Ground Zero Mosque

[IBCoupe]

That would depend on what your position was. If your position was that we shouldn't have abortions because some people don't like to think about abortions and if they're legal, those people would be forced to think about abortions, I'd say, yeah, your position is irrational and emotional.

I'm not suggesting that the families don't have a right not to look at what they perceive as a slap in the face. Quite the opposite, in fact: I'm urging that, if it really bothers them, they ought to exercise their rights and avert their gaze.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from limiting how a person can exercise their religion, absent some criminal violation. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of an individual's property without due process. We have no place to tell these people what they can and can't do with their property. We are in no position to tell them where it's okay to build a mosque (as if that was actually what they were building). Not only are these the laws that guide our nation, but they are the embodiment of the moral principles of individual liberty that forged it.

[bigbadberry3]

It's just a jerk move. Plan and simple.

Legal yes, jerk completely.

Would it kill them to move it?

[stebo0728]

One HUGE-A** difference here, and its a huge elephant in the room that no-one has the balls enough to say -

When a holy book that founds a religion calls for things such as "Non-believers are to be converted, killed, or enslaved. Period, end of story.", then there's a problem. Christianity does not CALL FOR the violence exhibited by its radicals, where as Islam DOES.

Again however, I am not advocating abridgement of private property rights, as long as property is legitimately held, and CURRENT zoning laws are being followed. My point is to say that the fact that they even want to do this is IN POOR TASTE. Your example of the church 2 blocks from the clinic doesnt hold water here, there would be a church 2 blocks from anything down here in the bible belt whether the bombings happened or not. I absolutely do not want to lump all muslims together, and I know there are people HERE of the muslim faith that are not violent, but its note worthy that THEY are the perversion of Islam, not the violent wing we are dealing with. Islam has always, ALWAYS, been at odds with anyone else other than themselves, thats the nature of their teachings, that the Infidel must die, and the Infidel is anyone other than them. Thats the epitome of religious intolerance.

Now you keep saying "these are not the same people". True, they were not in the planes or buildings that day, obviously, but just who are they? The imam thats behind all this has some pretty shady history, such as advocating sharia law in the US, hows your constitutionality gland feel about that notion? And for that matter, just where is the funding coming from for this deal in the first place? I dunno I admit, but who does?

Back to Arizona, what does it matter what the currently planned temple has to do with the site, or who is planning it? The planners should be well aware the publicity nightmare they are in for, and should be well aware of the cultural implications of the actions they would be considering. You dont see this sorta thing happening there do you? I think the Japanese have a touch more sensitivity than the muslims.

Ok so I have stirred the pot a bit here, but to tone the heat back down a bit, all I am really after is recognition that this idea is in REALLY POOR taste, I dont want red flags, sirens everywhere, trying to stop it necessarily unless due reason is found to suggest needing to shut it down.

[AZhitman]

It's just a jerk move. Plan and simple.

Legal yes, jerk completely.

Would it kill them to move it?

Great summation. I never discounted the legality of it. It's legal to surround a military funeral with signs that incite pain in the mourners. It's legal to walk into a black church in a white hood. It's legal to shout epithets at gays.

Reliance solely upon the protections of the letter of law makes for contentious conditions.

By the way, even the Anti-Defamation League opposes this.

[Cold_Zero]

It is a good point. Most religious groups tend to avoid controversy. So what do they have to gain by locating the Mosque two blocks from Ground Zero and garnering outrage?

[AZhitman]

I'll support the mosque near Ground Zero when there's ONE Christian church in Saudi Arabia. I'll support the mosque in exchange for them actively coordinating efforts to capture and deliver bin Laden. I'll support the mosque when these Imams get together and repudiate the violence being committed against innocents in the Middle East and abroad.

This Imam (who incidentally, intimated that the US was complicit in the terror attack) is clueless if he doesn't comprehend the sensitivity of this issue, and fails to comprehend the need for healing and reconciliation.

