This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Sorry, but what reason is there to not allow this? There are Muslim mosque's closer to "ground zero" than what this one will be. There are religious buildings closer to "ground zero" than what this one will be. What reason is there to not allow this to be built/constructed/opened?
No, I don't understand the reason behind the "debate". It doesn't matter if you are tolerant of all races, religions, etc or if you're a sheet wearing klansman. It doesn't matter because it is the law. We're talking about one of the fundamental rights we have as Americans. It is unfathomable to me to tell a bunch of New Yorkers that they can't build a church there. Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, it doesn't matter. I'm an atheist who has a serious distaste for all religions, but Islam to me is especially offensive. But I will gladly fight to the death to allow people to have that freedom to worship as they please.There are tens of thousands of New Yorkers who are Muslim. Aren't they American? There are several mosques in lower Manhattan. Should they be closed?
What you just quoted was meant for Christians! It wasn't meant for foreigners who worship terrorism!Josie Maran said:
I'm not saying they can't build it there, I was just saying they should have some class and decide to build it elsewhere. Do they have every legal right to build on land they own? Of course. I think they're as much a cult as Scientologists are, but I wouldn't say that the Xenu worshippers couldn't legally build a temple there either if they owned the land.The Muslims involved in building this monstrosity should just take a look at the bigger picture and realize how much potential hurt they're bringing to the region. Be cool for once and build the damn thing in Buffalo. I would certainly look at Muslims in a different light. I'd say "you know what, they really showed me something there. Those M's are alright". But nooooooooooooo they've got to have things their way, everyone else be damned.Josie Maran said:
I completely understand the emotional aspect of it, but I understand it from both sides. But your use of the word irrational is spot on. You're definitely being irrational about it.Honest question, since I don't feel like going back through the thread, do you know the facts about this situation? See Homer's (teehee) posts earlier (the less inflammatory ones) regarding the what and where of the so-called "ground zero mosque".
I have no idea what is shtick and what is real, so I'll just let this slide...
That's the rub. People who are suggesting that a mosque cannot (or should not) be built within X-blocks or ??? from ground zero are basically saying that either:1. Muslims = Terrorists, orJosie Maran said:
Certainly not all Muslims are terrorists, but people putting money into this are. This is a clear statement in support of terrorism.That's the rub. People who are suggesting that a mosque cannot (or should not) be built within X-blocks or ??? from ground zero are basically saying that either:1. Muslims = Terrorists, orJosie Maran said:
2. Muslims are NOT Americans, or
3. It's okay that people who have a problem with this equate Muslims to terrorists (just because the terrorists responsible for 9/11 happened to subscribe to a radical, jihadist branch of the Islam faith), by having the rest of us validate and support/reinforce their opinions and concerns...preventing the group or activity they oppose from doing something that is well-within their legal rights under United States law.
News flash: not all Catholic priests are child molesters!
News flash: not all Germans in the 1930s-1940s were Jew-hating Nazis! Heck, how many hundreds of thousands or even millions of Jews would have self-identified as "German" in addition to being Jewish prior to Hitler and his Nazi regime coming into power?
News flash: not every toothless hillbilly in the rural South is married to their sister-aunt.
Okay, okay...just joking on that last one. However, you get the point. You can't talk about tolerance in one breath, then in the next breath be talking about "them" and "they" by lumping millions of people who happen to share the same faith into one homogeneous basket...telling "them" where "they" can and cannot build a place of worship. That's either ignorance, prejudice or racism...or direct/indirect support thereof.
Just calling it like I see it.
No you do not "completely understand". You just think you do. Or like to think you do. I'm very familiar with the building where this mosque will be. You can look at your Google maps and see where it sits and scoff at those that are against it. I'm in the area quite a bit and can only think about how much of a reminder it will be when it is built. Of course we'll have others that live or work nearby defend the building but #### anyone that thinks I'm not within my right to protest this. Go ahead, call me racist, xenophobe, whatever. I'm sure this will be built and those of us against it will just be wasting our time and effort.
So if the cultural center refused any money that came from known terrorists, you'd be OK with this?
1. Your right to protest this. Absolutely! You have every right to hate the idea of a mosque within blocks of the Ground Zero site. That's the beauty of America: freedom of speech, and the right/freedom to be completely, unequivocally wrong in our own attitudes and beliefs toward anything and everything. What we all DON'T have the right to do is to deny the rights and freedoms of others...and preventing a mosque from being constructed within blocks of Ground Zero just because you and others are uncomfortable with the idea would be doing precisely that.2. Calling you a racist, xenophobe, whatever. Not gonna do it. How does that old saying go? Love the sinner, hate the sin? Matthew 7:1 comes to mind here as well.
Again, I will agree with what you and others say, it goes against what I might actually beleive, but the mosque will just be a kick in the balls after 9/11. That's just what it is. I can't help but feel that way.
I see this as a terrorist statement. So in my view anyone throwing money at this is at a minimum sympathetic to the 9/11 terrorists. I have a hard time believing there is any other real motive behind this.
