What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Muslims in NYC Planning to Build Second Mosque Near Ground Zero (2 Viewers)

Here is my take on this. Do they have a right to put a mosque there? Yes. Should they put a mosque there? No.

Lets say I have Muslim neighbors and their daughter was murdered by a Christian man who yelled "In the name of Christ I take this life" as he killed her. Do I have the right to stick a cross on my lawn facing their house? Yes. Should I do that? No. Would it be insensitive to do that? Yes.

 
I haven't followed this thread and haven't really followed the specifics of the story but from what I can tell, this is a stark example of the difference between doing something because it's legal and doing it also because it's sensible.

Legally speaking, I'm in agreement with the President et. al. who say that the people that want to build this mosque have a legal right to build this thing where they're proposing. The exercising of religious freedom is something that's deeply ingrained in our codified law.

However, given the bigger picture, it makes absolutely zero sense to build this particular type of structure near Ground Zero. If one of the goals of Islam (which I believe it is) is to have people reach a better understanding of the religion and change the perception that it is a violent one then the sensible thing would be to understand people's feelings about the events that occurred at GZ and build the building elsewhere.

A demonstration of reason would do the builders of this mosque a whole lot more good than winning a legal battle.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The real travesty is that there is still a a giant hole in the ground. Thats what people should be up in arms about, not a mosque a couple blocks away.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't followed this thread and haven't really followed the specifics of the story but from what I can tell, this is a stark example of the difference between doing something because it's legal and doing it also because it's sensible.

Legally speaking, I'm in agreement with the President et. al. who say that the people that want to build this mosque have a legal right to build this thing where they're proposing. The exercising of religious freedom is something that's deeply ingrained in our codified law.

However, given the bigger picture, it makes absolutely zero sense to build this particular type of structure near Ground Zero. If one of the goals of Islam (which I believe it is) is to have people reach a better understanding of the religion and change the perception that it is a violent one then the sensible thing would be to understand people's feelings about the events that occurred at GZ and build the building elsewhere.

A demonstration of reason would do the builders of this mosque a whole lot more good than winning a legal battle.
one can not like another religion, but any claim that is does not make sense for said religion to do something comes from those outside the religion. which is to say, as long as the people within the religion want it, it does not matter what others think. that is the whole friggin' point of the first amendment. this shoddy logic of i accept it but dont think it is smart is nothing more than one religion thinking a different religion should not do something, which would be illogical by definition, and hence, your "makes absolutely zero sense" claim makes, well, no sense.

 
one can not like another religion, but any claim that is does not make sense for said religion to do something comes from those outside the religion. which is to say, as long as the people within the religion want it, it does not matter what others think. that is the whole friggin' point of the first amendment.

this shoddy logic of i accept it but dont think it is smart is nothing more than one religion thinking a different religion should not do something, which would be illogical by definition, and hence, your "makes absolutely zero sense" claim makes, well, no sense.
I think you missed my point. I said that they have a legal right to build it wherever they please. But if one of their ideas is to have the public at large come to a greater understanding of their religion, then it doesn't make much sense to build it where they're planning as opposed to the numerous other places they could build it.

In other words, it's a bad PR move for them to build this thing at GZ.

 
I haven't followed this thread and haven't really followed the specifics of the story but from what I can tell, this is a stark example of the difference between doing something because it's legal and doing it also because it's sensible.

Legally speaking, I'm in agreement with the President et. al. who say that the people that want to build this mosque have a legal right to build this thing where they're proposing. The exercising of religious freedom is something that's deeply ingrained in our codified law.

However, given the bigger picture, it makes absolutely zero sense to build this particular type of structure near Ground Zero. If one of the goals of Islam (which I believe it is) is to have people reach a better understanding of the religion and change the perception that it is a violent one then the sensible thing would be to understand people's feelings about the events that occurred at GZ and build the building elsewhere.

A demonstration of reason would do the builders of this mosque a whole lot more good than winning a legal battle.
one can not like another religion, but any claim that is does not make sense for said religion to do something comes from those outside the religion. which is to say, as long as the people within the religion want it, it does not matter what others think. that is the whole friggin' point of the first amendment. this shoddy logic of i accept it but dont think it is smart is nothing more than one religion thinking a different religion should not do something, which would be illogical by definition, and hence, your "makes absolutely zero sense" claim makes, well, no sense.
At least you've got this part right.
 
this shoddy logic of i accept it but dont think it is smart is nothing more than one religion thinking a different religion should not do something, which would be illogical by definition, and hence, your "makes absolutely zero sense" claim makes, well, no sense.
:blackdot: This is absolutely the point.

