Mosque going up in NYC building

[Shady]

Talking points memo just did a whole story

Wow. You mean the George Soros funded far left group accurately called Talking Points?

[Shady]

It really shouldn't be very difficult to understand.

1) They have every right to build their mosque/Islamic community center

2) People have every right to peacefully protest their idea.

Like it or not, Islam did play a part in the hijackings and attacks on the WTC. I for one, wouldn't be so concerned over the building of this mosque/Islamic community center if they'd specifically state that money from Saudi Arabia and Iran won't be accepted. Until they do that, it makes me think that individuals or groups from those countires could have an influence over the proposed project now, and in the future.

And I think we can all agree, that would be wrong.

[punked]

It really shouldn't be very difficult to understand.

1) They have every right to build their mosque/Islamic community center

2) People have every right to peacefully protest their idea.

Like it or not, Islam did play a part in the hijackings and attacks on the WTC. I for one, wouldn't be so concerned over the building of this mosque/Islamic community center if they'd specifically state that money from Saudi Arabia and Iran won't be accepted. Until they do that, it makes me think that individuals or groups from those countires could have an influence over the proposed project now, and in the future.

And I think we can all agree, that would be wrong.

You mean like how Bush worked with and took money from Iran and the Saudi's? Wait didn't you really like him Shady? Weird!

PS George Soros does not fund talking points memo, that is just right wing scare tactic next you will be accusing the boogy man for funding the daily beast. Remember talking points memo is the only blog to ever win a Polk award.

[Shady]

Looks like more and more New York construction companies are saying they'll refuse to work on the mosque project.

A growing number of New York construction workers are vowing not to work on the mosque planned near Ground Zero.

"It's a very touchy thing because they want to do this on sacred ground," said Dave Kaiser, 38, a blaster who is working to rebuild the World Trade Center site.

"I wouldn't work there, especially after I found out about what the imam said about U.S. policy being responsible for 9/11," Kaiser said.

The grass-roots movement is gaining momentum on the Internet. One construction worker created the "Hard Hat Pledge" on his blog and asked others to vow not to work on the project if it stays on Park Place.

"Thousands of people are signing up from all over the country," said creator Andy Sullivan, a construction worker from Brooklyn. "People who sell glass, steel, lumber, insurance. They are all refusing to do work if they build there."

NYDN

What's Bloomberg gonna do, force people to work?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Looks like more and more New York construction companies are saying they'll refuse to work on the mosque project.

What's Bloomberg gonna do, force people to work?

Because these people clearly represent every construction worker and company in the U.S. They don't even understand where the bloody thing is.

"Hopefully, this will be a tool to get them to move it," he said. "I got a problem with this ostentatious building looming over Ground Zero."

How do you loom over something from behind buildings?

Edited August 21, 2010 by TrueMetis

[dre]

It really shouldn't be very difficult to understand.

1) They have every right to build their mosque/Islamic community center

2) People have every right to peacefully protest their idea.

Like it or not, Islam did play a part in the hijackings and attacks on the WTC. I for one, wouldn't be so concerned over the building of this mosque/Islamic community center if they'd specifically state that money from Saudi Arabia and Iran won't be accepted. Until they do that, it makes me think that individuals or groups from those countires could have an influence over the proposed project now, and in the future.

And I think we can all agree, that would be wrong.

Why is it wrong? The Saudis export a lot of oil to the US so theyre sitting on an assload of US dollars. They have been using that money to build mosques in the United States for many years, and invest in all kinds of other projects as well.

Why is it wrong for a close US ally to invest money in the US all of a sudden?

[DogOnPorch]

Why is it wrong? The Saudis export a lot of oil to the US so theyre sitting on an assload of US dollars. They have been using that money to build mosques in the United States for many years, and invest in all kinds of other projects as well.

Why is it wrong for a close US ally to invest money in the US all of a sudden?

Big fan of Wahhabism, are we? Well they'll certainly put those kimmys and American Women out there in their place for you.

[Guest American Woman]

Big fan of Wahhabism, are we? Well they'll certainly put those kimmys and American Women out there in their place for you.

