same idiocy could have easily come out of the mouth of some Canadian fellow countryman - but the Cam river waters weren't too appealing).


So you are assuming that the slightest flexibility with laws will result in the Third Reich all over again or am I missing something?
Please explain what you mean by this, especially the" flexibility with laws" part. Sorry, must be my Frenchglish...


I suppose that makes me a heretic according to the mainstream view of American law, but I was under the impression that we tolerated all views.
Done so, along with the entire Constitution, the Amendments, the Federalist Papers, and a few other gifts for our law makers. Admittedly my memory is not the best, so I admittedly forget the exact wording of certain amendments on occasion..
I'm not American but a close neighbour :) I personally tolerate all views unless they are unconstitutional and/or do not constitute hater against some people who do nothing wrong.

Still, you do not seem to understand what constitutionality means. the constitution sets the framework. If some law of government action goes against it, then it has to be invalidated. It is that pondering task that is given to judges.

I am not saying against Muslims or Mosques in general, just THIS MOSQUE.I still don't get on what rationale basis....if we were to look at all the crimes Christians or Muslims have committed, I would have to say no to all Churches in my neighbourhood...the same goes with Mosquees...Why should all reasonable people pay for some extremists?

We haven't even built the Freedom Tower yet, and they're already considering supporting the finances of an act that is very much against the interests and happiness of the AMERICAN PEOPLE.Aren't there any Muslims among the "American people" too? (So every single act done by US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is inherently Satanic? We've done some good there, and it's not like there aren't insurgents pouring in reversing a lot of that good.

And yes, that's what they do. We build schools for women, they tear 'em down and brutalize the students. We rescue captives, they use human shields. Need I go on?

Oh boy...Just as starters, comparing Afganistan and Irak shows your total ignorance of the Middle East situation.


Those who have died for laws, honor, and principles died not so that we'd just have laws, honor, and principles, but so that we'd have them for the benefit of the people.No, it was also meant to be a safeguard against some mass extremist/stupid moves and guarantee some freedoms and rights tominorites despite that (protect them against the "tyranny" of the majority). Obviously we did not visit the same countries and neither did we read the same history books.

Lord of Hunger
08-30-2010, 09:58 PM
I disagree with the American invasion but please, let me know where I've said that it was " inherently Satanic", because I don't know :confused:
I presented examples of the US military improving the lives of foreign communities. You wrote:
This is one of the most arrogant and uninformed statement I've read on these boards...at least it's just words...
Therefore, out of slight irritation I assumed that you are implying that the US military is only responsible for heinous acts.

Please excuse me, I'm slightly tired of debating about seven people at the same time, having to re-clarify my views for each one, etc..
*sigh* this is where opening history books and traveling - not just as a tourist - comes in handy, at least as a weapon against total ignorance... I'll always remember this American student in Cambridge, UK *(obviously his marks were high enough to have "made it" ) commenting about the name of the town (ok maybe it was after a few beers and a dip in the Cam river): "it's funny that people name their small towns after our famous towns" (you have no idea of how much I wanted to hide under something - the same idiocy could have easily come out of the mouth of some Canadian fellow countryman - but the Cam river waters weren't too appealing).
Again, this label of ignorance....
Please explain what you mean by this, especially the" flexibility with laws" part. Sorry, must be my Frenchglish...
As in, the ability to make a rational exception to a law based upon the situation of the law, the spirit of the law, and some common sense.
I'm not American but a close neighbour :) I personally tolerate all views unless they are unconstitutional and/or do not constitute hater against some people who do nothing wrong.

Still, you do not seem to understand what constitutionality means. the constitution sets the framework. If some law of government action goes against it, then it has to be invalidated. It is that pondering task that is given to judges.
I understand what constitutionality means and how it works. What I am saying is that such a system may not always be functional. When this happens, we should reevaluate.
I still don't get on what rationale basis....if we were to look at all the crimes Christians or Muslims have committed, I would have to say no to all Churches in my neighbourhood...the same goes with Mosquees...Why should all reasonable people pay for some extremists?
Here's the thing: I am establishing my opinion on this matter purely on a situational basis. I am not arguing for a principle that should be applied to all scenarios, my only concern in this debate is the potential Mosque at Ground Zero.
Aren't there any Muslims among the "American people" too? (
Yes, and I am not denying that there aren't. I don't know why people keep bringing this up, as I have no problem with Muslims in the US celebrating their faith. I never had. I welcome them to do so. Just not at Ground Zero. Hell, they can feel free to build one in my town and I'll visit sometime.
Oh boy...Just as starters, comparing Afganistan and Irak shows your total ignorance of the Middle East situation.
Again, this label of "total ignorance". Maybe I happen to have a different view and set of sources on this issue?
I disaggree with the American invasion but please, let me know where I've said that it was " inherently Satanic", because I don't know :clueless:

*sigh* this is where opening history books and traveling - not just as a tourist - comes in handy (I'll always remember this American student in Cambridge, UK - obviously his marks were high enough to have "made it" - comenting about the name of the town (ok maybe after a few beers a dip in the Cam river): "it's funny that people name their small towns after our famous towns" (you have no idea of how much I wanted to hide under something but the Cam river waters weren't too appealing)... at least as a weapon against total ignorance...


[quote]So you are assuming that the slightest flexibility with laws will result in the Third Reich all over again or am I missing something?[`/quote]
Please explain what you mean by this, especially the" flexibility with laws" part. Sorry, must be my Frenchglish...

I'm not American but a close neighbour :) I personally tolerate all views unless they are unconstitutional and/or do not constitue hater against some groups of people who do nothing wrong.

Still, you do not seem to understand what constitutionality means. The constitution sets the framework. If some law of government action goes against it, then it has to be invalidated. It is that pondering task that is given to judges.
I'm guessing this a copy of your earlier arguments.
No, it was also meant to be a safeguard against some mass extremist/stupid moves and guarantee some freedoms and rights tominorites despite that (protect them against the "tyranny" of the majority). Obviously we did not visit the same countries and neither did we read the same history books.
I agree with the latter statement.
I still don't get on what rationale basis....if we were to look at all the crimes Christians or Muslims have committed, I would have to say no to all Churches in my neighbourhood...the same goes with Mosquees...Why should the majority of reasonable people pay for some extremists? (I'm saying this as a Christian too)
I believe this is also copy of an earlier part of your post. :)

Darth333
08-30-2010, 10:45 PM
I presented examples of the US military improving the lives of foreign communities.

Therefore, out of slight irritation I assumed that you are implying that the US military is only responsible for heinous acts.

It was my understanding that you see as improving lives of foreign communities as imposing a certain type of view/way of doing things without regard to the particulars such as history/culture/people/local politics, needs, groups, etc... Did it ever cross your mind that what may be suitable to one may not be fit for the other? That it might just create a huge mess, amongst others? The IMF policies were already very biased...

*Please excuse me, I'm slightly tired of debating about seven people at the same time, having to re-clarify my views for each one, etc... So we all are.


Again, this label of ignorance...... Hmmm don't you submit to the majority's views?

As in, the ability to make a rational exception to a law based upon the situation of the law, the spirit of the law, and some common sense.And this rationale comes from?
If I understand your previous argument, majority = automatic common sense even if it makes no sense and if people are uninformed/misinformed? (sorry for the non-sense but how can one answer to such an absurd situation late at night other than by more non-sense...hum...that was not meant to be a question but a mere comment.) Constitution = safeguard.


I still don't get on what rationale basis....if we were to look at all the crimes Christians or Muslims have committed, I would have to say no to all Churches in my neighbourhood...the same goes with Mosquees...Why should all reasonable people pay for some extremists?]
Here's the thing: I am establishing my opinion on this matter purely on a situational basis. I am not arguing for a principle that should be applied to all scenarios, my only concern in this debate is the potential Mosque at Ground Zero....And the answer is???



Yes, and I am not denying that there aren't. I don't know why people keep bringing this up, as I have no problem with Muslims in the US celebrating their faith. I never had. I welcome them to do so. Just not at Ground Zero. Hell, they can feel free to build one in my town and I'll visit sometime.So why not at ground Zero, then?

Oh boy...Just as starters, comparing Afganistan and Irak shows your total ignorance of the Middle East situation.]
Again, this label of "total ignorance". Maybe I happen to have a different view and set of sources on this issue?.
Obviously ( I watch them in four languages)...I also watch Fox news once in while but I still don't know if I do it for laughs or cries though.

I believe this is also copy of an earlier part of your post. :) Right! At least we agree on something!

Yes, but sometimes laws meant to regulate behavior cause unforeseeable problems.Is this meant to be poetry or some type of heroic statement? :confused:

Sabretooth
08-30-2010, 10:57 PM
And we don't know for a fact that the mujahedeen would have shut down after their war with the Soviets if we had supplied them money. It may be perfectly possible that they would have used it to take over as they did anyway (admittedly after much infighting leading to the rule of the even more extremist Taliban).
Obviously they wouldn't have shut down - because they wouldn't have been getting the money in the first place. Afghanistan after the Soviet War did not have a government in place to receive the aid, what it needed was a secure government with sound infrastructure and a complete disbanding of the mujahedeen.

So we must follow the Constitution to the absolute letter or we'll become a military junta?
Following a constitution to the letter happens to be why most of those are written. Violating them, one by one, in the interest of the People, has resulted in totalitarianism.

France is actually considering a ban on the burka in order to protect women's rights. Will they automatically become a totalitarian state as a result?
I don't support France's burqa law in the first place, but if it came into place (or has come into place, I don't remember), then it could very well be on that path. Switzerland, IIRC, passed a bizarre bill banning minarets in the country. So much for direct democracy.

I suppose, but you'll have to have more or less 24/7 surveillance around the thing, and that could just provoke an even stronger outcry. There are already extremist elements in the Right that could use this as further justification of their views (which are essentially that the Administration supports our enemies).
Actually, police protection and (indirect) 24/7 surveillance happens to be how we secure high-risk areas here. You can let the Right exercise their free speech as much as they like.

Though if worst comes to shove the Swiss Guard would be extremely effective....
Usually, the worst comes to worst, and push comes to shove, but if that happened, then yes, only the Swiss Guard can help.

This is true, but our representatives are supposed to act on our interests. I know that doesn't usually happen (I've seen the opposite in many cases) because politicians either have to make judgment calls on an issue or they had less pure interests in mind.
Exactly, and so we can bunk the sensationalist "democracy is rule by the people for the people" and make it "democracy is rule by people-elected representatives, for the people", or Anthro̱poi-eklegmenoekpróso̱pocracy.

