Mosque going up in NYC building

[Machjo]

I certainly do agree with his wife's freedom to choose such a lifestyle. The key word there, however, is CHOOSE. Islamic women have no choice. You do understand that, don't you? And no, leaving their faith is not having a choice. In order for a choice to exist, it has to exist within Islam. And as I've pointed out over and over, and linked to examples, many Islamic women don't like the segregation. They are fighting against it. Some have received death threats as a result. Some choice, eh?

Oh come on. If I choose to adopt the Catholic Faith, I also accept that women do not have the freedom to become priests, though they do have the freedom to leave the Catholic Faith.

The same applies to homosexual marriage in the Anglican communion. At one point, there was a fierce debate within the Anglican church over gay marriage within its community. From what I understand, they did not accept it. And so while a homosexual certainly has the choice of participating in the Anglican communion or engaging in homosexual activities openly, he cannot have both. So will you now say he has no freedom?

Freedom of religion means accepting it as a package or rejecting it as a package. It's not something you can just rewrite. Now to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the Qur'an that says men and women must be segregated during prayer and so must take it as a cultural issue. Any Muslim who does not like this practice is free to leave his congregation and join or found a new one, just as any homosexual is free to leave the Anglican communion and join a congregation that does accept homosexual marriage. This does not give him a right to rewrite the rules of his community though.

[Smallc]

I certainly do agree with his wife's freedom to choose such a lifestyle. The key word there, however, is CHOOSE. Islamic women have no choice. You do understand that, don't you? And no, leaving their faith is not having a choice.

They do in fact have a choice. They do not have to belong to that particular sect of the religion...or that religion at all. That is the key with freedom of religion. We are free to be (or not to be) part of any religion. As long as that religion isn't breaking the law, it's free to set its own terms. We don't get to dictate. People can work to change things, but that may or may not happen. Muslims after all, aren't the only religion where women are not treated equal. It has already been pointed out that my own (stupid) religion doesn't allow females to be priests. There are other religions (many) where women are treated differently. Quite frankly, you're being completely irrational on this entire issue.

[Guest American Woman]

They do in fact have a choice. They do not have to belong to that particular sect of the religion...or that religion at all.

No, of course they don't have to belong to the religion that they believe in. They do have a choice. How intolerant of me not to recognize that.

[Machjo]

No, of course they don't have to belong to the religion that they believe in. They do have a choice. How intolerant of me not to recognize that.

So, would the same apply to a homosexual Christian?

[Sir Bandelot]

Islam is antiquated, conservative and harsh. Most people would easily agree with that. I don't get how it equates to the debate on whether the mosque should be built at that site, or not. If we say Islam has no place in western society, then it should be banned, everywhere.

Personally I now think they should drop their intention to build the mosque there. It's become too contentious an issue for them to safely build it on that spot. No point in fighting over what's essentially a non-issue in regards to the proposed mission of such a center. If they really want to build bridges of understanding between muslims and non-muslims, they can do that elsewhere as well. Just build the mosque a block or two further away.

[msj]

This is sooo telling. We have a different point of view from what you think; that no more makes it "faulty" than your point of view is "faulty" because it's different from ours.

There are times that people disagree over issues for very sound, rational reasons. Simply a different point of view.

There are times where people disagree over very unsound, irrational reasons. Yes, a different point of view but a flawed point of view, too.

In this instance, I have no problem stating that your "faulty logic" is faulty logic because it is based on a prejudice.

You can deny it all you want but take another look at some of your many posts in this thread and it is clearly laid out. Just open your own eyes.

The ignorance in this thread is astounding:

I don't really think what I have clearly stated I believe because others who oppose my point of view have declared that I don't. Some even go so far as to criticize me for not "admitting" what I don't think/believe.

Apparently Muslims who oppose the Mosque being built on that property don't really think what they say they do, either. They are either saying what they are because they feel threatened, or because they've been cowed into their opinion by the likes of non-Muslims who don't think they should build there.

These are possible reasons for why some Muslims may not want it built. Other Muslims may take on the same faulty logic that I and others have disagreed with above and for which I and others have more than presented our arguments against above.

Perhaps if you spent more time trying to present a coherent argument and less time trying to summarize what you think we think then maybe we could get somewhere.

