Burn a Qu'ran Day.

[Shady]

I was under the impression they were moderates.

Is that what you've been told?

What's moderate about insisting America become Sharia compliant? What's moderate about not recognizing Hamas as a terrorist organization? What's moderate about accepting funding from Saudi Arabia and Iran.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Is that what you've been told?

What's moderate about insisting America become Sharia compliant?

Which Muslims having this Mosque built said that?

What's moderate about not recognizing Hamas as a terrorist organization?

A lot of people don't recognize them as a terrorist organization, left and right, moderate or no. I recall someone saying something along the lines of if this type of thing make the Imam of this mosque radical that make Huffington post radical as well.

What's moderate about accepting funding from Saudi Arabia and Iran.

And you end it with something for which you have no proof of. Do you ever wonder why you're constantly getting smacked down by other posters Shady?

[dre]

You're late to the topic, and I don't expect you to have read through hundreds of posts in the original thread about this mosque, but I've made it clear that it's not about attempting to stop it. It's about their choosing not to build it on that property out of empathy for those who lost family member/loved ones, for those who grieve over 9-11, for those whose lives were changed forever. It's about the fact that but for the actions of 9-11, the property wouldn't even have been available. It's about empathy, understanding, and sensitivity to others; about these feelings being a two-way street.

Yes, they have the right to build there. Most people who oppose the Mosque respect that right. It's not about the right, but rather about doing the right thing.

And, as I've pointed out, there are Muslims who feel this way, too. They too are angry over the idea of building a Mosque on that property.

No one is denying them this mosque; they just want it built on different property, not in the ruins of 9-11, where a memorial to thousands killed by other Muslims stands at the site of the WTC.

It's about their choosing not to build it on that property out of empathy

[BubberMiley]

Is that what you've been told?

Golly. I didn't realize. I don't suppose you can provide citations that aren't just tenuous, Glenn Beck style guilt by vague association?

It's not that I don't believe you. I only ask because you're a compulsive liar.

[Guest American Woman]

Exactly. I can't get any more worked up about this than I have about Muslims burning bibles in the past. And I don't recall any threads about that.

Quite likely that some moderate muslims would have disagreed with burning a bible, just as some here disagree with burning a koran. But that won't stop anybody from doing it, so any those of you who get your jollies, go ahead. You're free to do so, and moderate people are free to frown upon you for it.

I can only assume that you're not including me in "those of you who get their jollies," even though you posted, and responded to, my quote.

Edited August 21, 2010 by American Woman

[DogOnPorch]

.

Edited August 21, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[nicky10013]

It doesn't presuppose that at all. It just respects that fact that thousands of people did die at the hands of Muslims that day. That's undeniable. Just because it wasn't "all" Muslims doesn't mean that people aren't sensitive to the fact that it was Muslims. We remember the clips of some Muslims dancing in the streets on 9-11, so it's not a stretch to imagine some Muslims seeing this as another victory, and helping to finance it.

You're presupposing it right now by stating that it was muslims that did it. What's next, banning muslims altogether from going to the actual site? They were also all men, I don't think there'd be any outcry over a YMCA. Muslims didn't do this. The people responsible for this are merely using Islam as a vehicle towards greater political power. Furthermore, which Muslims were dancing in the street? Last I remember, there were videos of candle light vigils all over the world. Even Tehran.

Muslims are angry that the attacks happened. As I already pointed out, I've quoted other Muslims in regards to their feelings about this mosque; Muslims who feel exactly the way I and many others do.

Muslims can honor the people who died there without a mosque on that property; that isn't any more necessary for them to honor the people who died there than a church or synagogue or temple is necessary for people of those faiths to honor the dead.

No it isn't necessary to have a mosque honouring. In the same vane then, why does it seem necessary for the exact opposite if these people had absolutely nothing to do with anything? It's ugly stereotyping.

Again, not letting them have this site isn't really part of this issue as most people totally respect their right.

Which is why we're having this discussion in a thread about burning Qurans.

And if you ask me, and the majority of New Yorkers and Americans, including many Muslims, not moving the project to another site will do the opposite of the stated intention of the people in charge of this project. It's already evident that it's creating hard feelings; that it's upsetting too many people. Rather than improving relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, it seems to be pushing those relations further back. It's doing the opposite of the stated intention, and I think that alone would be reason enough for those in charge of the project to want to build it elsewhere -- if building bridges really is their intention. That one act on the part of Muslims would do more to build good will than any other that I can think of post 9-11.