Yes, but sometimes laws meant to regulate behavior cause unforeseeable problems.
I think I've lost the whole argument here, now - what unforeseeable problems are being caused because of the law, again?

My point is that I doubt one exception will lead to the transformation of the United States into a fascist dictatorship, military junta, communist oligarchy, or any such totalitarian state. Hitler's Reich, Mao's Cultural Revolution, etc., did not occur over night. They were gradual changes caused by a COMPLETE elimination of the previous law.
Applicable to Mao to some extent, and Lenin; Hitler on the other hand, gradually wrested control from the Weimar Republic by instating laws that favoured his philosophy and seamlessly converting a republic into a totalitarian dictatorship. The Germans didn't notice and they didn't care, they went with the flow because it was favourable to them at the given moment.

It's purely dependent on what ideology or religion we are talking about. The idea is to oppose validating the goals of whatever extremists have assaulted this country, be it Muslim, Christian, communist, fascist, etc..
And what exactly are the goals of anti-American extremists? It isn't promotion of Islam - that is manageable. It's dismantling the United States - plain and simple. They hate everything there is about America, from the hubris and the decadency, to the imperialism and worlds-police attitude. They want to see the most powerful country in the world razed down to the ground just like the countries the US has razed to the ground. I don't think the Mosque is going to do that.

Lord of Hunger
08-31-2010, 01:53 AM
It was my understanding that you see as improving lives of foreign communities as imposing a certain type of view/way of doing things without regard to the particulars such as history/culture/people/local politics, needs, groups, etc...
Incorrect. The only action I support in those countries are:
1) The removal of oppressive governments (the Taliban and Saddam's police state).
2) The reconstruction of those countries (as in public serves like roads, hospitals, etc.).
I do not support any manipulation of foreign cultures.
Did it ever cross your mind that what may be suitable to one may not be fit for the other? That it might just create a huge mess, amongst others? The IMF policies were already very biased...
Yes it crossed my mind. It crosses my mind on multiple occasions, and is often a subject of contemplation for me.
Hmmm don't you submit to the majority's views?
No I don't, but I try to respect those views rather than completely disregard them altogether. That's the point of what I am saying: I am not arguing any notion of "Muslims should conform to American ideals". I am arguing that "we should all respect each others ideals and situation, and our laws should reflect that".
If I understand your previous argument, majority = automatic common sense even if it makes no sense and if people are uninformed/misinformed? (sorry for the non-sense but how can one answer to such an absurd situation late at night other than by more non-sense...hum...that was not meant to be a question but a mere comment.) Constitution = safeguard.
Incorrect. Here's how it works: A culture creates a law to regulate its behavior. Those laws are made by men and are limited in quality by how capable man is. The culture creates amendments to those laws to adapt the laws to situations that culture faces. At some point, a culture may face a scenario where those laws, due to their limitations, are more harmful than good.

And the Constitution may be a safeguard, but it can only work so well. It's not perfect or divine, it is a piece of paper with laws written on it. Those laws may be very well-conceived, but they were conceived by limited humans nonetheless.
And the answer is???
As I've said, my answer is to build the Mosque somewhere else so that the interests of the terrorists responsible for 9/11 are not supported.
So why not at ground Zero, then?
Because the goal of those terrorists is to institute a global caliphate, and to build a Mosque there is a symbolic victory for them.
Obviously ( I watch them in four languages)...I also watch Fox news once in while but I still don't know if I do it for laughs or cries though.
What does Fox News have to do with anything? I don't watch television news anyway (I still read the news online and sometimes in the local newspaper).
Is this meant to be poetry or some type of heroic statement? :confused:
Neither, just an observation. For example, we abolished alcohol in the US at one point, and the result was that the alcohol industry was driven underground and created a massive economic boost for the crime world.
Obviously they wouldn't have shut down - because they wouldn't have been getting the money in the first place. Afghanistan after the Soviet War did not have a government in place to receive the aid, what it needed was a secure government with sound infrastructure and a complete disbanding of the mujahedeen.
From my understanding the mujahedeen more or less became the government anyway. They were the counter-revolution to the Soviet-backed government that replaced Afghanistan's monarchy.
Following a constitution to the letter happens to be why most of those are written. Violating them, one by one, in the interest of the People, has resulted in totalitarianism.
And always will, no matter what happens?
I don't support France's burqa law in the first place, but if it came into place (or has come into place, I don't remember), then it could very well be on that path. Switzerland, IIRC, passed a bizarre bill banning minarets in the country. So much for direct democracy.
And the various states of America have arbitrary bans as state law (I don't have the list in front of me unfortunately). In the end, they have not made the country totalitarian, people just go about their daily lives and nothing really changes.
Actually, police protection and (indirect) 24/7 surveillance happens to be how we secure high-risk areas here. You can let the Right exercise their free speech as much as they like.

Usually, the worst comes to worst, and push comes to shove, but if that happened, then yes, only the Swiss Guard can help.
I suppose if it got to that point, the US would probably just end up in civil war, but that's another thread altogether.
Exactly, and so we can bunk the sensationalist "democracy is rule by the people for the people" and make it "democracy is rule by people-elected representatives, for the people", or Anthro̱poi-eklegmenoekpróso̱pocracy.
I'm guessing you are fluent in Greek.
Applicable to Mao to some extent, and Lenin; Hitler on the other hand, gradually wrested control from the Weimar Republic by instating laws that favoured his philosophy and seamlessly converting a republic into a totalitarian dictatorship. The Germans didn't notice and they didn't care, they went with the flow because it was favourable to them at the given moment.
They didn't care, but I think they did notice. Admittedly, the Germans didn't get a very good deal with the Treaty of Versailles, but that's a discussion for later.
And what exactly are the goals of anti-American extremists? It isn't promotion of Islam - that is manageable. It's dismantling the United States - plain and simple. They hate everything there is about America, from the hubris and the decadency, to the imperialism and worlds-police attitude. They want to see the most powerful country in the world razed down to the ground just like the countries the US has razed to the ground. I don't think the Mosque is going to do that.
No it won't. However, it will be a symbolic victory that will empower them, and the fact that our government is supporting its construction does not help with the relationship between the people and their leaders.

Bimmerman
08-31-2010, 03:25 AM
American here.

I don't give two $*#* about where the Mosque is. I don't care if it's at Ground Zero. I don't care if it's a million miles away. Our country's values are such that anyone has the right to express their religious views, without persecution, wherever they damn well please. Building a Mosque at the former WTC site is a good thing since it shows that we as a people can move on and still adhere to our original principles instead of blatant fearmongering.

I say build it.

@LOH- I find your argument....inconsistent. You claim you don't have any problem with Muslims being Muslim, yet you say building a Mosque near GZ is letting the terrorists win. You do realize that there are American citizens who are Muslim who want to practice their religion as is their right under our Constitution, don't you? You do realize that non-Muslims may want to check the Mosque out to gain an appreciation of a different and oft-slandered culture, yes? How does allowing private citizens to buy space and build a Mosque, as is their right, let the terrorists win? (also, who gives a crap whether they do or don't, the threat has been blown seriously out of proportion)

By NOT allowing the Mosque to be built there, not only is that blatantly illegal and unconstitutional, but you are essentially telling a not-insignificant section of our citizenry that the majority of the country fears them, hates them, doesn't want to see them, and wants nothing to do with them. That is letting the terrorists win, by depriving fellow citizens of their rights under the Constitution out of baseless fear. Hate begets hate. Treating American Muslims as second class citizens only breeds hatred and resentment, which lead a few misguided idiots to become terrorists.

The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It does not read "Congress shall make.....grievances, unless they are of Middle Eastern descent, are brown, and/or are followers of Islam."

Treating the First Amendment as if it does read as such is letting the terrorists win. I don't consider a handful of pissed off Muslims to be a threat to our nation. That would be the Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians, since they actually vote in elections.

Build the Mosque, give ignorant idiots the finger.

Lord of Hunger
08-31-2010, 05:24 AM
@LOH- I find your argument....inconsistent. You claim you don't have any problem with Muslims being Muslim, yet you say building a Mosque near GZ is letting the terrorists win. You do realize that there are American citizens who are Muslim who want to practice their religion as is their right under our Constitution, don't you?
Yes.
You do realize that non-Muslims may want to check the Mosque out to gain an appreciation of a different and oft-slandered culture, yes?
Yes.
How does allowing private citizens to buy space and build a Mosque, as is their right, let the terrorists win? (also, who gives a crap whether they do or don't, the threat has been blown seriously out of proportion)
1) In this case, it empowers their moral and helps give their existence meaning. The symbolic act of their goals being achieved.
2) I respectfully disagree that this threat is entirely out of proportion. Currently, we are facing the full might of the Taliban (allies and sponsors of Al-Qaeda,) an organization that spans both Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are a guerrilla army that is causing significant casualties to the ISAF. Meanwhile, the Iran Revolutionary Guard has provided significant training and finances to other significant terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as many Shiite militant groups in Iraq.
By NOT allowing the Mosque to be built there, not only is that blatantly illegal and unconstitutional, but you are essentially telling a not-insignificant section of our citizenry that the majority of the country fears them, hates them, doesn't want to see them, and wants nothing to do with them.
Yes that may be the case, but on the other hand by allowing the Mosque to be built there you tell the majority of the country that their government doesn't respect their wishes and supports that not-insignificant section of our citizenry over them.

I personally identify with neither group, but rather with the whole of the country. I support everyone's right to be here, enjoy the rights of this Constitution, and live out their lives and express their cultures however they want.

I am also starting to believe that whether this mosque is built or not, we will be further divided by the event.
That is letting the terrorists win, by depriving fellow citizens of their rights under the Constitution out of baseless fear. Hate begets hate. Treating American Muslims as second class citizens only breeds hatred and resentment, which lead a few misguided idiots to become terrorists.
And unfortunately, if we ignore the larger part of American citizens, they will become hateful and resentful, and a large number of them will become militants.

Ironic, no?
The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It does not read "Congress shall make.....grievances, unless they are of Middle Eastern descent, are brown, and/or are followers of Islam."
I never said that, nor do I support such a notion.
Treating the First Amendment as if it does read as such is letting the terrorists win. I don't consider a handful of pissed off Muslims to be a threat to our nation. That would be the Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians, since they actually vote in elections.
Unfortunately, BOTH pissed off Muslims and pissed off Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians are a problem.