And of course even though it's been made clear that people don't feel the mosque should be built there the reasons they stated, they obviously agree with everyone who doesn't think the Mosque should be built there, regardless of their reasons. Even though they've clearly stated they don't agree with said people.

And let's not forget that we think they should not be allowed to build there, even though we've clearly stated we agree with their right to build there.

Ok, fair enough. They can build it but you don't think they should be allowed to.

And we are clearly discussing the logic behind whether or not they should be allowed to.

Last time I was in philosophy 101 that was the point of many discussions: should or ought this be like this etc... was what everyone argued over.

Example: Should Muslims not only have the right to build a mosque in the shadow of 9/11 but should they actually do it?

That seems to be the fundamental question of this thread. Thanks for reminding us.

And even though the project leaders say it's going to be a mosque for moderate Muslims, when the fact that women will be segregated from the men in this mosque is brought up, it's dismissed as having nothing to do with the issue; or best of all, it's been suggested that women, who believe in Islam, could simply choose not to be Muslim if they don't like the segregation.

Would this come up if the mosque is built in Nowhere, USA?

What is so special about this site that makes one think that these questions should come up here when they are not asked elsewhere?

Oh, I know, its 9/11 ground zero and the shadows and all that, but I'm asking for a legitimate reason.

Either always ask this question for all religions building a temple or allow for freedom of religion (and hopefully from religion!) like we already do.

And last of all, let's not forget that anyone who questions even ONE action by Muslims is a BIGOT. Oh, and anyone who thinks Muslims should be empathetic regarding this ONE mosque blames ALL Muslims for 9-11, even if they don't. They do. It's been declared. Therefore it is.

x infinity

No, you and others have been shown to have bigoted reasoning for the reasons that have already been given by smallc, dre, myself and others.

Your infinite sarcasm doesn't change the facts and won't persuade anyone.

Edited August 8, 2010 by msj

[DogOnPorch]

There are times that people disagree over issues for very sound, rational reasons. Simply a different point of view.

There are times where people disagree over very unsound, irrational reasons. Yes, a different point of view but a flawed point of view, too.

In this instance, I have no problem stating that your "faulty logic" is faulty logic because it is based on a prejudice.

You can deny it all you want but take another look at some of your many posts in this thread and it is clearly laid out. Just open your own eyes.

These are possible reasons for why some Muslims may not want it built. Other Muslims may take on the same faulty logic that I and others have disagreed with above and for which I and others have more than presented our arguments against above.

Perhaps if you spent more time trying to present a coherent argument and less time trying to summarize what you think we think then maybe we could get somewhere.

Ok, fair enough. They can build it but you don't think they should be allowed to.

And we are clearly discussing the logic behind whether or not they should be allowed to.

Last time I was in philosophy 101 that was the point of many discussions: should or ought this be like this etc... was what everyone argued over.

Example: Should Muslims not only have the right to build a mosque in the shadow of 9/11 but should they actually do it?

That seems to be the fundamental question of this thread. Thanks for reminding us.

Would this come up if the mosque is built in Nowhere, USA?

What is so special about this site that makes one think that these questions should come up here when they are not asked elsewhere?

Oh, I know, its 9/11 ground zero and the shadows and all that, but I'm asking for a legitimate reason.

Either always ask this question for all religions building a temple or allow for freedom of religion (and hopefully from religion!) like we already do.

No, you and others have been shown to have bigoted reasoning for the reasons that have already been given by smallc, dre, myself and others.

Your infinite sarcasm doesn't change the facts and won't persuade anyone.

Freedom of religion includes my freedom to say you god-types are frickin' nutz.

Here's a pic of M33...one of our Local Group. I wonder how many eyes are looking back?

[Bonam]

Islam is antiquated, conservative and harsh. Most people would easily agree with that. I don't get how it equates to the debate on whether the mosque should be built at that site, or not. If we say Islam has no place in western society, then it should be banned, everywhere.

Personally I now think they should drop their intention to build the mosque there. It's become too contentious an issue for them to safely build it on that spot. No point in fighting over what's essentially a non-issue in regards to the proposed mission of such a center. If they really want to build bridges of understanding between muslims and non-muslims, they can do that elsewhere as well. Just build the mosque a block or two further away.

Indeed, glad some of you guys are starting to understand the issue.

