Mosque going up in NYC building

[DogOnPorch]

I've already posted links to articles quoting some Muslim women and how they feel about it. One mentions having received death threats because she's trying to change the practice, which too often means inferior accommodations for the women.

But keep defending it. Nice to know that you would accept/tolerate/defend anything, so long as it was a religious belief. You know, freedom of religion, and all.

I think "freedom of religion" means one is free to practice whatever religion they want, not that they are free to practice anything in the name of religion. But perhaps that's just me.

I agree. It also means they are not free of criticism. But Islam has made a big push to make criticism of religion...in particular THEIR religion a crime.

[Shady]

No, all it would require is that you and all the other 'you're a bigot!' crowd respond to the actual issue

Crying bigot is much easier for them than actually acknowledging any real issues. It's easier for them to try and shut down debate than examine all sides of the issue.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Shady

[Machjo]

You seem keen to ignore the fact that I've said over and over again that I don't blame all Muslims for 9-11, so I'll continue to condemn you for calling me a bigot based on something I haven't done. If you can't understand what empathy is, fine, but if that's the case, don't accuse me of blaming all Muslims for 9-11 because of your ignorance in that regard.

Once again.

I DO NOT BLAME ALL MUSLIMS FOR 9-11.

I DO NOT BLAME ALL MUSLIMS FOR 9-11.

I DO NOT BLAME ALL MUSLIMS FOR 9-11.

It don't think they should build on the site out of empathy. I expect no more of them than I expect of anyone else. I'm not asking any more of them than I ask of myself.

Now see if you can respond to what I actually said. I won't, however, hold my breath or put any money on your ability to do so.

Empathy for whom?

Family members of the victims of 9/11 have every right to convert to Islam, join that Muslim congregation and donate funds to the building of a mosque in that area to commemorate their loved ones who died on 9/11. By the way, some family members of 9/11 victims have since converted to Islam:

Some of the members of that congregation did lose members to 9/11:

And so their family members are contributing to the building of that community centre, with the cooperation and support of the local Jewish community!

Who are we who did not lose relatives on 9/11 to tell the family and friends of the victims of 9/11 what they can or cannot do?

You seem to focus exclusively on a small group of family and friends of the victims of 9/11 who likely harboured prejudices against Is;am even before 9/11, and so their objections have nothing to do with 9/11; they're just using the memory of those loved ones to their bigoted advantage. Those who did not hold such views before 9/11 certainly would not hold them after either, as they'd be able to recognize that a life is a life, Muslim or otherwise, and that those Muslims have a right to heal and move on ust like the rest. Why stand in their way?

[DogOnPorch]

Do you support the move made in the UN to make criticism of religion a crime? That might solve a few of these issues.

[Machjo]

I agree. It also means they are not free of criticism. But Islam has made a big push to make criticism of religion...in particular THEIR religion a crime.

Non-sequitur. His premise is:

1. There are extrimists who call themselves Muslim who want to ban all criticism of Islam,

2. The community that wants to build the mosque also calls itself Muslim,

3. Therefore, that community also wants to ban all criticism of Islam.

The guy in that video needs ot go back to school to learn logical reasoning skills. By the same logic:

1. I'm a man,

2. A man raped a woman the other day,

3. Therefore, I raped a woman the other day.

Thank God that guy's not a lawyer.

[Shady]

Mosque approved by NYC...meanwhile, a Greek Orthodox Chruch that was destroyed near ground zero on 911, still hasn't been given permission to rebuild 9 years later.

If only they were Muslims.

[Machjo]

Do you support the move made in the UN to make criticism of religion a crime? That might solve a few of these issues.

Quote, please?

From my understanding, it was not about making criticism of religion, but rather hate speech against religion, a crime, or something to that effect. Do I agree with it? I don't know, since I'd need to know more details as to where it draws the line. Therefore, can you link to the official document on this so that we can have an intelligent debate on it?

Based on the limited knowledge I have of it so far, if it is what I think it is, then I think I'd oppose it. But to say that:

1. Some who call themselves Muslim support this,

2. The members of that congregation in NYC are Muslim, so

3. therefore all members of that community support this...

is just plain illogical reasoning.

[Machjo]

Mosque approved by NYC...meanwhile, a Greek Orthodox Chruch that was destroyed near ground zero on 911, still hasn't been given permission to rebuild 9 years later.

If only they were Muslims.

Quote please.