Exactly. I should be supporting this? Women already fought for equal rights in my country. I don't care to have a fanatical bunch of religious freaks set me back further than where we started from.

I love how easily so many of the men on this forum dismiss, and actually defend, the treatment of women in the name of Islam.

As I've pointed out several times, freedom of religion doesn't mean the freedom to do whatever religious people like. If something is against the law, such as inequality forced on women, it's against the law; and forcing it under the guise of "freedom of religion" could in effect wipe out/supersede all of our laws according to that PC mentality. No one would condone a Muslim marrying a ten year old in Canada/the States under the "freedom of religion" clause "because it's against the law," so it boggles the mind how they can defend inequality of women.

[msj]

Big fan of Wahhabism, are we?

Americans must be.

After all, it's their mass consumption of oil that gives the Saudi's the US dollars to then pay for the mosques in the US.

Oh, and for B_C2004: yes, yes, Canadians too. Don't want to hurt anyone's feelings by being exclusive now, do "we?"

[Guest American Woman]

Americans must be.

After all, it's their mass consumption of oil that gives the Saudi's the US dollars to then pay for the mosques in the US.

So I can only assume that by Canada's increased trade with China, Canadians are a big fan of communism/oppression.

What a ludicrous notion; that by engaging in trade with a country, buying their products, it's synonymous with "investing" in their nation and whatever goes on in their nation.

Likewise Canadians must be HUGE fans of the United States, and the war in Iraq, for example, given the fact that we're your biggest trade partner.

[msj]

Exactly. I should be supporting this? Women already fought for equal rights in my country. I don't care to have a fanatical bunch of religious freaks set me back further than where we started from.

I love how easily so many of the men on this forum dismiss, and actually defend, the treatment of women in the name of Islam.

As I've pointed out several times, freedom of religion doesn't mean the freedom to do whatever religious people like. If something is against the law, such as inequality forced on women, it's against the law; and forcing it under the guise of "freedom of religion" could in effect wipe out/supersede all of our laws according to that PC mentality. No one would condone a Muslim marrying a ten year old in Canada/the States under the "freedom of religion" clause "because it's against the law," so it boggles the mind how they can defend inequality of women.

So when are you going to ask for female Catholic priests?

When are you going to come to Bountiful, BC, Canada or parts of the US where polygamy is being practiced?

Really, do the points you raise above stop one from wanting to build a mosque two blocks from the former WTC's or to stop building all mosques, period?

If you are willing to allow the building of mosques in Nowhere, USA despite your complaints above then obviously the points you are making above are irrelevant to the discussion about the location of this mosque.

[msj]

So I can only assume that by Canada's increased trade with China, Canadians are a big fan of communism/oppression.

What a ludicrous notion; that by engaging in trade with a country, buying their products, it's synonymous with "investing" in their nation and whatever goes on in their nation.

Likewise Canadians must be HUGE fans of the United States, and the war in Iraq, for example, given the fact that we're your biggest trade partner.

One cannot and should not ignore the fact that their money is being used to fuel certain activities.

I have no problem supporting the USA, despite their stupidity over Iraq.

Much better to give Americans money (through trade) than Saudi's or the Chinese who use that money for some very terrible things - and yes, I think the Saudis and Chinese do far worse things than the US could do, even under an idiot president like W. Bush.

At the same time, much better for Americans to trade with Canadians because we will just turn around and buy from them again rather than support terrorists or send weapons to the Taliban.

But we are getting off topic....

[Guest American Woman]

So when are you going to ask for female Catholic priests?

I'm all for female Catholic priests. I'm all for equality in the Catholic church. I've said several times now that I think several aspects of Catholicism pretty much suck, too. In fact, I've said it several times now.

When are you going to come to Bountiful, BC, Canada or parts of the US where polygamy is being practiced?

Why would I have to go there to object to it?

Really, do the points you raise above stop one from wanting to build a mosque two blocks from the former WTC's or to stop building all mosques, period?