So, msj, is your friend Sir Bandelot also a "bigot" for posting the above?

[Bonam]

Freedom of religion includes my freedom to say you god-types are frickin' nutz.

Definitely. Just watch out for those UN resolutions.

[Wilber]

I think that the fact this issue is causing so much controversy and bad feeling is a pretty good indicator that it is a bad idea. Those who are promoting it are at the least, exercising poor judgment. It won't heal anything, quite the contrary.

[DogOnPorch]

Definitely. Just watch out for those UN resolutions.

I'm sure they have a few in the wings just for the DOPs in the world.

Stone him!!!

[Guest American Woman]

I think that the fact this issue is causing so much controversy and bad feeling is a pretty good indicator that it is a bad idea. Those who are promoting it are at the least, exercising poor judgment. It won't heal anything, quite the contrary.

Exactly. That's my viewpoint and the viewpoint of Muslims who don't agree with building the mosque/Islamic center there. And but for 9-11, they wouldn't be building it there.

[Shady]

Personally I now think they should drop their intention to build the mosque there. It's become too contentious an issue for them to safely build it on that spot. No point in fighting over what's essentially a non-issue in regards to the proposed mission of such a center. If they really want to build bridges of understanding between muslims and non-muslims, they can do that elsewhere as well. Just build the mosque a block or two further away.

Well said. I think that's why many moderate Muslims have come to the same conclusion.

[Smallc]

And but for 9-11, they wouldn't be building it there.

Which is completely irrelevant.

[DogOnPorch]

Which is completely irrelevant.

How so?

[Smallc]

How so?

Because these particular muslims had nothing to do with 9/11.

[Guest American Woman]

There are times that people disagree over issues for very sound, rational reasons. Simply a different point of view.

There are times where people disagree over very unsound, irrational reasons. Yes, a different point of view but a flawed point of view, too.

And of course you get to decide that.

In this instance, I have no problem stating that your "faulty logic" is faulty logic because it is based on a prejudice.

Ummmm. No, it's not. It's based on an event.

You can deny it all you want but take another look at some of your many posts in this thread and it is clearly laid out. Just open your own eyes.

It doesn't get any more moronic than this. Deny that YOU think I think/believe? Vs. what I actually DO think/believe? Yeah, I think I'll keep denying it.

These are possible reasons for why some Muslims may not want it built. Other Muslims may take on the same faulty logic that I and others have disagreed with above and for which I and others have more than presented our arguments against above.

The reasons Muslims don't want it built are the reasons they SAY they don't agree with it being built there. Talk about opening your eyes. Open your frickin' ears and listen to what people actually say. And then realize that they think/believe what THEY say they think/believe, not what YOU say they think/believe.

Perhaps if you spent more time trying to present a coherent argument and less time trying to summarize what you think we think then maybe we could get somewhere.

My argument is coherent for anyone with the ability to comprehend a viewpoint different from their own.

Ok, fair enough. They can build it but you don't think they should be allowed to.

Is there something seriously wrong with you?? I think they should be ALLOWED to build it; I think they should choose not to. Are you not able to comprehend at the Dick and Jane level? Because I can't make it more clear than that.

And we are clearly discussing the logic behind whether or not they should be allowed to.

No. For the bajillionith time. We are NOT discussing whether or not they should be allowed to. Read that over as many times as you need to for it to sink in.

Last time I was in philosophy 101 that was the point of many discussions: should or ought this be like this etc... was what everyone argued over.

Perhaps that's your problem. You've never gotten past the "101" level of thought.

Example: Should Muslims not only have the right to build a mosque in the shadow of 9/11 but should they actually do it?

One. More. Time. It's not "the shadow of 9-11," it's property that's only available because it was destroyed on 9-11. Again, read that as many times as it takes to sink in.

Would this come up if the mosque is built in Nowhere, USA?

No, it would not. It wouldn't come up if it were built anywhere else in NYC, either. Is it starting to sink in yet?

What is so special about this site that makes one think that these questions should come up here when they are not asked elsewhere?

My God. Have you been paying attention at all, or are you seriously this mentally deficient??

It's coming up because the property they are building on was damaged by other Muslims on 9-11. But for the actions of 9-11, they would have to build elsewhere.

Oh, I know, its 9/11 ground zero and the shadows and all that, but I'm asking for a legitimate reason.