Pissed off Muslims oppress innocents, kill innocents, not to mention use them as human shields to kill US soldiers.

Pissed off Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians can do about the same.

At the moment, however, the world has more pissed off Muslims. As much as I would like to avoid having an increase in either, this situation can create such depending on who wins.
Build the Mosque, give ignorant idiots the finger.
Or we can build the Mosque at least four miles away from the site, not give anyone the finger, and avoid further splitting the country in half.

From my stand point, we have a foreign war on our hands. We do not need violent civil unrest on top of that, nor do our troops out on the battlefield.

Granted, we could call in the Swiss Guard as Sabretooth suggests, but they'll be dealing with one big and possibly well-armed mob.

jrrtoken
08-31-2010, 12:11 PM
Remember when I said that denying the construction of the mosque would probably incite more Islamic terrorism than building the mosque in the first place? Well, I don't want to say "I told you so" (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/30/taliban-using-mosque-controversy-to-recruit.html), but...

America’s enemies in Afghanistan are delighted by the vehement public opposition to the proposed “Ground Zero mosque.” The backlash against the project has drawn the heaviest e-mail response ever on jihadi Web sites, Zabihullah claims—far bigger even than France’s ban on burqas earlier this year. (That was big, he recalls: “We received many e-mails asking for advice on how Muslims should react to the hijab ban, and how they can punish France.”) This time the target is America itself. “We are getting even more messages of support and solidarity on the mosque issue and questions about how to fight back against this outrage.”

Totenkopf
08-31-2010, 12:21 PM
Meh, doesn't seem like it takes much to stoke the pre-provked.

JediMaster12
08-31-2010, 01:53 PM
LOH:

Your pissed off Muslims are on the other side of the ocean and they do things in the name of Allah but in fact know nothing about the meaning of the words of Allah. The pissed off Muslims here are people like you and me who want to worship as they please peacefully but are not allowed to.

Need I remind you that this proposed mosque is NOT at the WTC site but like two blocks away in a building that has already been in use as a prayer center for Muslims?

Heck I don't need to give a lesson on sacrilege since the Christians have been doing that since the Inquisition. Oops I should say Catholics since it was first the Spaniards who sacked and nearly wiped out whole Native American populations with disease and war in search of gold and then to add insult to injury build churches on top of temples that can't be excavated because of a holy issue. OH and let's not forget the forcing upon Catholicism on native groups. Then there were the Indian boarding schools...

I tell ya the United States has a long history of discrimination against minorities. A convient forgetting in these modern time.

mimartin
08-31-2010, 01:59 PM
Of course it does not take much to provoke Extremist Terrorist. They hate us and want to kill us. Build the Mosque, don’t build the Mosque, it really does not matter if your only goal is to placate the terrorist. It isn’t going to work. They already think we are the great Satan and that isn’t going to change with a few kind words and some trinkets. Either way (allow it to be built, or not) they will use the propaganda to recruit others to their goals. Either way, they will attempt to attack our citizens and infrastructure in the future. It is a no win situation, pure and simple. To call it anything differently is disingenuous.

So why do I support it being built.

1. It is legal and more importantly it is their right.

2. I’m not worried about pleasing or displeasing the extremists. Like I already wrote they hate us now matter what we do. What I’m worried about our actions pushing the moderates into the extremist category. Violating our own laws and beliefs, falls right in line with the Extremist propaganda of us being at war with all Muslims. It also makes our own propaganda of bringing freedom to the Middle East moot.

3. The Federal Government stopping the construction would violate the Constitution in more than one way. A. States Right (This is a New York City and State issue), B. Religious Rights and C. Property Rights. Some may argue that the founding fathers were not perfect men and created an imperfect document. Can’t argue with that, but they were intelligent enough to know that and have included a mechanism that allows the Constitution to be changed.

Or we can build the Mosque at least four miles away from the site, not give anyone the finger, and avoid further splitting the country in half.I understand 4 miles is your number, but will the other 70% of those opposed to the Mosque also support your 4 mile mark. I mean my radius is 22 3/4 Feet, what makes your radius more valid than mine? My uncle's radius is 5026 miles, why is his mark any less valid than yours? Naturally my uncle will not be supporting your 4 mile mark, nor my mark either. :(

adamqd
08-31-2010, 02:36 PM
I'm Not American, so This only effects me in the way that People are Dead, Killing, committing suicide/genocide, Arguing, spending Millions on Media and "Place of Worship" building, falling out in Star Wars Forums, and generally wasting life on it... So the first thing we need to do in this century is Stop making such life or death mass media decisions Based on Religion, Then we can Start worrying about building a 16 million Dollar Mosque in the Name of Allah two Blocks away from the site 3 thousand people died in the name of Allah... well... I guess if those decisions stop being made we wouldn't be in this mess.

Like Mimartin said, whether you build it or not, The extremists are still gonna want to Kill you.

Astor
08-31-2010, 04:23 PM
Again, not American, and i've not really been engaged by this whole debate (although even if I were interested, I probably wouldn't care that much either way), but...

That is letting the terrorists win, by depriving fellow citizens of their rights under the Constitution out of baseless fear.

That was my thought, as well.

Surely, by violating the Constitution to prevent the construction of the Mosque, that would grant the extremists an even bigger 'victory' than if the Mosque were to be built?

Pho3nix
08-31-2010, 05:11 PM
To me it feels pretty...provocative. I don't think it should be built so close-by, but that's just me.

And since it rubs people off so much why not relocate it? why feed the fire?

Lynk Former
08-31-2010, 08:36 PM
To me it feels pretty...provocative. I don't think it should be built so close-by, but that's just me.

And since it rubs people off so much why not relocate it? why feed the fire?
Because in actuality, it doesn't matter where this is built... someone is going to have a problem with its very existence if it's anywhere near a place where it can be identified as any kind of Muslim gathering place and get pissy about it.

The only thing they got wrong by planning to build their community centre so close to "Ground Zero" (btw, that's such a lame name)... is that they should've figured it would obviously make some people go nuts. But, like I said, it doesn't have to be near "Ground Zero" for people to react... it just has to be anywhere where people can identify it and someone will gather up their little squad of protesters and start marching.

Lord of Hunger
08-31-2010, 10:55 PM
LOH:

Your pissed off Muslims are on the other side of the ocean and they do things in the name of Allah but in fact know nothing about the meaning of the words of Allah. The pissed off Muslims here are people like you and me who want to worship as they please peacefully but are not allowed to.
And who is preventing them from doing so? Mostly each other, due to the cultural war between Sunni and Shia.
Need I remind you that this proposed mosque is NOT at the WTC site but like two blocks away in a building that has already been in use as a prayer center for Muslims?
No, you don't. But the fact is that a full on Mosque so close to Ground Zero would provoke an extremely powerful reactionary movement within the United States that would further culturally divide us.
Heck I don't need to give a lesson on sacrilege since the Christians have been doing that since the Inquisition. Oops I should say Catholics since it was first the Spaniards who sacked and nearly wiped out whole Native American populations with disease and war in search of gold and then to add insult to injury build churches on top of temples that can't be excavated because of a holy issue. OH and let's not forget the forcing upon Catholicism on native groups. Then there were the Indian boarding schools...

I tell ya the United States has a long history of discrimination against minorities. A convient forgetting in these modern time.
It is equally convenient to forget that the US has a history of defending individual liberty and well-being. You merely have to look at history differently.

The US is neither the perfect shining beacon of light nor a nest of ignorant bigots. It is an active attempt at balancing the interests of many cultures.
Of course it does not take much to provoke Extremist Terrorist. They hate us and want to kill us. Build the Mosque, don’t build the Mosque, it really does not matter if your only goal is to placate the terrorist. It isn’t going to work. They already think we are the great Satan and that isn’t going to change with a few kind words and some trinkets. Either way (allow it to be built, or not) they will use the propaganda to recruit others to their goals. Either way, they will attempt to attack our citizens and infrastructure in the future. It is a no win situation, pure and simple. To call it anything differently is disingenuous.
All the more reason why it would be preferable to not provoke an extremist uprising within our own country on top of that external threat.
So why do I support it being built.

1. It is legal and more importantly it is their right.

2. I’m not worried about pleasing or displeasing the extremists. Like I already wrote they hate us now matter what we do. What I’m worried about our actions pushing the moderates into the extremist category. Violating our own laws and beliefs, falls right in line with the Extremist propaganda of us being at war with all Muslims. It also makes our own propaganda of bringing freedom to the Middle East moot.

3. The Federal Government stopping the construction would violate the Constitution in more than one way. A. States Right (This is a New York City and State issue), B. Religious Rights and C. Property Rights. Some may argue that the founding fathers were not perfect men and created an imperfect document. Can’t argue with that, but they were intelligent enough to know that and have included a mechanism that allows the Constitution to be changed.
I'll leave these arguments for another time, as we've already debated the principles behind them rather thoroughly. :)
I understand 4 miles is your number, but will the other 70% of those opposed to the Mosque also support your 4 mile mark. I mean my radius is 22 3/4 Feet, what makes your radius more valid than mine? My uncle's radius is 5026 miles, why is his mark any less valid than yours? Naturally my uncle will not be supporting your 4 mile mark, nor my mark either. :(
I just figured four is a solid, even number that is far enough to be away from the site. Your radius is not invalid
Surely, by violating the Constitution to prevent the construction of the Mosque, that would grant the extremists an even bigger 'victory' than if the Mosque were to be built?
At this point, it can be argued that either will be a victory of equal magnitude.
Because in actuality, it doesn't matter where this is built... someone is going to have a problem with its very existence if it's anywhere near a place where it can be identified as any kind of Muslim gathering place and get pissy about it.

The only thing they got wrong by planning to build their community centre so close to "Ground Zero" (btw, that's such a lame name)... is that they should've figured it would obviously make some people go nuts. But, like I said, it doesn't have to be near "Ground Zero" for people to react... it just has to be anywhere where people can identify it and someone will gather up their little squad of protesters and start marching.
That assumes that the American people fundamentally have a problem with Muslims. Granted such a segment of our society exists, but its size is overestimated.

