Mosque going up in NYC building

[Oleg Bach]

Some resistance to the project must be shown - feelings must be mentioned...fears must be voiced - If no one objects then they will truly believe that the west are weaklings and fools..not saying ban Mosques -that's impossible in a supposed free society...but seeing that we are corrupt - corruption of what is left of our Judean Christian culture may as well take place - we have caved on every moral issue since 1960...might as well hand over the turf to people that are orderly and Godly...seeing we have no god we might as well get use to theirs - maybe we can rent Allah for a while?

[Guest American Woman]

Unless you've got quotes of this guy wanting the law changed so that people can marry six year old this is a rather useless post. Though even if he was what does it matter? NAMBLA has been advocating for stuff like this for years, no ones shut them done.

It's not a "useless post" at all. It was in direct response to your post. Furthermore, was I advocating shutting them down? No, I wasn't.

As for NAMBLA, I can't believe you'd use that as a comparison as there has been huge public criticism of them, and the FBI is constantly on them, making arrests when called for. They don't get tax exemption from the government, either, and no government is based on their beliefs in any country. They are a small group that hasn't the chance of a snowball in hell of ever being in the position to make laws anywhere. Furthermore, no one outside their group, to my knowledge, is criticizing people who are critical of them, calling them bigots, intolerant, etc.

The fact is, NAMBLA can say what it wants under the first amendment, and we can say what we want about NAMBA and it's beliefs. We have the same right to say what we think about a lot of Muslims' beliefs, and we have the right to ensure their beliefs don't become protected under the notion of freedom of religion in our countries, where there is a clash with our beliefs.

As to what all that has to do with this mosque, some, rightfully, have concerns about how "moderate" this guy is. On that note: Will Imam Feisal Rauf Denounce 'Fatwas' by The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America?

[Guest TrueMetis]

It's not a "useless post" at all. It was in direct response to your post. Furthermore, was I advocating shutting them down? No, I wasn't.

It is a useless post, you "wanting to keep it that way" makes it sound like people (like the guy building the mosque) are advocating to change it. So unless you've got something to back that up? I would rather we keep racial desegregation, but I don't have to mention it because no one is advocating for segregation. Well except for nut jobs that no sane person would listen to.

Furthermore, no one outside their group, to my knowledge, is criticizing people who are critical of them, calling them bigots, intolerant, etc.

No but the ACLU sure spends a lot of time defending them in various court cases.

Edited August 14, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Sir Bandelot]

Repeatedly invoking the nation's founders and examples of religious tolerance from American history, the president argued that national ideals and the Constitution demanded that the project proceed.

He noted that Thomas Jefferson hosted the the first Iftar dinner at the White House more than 200 years ago and said that the country had previously seen "controversies about the construction of synagogues or Catholic churches."

"The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure."

Obama throws support behind controversial Islamic center

O beautiful for spacious skies,

For amber waves of grain,

For purple mountain majesties

Above the fruited plain!

America! America!

God shed his grace on thee

And crown thy good with brotherhood

From sea to shining sea!

[Guest American Woman]

It is a useless post,

It was in direct response to your post. If mine was useless, it's only because yours was useless.

...you "wanting to keep it that way" makes it sound like people (like the guy building the mosque) are advocating to change it. So unless you've got something to back that up?

I already explained my response in regards to the guy building the mosque. As I said, people question whether or not his is a "moderate" as he claims to be, and I've already "backed up" why they are justified in questioning it.

No but the ACLU sure spends a lot of time defending them in various court cases.

And what does that have to do with this issue? Is the ACLU trying to shut any Muslims up? If they are, I'm sure unaware of it, so perhaps you could point it out.

[Guest TrueMetis]

It was in direct response to your post. If mine was useless, it's only because yours was useless.

It really wasn't. It was you just inferring something about someone without evidence.

And what does that have to do with this issue? Is the ACLU trying to shut any Muslims up? If they are, I'm sure unaware of it, so perhaps you could point it out.

The ACLU did oppose this mosque, even though the ACLU is supposed to defend peoples rights.

[Guest American Woman]

It really wasn't. It was you just inferring something about someone without evidence.

This is the third time I'm repeating why I said what I did, and this is the third time I'm pointing out that I posted evidence to back up what I said. That you refuse to see it doesn't make your false accusation true.

The ACLU did oppose this mosque, even though the ACLU is supposed to defend peoples rights.

It did, did it?

NYCLU And ACLU Applaud Approval Of NYC Islamic Cultural Center For Upholding Values Of Freedom And Tolerance

[BubberMiley]

This is the third time I'm repeating why I said what I did, and this is the third time I'm pointing out that I posted evidence to back up what I said.

Just the third? I'm counting 93 pages.

[Guest TrueMetis]

It did, did it?

NYCLU And ACLU Applaud Approval Of NYC Islamic Cultural Center For Upholding Values Of Freedom And Tolerance

Maybe I'm thinking of a different organization.

[Machjo]

Good video on the topic here. Seeing that there is no controversy over holding services at the Ground Zero of the Pentagon, yet a major controversy over two blocks from Ground Zero in NYC, one woman is honest enough to say it's all about a mosque competing with the nearby Baptist church.