I hear you, and I'm sorry. I truly am sorry. For me, on 1/1,000,000th the scale, it is alcohol and drunk drivers. I get to the intersection of Highways 95 and 25 East of St. Cloud, MN, and I get sad and angry. 25 years later I get sad and angry. That was where my best friend in my church was killed driving home from his prom...broad-sided by a drunk driver.It took me years to even hang out with people who drink alcohol (even 1-2 beers/week), and if I ever heard that any of them drove home after having 3-4 beers? They were out of my life, gone...with every fiber in my being wanting to call the cops on them and/or take a baseball bat to their car. I'll bet it took 8-10 years before I got to the place mentally where I separated alcohol and the consumption of alcohol from what happened that night with my friend.Alcohol and drinking isn't to blame for my friend's death! The abuse of alcohol and one person's decision to selfishly get behind the wheel is to blame. The actions of ONE person. The same is true with 9/11. Islam isn't to blame for 9/11. Al-Qaeda and the 19 individuals who subscribed to the radical, jihadist perverted branch of Islam are to blame.Punish Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, and anyone else found to have direct ties to Al-Qaeda and the attacks. Don't punish millions of Muslims for the horrific actions of others.
You didn't answer my question.
I wouldn't punish other people for the action of one. But what if your friend was black and someone who really did not like black people wanted to put up a drive up liquor store right next to the spot he was killed. He could pick hundreds of other spots, but he insists on that spot for no apparent reason. It is not the cheapest spot, not the most convenient location, nothing special about the spot except it was where your friend was killed. Wouldn't that seem wrong to you, and wouldn't you question his motives.
Outside of some very compelling reason why they chose this site, I would say no. I see this as the worst imaginable form of hate speech.
and there it is.I cannot accept this right here, right now. That's just what it is.Do you accept that some people can drive while legally considered drunk? You should, because they can. Do I accept that there can be peaceful muslims in the new mosque? Sure. Do I trust there will be? No. It's just the way it is. I can't help feeling like I do.
Would I like it? No. Would I like the fact that he doesn't like black people? No. Would I ever make any purchases in his store? No. However, would I hear about the planned development and immediately question his motives and/or automatically interpret it as the man purposefully rubbing salt in my wound? No.If folks can PROVE that the mosque is being funded in-part with money from Al-Qaeda and/or other terrorist groups hell-bent on the destruction of the United States and our way of life, then I'll be right there with you, protesting and chaining myself to some wall! What makes this discussion so offensive and disappointing, however, is the assumption people are making of there being ties to Al-Qaeda/terrorism just because folks want to build a Muslim mosque. That is W-A-Y not cool, and un-American.Nobody's saying that Islam is going to become the official religion of the United States and that NYC will mandate that individuals will worship there and/or like the fact that the mosque exists. Folks do need to respect its right to exist, however. Either that, or we have to start to question whether we have a democracy or a theocracy on our hands.
Yes you can, actually.
The building is not at the same spot as where 9/11 happened. It is only in the same city, not the same spot.
You could make an argument that your statement is the more ignorant. I get that you want to hinge your post on the first part of the First Amendment, but you are forgetting the second part (freedom of speech), the 4th part (freedom of assembly) and the 5th part (freedom to petition government for redress)I'm indifferent on this whole thing. It's stupid and shameful to do it, but I'm not sure I want to get into the place where the government can stop religious buildings from being built just because people don't like a few of their members who also happen to be the single greatest threat to world peace at the moment.Josie Maran said:
Classy
I honestly dont get it. What is stupid and shameful? I would understand the outrage if the plan was to replace the WTC with a mosque. Thats not the plan.You could make an argument that your statement is the more ignorant. I get that you want to hinge your post on the first part of the First Amendment, but you are forgetting the second part (freedom of speech), the 4th part (freedom of assembly) and the 5th part (freedom to petition government for redress)I'm indifferent on this whole thing. It's stupid and shameful to do it, but I'm not sure I want to get into the place where the government can stop religious buildings from being built just because people don't like a few of their members who also happen to be the single greatest threat to world peace at the moment.Josie Maran said:
You must have some kind of proof or evidence to back this up, right? You wouldn't just be spewing a bunch of hyperbole, would you timschochet?Certainly not all Muslims are terrorists, but people putting money into this are. This is a clear statement in support of terrorism.That's the rub. People who are suggesting that a mosque cannot (or should not) be built within X-blocks or ??? from ground zero are basically saying that either:1. Muslims = Terrorists, orJosie Maran said:
2. Muslims are NOT Americans, or
3. It's okay that people who have a problem with this equate Muslims to terrorists (just because the terrorists responsible for 9/11 happened to subscribe to a radical, jihadist branch of the Islam faith), by having the rest of us validate and support/reinforce their opinions and concerns...preventing the group or activity they oppose from doing something that is well-within their legal rights under United States law.
News flash: not all Catholic priests are child molesters!
News flash: not all Germans in the 1930s-1940s were Jew-hating Nazis! Heck, how many hundreds of thousands or even millions of Jews would have self-identified as "German" in addition to being Jewish prior to Hitler and his Nazi regime coming into power?