Lynk Former
08-31-2010, 11:41 PM
That assumes that the American people fundamentally have a problem with Muslims. Granted such a segment of our society exists, but its size is overestimated.
No, it doesn't assume that at all. But as you've just said, there's only a small group who actually would be feel that way, but then I think we've all learned pretty clearly that it only takes a few to blow up a situation... ;)

mimartin
09-01-2010, 12:34 AM
You missed the only part of my post directed at you

Or we can build the Mosque at least four miles away from the site, not give anyone the finger, and avoid further splitting the country in half.
I understand 4 miles is your number, but will the other 70% of those opposed to the Mosque also support your 4 mile mark. I mean my radius is 22 3/4 Feet, what makes your radius more valid than mine? My uncle's radius is 5026 miles, why is his mark any less valid than yours? Naturally my uncle will not be supporting your 4 mile mark, nor my mark either. :(
I know you must have just overlooked it because you wrote this earlier.
At this point, I'm only posting because people reply to me and I do not like to leave posts unanswered.

Totenkopf
09-01-2010, 03:53 AM
Seems to me that if they moved the mosque/convention center elsewhere in NY that it will remove the bulk of the protestors on the issue and mollify them. You'll never get rid of all people that protest, but America is full of protesters on a wide list of issues. So far as I've seen to this point, most of those are vs the current proposed location, not the existence of mosques or muslims in general. There are >1000 mosques throughout the US and >3+ million muslims as well. If the city of NY wants to be evenhanded in it's approach to the center, perhaps it shouldn't be dragging its ass on the Greek Orthodox church either. That one has had to wait since the attacks to be rebuilt b/c of govt red tape. Meanwhile, till someone can prove that mosques US wide are being shut down wholesale, the mantra that muslims are being denied their right to pray and observe their "first amendment rights" is nothing more than overheated rhetoric aimed at inflaming the issue......which is the location of Rauf's proposed building.

Lord of Hunger
09-01-2010, 04:54 AM
No, it doesn't assume that at all. But as you've just said, there's only a small group who actually would be feel that way, but then I think we've all learned pretty clearly that it only takes a few to blow up a situation... ;)
Yes, and do we need to give those few fire?
You missed the only part of my post directed at you
Actually, I replied:
I just figured four is a solid, even number that is far enough to be away from the site. Your radius is not invalid
And I think the most moderate elements of that 70% will be satisfied if the Mosque is moved about that much.
Seems to me that if they moved the mosque/convention center elsewhere in NY that it will remove the bulk of the protestors on the issue and mollify them. You'll never get rid of all people that protest, but America is full of protesters on a wide list of issues. So far as I've seen to this point, most of those are vs the current proposed location, not the existence of mosques or muslims in general. There are >1000 mosques throughout the US and >3+ million muslims as well. If the city of NY wants to be evenhanded in it's approach to the center, perhaps it shouldn't be dragging its ass on the Greek Orthodox church either. That one has had to wait since the attacks to be rebuilt b/c of govt red tape. Meanwhile, till someone can prove that mosques US wide are being shut down wholesale, the mantra that muslims are being denied their right to pray and observe their "first amendment rights" is nothing more than overheated rhetoric aimed at inflaming the issue......which is the location of Rauf's proposed building.
THIS!

Thank you, Totenkopf. :)

mimartin
09-01-2010, 08:11 AM
Actually, I replied:
Now you did, you did not answer the question before. :)

Now you answered at it, but still did not answer it, but enough for me to understand that even you know 70% would not just accept your 4 miles mark.

Totenkopf
09-01-2010, 08:24 AM
Perhaps someone should commision a national poll (perhaps on Novs ballot) to see just how many people who are opposed to the location of the proposed building would be content to see it moved a mere 2-3 miles from the current proposed site. I suspect that the majority of those believed to constitute the ~70% would be content w/even 2-3 miles (maybe even only 1 mile) from "ground zero". But given that this 70% has ONLY stated that they are opposed to the current proposed site, it's really reaching to assert that they would NOT be content with a mere 4 miles. It might also gauge more accurately just HOW opposed these people are to the mosque/center even being built.

mimartin
09-01-2010, 09:01 AM
I’d be more interested to know how many of the 70%, knowing the facts, are merely opposed to the Mosque being built near ground zero and how many actually expect the federal government to stop it from being built because of their opposition. I mean how many actually understand that it is not a Federal Issue.

Oh, and it is not reaching to say not all 70% of the 70% opposed to the site would accept the 4 mile mark. :rolleyes: Especially when you consider people now call the Mosque, Ground Zero Mosque and it is 2 blocks away from Ground Zero.

Tommycat
09-01-2010, 09:56 AM
3. The Federal Government stopping the construction would violate the Constitution in more than one way. A. States Right (This is a New York City and State issue), B. Religious Rights and C. Property Rights. Some may argue that the founding fathers were not perfect men and created an imperfect document. Can’t argue with that, but they were intelligent enough to know that and have included a mechanism that allows the Constitution to be changed.


*nitpick* You missed D. Equal protection.

Arguing to change the constitution in any way to meet your desires is the same thing the Liberals had been doing WRT the Second Amendment. I don't like that anymore than changing the First. The moment we decide the BILL OF RIGHTS is flexible, the rights granted in them are no longer rights.

I personally do not like the fact that they are putting it there. BUT the fact remains that the Federal government CANNOT interfere. I would MUCH prefer that IF a religious site were to be built there, that it were an interfaith site. That would do more to help heal the rifts between the Muslim Christian and Jewish elements within this country. BUT AGAIN, it is their RIGHT to build whatever they want there. They bought the property. It is theirs to do whatever they want with it. The government cannot and should not deprive them of their property.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Totenkopf
09-01-2010, 09:56 AM
I’d be more interested to know how many of the 70%, knowing the facts, are merely opposed to the Mosque being built near ground zero and how many actually expect the federal government to stop it from being built because of their opposition. I mean how many actually understand that it is not a Federal Issue.

Oh, and it is not reaching to say not all 70% of the 70% opposed to the site would accept the 4 mile mark. :rolleyes: Especially when you consider people now call the Mosque, Ground Zero Mosque and it is 2 blocks away from Ground Zero.

Well, given the lack of any actual data on that view, it's pure speculation. Two blocks and four miles aren't exactly "kissing cousins". ;)

Originally Posted by portion of 5th amendment
...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Which, according to the recent Kelo decision by the USSC, the city or state of NY could legally "seize" the property and compensate the developers for their out-of-pocket investment.

mimartin
09-01-2010, 10:24 AM
Which, according to the recent Kelo decision by the USSC, the city or state of NY could legally "seize" the property and compensate the developers for their out-of-pocket investment.

Only if the city or state built something there in the publics interest. They could not resale the property to another developer to build office buildings. Since nothing is planned at this time. May run back into ex post facto again.

Totenkopf
09-01-2010, 10:49 AM
Actually, that's pretty much what Kelo allowed for in the first place. The land was owned by someone else, but a developer promised the New London officials more revenue if they got the property....and they did. The original owner was forced to sell and it was upheld by the USSC. Of course, the development failed to secure funding and ended up an empty lot in the end.

mimartin
09-01-2010, 12:14 PM
Of course, the development failed to secure funding and ended up an empty lot in the end.Which is all that may happen now as they do not have the funding for the center now and the reports I've read said it will be 2014 or later before they build the center.

Tommycat
09-01-2010, 08:22 PM
This smells an awful lot like a PR stunt. Kinda musky...

Bimmerman
09-02-2010, 07:50 PM
1) In this case, it empowers their moral and helps give their existence meaning. The symbolic act of their goals being achieved.
2) I respectfully disagree that this threat is entirely out of proportion. Currently, we are facing the full might of the Taliban (allies and sponsors of Al-Qaeda,) an organization that spans both Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are a guerrilla army that is causing significant casualties to the ISAF. Meanwhile, the Iran Revolutionary Guard has provided significant training and finances to other significant terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as many Shiite militant groups in Iraq. All facts, all true, and all irrelevant. Not only are they way the hell away, but constantly worrying about what they might/might not/are/are not doing just gives them credibility. Ignoring them and not giving a crap about them is a better strategy-- you can't fight philosophy. If the mosque is built there, you suggest they will view that as a victory. WHO CARES?!?

The only way they can possibly win their idea of a war is to get the US to kowtow to their wishes by making it PC to tiptoe around any Muslim-sensitive subject. They don't have the ability to wage all-out war. All they are capable of is terrorism, which is their ability to cause others to fear them. They've succeeded in your case- you're so afraid of what they may think or do that you're willing to trample all over your own civil rights just to appease them. That is the only way they can possibly win. Building a mosque two blocks away.....who cares if they view it as a symbolic victory? It's absolutely meaningless.

Yes that may be the case, but on the other hand by allowing the Mosque to be built there you tell the majority of the country that their government doesn't respect their wishes and supports that not-insignificant section of our citizenry over them.

I personally identify with neither group, but rather with the whole of the country. I support everyone's right to be here, enjoy the rights of this Constitution, and live out their lives and express their cultures however they want.

I am also starting to believe that whether this mosque is built or not, we will be further divided by the event.

And unfortunately, if we ignore the larger part of American citizens, they will become hateful and resentful, and a large number of them will become militants.

No. The point of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the few against the demands of the many. That principle has been enshrined in that document and our legal system since, well, 1789. The Constitution applies even when a significant number of Americans want something else to be true. Take the civil rights struggle from 1865 to the present. The Constitution was amended to prevent slavery, give blacks the right to vote, and to give anyone born on US soil citizenship (originally designed to keep pissed off Southerners from keeping Blacks from voting). This is an example of how the Constitution protects the rights of the few from the masses. Same with freedom of religion-- do you worship Hitler? That's messed up, but your legal right. Same with free speech-- do you think Obama is a Muslim born in Indonesia? Well, you're a giant idiot, but such is your right. Same with the right to bear arms-- do you like guns? Congrats, you can own them to arm yourself. Do I need to go on? (NB-- this is the same reason Prop 8 just got overturned.)

Just because a significant proportion of Americans mate with vegetables and think the Mosque is the worst idea since Sarah Palin does not mean the Constitution is invalid and paranoia wins over civil rights. The people wanting to build a Mosque have every right to, and even if I don't agree I'll defend their right to the end. That is the principle this country was founded on, not "Majority Rules Alwayz, Screw the Little Guy."

I seriously wonder what the hell is being taught in schools these days, how can people be so unbelievably uneducated in our Government, Legal System, and Civics? I'm not that old, dammit!