So it's not a matter of denying them the mosque; it's a matter of believing they should choose to build elsewhere. That they should be empathetic and sensitive to those whose lives were changed forever on 9-11.

No one can blame Muslims for this. This is all on the non-muslim American public. I'm sorry, but they didn't do anything wrong. The US relationship with Islam was never strong and became downright bad after 9/11. If you can remember people dancing on the street after 9/11, I can remember videos of stupid red necks yelling at people to go home if they hate America so much. I have many Muslim friends, many of whom absolutely refuse to travel through the US due to the awful treatment they recieve at airports and border crossings. Now the muslims making things even worse because all they want to do is prey? Forgive me if I think the notion is disgusting.

[DogOnPorch]

No one can blame Muslims for this. This is all on the non-muslim American public. I'm sorry, but they didn't do anything wrong. The US relationship with Islam was never strong and became downright bad after 9/11. If you can remember people dancing on the street after 9/11, I can remember videos of stupid red necks yelling at people to go home if they hate America so much. I have many Muslim friends, many of whom absolutely refuse to travel through the US due to the awful treatment they recieve at airports and border crossings. Now the muslims making things even worse because all they want to do is prey? Forgive me if I think the notion is disgusting.

Fruedian slip?

[DogOnPorch]

[bush_cheney2004]

...No one can blame Muslims for this. This is all on the non-muslim American public.

Wrong...see "Muslim groups" in Canada.

I'm sorry, but they didn't do anything wrong. The US relationship with Islam was never strong and became downright bad after 9/11. If you can remember people dancing on the street after 9/11, I can remember videos of stupid red necks yelling at people to go home if they hate America so much.

"Red necks" say this to anyone with like minded hate for America, not just Muslims. They say it to Canadians too.

I have many Muslim friends, many of whom absolutely refuse to travel through the US due to the awful treatment they recieve at airports and border crossings. Now the muslims making things even worse because all they want to do is prey? Forgive me if I think the notion is disgusting.

The US has far more than just "Muslim friends".

[DogOnPorch]

TM: A lot of people don't recognize them (Hamas) as a terrorist organization, left and right, moderate or no.

Like...Iran?

[nicky10013]

Wrong...see "Muslim groups" in Canada.

O-k.

"Red necks" say this to anyone with like minded hate for America, not just Muslims. They say it to Canadians too.

Ah, so someone just walking down the street obviously hates America.

The US has far more than just "Muslim friends".

Meaning?

[Guest American Woman]

You're presupposing it right now by stating that it was muslims that did it.

Muslims did do it. They weren't Christians. They weren't Buddhists. They weren't Jews. They weren't atheists. They weren't agnostics. They were Muslims.

So I'm not "presupposing" anything. That Muslims did it is a fact.

What's next, banning muslims altogether from going to the actual site?

By all means, let's address this issue by diverting to fictional absurdities. Sorry, but I'm not going there.

They were also all men, I don't think there'd be any outcry over a YMCA.

Yes, they were all men, but they weren't acting on the brotherhood of man; out of some Men's Club ideals. They were acting in the name of Allah. They were acting on a jihad in the name of Islam.

Muslims didn't do this.

Yes, they did. That's an inarguable fact.

The people responsible for this are merely using Islam as a vehicle towards greater political power.

The people responsible for this were Muslims. Again. That's an inarguable fact.

Furthermore, which Muslims were dancing in the street? Last I remember, there were videos of candle light vigils all over the world. Even Tehran.

Edited August 21, 2010 by American Woman

[DogOnPorch]

Many Islamic nations came forward on 9-11 with support for the USA no matter the reaction on the street. I always viewed this as a : "It wasn't us" tactic. America's various foes going: "Bomb those other guys"...because everyone knew some bombs were going to fall somewhere.

[bush_cheney2004]

Meaning?

Meaning that Muslims and Islam are more integrated into US society than anything compared to "your friends" or Canada....for history, domestic factions (e.g. Nation of Islam), number of Muslims, number of mosques, and aid/alliance with muslim nations.

Americans can burn flags, bibles....and the Qu'ran.

[nicky10013]

Muslims did do it. They weren't Christians. They weren't Buddhists. They weren't Jews. They weren't atheists. They weren't agnostics. They were Muslims.

So I'm not "presupposing" anything. That Muslims did it is a fact.

Of course they were, that's not what I'm saying you were presupposing. The fact that they were Muslims and the fact that no one wants a simple mosque a couple blocks away insinuates all muslims were responsible and there is absolutely no way you can deny that. They aren't and this is my point. You can't take out your frustrations on people who had nothing to do with the situation in the first place. In the end, this kind of attitude only makes things worse.