[IBCoupe]

When a holy book that founds a religion calls for things such as "Non-believers are to be converted, killed, or enslaved. Period, end of story.", then there's a problem. Christianity does not CALL FOR the violence exhibited by its radicals, where as Islam DOES.

I'm sorry, but this is disingenuous. The Bible does command violence. God commands genocide in the Old Testament. There are things to be taken in the New Testament that, on their face at least, are indicative of violence, too. Arguably, the Bible is more violent than the Koran.

But you know why we don't see Christians flying planes into buildings? Because they're not as observant. There are a great many more Muslims in the world than there are Christians, and it stands to reason that there are going to be more wack-jobs out there, too. But the more observant a group is, the more likely they are to take the violent portions of their text more seriously.

Are you going to tell me that the Hutaree won't point to biblical justification for their plans? Or are you going to tell me that they're misinterpreting the Bible, in much the same way that people argue the radicals you point to are misinterpreting their holy text?

Your example of the church 2 blocks from the clinic doesnt hold water here, there would be a church 2 blocks from anything down here in the bible belt whether the bombings happened or not.

So pretend it happened somewhere else. It doesn't matter where the bombings actually occur. Imagine that there's a bombing, the nearest Church is twelve blocks away, and nine years later they claim they need a new building and would prefer to occupy the space two blocks away. How the heck is that in poor taste?

I absolutely do not want to lump all muslims together, and I know there are people HERE of the muslim faith that are not violent, but its note worthy that THEY are the perversion of Islam, not the violent wing we are dealing with. Islam has always, ALWAYS, been at odds with anyone else other than themselves, thats the nature of their teachings, that the Infidel must die, and the Infidel is anyone other than them. Thats the epitome of religious intolerance.

s*** on all counts.

First, you've shown nothing but an intent to lump them all together, or else you would drop the crap about Islam being any one thing. It's a religion. There are many interpretations. Get the hell over it.

Second, Islam has not always been at odds with anyone else other than themselves. When Christianity was busy purging anything that wasn't Christian, Islamic nations existed in peace with their neighbors, fostered trade, technological development, and religious tolerance. If it truly was the way you were saying, this could not be possible. And it would be impossible for any Islamic nation to get along with any other nation, but I don't see Indonesia starting s***, do you? Granted, there's always been tension with Malaysia, but that's another Islamic country. And there's no conflict with the Phillipines or Australia. So what gives?

Maybe it's that your theory is crap. Maybe that's what's making the puzzle not work.

Now you keep saying "these are not the same people". True, they were not in the planes or buildings that day, obviously, but just who are they? The imam thats behind all this has some pretty shady history, such as advocating sharia law in the US, hows your constitutionality gland feel about that notion? And for that matter, just where is the funding coming from for this deal in the first place? I dunno I admit, but who does?

He didn't advocate Sharia law in the US; he's said we already have Sharia law in the US. He points to the portions of Sharia law that are most important to Muslims - not the portions of Sharia law that everyone focuses on (the punishments). He points to Sharia's basic tenets, which involve requiring Muslims to pray as Muslims, and requiring that Muslims be allowed to pray as Muslims, all of which is met by our First Amendment. How's your ignorant kneejerk gland feel about that?

And the funding hasn't occured yet. They haven't organized any money to buy the property yet; they were getting past the landmark and zoning first. No point in running up debts if you're not going to be able to do the project, right? Christ, dude.

Back to Arizona, what does it matter what the currently planned temple has to do with the site, or who is planning it? The planners should be well aware the publicity nightmare they are in for, and should be well aware of the cultural implications of the actions they would be considering. You dont see this sorta thing happening there do you? I think the Japanese have a touch more sensitivity than the muslims.

What does it matter? Your objection to these things is not based on what they are doing, but on who they are. If this thread is any indication, you'd probably get a little bitchy if there was a Japanese tourist taking pictures of a Pearl Harbor memorial. The people involved aren't saying what happened was wonderful. They're not saying it should happen again. They're not working towards doing it. They're actually not saying anything except, "I'd like to observe my religion here, though it happens to be in the vague vicinity of some tragedy long past."