Lord of Hunger
09-02-2010, 09:04 PM
All facts, all true, and all irrelevant. Not only are they way the hell away, but constantly worrying about what they might/might not/are/are not doing just gives them credibility. Ignoring them and not giving a crap about them is a better strategy-- you can't fight philosophy. If the mosque is built there, you suggest they will view that as a victory. WHO CARES?!?

The only way they can possibly win their idea of a war is to get the US to kowtow to their wishes by making it PC to tiptoe around any Muslim-sensitive subject. They don't have the ability to wage all-out war. All they are capable of is terrorism, which is their ability to cause others to fear them. They've succeeded in your case- you're so afraid of what they may think or do that you're willing to trample all over your own civil rights just to appease them. That is the only way they can possibly win. Building a mosque two blocks away.....who cares if they view it as a symbolic victory? It's absolutely meaningless.
So you are implying that I am afraid of the terrorists? Well yes, I am afraid of innocent civilians dying due to a criminal network of psychopathic maniacs. I am afraid of my loved ones visiting a major city and turning on the news to find out that their plane, train, subway, etc. was blown up. I am afraid of a part of our symbolic heritage such as the Statue of Liberty being knocked down by an airliner. Hell, I'm also afraid of an ideological US civil war that could destabilize the economy and collapse world civilization as a result of our current political division.

Now am I constantly afraid of this sort of thing? No, I am not kept up awake at night by these sort of thoughts, nor are they on my mind often. But I do know that this threat is very real, and there is no point in pretending like it is not.

And as for civil rights, again I keep trying to make it clear that I only support this abridgment of the law in this one case and not as a practice. Nor do I support any form of discrimination.
No. The point of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the few against the demands of the many. That principle has been enshrined in that document and our legal system since, well, 1789. The Constitution applies even when a significant number of Americans want something else to be true. Take the civil rights struggle from 1865 to the present. The Constitution was amended to prevent slavery, give blacks the right to vote, and to give anyone born on US soil citizenship (originally designed to keep pissed off Southerners from keeping Blacks from voting). This is an example of how the Constitution protects the rights of the few from the masses. Same with freedom of religion-- do you worship Hitler? That's messed up, but your legal right. Same with free speech-- do you think Obama is a Muslim born in Indonesia? Well, you're a giant idiot, but such is your right. Same with the right to bear arms-- do you like guns? Congrats, you can own them to arm yourself. Do I need to go on? (NB-- this is the same reason Prop 8 just got overturned.)
No offense, but that is bull. The Constitution is not merely a document based on minority protection. It does protect civil rights and such as part of amendments, but that is not the intent. The Founding Fathers did not write this document saying, "Let's give white middle-class men the finger and enshrine the privileges of minority groups!". Hell, these guys were white middle-class men, some of which were owners of slaves. Their intent was to create a compromise of values between major political factions and allow for civil rights to be added through amendments (one of the reasons we have those clauses).

No, the Constitution is a primarily document that underlies the balancing of government authority, including Federal Government branches and their balancing with State Governments. Of course, we have failed miserably to uphold those balances, but life goes on I guess....
Just because a significant proportion of Americans mate with vegetables and think the Mosque is the worst idea since Sarah Palin does not mean the Constitution is invalid and paranoia wins over civil rights. The people wanting to build a Mosque have every right to, and even if I don't agree I'll defend their right to the end. That is the principle this country was founded on, not "Majority Rules Alwayz, Screw the Little Guy."
Why are you bringing Sarah Palin into this? Attempting to invalidate the political right does not validate your argument, especially when I identify with no political ideology. My views are purely my own.
I seriously wonder what the hell is being taught in schools these days, how can people be so unbelievably uneducated in our Government, Legal System, and Civics? I'm not that old, dammit!
Obviously they are being taught to label anyone who disagrees with their views as uneducated. :raise:

Totenkopf
09-02-2010, 09:11 PM
The only way they can possibly win their idea of a war is to get the US to kowtow to their wishes by making it PC to tiptoe around any Muslim-sensitive subject.

If that's the case, they've already won. ;) That is how many in the media treat the subject of islamism and radical muslim terrorism in the US (and probably much of the west in general). Hell, even "big sis" and the BO in general bend over backwards to use euphemisms to refer to such acts. That idiot Bloomberg tried to run a "it's probably someone upset w/the healthcare postion of the administration" when Faisal Shahzad attempted to car bomb NY.


No. The point of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the few against the demands of the many.

Not quite. A big part of the Constitution was to protect the people from a potentially tyrannical govt (hence the first 10 amendments alone being mainly aimed at restricting the govts power over the individual). In the case of the south and blacks, the 14th amendment was to prevent state govts from oppressing the newly released slaves. As Obama himself observed (bitched, actually), the Constitutiuon is basically a negative charter of govt rights vs the people.


Just because a significant proportion of Americans mate with vegetables and think the Mosque is the worst idea since Sarah Palin does not mean the Constitution is invalid and paranoia wins over civil rights. The people wanting to build a Mosque have every right to, and even if I don't agree I'll defend their right to the end. That is the principle this country was founded on, not "Majority Rules Alwayz, Screw the Little Guy."

Again, as demonstrated by the Kelo-New London decision (as well as a bunch of federal and other govt regs), just possessing private property doesn't give you a blank check to do whatever you want with your land. Eminent domain is NOT a new concept, but it has been expanded to unreasonable lengths w/that decision.


I seriously wonder what the hell is being taught in schools these days, how can people be so unbelievably uneducated in our Government, Legal System, and Civics?

How to put on a condomn, probably. :xp:

mimartin
09-03-2010, 12:11 AM
Nor do I support any form of discrimination.
You do mean you do not support any form of discrimination, except in this one particular case. Right? :rolleyes: Because how else would you describe adamantly wanting the federal government (when it is something outside the Federal Governments jurisdiction) to stop one specific group (that was not involve in illegal activity) from building a Religious building at Ground Zero (which is not at ground zero, but two blocks away)?
unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender.

adamqd
09-03-2010, 11:01 AM
I spoke to a Muslim friend of mine, and he couldn't care less if the mosque is built or not... Because non Muslims have such a lack of understanding of Islam, and its separation from such atrocities carried out by these terroists... He thinks we are beyond help if we (non Muslims, obviously not YOU if you are) would but him and Osama in the same sentence.

Tommycat
09-03-2010, 05:12 PM
I honestly cannot believe that a conservative voice would be so adamant about disallowing this mosque that they actually propose ignoring the constitution, "just this one time." That would open up the flood gates to more "just this one time" situations. Do you realize there are enough credible threats to security that they could "just this one time" us into totalitarianism?

Qui-Gon Glenn
09-03-2010, 09:13 PM
lots and lots and lots of wordsy words

I'll go further than DI, and much more directly.

Please bugger off from arguments beyond your experiential ability to grasp.

Again, young man, you have no real experience in the real world. That is a fact undeniable, despite any objection you might raise. You are a 19 year old boy, and your steadfast refusal to consider the multitude of objections you face without a thought of concession here or point given there drives that boyness all the way home.

There is nothing wrong with being a boy. I was one once. Lasted until I was about 28~29. You outgrow it, and end up laughing at the crazy thoughts you held dearly, the immovable positions you once held so dearly that now barely color your thoughts...

I hope you soon find that day, because I cannot figure out a better way to deal with your presence than with laughter, as you refuse to lay down an argument you can't win.

I am laughing at your crazy undeveloped thoughts.

As to the thread topic.... America = freedom of religion = put a religious building wherever you want/can afford.

/thread

Ping
09-03-2010, 09:26 PM
I honestly cannot believe that a conservative voice would be so adamant about disallowing this mosque that they actually propose ignoring the constitution, "just this one time." That would open up the flood gates to more "just this one time" situations. Do you realize there are enough credible threats to security that they could "just this one time" us into totalitarianism?

Actually, I can't help but wonder if conservatives are opposing it just because Obama happens to support the mosque. Just my 2 cents, as it's pretty typical for one side to oppose the other, regardless of the situation.

Lord of Hunger
09-03-2010, 11:10 PM
You do mean you do not support any form of discrimination, except in this one particular case. Right? :rolleyes: Because how else would you describe adamantly wanting the federal government (when it is something outside the Federal Governments jurisdiction) to stop one specific group (that was not involve in illegal activity) from building a Religious building at Ground Zero (which is not at ground zero, but two blocks away)?
National security? Avoiding civil unrest? Respecting the dead?

And as Totenkopf so kindly put it, this has to do with location. A Mosque is not a problem. Allowing a Mosque to be built is not a problem. Allowing a Mosque to be built on the site of a Muslim Extremist terrorist attack is a problem.
I'll go further than DI, and much more directly.

Please bugger off from arguments beyond your experiential ability to grasp.

Again, young man, you have no real experience in the real world. That is a fact undeniable, despite any objection you might raise. You are a 19 year old boy, and your steadfast refusal to consider the multitude of objections you face without a thought of concession here or point given there drives that boyness all the way home.

There is nothing wrong with being a boy. I was one once. Lasted until I was about 28~29. You outgrow it, and end up laughing at the crazy thoughts you held dearly, the immovable positions you once held so dearly that now barely color your thoughts...

I hope you soon find that day, because I cannot figure out a better way to deal with your presence than with laughter, as you refuse to lay down an argument you can't win.

I am laughing at your crazy undeveloped thoughts.
Wow. And you have the right or qualifications to make these judgments about me? You don't even know me, or my life experiences.

And who said anything about winning? This is not a competition, this is a discussion.

Age does not define character. People already do that.
As to the thread topic.... America = freedom of religion = put a religious building wherever you want/can afford.

/thread
Qui-Gon Glenn has spoken.

Totenkopf
09-04-2010, 02:20 AM
Actually, I can't help but wonder if conservatives are opposing it just because Obama happens to support the mosque.

:rofl: Seriously, Ping. Perhaps if you had said "some" instead of implying "all"..... Most of the conservatives in this thread have agreed that they legally have a right to build a mosque/convention center on their property as long as there are no legal problems. :rolleyes: BO's postion has nothing to do with that sentiment.

...... as it's pretty typical for one side to oppose the other, regardless of the situation.

There is some legitimacy to this notion, but it also seems to imply that most issues find opposing parties disagreeing for the sake of disagreement and NOT b/c there might be principles involved.

Frankly, b/c it bears reiteration (and b/c BO's original 1/2 answer also bears it out), the argument is not over the right to place a religious "trophy" near the site of the former Twin Towers, but over the wisdom of that decision. Doing something b/c you're able and doing it b/c you should aren't axiomatically the same thing.