 
Between this issue, illegal immigration, and gay marriage this nation is going through a bad time right now, in which populist anger without reflection or insight is running amok.
Lift rug, sweep others' positions under it. Just because somebody reaches a different conclusion than you, it doesn't mean that conclusion wasn't reached through reflection or insight.
 
All I know is this place better be open 24 hours. If I built a Lakers merchandise store across the street from the Boston Garden I'd make sure my insurance was paid up.

 
Lets get real though. All this stuff is to keep our attention away from Obama's bungling of the economy and unemployment.

 
Why? All the libs were asking is that the government not overstep it's bounds (seemingly a right wing talking point) and disallow people their religious freedom. If it's true then this is win-win, well, except for all the hypocrites who loudly wanted us to betray our founding fathers' dream (pssst...that'll be most of you doing the loudest cheering)
Oh please. Enough with the excuses. We won, because we were right and you were wrong. Deal with it.
 
If that story is true, I think Harry Reid deserves a lot of credit

WASHINGTON (AP) - Add another election-year hurdle for Democrats: President Barack Obama's forceful defense of the right of Muslims to build a mosque near the World Trade Center site.

His comments are giving Republicans a campaign-year cudgel and forcing Democrats to address a divisive issue within weeks of midterm contests that will decide the balance of power in Washington. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a competitive re-election fight, was the highest profile Democrat to move away from Obama on the matter.

"The First Amendment protects freedom of religion," Reid's spokesman Jim Manley said in a statement Monday. "Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else."
What a complete POS Harry Reid is. It's stuff like this that gives politicians a poor reputation. Harry Reid knows better, which makes his position on this issue disgusting. If I lived in Utah, I'd pull the lever for Sharon Angle.
:lmao: Can you explain this? What did Harry Reid do that was so wrong?

Also, he is in Nevada, not Utah.
Reid's cowering to all the ridiculous outrage - I don't believe for 1 second he cares whether the mosque is built 2 blocks from Ground Zero or 5 blocks away.
 
Why? All the libs were asking is that the government not overstep it's bounds (seemingly a right wing talking point) and disallow people their religious freedom. If it's true then this is win-win, well, except for all the hypocrites who loudly wanted us to betray our founding fathers' dream (pssst...that'll be most of you doing the loudest cheering)
Oh please. Enough with the excuses. We won, because we were right and you were wrong. Deal with it.
Link?Rhetorical question, you won't find me being "wrong" here by holding to the laws of the land. All I wanted was for the government to preserve their right to build it. If they want to back out due to public pressure or a change of heart or whatever (which btw is questionable still) then the system worked and I "won". I couldn't care less if they actually build the thing there or not, I just don't want them to be outlawed from doing so just because people want to blame all Muslims for the attacks of a radical few.
 
Here is my take on this. Do they have a right to put a mosque there? Yes. Should they put a mosque there? No. Lets say I have Muslim neighbors and their daughter was murdered by a Christian man who yelled "In the name of Christ I take this life" as he killed her. Do I have the right to stick a cross on my lawn facing their house? Yes. Should I do that? No. Would it be insensitive to do that? Yes.
You are terrible at analogies.
 
one can not like another religion, but any claim that is does not make sense for said religion to do something comes from those outside the religion. which is to say, as long as the people within the religion want it, it does not matter what others think. that is the whole friggin' point of the first amendment.

this shoddy logic of i accept it but dont think it is smart is nothing more than one religion thinking a different religion should not do something, which would be illogical by definition, and hence, your "makes absolutely zero sense" claim makes, well, no sense.
I think you missed my point. I said that they have a legal right to build it wherever they please. But if one of their ideas is to have the public at large come to a greater understanding of their religion, then it doesn't make much sense to build it where they're planning as opposed to the numerous other places they could build it.

In other words, it's a bad PR move for them to build this thing at GZ.
no, see the point just fine. you seem to be missing the point of religious freedom.
 
I haven't followed this thread and haven't really followed the specifics of the story but from what I can tell, this is a stark example of the difference between doing something because it's legal and doing it also because it's sensible.

Legally speaking, I'm in agreement with the President et. al. who say that the people that want to build this mosque have a legal right to build this thing where they're proposing. The exercising of religious freedom is something that's deeply ingrained in our codified law.