News flash: not every toothless hillbilly in the rural South is married to their sister-aunt.
Okay, okay...just joking on that last one. However, you get the point. You can't talk about tolerance in one breath, then in the next breath be talking about "them" and "they" by lumping millions of people who happen to share the same faith into one homogeneous basket...telling "them" where "they" can and cannot build a place of worship. That's either ignorance, prejudice or racism...or direct/indirect support thereof.
Just calling it like I see it.
How dare you?
tim is jon?i thought tim was matthias.you never can tell can you?
How dare you?
That's not particularly indifferent. You're also wrong about Josie... it's not ignorant to point out someone else's ignorance, in spite of the 1st amendment. It's actually a pretty big part of how it works.eta: The location of the mosque / rec center isn't even half as shameful as some of the extreme reactions that are following it, and I would think more people, Christians in particular, should be outraged at the the planned Koran burning on 9/11 that is being ran by a guy who's trying to sell his ignorance and hatred in book form at the same time.You could make an argument that your statement is the more ignorant. I get that you want to hinge your post on the first part of the First Amendment, but you are forgetting the second part (freedom of speech), the 4th part (freedom of assembly) and the 5th part (freedom to petition government for redress)I'm indifferent on this whole thing. It's stupid and shameful to do it, but I'm not sure I want to get into the place where the government can stop religious buildings from being built just because people don't like a few of their members who also happen to be the single greatest threat to world peace at the moment.Josie Maran said:
I am not sure what is more insulting, that he is clueless of where you are really coming from or by confusing you with someone so odious.
I'm not saying that people don't have the right to oppose this building, therefore my statement is neither ignorant nor ignoring the other parts of the First Amendment.
I gotta agree, they arent being "cool" at all with this one.
you are just saying that if they do they are doing it for either and evil purpose of they are stupid and cant understand things.
If the only alternative is spending eternity with the likes of you two, then the lake of fire doesn't sound all that bad...Because if you don't, you're thrown into a lake of fire to burn. For all eternity.
So sick of non NYCers dictating how NYCers should feel about this and pretending that they careI think there should be a mosque on every street corner.So sick of non NYCers dictating how NYCers should feel about this and pretending that they care
Ok. And where have I supported burning the Koran here?That's not particularly indifferent. You're also wrong about Josie... it's not ignorant to point out someone else's ignorance, in spite of the 1st amendment. It's actually a pretty big part of how it works.eta: The location of the mosque / rec center isn't even half as shameful as some of the extreme reactions that are following it, and I would think more people, Christians in particular, should be outraged at the the planned Koran burning on 9/11 that is being ran by a guy who's trying to sell his ignorance and hatred in book form at the same time.You could make an argument that your statement is the more ignorant. I get that you want to hinge your post on the first part of the First Amendment, but you are forgetting the second part (freedom of speech), the 4th part (freedom of assembly) and the 5th part (freedom to petition government for redress)I'm indifferent on this whole thing. It's stupid and shameful to do it, but I'm not sure I want to get into the place where the government can stop religious buildings from being built just because people don't like a few of their members who also happen to be the single greatest threat to world peace at the moment.Josie Maran said:
Is that what I said? I said the mosque isn't as big a deal as the book burning "Hate an Arab" day that's been planned, and deserves more outrage, particularly from the Christians who think the mosque is a slap in the face to "American values" more than just possibly being an insensitive gesture in the wake of 9/11. The part I edited to add wasn't particularly addressed to you.Ok. And where have I supported burning the Koran here?That's not particularly indifferent. You're also wrong about Josie... it's not ignorant to point out someone else's ignorance, in spite of the 1st amendment. It's actually a pretty big part of how it works.eta: The location of the mosque / rec center isn't even half as shameful as some of the extreme reactions that are following it, and I would think more people, Christians in particular, should be outraged at the the planned Koran burning on 9/11 that is being ran by a guy who's trying to sell his ignorance and hatred in book form at the same time.You could make an argument that your statement is the more ignorant. I get that you want to hinge your post on the first part of the First Amendment, but you are forgetting the second part (freedom of speech), the 4th part (freedom of assembly) and the 5th part (freedom to petition government for redress)I'm indifferent on this whole thing. It's stupid and shameful to do it, but I'm not sure I want to get into the place where the government can stop religious buildings from being built just because people don't like a few of their members who also happen to be the single greatest threat to world peace at the moment.Josie Maran said:
But your hatred of religion is just the same vicious cycle of the part of religion that you say you hate. The religious kill the non-religious because of bigotry. The non-religious kill the religious because of their bigotry. Repeat cycle. Besides, the hatred you see on this thread is very targeted at the people who want to do this, not Muslims in general. However you chose to escalate the hatred by painting with such a broad brush you condemn all religion. Religion is not the evil. The real evil are these broad generalizations of hating large groups of people for the actions of a few.
Oh, ok. Well, I wouldn't support a book burning either so I don't know where you want to go with that.