Tommycat
09-04-2010, 10:46 AM
Actually, I can't help but wonder if conservatives are opposing it just because Obama happens to support the mosque. Just my 2 cents, as it's pretty typical for one side to oppose the other, regardless of the situation.

hmph. I happen to be a conservative. Quite frankly even most of the conservatives on talk radio oppose federal intervention(at least the ones I listen to... Maybe Rush Limbaugh is saying it, but I listen to him about once in a few months). MOST conservatives are saying the feds have no right to step in. And the most I heard was that Obama shouldn't have even weighed in at all.

Liberals in NY ALSO have a problem with the mosque. Unless you think that NY has suddenly become 70% conservative.

All this talk of "sensitivity to the Muslims" building the mosque while being insensitive to those who live there has done nothing to bridge the gap. Those who lost loved ones are split on the issue, but all of NYC were traumatized. So for them to rail about insensitivity, smacks of hypocrisy.

Many of those opposed have said it's not about the mosque in general. They would gladly accept it within 2 blocks of their home. They are not saying for the government to step in and stop it. Just that they don't want it.

Qui-Gon Glenn
09-04-2010, 02:05 PM
Wow. And you have the right or qualifications to make these judgments about me? You don't even know me, or my life experiences.
I know your age. I know I am twice your age. That alone is sufficient qualification for making some of these judgments, as you will someday understand. You may have had incredible life experiences... I don't doubt you have... but you haven't had that many of them. You have only been "doing your own thing" for a couple of years. I don't need to know you to know the average accumulated life experience of a 19yo.

And who said anything about winning? This is not a competition, this is a discussion.Right, that is why you have some of the smartest minds in the forum plugging away at your arguments, really quite effectively shredding them, yet you come back for more, and always with your smarmy condescension. You are either a troll, or you are irresistible troll-bait.

Qui-Gon Glenn has spoken.Nah... just quoting the constitution, the basis of U.S. society. The constitution has spoken for me long ago on this matter, to the point that until yesterday, this thread held no interest to me.... it is a moot point.

JediMaster12
09-04-2010, 02:32 PM
And as Totenkopf so kindly put it, this has to do with location. A Mosque is not a problem. Allowing a Mosque to be built is not a problem. Allowing a Mosque to be built on the site of a Muslim Extremist terrorist attack is a problem.

And it has been said multiple times that the proposed site is nowhere on the WTC site. It is two blocks away in a building that had been in use as a prayer location for Muslims long before the events of September 11th.

I know your age. I know I am twice your age. That alone is sufficient qualification for making some of these judgments, as you will someday understand. You may have had incredible life experiences... I don't doubt you have... but you haven't had that many of them. You have only been "doing your own thing" for a couple of years. I don't need to know you to know the average accumulated life experience of a 19yo.

I've heard this speech before and I totally agree. I'm only 26 and I'm still learning from my elders. I know that those that have come before me know more than I ever will yet the same happens vice versa where the old learn from the young. Glad you made that statement Qui-Gon.

Nah... just quoting the constitution, the basis of U.S. society. The constitution has spoken for me long ago on this matter, to the point that until yesterday, this thread held no interest to me.... it is a moot point.

Agreed there yet when people formulate their arguments regarding yes or no to building a mosque, they conveniently forget it. The same convenient forgetting that has occurred throughout US history.

Totenkopf
09-04-2010, 02:58 PM
And it has been said multiple times that the proposed site is nowhere on the WTC site. It is two blocks away in a building that had been in use as a prayer location for Muslims long before the events of September 11th.

Two things. First, in a city the size of NY, 2 blocks easily rates as "close". To say that it is "nowhere near" begs a definition of how elasticly terms are being used. As to the other, is that merely that a bunch of muslims are using the building to pray in unoffically or is some kind of permit involved that permits them to use it as an ersatz religious site? Afterall, people can pretty much pray wherever they like so long as they are not bothering anyone and the owners of the property don't object (hence no one claiming unlawful trespass for instance). Somehow I get the impression that if the current building were being used as is (or in a repaired state), we might not really be hearing about this. Afterall, no one is really pissing and moaning about all the little "street mosques" that can be found throughout NY.

Det. Bart Lasiter
09-04-2010, 03:09 PM
totes what about the free market if the invisible hand didnt want that mosque there the mosque's builders would have been outbid for the land

Totenkopf
09-04-2010, 05:25 PM
Given this guys trouble raising funds, maybe it doesn't.

Lord of Hunger
09-04-2010, 05:27 PM
I know your age. I know I am twice your age. That alone is sufficient qualification for making some of these judgments, as you will someday understand. You may have had incredible life experiences... I don't doubt you have... but you haven't had that many of them. You have only been "doing your own thing" for a couple of years. I don't need to know you to know the average accumulated life experience of a 19yo.
You are still equivocating your experience to mine, then claiming the supremacy of your experience based on sheer amount. I am not saying that I am more intelligent, equally intelligent, or less intelligent than you. I don't believe that should be an issue. The only thing that matters in this thread is the quality of the arguments presented.

Also, why does it matter to you personally? You are not my parent or guardian, or in anyway responsible for policing my ability to post.
Right, that is why you have some of the smartest minds in the forum plugging away at your arguments, really quite effectively shredding them, yet you come back for more, and always with your smarmy condescension. You are either a troll, or you are irresistible troll-bait.
That's what you perceive. Granted, the people I have debated in this thread are obviously individuals of high intellect, but that does not mean that they are correct about everything. Once you assume that arguments are only measurable by status, then there is no point in having such a debate anyway.

And if you perceive me to be condescending, then I am sorry if I have created that perception. I am, however, no troll and have attempted to make my arguments as intelligent and respectful as possible. However, since you and several others INSIST that I am somehow an ignorant troll then I will make this my last post in this thread.
Nah... just quoting the constitution, the basis of U.S. society. The constitution has spoken for me long ago on this matter, to the point that until yesterday, this thread held no interest to me.... it is a moot point.
Incorrect. You quoted an AMENDMENT to the Constitution, specifically a part of the Bill of Rights. And yes, there is an importance in the distinction. The base Constitution is the direct intent of the Founding Fathers, whereas the Bill of Rights are augmentations made to address concerns by several other members. Also, these civil rights are not actual civil rights so much as limitations on the Federal Government's ability to suspend them. That does NOT mean I support any suspension of civil rights, but it is very important to actually be aware of the distinction.

Ping
09-04-2010, 09:43 PM
@Toten: I was not implying anything. I did, however, mean "some," not "all." There's no need to take things out of proportion simply because I left a word out.

Qui-Gon Glenn
09-04-2010, 09:57 PM
You are still equivocating your experience to mine, then claiming the supremacy of your experience based on sheer amount. I am not saying that I am more intelligent, equally intelligent, or less intelligent than you. I don't believe that should be an issue. The only thing that matters in this thread is the quality of the arguments presented.Are you sure you know what equivocation means? I can say without any argument from any party that I have more life experience than you. That is a totally different argument than your equivocation of experience to intelligence.Also, why does it matter to you personally? You are not my parent or guardian, or in anyway responsible for policing my ability to post.Correct. I am free to point out that you are on overly self-impressed young mind who's intelligence has outlasted any sense of humility, and to dismiss your arguments as foolish when they are, loudly if I feel like it.Incorrect. You quoted an AMENDMENT to the Constitution, specifically a part of the Bill of Rights. And yes, there is an importance in the distinction. The base Constitution is the direct intent of the Founding Fathers, whereas the Bill of Rights are augmentations made to address concerns by several other members. Also, these civil rights are not actual civil rights so much as limitations on the Federal Government's ability to suspend them. That does NOT mean I support any suspension of civil rights, but it is very important to actually be aware of the distinction.Is it a part of the constitution or not? Simple question, simple answer. Making distinctions of detail does not help your point.

Tommycat
09-04-2010, 10:34 PM
Incorrect. You quoted an AMENDMENT to the Constitution, specifically a part of the Bill of Rights. And yes, there is an importance in the distinction. The base Constitution is the direct intent of the Founding Fathers, whereas the Bill of Rights are augmentations made to address concerns by several other members. Also, these civil rights are not actual civil rights so much as limitations on the Federal Government's ability to suspend them. That does NOT mean I support any suspension of civil rights, but it is very important to actually be aware of the distinction.
Amendments to the constitution become a part of the constitution. An amendment is something added to. The first 10 amendments were agreed to be added to secure ratification of the Constitution. To trivialize them as not part of the Constitution(though as an amendment it IS by its very nature part of the Constitution) shows a lack of knowledge on your part. Without them, the Constitution would have needed to be rewritten.

Totenkopf
09-04-2010, 11:28 PM
@Toten: I was not implying anything. I did, however, mean "some," not "all." ....

I keep forgetting not to take you literally. ;)

mimartin
09-05-2010, 11:40 AM
National security? Nope, there is no way to prove allowing the Mosque to be built will impact National Security anymore than illegally violating our own rule of law and not allowing it to be built.
Avoiding civil unrest? Nope, again as your buddy likes to point out when a liberal states something like this, this is merely speculation on your part. There is no proof that this will happen and if history is any indication of future events (which it isn’t) then it is highly unlikely the building of the Mosque will lead to civil unrest.
Respecting the dead?I’d give you this one, but as JediAthos pointed out earlier, our military swears an oath to defend and support the Constitution of the United States. So by saying we should violate the Constitution, just this once, you are advocating dishonoring all those that have served in the United States military (both living and dead) in an effort to honor those that died on 09/11/2001.

Jae Onasi
09-06-2010, 06:41 PM
The mosque--Legal? Of course. Tacky and rather 'in-your-face'?--if you listen to some people, yes, if you listen to a few others, they're trying to make amends. I go with the former rather than the latter on this one given the personalities of those who are actually involved in the mosque. However, being tacky or arrogant isn't illegal.

Should Obama have stayed out of it? Probably, but I think he's trying to prevent anti-Muslim violence from increasing from its smoldering state to outright firestorm, and he knows he has a lot of influence with New Yorkers. I think he honestly fears violence in NYC on this and that may be why he decided to speak out on it.

I know 2 blocks isn't huge in terms of distance from WTC, but where the heck are they going to put the mosque where it won't be viewable from the new WTC? You'd have to get rid of mosques for miles in that case.