If you are willing to allow the building of mosques in Nowhere, USA despite your complaints above then obviously the points you are making above are irrelevant to the discussion about the location of this mosque.

The project leaders have made a show of saying the purpose of this Mosque is to reach out to non-Muslims. To build bridges. To be moderate. And it hardly sounds as if they are holding up their end of the bargain. So to "use" this property politically that way and then not come through with their claims definitely does make it all an issue in regards to the location of this mosque.

But how dare I "complain" about inequality of women, eh? I should just roll over and accept it. Be ok with women being treated like second class citizens.

Edited August 21, 2010 by American Woman

[jbg]

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?app=core&module=search&section=search&do=quick_search&search_app=core&fromsearch=1

crap it did not work

I did a search on Dogs Islam Sucks ... it said it limited the search to the first 200.

Yes. That will pick up any post with any of the three words. Not necessarily all of them.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes. That will pick up any post with any of the three words. Not necessarily all of them.

Exactly. This search gets the same results:

Your results for the term gosthacked islam sucks limited to the first 200

[msj]

The project leaders have made a show of saying the purpose of this Mosque is to reach out to non-Muslims. To build bridges. To be moderate. And it hardly sounds as if they are holding up their end of the bargain. So to "use" this property politically that way and then not come through with their claims definitely does make it all an issue in regards to the location of this mosque.

If they can build a mosque in Nowhere, USA without any issues then they should be able to build it in NYC without any issues.

Your complaints about them being Muslim and the terrorists on 9/11 being Muslim and therefore this mosque shouldn't be built two blocks from the former WTC still makes no logical sense.

To then switch it from, okay, maybe the builders of this one mosque aren't terrorist Muslims but they are sexist Muslims so this one mosque shouldn't be built also makes no logical sense.

If you want equality then apply the exception not based on the location of this mosque in NYC - apply equality to all churches and mosques and synagogues and close most of them down on those grounds.

But, of course, we won't do that either because we still have some respect (even this atheist) for religious freedom (no matter how stupid or foolish I think religious superstition really is, I'm still stupid enough to believe that people have a right to be stupid).

ONCE AGAIN - IF YOU WOULD ALLOW THIS MOSQUE TO BE BUILT IN NOWHERE, USA THEN YOU CANNOT USE THE SEXISM CARD ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THIS MOSQUE IN NYC.

And my apologies for yelling but sometimes it really is necessary.

But how dare I "complain" about inequality of women, eh? I should just roll over and accept it. Be ok with women being treated like second class citizens.

Where have I stated "how dare you complain about inequality of women?"

Seriously, you have a serious deficiency in discussion techniques.

Oh, right, I forgot, it's all about you and how you feel. Sorry, forgot I'm not allowed an opinion if I disagree with you and then you will accuse me of all types of things regardless of the lack of evidence.

And for the record - I support equal rights for women but I recognize the difficulty we have in getting full rights for women (Catholic priests as an example) when those rights clash with religious freedom.

That's also why we have laws forbidding the marriage between people based on certain ages and other laws that are applied to, hopefully, protect people from the stupider parts of religious irrationality.

Why I have to state this says more about others arguing methods than my own.

Edited August 21, 2010 by msj

[jbg]

If they can build a mosque in Nowhere, USA without any issues then they should be able to build it in NYC without any issues.

I agree that they can build it almost anywhere. My point goes unanswered though that religion is supposed to promote peace and good will. Their choice of the site shows a total lack of discretion and sensitivity.

There are many things people can do but shouldn't do. Maybe trying to cross the 401 on foot in moving traffic fits that description.

[msj]

I agree that they can build it almost anywhere. My point goes unanswered though that religion is supposed to promote peace and good will. Their choice of the site shows a total lack of discretion and sensitivity.

There are many things people can do but shouldn't do. Maybe trying to cross the 401 on foot in moving traffic fits that description.

Why do you think I use the word "should" so much?

Why do you think this word is being used rather than "can't"...?

Of course it comes down to "should."