However, given the bigger picture, it makes absolutely zero sense to build this particular type of structure near Ground Zero. If one of the goals of Islam (which I believe it is) is to have people reach a better understanding of the religion and change the perception that it is a violent one then the sensible thing would be to understand people's feelings about the events that occurred at GZ and build the building elsewhere.

A demonstration of reason would do the builders of this mosque a whole lot more good than winning a legal battle.
one can not like another religion, but any claim that is does not make sense for said religion to do something comes from those outside the religion. which is to say, as long as the people within the religion want it, it does not matter what others think. that is the whole friggin' point of the first amendment. this shoddy logic of i accept it but dont think it is smart is nothing more than one religion thinking a different religion should not do something, which would be illogical by definition, and hence, your "makes absolutely zero sense" claim makes, well, no sense.
At least you've got this part right.
got the whole thing right, so what's your point? or is that the extent of your intellectual discourse?
 
no, see the point just fine. you seem to be missing the point of religious freedom.
Hardly anybody is questioning the religious freedom of the people who want to build the mosque. I haven't read the whole thread, but so far it seems like everybody is just saying that they should choose to exercise their freedom in a different, more sensitive manner. Personally, I don't care where they build their mosque and I don't fully "get" why this upsets people so much. But you're fundamentally mischaracterizing their argument.
 
no, see the point just fine. you seem to be missing the point of religious freedom.
Hardly anybody is questioning the religious freedom of the people who want to build the mosque. I haven't read the whole thread, but so far it seems like everybody is just saying that they should choose to exercise their freedom in a different, more sensitive manner. Personally, I don't care where they build their mosque and I don't fully "get" why this upsets people so much. But you're fundamentally mischaracterizing their argument.
but that IS the point Ivan. it is easy to say "i agree with the freedom of religion", it is a whole other deal to say "BUT I don't think said religion should do x." the whole point of religious freedom is that is does not matter what anyone thinks about the acts of the religion--within the rule of law naturally--so the BUT always already remains moot.so no, i am not fundamentally mischaracterizing the argument, I am pointing out the illogical and antithetical claims being made by people outside the religion attempting to define what makes sense for the religion of which they are not an active member. which by definition is what the first amendment was created to STOP!!
 
no, see the point just fine. you seem to be missing the point of religious freedom.
Hardly anybody is questioning the religious freedom of the people who want to build the mosque. I haven't read the whole thread, but so far it seems like everybody is just saying that they should choose to exercise their freedom in a different, more sensitive manner. Personally, I don't care where they build their mosque and I don't fully "get" why this upsets people so much. But you're fundamentally mischaracterizing their argument.
but that IS the point Ivan. it is easy to say "i agree with the freedom of religion", it is a whole other deal to say "BUT I don't think said religion should do x." the whole point of religious freedom is that is does not matter what anyone thinks about the acts of the religion--within the rule of law naturally--so the BUT always already remains moot.so no, i am not fundamentally mischaracterizing the argument, I am pointing out the illogical and antithetical claims being made by people outside the religion attempting to define what makes sense for the religion of which they are not an active member. which by definition is what the first amendment was created to STOP!!
I still think your argument is incoherent. The first amendment protects your right to picket outside an abortion clinic and hold up pictures of aborted fetuses. That doesn't change the fact that that's a tactless thing to do.
 
Or, if this is somehow uniquely tied to religion in your mind, we could play similar games with religious institutions. For example, a particular church may be well within its right to refuse membership to blacks, say. (I'm not sure if this would actually be legal or not in fact, but I strongly believe it should be so I'm going to roll with this hypothetical). Just because a church has the right to do so doesn't mean that I can't criticize them for exercising that right. After all, the freedom to criticize stupid things that other people do is just as precious as their right to do stupid stuff.

 
so no, i am not fundamentally mischaracterizing the argument, I am pointing out the illogical and antithetical claims being made by people outside the religion attempting to define what makes sense for the religion of which they are not an active member. which by definition is what the first amendment was created to STOP!!
Yes you are. I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense for them to build it for religious purposes but rather that it doesn't make sense for them to build it for PR purposes.I'm sure it would satisfy their religious purposes just fine since I don't think the location of a church/synagogue/mosque has much bearing on what goes on inside it. But they would be doing their religion entire a favor if they were to show some discretion in this one particular case.
 