Afterwards, the interview includes a perspective from a number of angles. Well done.

[bush_cheney2004]

Good video on the topic here. Seeing that there is no controversy over holding services at the Ground Zero of the Pentagon...

Pentagon already had services and an Islamic Chaplain corp. I don't consider the US Pentagon to be "Ground Zero" in the same way as the WTC site.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/05/muslims_infiltrate_pentagon

[Machjo]

Pentagon already had services and an Islamic Chaplain corp. I don't consider the US Pentagon to be "Ground Zero" in the same way as the WTC site.

How is it not Ground Zero? The plane crashed right into it.

[bush_cheney2004]

How is it not Ground Zero? The plane crashed right into it.

Several reasons....

1) you can't have multiple "Ground Zeros" by definition.

2) the Pentagon is a legitimate military target

3) another aircraft failed to reach D.C, crashed in PA, and is not considered "Ground Zero"

The WTC in New York City is the real deal.

Edited August 15, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Machjo]

Several reasons....

1) you can't have multiple "Ground Zeros" by definition.

Sure you can. Separate targets are separate ground zeros. If I drop a bomb on point A and another bomb on point B, I can't say that the crater on point A is the Ground Zero for point B.

2) the Pentagon is a legitimate military target

Sure it would be a legitimate military target in principle if the terrorists had a valid reason to attack the US in the first place, which they did not have.

3) another aircraft failed to reach D.C, crashed in PA, and is not considered "Ground Zero"

Again, a matter of definition. It could be considered a ground zero in its own right, albeit not as dramatic.

The WTC in New York City is the real deal.

The deaths in the other locations were less real?

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure you can. Separate targets are separate ground zeros. If I drop a bomb on point A and another bomb on point B, I can't say that the crater on point A is the Ground Zero for point B.

Then using your logic there are hundreds of "ground zeros"..and the term ceases to have any meaning in the intended political context.

Sure it would be a legitimate military target in principle if the terrorists had a valid reason to attack the US in the first place, which they did not have.

Didn't seem to bother the Japanese on Dec 7th, 1941.

Again, a matter of definition. It could be considered a ground zero in its own right, albeit not as dramatic.

That's the point....it is not considered as "dramatic". In fact, the Pentagon was undergoing a facilities hardening upgrade just in case of such an attack from ground (vehicle bomb) or air.

The deaths in the other locations were less real?

Yes...some say they don't exist at all! LOL!

[dre]

1) you can't have multiple "Ground Zeros" by definition.

Thats one of the dumbest things Iv ever read.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thats one of the dumbest things Iv ever read.

That's because you're still a "rookie".

[Machjo]

Then using your logic there are hundreds of "ground zeros"..and the term ceases to have any meaning in the intended political context.

Precisely. Bingo! Outside any political sense it means nothing more than a point of impact. Now if we insist on imposing a political sense on it, that's a different matter; but then we'd have to question the motives of the one who insists on imposing a political sense onto it.

[Guest American Woman]

Sure you can. Separate targets are separate ground zeros. If I drop a bomb on point A and another bomb on point B, I can't say that the crater on point A is the Ground Zero for point B.

The deaths in the other locations were less real?

As b_c already pointed out, not only was the Pentagon a legitimate military target, the Pentagon already had services and an Islamic Chaplain corp. They aren't able to be held there only as a result of the attack on the Pentagon. So one can't say 'but for the 9-11 destructive, murderous attacks by other Muslims, this service wouldn't be able to be held there.' Which really just further proves that it's not 'anti-Mosque hysteria' behind the objection to Park 51.

But here's the thing.

It's pretty standard to have one site as a memorial site. If the U.S. chooses the WTC as that site, as the memorial site for 9-11, that's our right, our business. We have a huge hole in the skyline to match the huge hole in the hearts of the families and friends of the victims of 9-11. The WTC is our memorial and if it makes no sense to you, if the WTC property has no special meaning to you, that really doesn't matter.

And again, but for the attacks, Park 51 would have had to have been built elsewhere.

Edited August 15, 2010 by American Woman

[Machjo]

As b_c already pointed out, not only was the Pentagon a legitimate military target, the Pentagon already had services and an Islamic Chaplain corp. They aren't able to be held there only as a result of the attack on the Pentagon. So one can't say 'but for the 9-11 destructive, murderous attacks by other Muslims, this service wouldn't be able to be held there.' Which really just further proves that it's not 'anti-Mosque hysteria' behind the objection to Park 51.

Then looking at it that way, you'd certainly agree that it any organization, be it religious or secular, which builds on that property would be doing so only as a result of 9-11. Looking at it that way, if the Muslims can't build there, neither can anyone else. And to say that the people who crashed the planes into the buildings were men does not make it any less true that if a group of women should build on that property, they too would be building there only as a result of the attack. Oh sorry, it had nothing to do with them being men, but rather Saudis... or, no, because they had beards? Or the hair colour? Oh now I remember; It was because that community was unfortunate enough to have someone commit these acts in the name of their religion. Now that's a bummer.

But here's the thing.