If we want to have Constitutional freedoms, then we're stuck dealing with some aspects that we aren't going to like about it sometimes in the name of defending that freedom. We don't get to pick and choose when we ignore the Constitution just because we don't "like" some of the logical outcomes, like a mosque being built within a certain distance of a major attack site.

@LOH--Amendments to the Constitution make them a part of the Constitution. They are for all legal purposes the exact same thing, and the original sections of the Constitution make provisions for these Amendments. Saying that the Amendments do not carry the same weight as the Constitution is entirely in error.

Samnmax221
09-07-2010, 03:03 AM
I laughed when the Mosque protesters harassed two Middle Eastern looking gentlemen who happened to be in the neighborhood, it turns out they were Coptic Christians on their way to protest the Mosque. This hateful bull**** is getting old fast.

mimartin
09-07-2010, 11:16 AM
Let's see what happens on 09/11/2010, families of 09/11/2001 victims have asked both the protestors and the counter-protestors, of the planned Mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero, to honor the dead and not hold their rallies on the anniversary.

Story (http://dnainfo.com/20100903/downtown/911-families-ask-mosque-protesters-stop-rallies-on-attack-anniversary)

Totenkopf
09-07-2010, 02:05 PM
Let's see what happens on 09/11/2010, families of 09/11/2001 victims have asked both the protestors and the counter-protestors, of the planned Mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero, to honor the dead and not hold their rallies on the anniversary.

Story (http://dnainfo.com/20100903/downtown/911-families-ask-mosque-protesters-stop-rallies-on-attack-anniversary)

Do the words "not bloody likely" ring a bell? :p Might be more interesting, though, to see what the fallout from the Intl Burn a Quran Day ends up being.

Liverandbacon
09-07-2010, 02:15 PM
Might be more interesting, though, to see what the fallout from the Intl Burn a Quran Day ends up being.

A harder time for US and allied troops. The pastor who started that bs is going to be responsible for more than a few deaths.

Edit: Also, both sides are far too stubborn to give the protesting a break on 9/11, unfortunately. I hope I'm wrong.

mimartin
09-07-2010, 03:32 PM
Might be more interesting, though, to see what the fallout from the Intl Burn a Quran Day ends up being.Terry Jones makes me proud to be a Christian. Those warm Christian feeling shared around a roaring fire while singing Kumbaya is just what Christianity is all about. :rolleyes: Stuff like this make me lean more and more towards Achilles way of thinking. ;)

purifier
09-07-2010, 05:49 PM
Might be more interesting, though, to see what the fallout from the Intl Burn a Quran Day ends up being.




Well that might bring the whole thing to a final boiling point, along with the protesting. And even if there wasn't protesting involved elsewhere, I'd imagine that would bring some tempers to really flare.

Tommycat
09-07-2010, 07:05 PM
Terry Jones makes me proud to be a Christian. Those warm Christian feeling shared around a roaring fire while singing Kumbaya is just what Christianity is all about. :rolleyes: Stuff like this make me lean more and more towards Achilles way of thinking. ;)

Fortunately for Christians this is the extreme end of it(just as terrorists are the extreme for Muslims). And all of a religion shouldn't be judged by the extremists within(gosh... where have I heard that before).

Totenkopf
09-07-2010, 07:13 PM
A harder time for US and allied troops. The pastor who started that bs is going to be responsible for more than a few deaths.

Edit: Also, both sides are far too stubborn to give the protesting a break on 9/11, unfortunately. I hope I'm wrong.

Yeah, I heard that he added a disclaimer to his expanded reasons for the burning (15 now, apparently) that stipulated he/his protest was in no way responsible for any violent reactions worldwide to his form of protest.

@mim---yeah, a good thing that most christians, like most muslims, don't necessarily tend to support the acts from their extremes. Like you, I view this protest as unduly provocative. However, the cynical part of me is waiting for the annoited one to rush to the defense of Jone's Constitutional right of free expression. :xp:

@purifier---true enough.

@TC--oh, the irony. :p

mimartin
09-07-2010, 11:26 PM
Fortunately for Christians this is the extreme end of it(just as terrorists are the extreme for Muslims). And all of a religion shouldn't be judged by the extremists within(gosh... where have I heard that before).

@mim---yeah, a good thing that most christians, like most muslims, don't necessarily tend to support the acts from their extremes. Like you, I view this protest as unduly provocative.Thanks you two. I did not know that. I thought that all Christians had to do it. I’m really glad I could not get the BIC to work before reading this. :xp:

Totenkopf
09-08-2010, 12:52 AM
Thanks you two. I did not know that. I thought that all Christians had to do it. I’m really glad I could not get the BIC to work before reading this. :xp:

I'd lend you mine, but I need it for the next witch/heretic burning. :p

JediMaster12
09-08-2010, 03:30 AM
Two things. First, in a city the size of NY, 2 blocks easily rates as "close". To say that it is "nowhere near" begs a definition of how elasticly terms are being used..
Merely clarifying that the proposed site is not technically on the WTC site and I keep hearing people say that it is. Of course as you say it depends on the elasticity of such terms. In my opinion though, it is not on the site of the WTC site and even a street map will show you otherwise.

The mosque--Legal? Of course. Tacky and rather 'in-your-face'?--if you listen to some people, yes, if you listen to a few others, they're trying to make amends. I go with the former rather than the latter on this one given the personalities of those who are actually involved in the mosque. However, being tacky or arrogant isn't illegal.
You know my father was talking about this. Well actually I brought it up since it seems he has his head in the sand as far as watching the news goes. Doesn't help when you know his TV program schedule is a marathon of Law and Order. Anyway he said something along the lines that it was tacky and of course I countered that but something sparked out at me. He said that it was not the right time and then took the opportunity to go into the "You're Catholic and American speech." The thing that went through my head was his saying that it wasn't the right time. The tragedies that occurred in 2001 on Sept 11 will be nine years ago this September. The question that came to mind was How much time is enough time?

My answer though in my usually on the fence position is that it is subjective. Heck we still have people who are still sore about Pearl Harbor and Vietnam and Korea and those have had much longer time periods. This actually brings me to a Metrolink incident that occurred where the Metrolink derailed and people died. After that day the number or people taking the Metrolink dropped. Thing was I took the Metrolink to LA, the same line that derailed about a week after the incident. My philosophy is that yes there is a time to be said and morn, etc but then you have to get right back on that horse. I don't mean to sound mean or callous but people who have lost people at the WTC have the right to be sad but if they let hang inside, all it does is bring them closer to despair. I don't mean to sound cliche on this but I think it was best said in a movie that it is not about how hard you are hit but how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.

The proposed mosque, maybe people see it as a thumb in the eye but frankly in the end this mosque that is proposed to be built is a symbol of what our nation stands for, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Tommycat
09-08-2010, 11:48 AM
Thanks you two. I did not know that. I thought that all Christians had to do it. I’m really glad I could not get the BIC to work before reading this. :xp:

I use a Zippo. Works better in windy environments. Like those around the windbags some church leaders happen to be. :D

Samnmax221
09-08-2010, 06:55 PM
Fortunately for Christians this is the extreme end of it(just as terrorists are the extreme for Muslims). And all of a religion shouldn't be judged by the extremists within(gosh... where have I heard that before).
No, the more extreme end is ****ers like Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder, and James Kopp. Wow, Christians can be terrorists too, who'd have thunk it?

Liverandbacon
09-08-2010, 11:07 PM
Yeah, I heard that he added a disclaimer to his expanded reasons for the burning (15 now, apparently) that stipulated he/his protest was in no way responsible for any violent reactions worldwide to his form of protest.

I'm so very glad that he's able to rationalize away all his guilt. I wouldn't want him to have trouble sleeping while our soldiers are getting killed.

Perhaps any discussion of the Burn a Quran protest should be in its own thread, instead of us dragging this off-topic. I'd create one, but I don't really have anything else to say on the matter at the moment.

Tommycat
09-09-2010, 10:23 AM
No, the more extreme end is ****ers like Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder, and James Kopp. Wow, Christians can be terrorists too, who'd have thunk it?
I've never said otherwise. Quite frankly those pro-lifers blowing up abortion clinics are the easiest example of Christian terrorists. Granted I DID make it sound like there was a differ by degree disparity. BUT I was simply stating that views like those on the extremes should not be used to judge the whole of the religion. I personally don't go to church anymore because of many of the "Christian" leaders. Gosh you'd think that the people who's job it is to teach people about Jesus Christ would have actually read his teachings.... "Turn the other cheek" ring any friggin bells? Forgiveness is at the forefront of Jesus's teachings. Yet many of these buggers preach intolerance. Yeah... Way to follow in His footsteps.

mimartin
09-09-2010, 12:12 PM
Perhaps any discussion of the Burn a Quran protest should be in its own thread, instead of us dragging this off-topic.I'm not so sure, seems to me that they are different sides of the same issue. There is no legal reason to stop the Mosque from being built, but some people see it as an insult to those that died on 09/11/2001. On the other side, Terry Jones is a hate preacher and a complete idiot. He is attempting to purposely enrage an entire group of people for no other reason than his 15 minutes of fame. However, there is no legal reason for the Federal Government to stop him. Both are local matters and both are protected by the Constitution.

On a moderators note, since I have excessively participated in this discussion, I will let the decision of if the idiot factor known as burn a book day should be moved be handled by another moderator.

Astor
09-09-2010, 05:09 PM
Seems that Monty Python Star Pastor Terry Jones has made sure the two are related.

He has apparently cancelled his Koran burning, claiming he has done so because he has made an agreement with those behind the Park 51 faith centre, whereby they will move the location of the faith centre.

Apparently.

If true, this will no doubt be seen as a victory by gun-toting, supposedly Christian extremists.

Totenkopf
09-09-2010, 05:32 PM
Rev Jones backs down on apparent promise of site relocation:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning

Backers of NYC Islamic center appear divided:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100908/ap_on_re_us/us_nyc_mosque

Trump to possibly buy lots:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_bi_ge/us_nyc_mosque_trump

mimartin
09-09-2010, 05:40 PM
Trump to possibly buy lots: His hair piece is more of an offense to mankind than the Mosque. I will set up a burning of Lincoln Logs until he agrees not to buy the land.

Really hope most of this is true, but I hope the idiot from Florida 15 minutes are up and he does not get credit for the decision to move the Mosque further away from Ground Zero.

jrrtoken
09-09-2010, 05:50 PM
Well, this is fun. So to appease an extremist from doing something disgraceful and ridiculous, the blueprints for a faith-based community center gets pigeonholed? :indif: I'm all for playing peacemaker, but this is just pushing any chance of a greater and more autonomous Muslim community down, really.