Or, if this is somehow uniquely tied to religion in your mind, we could play similar games with religious institutions. For example, a particular church may be well within its right to refuse membership to blacks, say. (I'm not sure if this would actually be legal or not in fact, but I strongly believe it should be so I'm going to roll with this hypothetical). Just because a church has the right to do so doesn't mean that I can't criticize them for exercising that right. After all, the freedom to criticize stupid things that other people do is just as precious as their right to do stupid stuff.
Better example--the catholic church's refusal to ordain women as clergy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Or, if this is somehow uniquely tied to religion in your mind, we could play similar games with religious institutions. For example, a particular church may be well within its right to refuse membership to blacks, say. (I'm not sure if this would actually be legal or not in fact, but I strongly believe it should be so I'm going to roll with this hypothetical). Just because a church has the right to do so doesn't mean that I can't criticize them for exercising that right. After all, the freedom to criticize stupid things that other people do is just as precious as their right to do stupid stuff.
Better example--the catholic church's refusal to ordain women.
:goodposting:
 
I haven't followed this thread and haven't really followed the specifics of the story but from what I can tell, this is a stark example of the difference between doing something because it's legal and doing it also because it's sensible.

Legally speaking, I'm in agreement with the President et. al. who say that the people that want to build this mosque have a legal right to build this thing where they're proposing. The exercising of religious freedom is something that's deeply ingrained in our codified law.

However, given the bigger picture, it makes absolutely zero sense to build this particular type of structure near Ground Zero. If one of the goals of Islam (which I believe it is) is to have people reach a better understanding of the religion and change the perception that it is a violent one then the sensible thing would be to understand people's feelings about the events that occurred at GZ and build the building elsewhere.

A demonstration of reason would do the builders of this mosque a whole lot more good than winning a legal battle.
one can not like another religion, but any claim that is does not make sense for said religion to do something comes from those outside the religion. which is to say, as long as the people within the religion want it, it does not matter what others think. that is the whole friggin' point of the first amendment. this shoddy logic of i accept it but dont think it is smart is nothing more than one religion thinking a different religion should not do something, which would be illogical by definition, and hence, your "makes absolutely zero sense" claim makes, well, no sense.
At least you've got this part right.
got the whole thing right, so what's your point? or is that the extent of your intellectual discourse?
Forgive me if I don't bow down to your dime-store, philosophical tripe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't followed this thread and haven't really followed the specifics of the story but from what I can tell, this is a stark example of the difference between doing something because it's legal and doing it also because it's sensible.

Legally speaking, I'm in agreement with the President et. al. who say that the people that want to build this mosque have a legal right to build this thing where they're proposing. The exercising of religious freedom is something that's deeply ingrained in our codified law.

However, given the bigger picture, it makes absolutely zero sense to build this particular type of structure near Ground Zero. If one of the goals of Islam (which I believe it is) is to have people reach a better understanding of the religion and change the perception that it is a violent one then the sensible thing would be to understand people's feelings about the events that occurred at GZ and build the building elsewhere.

A demonstration of reason would do the builders of this mosque a whole lot more good than winning a legal battle.
one can not like another religion, but any claim that is does not make sense for said religion to do something comes from those outside the religion. which is to say, as long as the people within the religion want it, it does not matter what others think. that is the whole friggin' point of the first amendment. this shoddy logic of i accept it but dont think it is smart is nothing more than one religion thinking a different religion should not do something, which would be illogical by definition, and hence, your "makes absolutely zero sense" claim makes, well, no sense.
At least you've got this part right.
got the whole thing right, so what's your point? or is that the extent of your intellectual discourse?
Forgive me if I don't bow down to your dime-store, philosophical tripe.
:moneybag:
 
Oh please. Enough with the excuses. We won, because we were right and you were wrong. Deal with it.
Link?Rhetorical question, you won't find me being "wrong" here by holding to the laws of the land. All I wanted was for the government to preserve their right to build it. If they want to back out due to public pressure or a change of heart or whatever (which btw is questionable still) then the system worked and I "won". I couldn't care less if they actually build the thing there or not, I just don't want them to be outlawed from doing so just because people want to blame all Muslims for the attacks of a radical few.
Link: http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/...center-1.308426And :confused: at the spin. At the end of the day, the bottom line is there's not going to be a mosque at ground zero. Common sense - 1, libs - 0.

 
I haven't followed this thread and haven't really followed the specifics of the story but from what I can tell, this is a stark example of the difference between doing something because it's legal and doing it also because it's sensible.

Legally speaking, I'm in agreement with the President et. al. who say that the people that want to build this mosque have a legal right to build this thing where they're proposing. The exercising of religious freedom is something that's deeply ingrained in our codified law.