No, it's not "ground zero and all that," it's exactly what I said it is. But of course you are totally ignoring what's said. Over and over again.

Either always ask this question for all religions building a temple or allow for freedom of religion (and hopefully from religion!) like we already do.

As I already stated, I most definitely will. Next time a bunch of extremists from another religion are responsible for death and destruction and the said religion wants to build in the destruction, I'll be sure to question it. I'm saying that for about the fiftyith time, so did it sink in this time? One can only hope.

No, you and others have been shown to have bigoted reasoning for the reasons that have already been given by smallc, dre, myself and others.

Oh, well, there you go. You and smallc and dre agree. So you must be right. What WAS I thinking?

Your infinite sarcasm doesn't change the facts and won't persuade anyone.

No, it doesn't change the fact that you and smallc and dre and others can't accept or comprehend or respond to what people actually say/think.

But of course you all are the tolerant/intelligent/correct ones. We all believe what YOU say we do. Not what we actually believe. Question one thing Muslims do and the writing is on the wall. We are Bigots. With a capital B. And you all are all so tolerant.

Edited August 8, 2010 by American Woman

[Machjo]

Because these particular muslims had nothing to do with 9/11.

Actually, they did. That congregation had lost members to 9/11, and at least one recent convert was a family member of a 9/11 victim too. So if anything, this congregation is intimately associated with 9/11.

[DogOnPorch]

Because these particular muslims had nothing to do with 9/11.

But the building sure as heck did. One of the doomed airliner's landing gear went through the roof if I'm not mistaken. That seems like it would be pretty relevant indeed. Especially to New Yorkers. I'd also take a peek at a NYC map if I were you and judge for yourself. Both Warren St and Park Place are pretty darn close to the WTC site.

Lower Manhattan

[Machjo]

Which is completely irrelevant.

Agreed. Seeing that that congregation itself lost members to 9/11, why should it have less of a right to buy that building than some impersonal international investment company?

[Smallc]

But the building sure as heck did.

And? The city didn't grant it heritage status. That's just the way it is, unless people can get them to change their mind. I know this isn't really about a building.

One of the doomed airliner's landing gear went through the roof if I'm not mistaken. That seems like it would be pretty relevant indeed. Especially to New Yorkers. I'd also take a peek at a NYC map if I were you and judge for yourself. Both Warren St and Park Place are pretty darn close to the WTC site.

It doesn't matter how close it is. What does that have to do with it? Where would it have to be to be far enough away?

[Guest American Woman]

Agreed. Seeing that that congregation itself lost members to 9/11, why should it have less of a right to buy that building than some impersonal international investment company?

THEY HAVE THE RIGHT.

Has that sunk in yet??

[Guest TrueMetis]

How come no one cares about the Muslims prayers going on at the Pentagon? Last time I checked it was hit on 9/11 to.

My link

Navy imam Chaplain Abuhena M. Saifulislam lifted his voice to God as he called to prayer more than 100 Department of Defense employees Monday at a celebration of Ramadan at the Pentagon.

Cmdr. Saifulislam said he has presided over funerals of young Muslim service members who have given their lives in the fight against terrorism.

"I think there is a misconception at times," said Cmdr. Saifulislam. "I have attended many funerals of American Muslims who have died in Iraq. If you take the time to get to know somebody, your attitude toward them changes."

Come on, where's the outrage? Where's the "empathy"?

[Machjo]

But the building sure as heck did. One of the doomed airliner's landing gear went through the roof if I'm not mistaken. That seems like it would be pretty relevant indeed. Especially to New Yorkers. I'd also take a peek at a NYC map if I were you and judge for yourself. Both Warren St and Park Place are pretty darn close to the WTC site.

Lower Manhattan

Now if the city should decide to make it into a heritage building and say no one is to build there, or according to certain specifications, then I'd say sure. But if you say that particular congregation should not be allowed to buy that property but others could, then you'd have to explain why, especially when you consider that congregation lost family and friends to 9/11 too. So certainly they ought to get priority over some impersonal investment company.

[Guest American Woman]

So, would the same apply to a homosexual Christian?

Not to my way of thinking, but to yours it does. Gays simply don't have to get married in the church. They simply have to choose not to be Christians. End of problem. Eh?