That people are going to freak out does not necessarily mean it's bad taste. For it to be bad taste, you should have a reason not to do it. There should be some connection. You should be unearthing some issue that was long buried.

But in neither situation is that happening. Your objection is to who is building the thing, not what they're building.

Ok so I have stirred the pot a bit here, but to tone the heat back down a bit, all I am really after is recognition that this idea is in REALLY POOR taste, I dont want red flags, sirens everywhere, trying to stop it necessarily unless due reason is found to suggest needing to shut it down.

And I'm telling you that you can only see something wrong with it if you're racist (in the common parlance - not the strict definition).

Please appreciate that I have avoided using that term for a while, though it was arguably applicable from the very beginning. I don't use it lightly.

[IBCoupe]

I'll support the mosque near Ground Zero when there's ONE Christian church in Saudi Arabia. I'll support the mosque in exchange for them actively coordinating efforts to capture and deliver bin Laden. I'll support the mosque when these Imams get together and repudiate the violence being committed against innocents in the Middle East and abroad.

This Imam (who incidentally, intimated that the US was complicit in the terror attack) is clueless if he doesn't comprehend the sensitivity of this issue, and fails to comprehend the need for healing and reconciliation.

What does Saudi Arabia have to do with downtown Manhattan? What does bin Laden have to do with an interfaith community center? What do "these Imams" have to do with the people planning the project?

The Imam has stated he's doing this as an effort for healing. It's an interfaith community center, not a mosque. From the looks of things in this country, we need it.

You're wrong on every part of this issue. What the hell is wrong with you people?

[stebo0728]

Well due to sticky #4 I will now bow out of this one, or my posts will become more religious in nature, and thats not the issue.

[Watermelonwarrior]

I'll support the mosque near Ground Zero when there's ONE Christian church in Saudi Arabia. I'll support the mosque in exchange for them actively coordinating efforts to capture and deliver bin Laden. I'll support the mosque when these Imams get together and repudiate the violence being committed against innocents in the Middle East and abroad.

This Imam (who incidentally, intimated that the US was complicit in the terror attack) is clueless if he doesn't comprehend the sensitivity of this issue, and fails to comprehend the need for healing and reconciliation.

I personally think if we wanted to capture bin Laden it would have already happened. We did fly his family out of the country hours after the attacks. This war needed an enemy.

Violence getting committed against innocents in the middle east? How about whats done by the US army? There is over 100,000 innocent deaths done just to the Iraqi people since the invasion. And Afghanistan has been completely leveled to the ground. Heres an interesting article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343/

We are not all crazy. Look there is over 1.3 Billion Muslims in the world. Making just under 25% (think its 22%)of the world population. And just like anything else there is corruption in Islam. Especially with the Gulf countries.

Heres something iv always wondered. Afghanistan is the worlds largest producer of opium. With 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan your telling me they cant slow down or catch these guys?

Ahh this was written way to early in the morning. So forgive s*** grammar and spelling

[AZhitman]

You're wrong on every part of this issue. What the hell is wrong with you people?

If that's not a perfect example of self-righteous arrogance, I don't know what is.

It's apparent that you somehow missed the "just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD" lessons in grade school...

This strikes me as a simple case of lacking compassion. With that, I'll bow out as well.

Mr. Kidd echoes my position nicely: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/fo ... 4_ST_N.htm

[vikesfankevin1986]

But you know why we don't see Christians flying planes into buildings? Because they're not as observant. There are a great many more Muslims in the world than there are Christians, and it stands to reason that there are going to be more wack-jobs out there, too. But the more observant a group is, the more likely they are to take the violent portions of their text more seriously.

Wrong. There are more Christians in the world.