Then it comes down to "should" someone's irrational (imho) sensitivities be given precedence over someone else's right to exert their private property and religious freedom values.

Which brings me back to Paul Krugman's response to the ADL.

This thread comes full circle. Again. And Again....

[Guest American Woman]

Seriously, you have a serious deficiency in discussion techniques.

Ummm. Yeah. I'm the one with the problem. Seems to me you're the one who has a serious deficiency in discussion techniques because I was clearly objecting to the inequality of women that too often occurs within Islam/mosques and you referred to that legitimate objection as "complaining about." So I apologize for yelling, but sometimes it really is necessary, BECAUSE I WAS JUST RESPONDING TO YOUR MINIMIZING/DOWNPLAYING A LEGITIMATE OBJECTION AS "COMPLAINING."

Furthermore, I ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY THIS IS AN ISSUE IN REGARDS TO THIS MOSQUE IN LIGHT OF THE DEVELOPERS' POLITICIZING IT AS THEY HAVEN'T POLITICIZED MOSQUES BUILT IN NOWHERE USA. It's an issue BECAUSE THEY MADE IT AN ISSUE.

Have a great day.

Edited August 21, 2010 by American Woman

[msj]

Ummm. Yeah. I'm the one with the problem. Seems to me you're the one who has a serious deficiency in discussion techniques because I was clearly objecting to the inequality of women that too often occurs within Islam/mosques and you referred to that legitimate objection as "complaining about." So I apologize for yelling, but sometimes it really is necessary, BECAUSE I WAS JUST RESPONDING TO YOUR MINIMIZING/DOWNPLAYING A LEGITIMATE OBJECTION AS "COMPLAINING."

Furthermore, I ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF WOMEN IS AN ISSUE IN REGARDS TO THIS MOSQUE IN LIGHT OF THE DEVELOPERS' POLITICIZING IT AS THEY HAVEN'T POLITICIZED MOSQUES BUILT IN NOWHERE USA. It's an issue BECAUSE THEY MADE IT AN ISSUE.

I'm dealing with the issue at hand which is the building of one mosque in NYC.

Playing the "muslims are terrorists and should respect our sensitivities" card or the "muslims are sexist" card does not fly when you would not apply those cards to a mosque being built in Nowhere, USA.

Just because "they" brought it up to appear "moderate" does not give it any more relevance or weight to the argument in this thread.

Yes, we can complain about the sexism of Islam and other religions all we want - but we should do so in another thread.

Have a great day.

Why would you say something like this when it's clear that you don't mean it?

Seriously, are you this... cranky?

Anyway, I always have a great day because I'm a man and I'm on a horse!

[msj]

For the record:

My use of the word "complaint" in my post above (#1561) where I wrote:

If you are willing to allow the building of mosques in Nowhere, USA despite your complaints above then obviously the points you are making above are irrelevant to the discussion about the location of this mosque.

was not intended to mean "complaint" as in complaining.

Instead of "complaints" I would change the word to "points" to reduce any unneeded baggage and make it more neutral so that we can stay on topic rather than lose focus by accusing me of being, shock, a man.

[Shady]

After all, it's their mass consumption of oil that gives the Saudi's the US dollars to then pay for the mosques in the US.

The Saudi's sell oil to everyone around the world. Not just America. And America actually buys a lot more oil from Canada and Mexico than it does from Saudi Arabia. Get your facts straight.

[DogOnPorch]

5 pts.

5 pts.

[msj]

The Saudi's sell oil to everyone around the world. Not just America. And America actually buys a lot more oil from Canada and Mexico than it does from Saudi Arabia. Get your facts straight.

I never stated otherwise.

The fact is, though, US consumption, being #1 in absolute terms, fuels the price of oil in the world markets. That higher price gives the Saudis more money.

Supply, demand and all that.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Saudi's sell oil to everyone around the world. Not just America. And America actually buys a lot more oil from Canada and Mexico than it does from Saudi Arabia. Get your facts straight.

Agreed....Canada is a net exporter of oil, but still imports over 1,000,000 bpd from the global market, mostly Norway right now.