[DogOnPorch]

Non-sequitur. His premise is:

1. There are extrimists who call themselves Muslim who want to ban all criticism of Islam,

2. The community that wants to build the mosque also calls itself Muslim,

3. Therefore, that community also wants to ban all criticism of Islam.

The guy in that video needs ot go back to school to learn logical reasoning skills. By the same logic:

1. I'm a man,

2. A man raped a woman the other day,

3. Therefore, I raped a woman the other day.

Thank God that guy's not a lawyer.

T'is your opinion. In my world you're allowed to have one without me going all Killy-McGee on your azz. Others seek to limit free speech least it offend the religious. Others will want your head removed.

[Guest American Woman]

Mosque approved by NYC...meanwhile, a Greek Orthodox Chruch that was destroyed near ground zero on 911, still hasn't been given permission to rebuild 9 years later.

If only they were Muslims.

From what I understand, it's not that they haven't been given permission to rebuild, but rather that they haven't had the money to rebuild.

[DogOnPorch]

Quote, please?

From my understanding, it was not about making criticism of religion, but rather hate speech against religion, a crime, or something to that effect. Do I agree with it? I don't know, since I'd need to know more details as to where it draws the line. Therefore, can you link to the official document on this so that we can have an intelligent debate on it?

Based on the limited knowledge I have of it so far, if it is what I think it is, then I think I'd oppose it. But to say that:

1. Some who call themselves Muslim support this,

2. The members of that congregation in NYC are Muslim, so

3. therefore all members of that community support this...

is just plain illogical reasoning.

If you're unaware of the UN's move to limit free speech re: religion, I'm not sure WHY you're posting here. Go look it up.

[DogOnPorch]

From what I understand, it's not that they haven't been given permission to rebuild, but rather that they haven't had the money to rebuild.

No Saudi Arabia in the wings....

[Machjo]

No Saudi Arabia in the wings....

Proof please.

[Mr.Canada]

Mosque approved by NYC...meanwhile, a Greek Orthodox Chruch that was destroyed near ground zero on 911, still hasn't been given permission to rebuild 9 years later.

If only they were Muslims.

Quote please.

It's true Machjo.

I just googled "Church destroyed ground Zero" and I got a ton of them. I'll post them here for you, well soe of them. Too many to list them all.

While a mosque is one step closer to being built in New York City blocks away from Ground Zero, a church that was destroyed in the 9/11 attacks has yet to be restored.

St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church stood in the shadow of the Twin Towers and was crushed when the South Tower collapsed.

Source

Church Destroyed at Ground Zero Is Still at Square One

Source

Reconstruction of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church near ground zero in Manhattan remains stalled nearly nine years after it was destroyed by the falling south towers. It was the only house of worship destroyed on 9/11/01.

Source

There are tons more. Just google the terms I mentioned above and you'll see for yourself. A mosque gets to sail through while a Christian Church gets the shaft.

And people here seem to think right wing Bible thumpers run the country. Yeah, ok. I don't see proof of that here on the most sacred of US soils at present.

[Guest American Woman]

Quote, please?

From my understanding, it was not about making criticism of religion, but rather hate speech against religion, a crime, or something to that effect.

No to an international blasphemy law

In Geneva, the UN's ad hoc committee is reviewing a proposal to criminalise 'insults to religion'.

One person's "criticism" is another person's "insults."

Since 1999, the UN, at the prompting of the 47- member Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), has passed a non-binding resolution asserting that speech deemed offensive to another faith is a violation of international law.

[Machjo]

It's true Machjo.

I just googled "Church destroyed ground Zero" and I got a ton of them. I'll post them here for you, well soe of them. Too many to list them all.

There are tons more. Just google the terms I mentioned above and you'll see for yourself. A mosque gets to sail through while a Christian Church gets the shaft.

And people here seem to think right wing Bible thumpers run the country. Yeah, ok. I don't see proof of that here on the most sacred of US soils at present.

Certainly unless there is some safety or other legitimate issue involved, that church should be allowed to be built.So instead of trying to curtail freedom of religion for Muslims, why not champion freedom of religion for Christians?

Would that not be a more worthy cause? Why try to bring freedom of religion down to the lowest common denominator?

[Machjo]

Instead of picketing against the Islamic centre, why don't the protesters picket for the church? Is it not better to be fore something than against something?

[Guest American Woman]

It's true Machjo.

I just googled "Church destroyed ground Zero" and I got a ton of them. I'll post them here for you, well soe of them. Too many to list them all.

Thank you for your links; the problem evidently goes beyond what I thought it was.

[Machjo]

No to an international blasphemy law

In Geneva, the UN's ad hoc committee is reviewing a proposal to criminalise 'insults to religion'.

One person's "criticism" is another person's "insults."

Since 1999, the UN, at the prompting of the 47- member Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), has passed a non-binding resolution asserting that speech deemed offensive to another faith is a violation of international law.