Second, Islam has not always been at odds with anyone else other than themselves. When Christianity was busy purging anything that wasn't Christian, Islamic nations existed in peace with their neighbors, fostered trade, technological development, and religious tolerance. If it truly was the way you were saying, this could not be possible. And it would be impossible for any Islamic nation to get along with any other nation, but I don't see Indonesia starting s***, do you? Granted, there's always been tension with Malaysia, but that's another Islamic country. And there's no conflict with the Phillipines or Australia. So what gives?

This is true. Christians started the Crusades and Christians actually killed many Christians living peacefully with in Muslim lands. Muslims allowed Jews and Christians to live in their lands because they were "people of the book." Christians and mainly Pope Urban II are responsible for starting the Crusades and making it a religious war. The term Jihad did not even exist before the Crusades. The Muslims did not consider it a holy war for quite some time after the first Crusade.

And like I said earlier...

I think that everyone is missing one big point. Whether or not its right, there is the fact that if a mosque gets built there it will cause problems. People will protest and make threats. It will be vandalized and possibly even burned down. I can already see the headline..."Mosque built on ground zero gets burned down."
If anything we should not allow it to be built there because it's a saftly issue. But if anyone thinks they have the right to build it there, I don't want to hear the same people complaining about how those people are being discriminated against and how their lives are in danger when all they are trying to do is worship.

Just because I have the right to build a KKK hangout or whatever in the hood in Atlanta doesn't make it a good idea.

[stebo0728]

The crusades were heralding the banner of catholicism, not protestant christianity. There is a difference ...

Sorry forgot I was bowing out ...

[Cold_Zero]

When a holy book that founds a religion calls for things such as "Non-believers are to be converted, killed, or enslaved. Period, end of story.", then there's a problem. Christianity does not CALL FOR the violence exhibited by its radicals, where as Islam DOES.

I'm sorry, but this is disingenuous. The Bible does command violence. God commands genocide in the Old Testament. There are things to be taken in the New Testament that, on their face at least, are indicative of violence, too. Arguably, the Bible is more violent than the Koran.

Yes, the Bible does command violence with concepts like 'Love your neighbor as yourself', 'Turning the other cheek' and 'No greater love than to sacrifice your life for another person'. To not thrust this discussion into a full blown religious debate, I will leave you with this, anyone with a sound biblical grasp of Hermeneutics understands that you can not take one 'proof text' and make a doctrine out of it. There for you picking out one obscure text of the bible and applying it as it governs over the entire bible is bad hermeneutics and places one in very very bad company. To be honest, we call these people 'proof text'ers', which is typically found in christian fundamentalism.

So with your logic, I would be happy to go verse by verse against either the Qur'anm/Haddith or your misapplied hermeneutics to prove that Christianity is a 'religion of peace.'

It also tickles me to death of the irony that people trying to slander the Holy Bible or the Christian Faith use the same tatics of the christian fundamentalist.

[IBCoupe]

Yes, the Bible does command violence with concepts like 'Love your neighbor as yourself', 'Turning the other cheek' and 'No greater love than to sacrifice your life for another person'. To not thrust this discussion into a full blown religious debate, I will leave you with this, anyone with a sound biblical grasp of Hermeneutics understands that you can not take one 'proof text' and make a doctrine out of it. There for you picking out one obscure text of the bible and applying it as it governs over the entire bible is bad hermeneutics and places one in very very bad company. To be honest, we call these people 'proof text'ers', which is typically found in christian fundamentalism.

So with your logic, I would be happy to go verse by verse against either the Qur'anm/Haddith or your misapplied hermeneutics to prove that Christianity is a 'religion of peace.'

It also tickles me to death of the irony that people trying to slander the Holy Bible or the Christian Faith use the same tatics of the christian fundamentalist.

I'm not brandishing the label "religion of peace" or "religion of intolerance" or "religion of violence." I'm well aware that there are conflicting messages in each of the holy books, and I'm arguing in favor of using that knowledge to counteract an assertion that any one group accurately represents a religion's "proper" interpretation.

So, in short, I'm not sure what you're arguing against.

[IBCoupe]

Just because I have the right to build a KKK hangout or whatever in the hood in Atlanta doesn't make it a good idea.