However, given the bigger picture, it makes absolutely zero sense to build this particular type of structure near Ground Zero. If one of the goals of Islam (which I believe it is) is to have people reach a better understanding of the religion and change the perception that it is a violent one then the sensible thing would be to understand people's feelings about the events that occurred at GZ and build the building elsewhere.

A demonstration of reason would do the builders of this mosque a whole lot more good than winning a legal battle.
one can not like another religion, but any claim that is does not make sense for said religion to do something comes from those outside the religion. which is to say, as long as the people within the religion want it, it does not matter what others think. that is the whole friggin' point of the first amendment. this shoddy logic of i accept it but dont think it is smart is nothing more than one religion thinking a different religion should not do something, which would be illogical by definition, and hence, your "makes absolutely zero sense" claim makes, well, no sense.
At least you've got this part right.
got the whole thing right, so what's your point? or is that the extent of your intellectual discourse?
Forgive me if I don't bow down to your dime-store, philosophical tripe.
:thumbup:
 
so no, i am not fundamentally mischaracterizing the argument, I am pointing out the illogical and antithetical claims being made by people outside the religion attempting to define what makes sense for the religion of which they are not an active member. which by definition is what the first amendment was created to STOP!!
Yes you are. I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense for them to build it for religious purposes but rather that it doesn't make sense for them to build it for PR purposes.I'm sure it would satisfy their religious purposes just fine since I don't think the location of a church/synagogue/mosque has much bearing on what goes on inside it. But they would be doing their religion entire a favor if they were to show some discretion in this one particular case.
You think that the same dolts who are against this being built are going to view Islam differently if the mosque isn't built? I'm an atheist - if it was up to me our society wouldn't waste another dime on a non-Disney building to celebrate fairy tales. But this hysteria is based entirely on ignorance and fear.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed the general manager of Al -Arabiya television. Mr. Al Rashed is also the former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al- Awsat, and the leading Arabic weekly magazine, Al Majalla. He is also a senior Columnist in the daily newspapers of Al Madina and Al Bilad. He is a US post-graduate degree in mass communications. He has been a guest on many TV current affairs programs. He is currently based in Dubai.
Arcitle
A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?

16/08/2010

By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid

US President Barack Obama adopted a difficult position when he supported the building of a mosque near ground zero, where 3,000 US citizens died at the hands of Al-Qaeda terrorists on 11 September 2001.

Despite the fact that the president adopted the correct stance in principle, i.e. the principle of freedom of worship, in my opinion he adopted an unnecessary and unimportant stance, even as far as Muslims are concerned. The mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they are not bothered by its construction.

This reminds us of another principled stance Obama took when he insisted on putting the Guantanamo prisoners accused of belonging to Al-Qaeda on trial before civilian courts, and on closing down the military prison. It is true that this stance deserves appreciation. However, the fact is that he fought a battle that does not concern Muslims across the world, because there are tens of thousands of Muslims - similar to those accused of extremism - who are imprisoned in worse conditions in Muslim countries.

Muslims do not aspire for a mosque next to the 11 September cemetery, and are not bothered with Bin Ladin's cook being put on trial in a civilian court. Muslims have issues that encroach upon the destinies of nations; these issues are the cause of isolation and calamity, such as the establishment of the State of Palestine. For Obama to focus his energy and efforts, and fight for the establishment of peace in the Middle East is more important and more valuable than a mosque in New York.

The fact is that building a mosque next to the site of the World Trade Center Twin Towers, which were destroyed during the 11 September attacks, is a strange story. This is because the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non-Muslim US citizens!

Neither did the Muslims ask for a single building, nor do the angry Muslims want the mosque. This is one of the few times when the two opposing sides are in agreement. Nevertheless, the dispute has escalated, and has reached the front pages of the press and the major television programs, demonstrations have been staged in the streets, and large posters have been hung on buses roaming the streets of New York calling for preventing the building of the mosque and reminding the people of the 11 September crime. It really is a strange battle!

I cannot imagine that Muslims want a mosque on this particular site, because it will be turned into an arena for promoters of hatred, and a symbol of those who committed the crime. At the same time, there are no practicing Muslims in the district who need a place of worship, because it is indeed a commercial district. Is there a side that is committed to this mosque? The fact is that in the news reports there are names linked to this project that costs 100 million dollars!