It's pretty standard to have one site as a memorial site. If the U.S. chooses the WTC as that site, as the memorial site for 9-11, that's our right, our business. We have a huge hole in the skyline to match the huge hole in the hearts of the families and friends of the victims of 9-11. The WTC is our memorial and if it makes no sense to you, if the WTC property has no special meaning to you, that really doesn't matter.

And again, but for the attacks, Park 51 would have had to have been built elsewhere.

I was just wondering: are the Muslims who'd lost family members on 9-11 included in this 'we'?

Again, if you decide that that the memorial site should be expanded by a couple of blocks, fair enough. But don't say a mosque can't be built there and then say nothing when a men's culture centre opens up there, or a centre for Asian studies (after all, the perpetrators were men and Asians too). One can build there, so can they all. If not one, then none.

However, the protest does not seem to be about building on Ground Zero (otherwise people would be asking to make it into a heritage site of sorts), but rather specifically about building a mosque at ground zero.

[Machjo]

And just another point:

As long as the local government does not declare the spot to be a heritage site off limits to all construction, why should the local Muslim community, which has suffered twice as much as the general community (once by losing family and friends to 9-11 like anyone else, and twice by having an association between them and the terrorists imposed on them by the general community), forgo the opportunity to build there only to have others take it over instead? If they are simply abiding y local laws, then the local government is to blame for not declaring it a heritage site. So don't blame the Muslims for that.

[Guest American Woman]

Then looking at it that way, you'd certainly agree that it any organization, be it religious or secular, which builds on that property would be doing so only as a result of 9-11. Looking at it that way, if the Muslims can't build there, neither can anyone else.

What? MUSLIMS are the ones who damaged the property, so the objection is to other Muslims having the advantage of the property being available.

"Anyone else" had nothing to do with 9-11; the building being available because of 9-11.

Are you just choosing to ignore the "but for the actions of OTHER MUSLIMS...." or is that truly, unbelievable as it is, escaping you?

And to say that the people who crashed the planes into the buildings were men does not make it any less true that if a group of women should build on that property, they too would be building there only as a result of the attack.

That's the most moronic thing I've ever heard. No one is upset that the people who crashed the planes into buildings are men; they aren't attributing the damage/deaths to men. MEN didn't declare war against us, with the desire to kill as many as possible.

Oh sorry, it had nothing to do with them being men, but rather Saudis... or, no, because they had beards? Or the hair colour? Oh now I remember; It was because that community was unfortunate enough to have someone commit these acts in the name of their religion. Now that's a bummer.

It had everything to do with their being MUSLIMS. And yes, it was a "bummer." Just as it would be a "bummer" if you lost someone in your family at the hands of terrorists.

I was just wondering: are the Muslims who'd lost family members on 9-11 included in this 'we'?

No, they don't count. And that IS sarcasm. In case it's escaped you, other MUSLIMS feel the same way I do. The Muslim Canadian Congress feels the same way I do. They don't think a Mosque on that property is the right thing, either.

Again, if you decide that that the memorial site should be expanded by a couple of blocks, fair enough. But don't say a mosque can't be built there and then say nothing when a men's culture centre opens up there, or a centre for Asian studies (after all, the perpetrators were men and Asians too). One can build there, so can they all. If not one, then none.

Try to get this to sink in. It's not a matter of "expanding the memorial site a couple of blocks." The property IS part of the ruins of 9-11. The property was damaged on 9-11. Not by "a group of men," since "men" haven't declared a jihad/war against us, not by "Asians," since "Asians" haven't declared war/jihad against us. It was damaged by MUSLIMS; it's MUSLIMS who have declared a jihad, the desire to kill as many as possible, against us.

Why you are trying sooooo hard to overlook that, to dismiss it, to try to make it into something it's not, is very difficult to understand.

However, the protest does not seem to be about building on Ground Zero (otherwise people would be asking to make it into a heritage site of sorts), but rather specifically about building a mosque at ground zero.

The protest is about building the mosque in the ruins of 9-11. It's about specifically building a mosque on property that would not be available but for the destructive/murderous actions of other Muslims.

It's as simple as that. If you still refuse to see it, if you still attempt to make it about something else, then there's no point in further discussion. Makes no sense to discuss something that isn't even the issue as if it were.

Edited August 15, 2010 by American Woman

[BubberMiley]

Are you just choosing to ignore the "but for the actions of OTHER MUSLIMS...." or is that truly, unbelievable as it is, escaping you?

What if some don't consider them to be real muslims because they died killing other people? I know some wouldn't consider a murderous christian sect to be real christians. I'm sure there are a few muslims who don't consider terrorists to be part of their club.

I could accept they weren't muslim but, rather, mentally ill. Though I would think one would have to be mentally ill to belong to any religion.

[Freedom_Now]

I can't believe they are letting them build it in NY :S !

[Guest American Woman]

What if some don't consider them to be real muslims because they died killing other people? I know some wouldn't consider a murderous christian sect to be real christians. I'm sure there are a few muslims who don't consider terrorists to be part of their club.

I could accept they weren't muslim but, rather, mentally ill. Though I would think one would have to be mentally ill to belong to any religion.

This must be another one of your "provocative" posts, not to be taken seriously, eh?