Imprudence does not amount to impropriety.

And it's really frustrating that we keep comparing "All Muslims" to "All White Supremacists." At what point do we agree that these aren't the same people and we shouldn't let the actions of the ignorant and bigoted to guide our moral compass?

That it's likely to get you killed does not mean it's wrong for you to do it, legally or morally speaking. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that there is no morality except that introduced by the most powerful. That's something people of all political ideologies should be able to agree upon.

[IBCoupe]

If that's not a perfect example of self-righteous arrogance, I don't know what is.

Probably something that isn't preceded by a point-by-point deconstruction of your argument. Y'know, like what you just posted.

[ADDirishboy]

IBC, I'm not even gonna bring up Muslims. It doesn't matter WHO is building on ground zero. It could be a bunch of Jews building a Temple, a bunch of CHristians building a church, etc. It doesn't matter.

NOTHING should be built at the site, except for a monument in memory of those who gave their lives that day. Make it into a park, and put up a memorial.

Building anything else on that site is a slap in the face to those who gave their lives trying to save others. I don't know anybody who actually died IN the attack, but my Aunt's husband was a part of the FDNY. He was there that day. He lost his entire crew that day. His ENTIRE CREW died, except for him. He killed himself a few weeks later because he couldn't handle it anymore.

I will always honor and respect the 343. Everyone should.

[vikesfankevin1986]

The crusades were heralding the banner of catholicism, not protestant christianity. There is a difference ...

Sorry forgot I was bowing out ...

True but at that time there was no such thing as protestantism, Only Eastern Orthodox and Catholicism. But either way I'm sure Muslims don't distinguish between Catholics and other Christians just like most of us don't distinguish between Sunni and Shiite.

[IBCoupe]

IBC, I'm not even gonna bring up Muslims. It doesn't matter WHO is building on ground zero. It could be a bunch of Jews building a Temple, a bunch of CHristians building a church, etc. It doesn't matter.

NOTHING should be built at the site, except for a monument in memory of those who gave their lives that day. Make it into a park, and put up a memorial.

Building anything else on that site is a slap in the face to those who gave their lives trying to save others. I don't know anybody who actually died IN the attack, but my Aunt's husband was a part of the FDNY. He was there that day. He lost his entire crew that day. His ENTIRE CREW died, except for him. He killed himself a few weeks later because he couldn't handle it anymore.

I will always honor and respect the 343. Everyone should.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Wingfeather: This site is 2 city blocks away from Ground Zero. How big must this monument be?

[Watermelonwarrior]

IBC, I'm not even gonna bring up Muslims. It doesn't matter WHO is building on ground zero. It could be a bunch of Jews building a Temple, a bunch of CHristians building a church, etc. It doesn't matter.

NOTHING should be built at the site, except for a monument in memory of those who gave their lives that day. Make it into a park, and put up a memorial.

Building anything else on that site is a slap in the face to those who gave their lives trying to save others. I don't know anybody who actually died IN the attack, but my Aunt's husband was a part of the FDNY. He was there that day. He lost his entire crew that day. His ENTIRE CREW died, except for him. He killed himself a few weeks later because he couldn't handle it anymore.

I will always honor and respect the 343. Everyone should.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Wingfeather: This site is 2 city blocks away from Ground Zero. How big must this monument be?

I was about to say the same thing IBC. So for a mile radius nothing should be built?

[stebo0728]

Heres the deal, mosque will be built, and here in the west that will be a testament to freedom and liberty in our great nation. In the east it will be a testament of islamic dominance and victory. The question, which of those is a stronger testament. In my opinion, the freedom and liberty speaks louder.

IBC keep bringing up the 2 blocks, so ok, heres the funny thing, in the same vicinity lies a strip joint. I wonder if its in view of this mosque site. I suppose next door someone would be free to open a pork meat packing plant as well.

[ADDirishboy]

I'll ask you the same question I asked Wingfeather: This site is 2 city blocks away from Ground Zero. How big must this monument be?