Interesting that the article never quotes the Resolution itself:

http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_7_19.pdf

Now, please quote (not paraphrase) the part of the Resolution you take issue with, and we could then discuss that. Now that I've read it, I think it's actually a reasonable Resolution.

Thanks for settling that one for me.

[Machjo]

Thank you for your links; the problem evidently goes beyond what I thought it was.

exactly. I'd say it's more important to push for the freedom of that church to rebuild than of the islamic centre to not build. Why would we be more interested in suppressing freedom of religion for Muslims down to that of that Christian community instead of pushing for that Christian community to have the same freedom as the Muslim one?

Which do you think is a better cause?

For all we know, the protests against the Islamic centre might themselves be to blame for the bureaucracy being so slow over the building of that church since it's too busy trying to defend the freedom of religion of the Muslim community.

[Machjo]

Now going back to the UN resolution, that's why I usually hold my tongue over anything I don't know. I won't look foolish if I say I don't know. For those who'd opposed the UN Resolution without even reading it now look quite foolish in my mind now that I've actually read the Resolution, since they're essentially saying a Resolution protecting freedom of religion is shameful.

[Guest American Woman]

Now going back to the UN resolution, that's why I usually hold my tongue over anything I don't know. I won't look foolish if I say I don't know. For those who'd opposed the UN Resolution without even reading it now look quite foolish in my mind now that I've actually read the Resolution, since they're essentially saying a Resolution protecting freedom of religion is shameful.

Ummmm, no, we're not. We're not saying that at all. We're saying a resolution making criticizing religion illegal is against freedom of speech, and could allow countries to do whatever they damn well please in the name of religion, and it would be illegal to criticize them. Some nations that voted against it believe not allowing criticism of religion is inconsistent with human rights laws, and it makes sense.

FYI, support for such a ban has dwindled in the last vote, which took place in March of this year.

Support continues to dwindle for a United Nations resolution seeking to bridle potentially offensive religious speech, despite the measure's passage for the tenth consecutive year, religious liberty advocates said.

Three fewer member nations of the UN Human Rights Council voted for the so-called "defamation of religions" resolution this year, a 13 percent drop in support from 2009. Opposition to the resolution grew 54 percent, with 17 nations voting against it compared to last year's 11.

link

[Machjo]

Ummmm, no, we're not. We're not saying that at all. We're saying a resolution making criticizing religion illegal is against freedom of speech, and could allow countries to do whatever they damn well please in the name of religion, and it would be illegal to criticize them. Some nations that voted against it believe not allowing criticism of religion is inconsistent with human rights laws, and it makes sense.

FYI, support for such a ban has dwindled in the last vote, which took place in March of this year.

Support continues to dwindle for a United Nations resolution seeking to bridle potentially offensive religious speech, despite the measure's passage for the tenth consecutive year, religious liberty advocates said.

Three fewer member nations of the UN Human Rights Council voted for the so-called "defamation of religions" resolution this year, a 13 percent drop in support from 2009. Opposition to the resolution grew 54 percent, with 17 nations voting against it compared to last year's 11.

link

Again, you failed to quote the Resolution. There is nothing in there prohibiting criticism of religion per se, which again shows you have not even looked at the Resolution and so have no clue what you're talking about. Please quote me the part of the resolution that prohibits criticizing Religion.

And no, linking to a biased site that obviously has not read it either does not count as quoting the Resolution. Get it from the horse's mouth please. The Resolution is linked in my post above.

[dre]

I think Islam sucks. What does that tell you? It's iconoclastic, combative, intolerant and provocative....all at the same time.

I have no problem with your position here at all. Unlike all the other people on your side of the argument, youre at least honest. You just flat out admit that you dont like Islam, and own up to your bigotry. The other folks argument against this church think Islam sucks too... but they wont come out and say it and instead try to wrap their bigoted views in all kinds of twisted logic and PC rhetoric.

[Guest American Woman]

I have no problem with your position here at all. Unlike all the other people on your side of the argument, youre at least honest. You just flat out admit that you dont like Islam, and own up to your bigotry. The other folks argument against this church think Islam sucks too... but they wont come out and say it and instead try to wrap their bigoted views in all kinds of twisted logic and PC rhetoric.

I'm really sorry that my position isn't what you would like it to be dre, and very sorry that I won't "own up to" something I don't feel/believe. You'll just have to live with the fact that while I think some aspects of Islam suck, just as I think some aspects of other religions suck, I don't think Islam sucks. Again, so sorry to disappoint you. I can see that it must be a huge disappointment and a great burden for you to bear.