The sides enthusiastic for building the mosque might be building companies, architect houses, or politicized groups that want suitable investments?! I do not know whether the building applicant wants a mosque whose aim is reconciliation, or he is an investor who wants quick profits. This is because the idea of the mosque specifically next to the destruction is not at all a clever deed. The last thing Muslims want today is to build just a religious center out of defiance to the others, or a symbolic mosque that people visit as a museum next to a cemetery.

What the US citizens do not understand is that the battle against the 11 September terrorists is a Muslim battle, and not theirs, and this battle still is ablaze in more than 20 Muslim countries. Some Muslims will consider that building a mosque on this site immortalizes and commemorates what was done by the terrorists who committed their crime in the name of Islam. I do not think that the majority of Muslims want to build a symbol or a worship place that tomorrow might become a place about which the terrorists and their Muslim followers boast, and which will become a shrine for Islam haters whose aim is to turn the public opinion against Islam. This is what has started to happen now; they claim that there is a mosque being built over the corpses of 3,000 killed US citizens, who were buried alive by people chanting God is great, which is the same call that will be heard from the mosque.

It is the wrong battle, because originally there was no mosque in order to rebuild it, and there are no practicing Muslims who want a place in which to worship.
 
You think that the same dolts who are against this being built are going to view Islam differently if the mosque isn't built?
I don't think that everyone that is opposed to this is a dolt. Some are and their minds won't be changed.
I'm an atheist - if it was up to me our society wouldn't waste another dime on a non-Disney building to celebrate fairy tales. But this hysteria is based entirely on ignorance and fear.
That's too broad of a brush you're painting with there. Some of it is based on ignorance and fear, but the overall spirit of the objection I believe is one of reaction to provocation.
 
You think that the same dolts who are against this being built are going to view Islam differently if the mosque isn't built?
I don't think that everyone that is opposed to this is a dolt. Some are and their minds won't be changed.
I'm an atheist - if it was up to me our society wouldn't waste another dime on a non-Disney building to celebrate fairy tales. But this hysteria is based entirely on ignorance and fear.
That's too broad of a brush you're painting with there. Some of it is based on ignorance and fear, but the overall spirit of the objection I believe is one of reaction to provocation.
:goodposting: As I pointed out in the other thread, imagine someone opening up a gun store right across from Columbine High School. Sure, they have the right to do it. But would it be in good taste?

 
You think that the same dolts who are against this being built are going to view Islam differently if the mosque isn't built?
I don't think that everyone that is opposed to this is a dolt. Some are and their minds won't be changed.
I'm an atheist - if it was up to me our society wouldn't waste another dime on a non-Disney building to celebrate fairy tales. But this hysteria is based entirely on ignorance and fear.
That's too broad of a brush you're painting with there. Some of it is based on ignorance and fear, but the overall spirit of the objection I believe is one of reaction to provocation.
How far is far enough? Is 4 blocks okay? 6 blocks? This is so, so, so stupid.
 
You think that the same dolts who are against this being built are going to view Islam differently if the mosque isn't built?
I don't think that everyone that is opposed to this is a dolt. Some are and their minds won't be changed.
I'm an atheist - if it was up to me our society wouldn't waste another dime on a non-Disney building to celebrate fairy tales. But this hysteria is based entirely on ignorance and fear.
That's too broad of a brush you're painting with there. Some of it is based on ignorance and fear, but the overall spirit of the objection I believe is one of reaction to provocation.
How far is far enough? Is 4 blocks okay? 6 blocks? This is so, so, so stupid.
 
Oh please. Enough with the excuses. We won, because we were right and you were wrong. Deal with it.
Link?Rhetorical question, you won't find me being "wrong" here by holding to the laws of the land. All I wanted was for the government to preserve their right to build it. If they want to back out due to public pressure or a change of heart or whatever (which btw is questionable still) then the system worked and I "won". I couldn't care less if they actually build the thing there or not, I just don't want them to be outlawed from doing so just because people want to blame all Muslims for the attacks of a radical few.
Link: http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/...center-1.308426And :yes: at the spin. At the end of the day, the bottom line is there's not going to be a mosque at ground zero. Common sense - 1, libs - 0.
What spin? Show me where I argued for endorsing the mosque. I never disagreed with the idea that they shouldn't do it out of courtesy or shame or whatever. I argued against holding Muslims in general responsible for the acts of the extremists and their rights to religious freedom. That's it. The only spin going on is you trying to make this a competition. As long as they weren't denied permission to build it simply because they're Muslims and extremist Muslims attacked the city then I'm happy with the result.Is it confirmed that they've backed down or are you pulling a Dewey?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top