Christian far-right: +1; Moderate Muslims: 0

There's also probably a good Hitler-Chamberlain analogy out there that I could bring up, but whatever...


EDIT: Forget everything I said; the story that the Islamic center is being relocated is an implicated lie, by none other than Dr. Jones. Imam Rauf hasn't even spoken to the guy, let alone brokered a compromise. Great guy, aye?

Liverandbacon
09-09-2010, 07:10 PM
If true, this will no doubt be seen as a victory by gun-toting, supposedly Christian extremists.

Gun ownership has nothing to do with this. I don't know why you felt the need to bring it up.

-----------------------

I hope no one gives Terry Jones any of the dubious credit for this. It would anger me to no end if a religious extremist got praised for semi-blackmailing (not in the legal sense, but in a moral sense) non-extremists because of something extremists did.

Of course, that's not even why he did it. He says "Islam is the religion of evil", I hear "hey guys, look at me! look at me! me me me me! Am I famous yet?".

Astor
09-10-2010, 04:19 AM
Gun ownership has nothing to do with this. I don't know why you felt the need to bring it up.

I of course realise that this issue has little or nothing to do with firearm ownership - I apologise if that seemed to be my intent.

I only mentioned it because most of the footage and reports that I have seen have mentioned (or made an issue of) the fact that the Pastor and his 'flock' are visibly armed, and clearly not afraid of the potential for armed disagreement. Their armed, associate Pastor even escorted the visiting Imam in to meet with Jones - which clearly seems to be an unecessary act of intimidation on their part.

Again, apologies if it seemed like I was trying to make this about something it wasn't.

mimartin
09-10-2010, 10:41 AM
Their armed, associate Pastor even escorted the visiting Imam in to meet with Jones - which clearly seems to be an unecessary act of intimidation on their part.

Clearly Astor knows nothing of the American South. That isn’t intimidation that is Southern Hospitality. What if the Imam would have been attacked by a gator or a panther on the way to meet Jones? I bet the world media would be singing a different tune then. Thankful it did not happen and even had a pack of vicious gators attacked, Jones and company were prepared. Intimidation? It is called being a gracious and conscientious host.

Samuel Dravis
09-10-2010, 10:58 PM
To be honest I doubt they even thought about the implications of having weapons. It really isn't that big of a deal here. If someone I knew was packing, I'd ask why-- but if they said just because they could, I wouldn't bat an eye, and death threats are a better reason than that. Not sure if I agree with mim that they were interested in protecting the imam, but I really don't think they were interested in intimidating him. It's likely they have no idea what to do with the publicity they've been getting.

The Doctor
09-14-2010, 10:13 AM
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c142/_The_Doctor_/61817_430137859666_644694666_5027295_6167360_n.jpg

Trench
09-14-2010, 04:24 PM
<insert pic here>

You just won the game. This argument is over. :joy:


As a gun-toting right-wing Holly-Roller backwoods-redneck hick Christian, I'm not really opposed to this mosque in New York.
I practice my religious freedom here. I have no problem with them doing it.

With all the hubbub about the extremist groups declaring it a victory on their part, who cares? If this mosque plan is canceled they'd just use it in their anti-America "The Great Satan hates us all!" propaganda. Pick the lesser of two evils and let'em build it. Or even better, drop the publicity stop feeding the extremist trolls. :¬:

Plus, preventing this mosque from being built would just open a doorway for the Federal and State Gov. to restrict freedoms for more religions. And that would be hell for just about everybody.

God bless 'Mericuh! :patriot:

jrrtoken
09-22-2010, 04:50 PM
The Tea Party: Keepin' it Classy (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017307-503544.html)

0QvKOdiyFaw

Jae Onasi
09-28-2010, 07:16 PM
Christian far-right: +1; Moderate Muslims: 0


I've heard this imam is not a moderate at all, but rather radical. I'm unclear on the degree of 'radical', however. I also heard the plans are still on to build (which you noted in your edit also).

jrrtoken
09-28-2010, 07:51 PM
I've heard this imam is not a moderate at all, but rather radical.That's rather subjective; frankly, I think he hasn't been given a real opportunity to voice his opinion. Everyone seems to have written him off as a "radical" over two, contextually-constrained statements, which express very little of his true demeanor. It's like labeling the Pope as a "homophobe" because he doesn't approve of homosexuality.
I'm unclear on the degree of 'radical', however.Does Jerry Falwell count as a "radical"?

mimartin
09-28-2010, 08:33 PM
I've heard this imam is not a moderate at all, but rather radical. I've heard that too, but I have yet to see any evidence of such. Same type of hearsay as saying Obama is not an American.
Does Jerry Falwell count as a "radical"?
Let me think for a moment
"I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters -- the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats -- what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact -- if, in fact -- God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.....And I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say: you helped this happen."
"Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses, and I think Muhammad set an opposite example."
"Who will the Antichrist be? I don't know. Nobody else knows. Is he alive and here today? Probably. Because when he appears during the Tribulation period he will be a full-grown counterfeit of Christ. Of course, he'll be Jewish. Of course, he'll pretend to be Christ. And if in fact the Lord is coming soon, and he'll [the Antichrist] be an adult at the presentation of himself, he must be alive somewhere today."
"I do not believe that God answers the prayer of any unredeemed Gentile or Jew"
"I hope to live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!"
Does Jerry Falwell count as a "radical"?
Yes

jawathehutt
09-28-2010, 10:02 PM
60 minutes did a piece on this recently, I dont know if this has been mentioned yet, but the mosque part of the community center is built and has been in use for a while. Like before this debate began. Its not going away. Basically, people are now arguing against having a community center, built to be much like the Jewish community center that the developer used to be a member of while growing up. And community centers for those who dont know, aren't weapons training and bomb making factories. They're like swimming pools and stuff. For the whole community around them. Not just Muslims. Anyone can join.

Trench
09-29-2010, 04:04 PM
...he'll be Jewish.

*Roman. :indif:

http://www.lucasforums.com/picture.php?albumid=404&pictureid=4150

Samnmax221
09-29-2010, 05:50 PM
I don't know if this will succeed in building bridges but it sure smoked out all the racists.

GODKING
12-21-2010, 03:57 PM
It stupid the government even considered it and the Muslims are stupid too for considering it. All the Muslims are doing is disgracing the people that died there and American. If the government did let them build there their would be a huge protest and it may lead to violence. All the government has to do is seize that land as eniemnt domain and declare it a national landmark. Problem solved

Sabretooth
12-22-2010, 12:31 PM
How about building a totally epic mosque there, and then declaring it a national landmark? Everyone walks away happy.

GODKING
12-22-2010, 12:55 PM
I don't think that is a good solution because it was the Muslims that destroyed it in the first place (not saying all Muslims just saying they were Muslims.) so if we declare a Mosque a national landmark there would be a national uprising. The Muslim is just showing America disrespect. The reason behind this their are plenty of places where they could build a Mosque, but they tried to build it there where thousands of Americans died because of muslim suicide bombers.

Sabretooth
12-22-2010, 01:14 PM
You mean near where thousands of Americans died.

The Doctor
12-22-2010, 01:42 PM
You mean near where thousands of Americans died.
Where, if I'm not mistaken, there happens to already be a mosque anyway. If I understand the situation correctly, all they want to do is make a larger community centre that they would then open to everyone, instead of just having a mosque.

Would anyone have a problem if the YMCA wanted to build a centre in the same place? What about if a Jew wanted to open up a movie theatre that happened to also contain a small synagogue? What about a Buddhist operated tennis club with a little meditation room in the back? And people are really going to bitch because some Muslims want to put in a pool and some multi-purpose meeting rooms? :raise:

Sabretooth
12-22-2010, 01:49 PM
Where, if I'm not mistaken, there happens to already be a mosque anyway. If I understand the situation correctly, all they want to do is make a larger community centre that they would then open to everyone, instead of just having a mosque.

Actually, Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Zero_Mosque) shows that the place is not even a mosque - just a community center with a prayer room. And it looks awesome, too.

The Doctor
12-22-2010, 02:09 PM
Actually, Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Zero_Mosque) shows that the place is not even a mosque - just a community center with a prayer room. And it looks awesome, too.
Wow, that makes this whole thing even more ridiculous. A centre expressly intended to promote interfaith peace is being given **** because it happened to be proposed by a Muslim.

It looks like you just can't ****ing win in the States if you're Muslim, can you?

GODKING
12-22-2010, 02:19 PM
Wow, that makes this whole thing even more ridiculous. A centre expressly intended to promote interfaith peace is being given **** because it happened to be proposed by a Muslim.

It looks like you just can't ****ing win in the States if you're Muslim, can you?

I mean no offense about what im about to say, but your a canadian so its different for you. If Muslims destroyed a National Landmark in Canada and then wanted to expanded their Church's community center (the community that people from their relegion destroyed.) you would be a unset about it too.

The Doctor
12-22-2010, 02:29 PM
I mean no offense about what im about to say, but your a canadian so its different for you. If Muslims destroyed a National Landmark in Canada and then wanted to expanded their Church's community center (the community that people from their relegion destroyed.) you would be a unset about it too.
No, I bloody well wouldn't. Because I, like many of your own fellow Americans, am actually aware of the difference between a proper Muslim and a fundamentalist/extremist. It wasn't Islam that destroyed the World Trade Centre. It wasn't Islam that killed ~3000 people - not all of whom, I feel compelled to point out, where Americans. It wasn't Islam that destroyed the community, the buildings, the sidewalks, or anything at all. It was extremists. Painting the entire faith with the same brush as Al Qaeda is an insult, kid, no two ways about it.

These people don't want to "expand their Church's community center". And people from their religion did not destroy the community. A group of people used their religion as an excuse to lash out against people they hated. And now these true Muslims want to build an inter-faith building of peace and respectful tolerance that would be open to everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation. If that isn't a slap in the face of Islamic extremism, I don't bloody well know what is.

I'd also like to just say that, whether you meant offence or not, I am in fact offended by the implication that I can't mourn the loss of American lives because I'm Canadian. The events of September 11th shook the whole world, not just your little corner of it.

mimartin
12-22-2010, 02:31 PM
Last I checked, I am an American and I have no problem with a Community Center being built a couple blocks from Ground Zero.