I never said one GIANT monument. But a big park, with a monument in it.

I was about to say the same thing IBC. So for a mile radius nothing should be built?

It was a terrible attack on our country on a large scale. Why not build a large park in memory of it? Like New York needs anymore buildings.

[AZhitman]

I wonder if its in view of this mosque site. I suppose next door someone would be free to open a pork meat packing plant as well.

...with a big image of Muhammed chowing down on a Hebrew National Hot Dog.

Offensive? Damn right. Get over it.

[ADDirishboy]

...with a big image of Muhammed chowing down on a Hebrew National Hot Dog.

Offensive? Damn right. Get over it.

Matt and Trey tried that already!

[IBCoupe]

In my opinion, the freedom and liberty speaks louder.

Then why aren't you one of its full-throated supporters?

IBC keep bringing up the 2 blocks, so ok, heres the funny thing, in the same vicinity lies a strip joint. I wonder if its in view of this mosque site. I suppose next door someone would be free to open a pork meat packing plant as well.

Yes, both of those things are fine. And it's not a mosque. I keep mentioning this, and you guys keep forgetting. Why's that?

I never said one GIANT monument. But a big park, with a monument in it.

It's the same question.

It was a terrible attack on our country on a large scale. Why not build a large park in memory of it? Like New York needs anymore buildings.

That's certainly a valid idea of what to do with the land, but it seems unreasonable to use that alternative as an excuse to hate on an interfaith community center.

[wingFeather]

Crusades

Government pretending to be religion.

[ADDirishboy]

That's certainly a valid idea of what to do with the land, but it seems unreasonable to use that alternative as an excuse to hate on an interfaith community center.

Did you even read my f*** post? Didn't think so. Here it is again for you.

IBC, I'm not even gonna bring up Muslims. It doesn't matter WHO is building on ground zero. It could be a bunch of Jews building a Temple, a bunch of CHristians building a church, etc. It doesn't matter.

NOTHING should be built at the site, except for a monument in memory of those who gave their lives that day.

At no point in any of my posts have even hinted towards hating on an interfaith community center. Try again.

[vikesfankevin1986]

Crusades

Government pretending to be religion.

Pope thinking he is an Emperor.

[C-Kwik]

At no point in any of my posts have even hinted towards hating on an interfaith community center. Try again.

The irony is that you appear upset over this when its essentially the same thing that is happening with this issue. The people putting up this center are not terrorists. Yet, they are being treated like one.

That said, I do respect your view on this and perhaps IBC was either intending the statement to be more general of the issue or he lumped you in with everyone else's argument. The latter would be wrong, but given the barrage of posts he's responding to, it might be understandable. Sometimes its hard to keep everyone sorted in your head without referring back to all the posts in the thread.

Just so its clear the rest of this post is not directed at you. But reading through this thread, most people opposing the center is doing so purely on the coincidence that these terrorists followed Islam (arguably, it was a loose following). Terrorists are terrorists because of their actions. Not because of their religion. Its not like we haven't had Christian terrorsts as well. That they justify it with religion is like saying christians support racism because the KKK supports their beliefs about race using the bible. The bible is full of things that can be and has been grossly misinterpreted to justify a means. Hell, different subsets of Christianity exist because of varying interpretations.

Adding to IBC's point about the location, as far as I can tell, the location is across the street from where the main towers stood. Just by looking at the map, you can tell, the location of the towers is plenty big to support a park and a memorial. Hell, I've been there and stood in the courtyard between the towers in the 90's. The area is huge. The community center is not even on the same block. This really should be a non-issue. I wonder if there would be nealry this much press if it was a christian church that was going to be there instead. Based on replies here and videos of some of the people who are protesting this, I doubt it.

Lastly, I wouldn't be surprised if the location was purposefully selected. The misconception that Islam = terrorism is potentially a good reason to build any center that is founded on bringing together many cultures and religions in peace. And as far as I can tell, its clear that we need something that can do just that.