By all means, let's address this issue by diverting to fictional absurdities. Sorry, but I'm not going there.

It's not as absurd as you want to think. There are SO many Muslims in the world and so few extremists that you could easily say the same thing about men. About 3 billion men, about 2 billion muslims. Same 20 people have the same thing in common with both those groups. Singling out one group and not the other considering the similar numbers is the actual absurd part.

Yes, they were all men, but they weren't acting on the brotherhood of man; out of some Men's Club ideals. They were acting in the name of Allah. They were acting on a jihad in the name of Islam.

I can act in the name of anything I want.

Yes, they did. That's an inarguable fact.

The people responsible for this were Muslims. Again. That's an inarguable fact.

And the people who want this mosque (and muslims in general) deserve to pay for this how? Again, the people that were responsible have a political goal, not a religious goal. Explain to me how that makes them working in the name of Allah.

And? I notice how you refused to dignify with a response how Muslims are responsible for the decline in relations between Muslim-Americans and the rest.

As I mentioned before:

Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen

(Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.)

-Heinrich Heine

Edited August 21, 2010 by nicky10013

[kimmy]

Excellent point, indeed. Now if only the people building the mosque "capitalized" on 9/11, it would be correct to accuse them of insensitivity too.

Unfortunately, you fail to explain how that is the case.

In other countries, his book "What's Right With Islam is What's Right With America!" sells under the title "A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11" so clearly the symbolic value of this location is not lost on him.

If the location isn't important, why have they refused to consider the governor's offer to help find an alternate site?

But I agree with Shady that the pro-life people should certainly be allowed to advertise during the Superbowl. Unlike Shady, I don't adjust my positions on freedom to suit my ideology.

If I recall, the pro-life people were not banned from showing their commercial; the network simply chose not to sell them the air time. Which is, I think, within their rights as well. If I'm running a TV network, I don't think I should have to air advertising that I don't like. I fully understand a network choosing not to run an abortion-related ad during what's supposed to be a big party, just like I would understand them not wanting to run Budweiser ads during Saturday morning cartoons.

If it's the Barack Obama pro-life ad that we're talking about, I think it's actually a terrific advertisement. But I can understand the network not wanting to run it during the Superbowl.

Jon Stewart had an excellent clip yesterday of Charlton Heston responding to criticism of the NRA having their meeting near Columbine. He said, to paraphrase, that to change their plans in light of Columbine would be like admitting they are on the side of the perpetrators.

Heston was right. You're still wrong.

In fact, the NRA *did* change their plans following the Columbine massacre:

In a letter to NRA members Wednesday, President Charlton Heston and the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said all seminars, workshops, luncheons, exhibits by gun makers and other vendors, and festivities are canceled.

All that's left is a members' reception with Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., and the annual meeting, set for 10 a.m. May 1 in the Colorado Convention Center.

Under its bylaws and New York state law, the NRA must hold an annual meeting.

The NRA convention April 30-May 2 was expected to draw 22,000 members and give the city a $17.9 million economic boost.

"But the tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps, along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver area in their time of great loss," Heston and LaPierre wrote.

Both men said they would still make major addresses at the members' meeting.

The belief that the NRA put on a big pro-gun rally in response to Columbine is a myth largely created by Michael Moore, who presented footage of Heston speaking at other events ("from my cold dead hands!") and implied that this footage was from the NRA convention 10 days after Columbine. The truth is, they did respond to the sensitivity of the community by canceling most of the events that were planned.

I think that if the people behind this project had continued in the vein of what they are already operating on the site-- a low-key mosque like the other nearby ones, rather than a grand showcase for Islam-- I don't think there would be any controversy.

-k

[Guest TrueMetis]

Like...Iran?

Or Norway. The UK and Australia only consider the military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, to be a terrorist organization. So I guess that Makes Norway, the UK, and Australia radical countries.

[Pa Romana]

Burn a koran day is unnecessarily provocative.

[dre]

Yes, they were all men, but they weren't acting on the brotherhood of man; out of some Men's Club ideals. They were acting in the name of Allah. They were acting on a jihad in the name of Islam.

No thats an objectively and verifiably false load of regurgitated horseshit.

They were acting on behalf of Alqeada and OBL which is fighting the US for the exact same reason they fought the soviets in Afghanistan. They think they can make them leave the middle east. They were not acting on behalf of any religion, or Allah, any more than the Americans who invaded Iraq were acting in the name of Jesus Christ.

In both cases they were doing the bidding of HUMANS that held positions of power in organizations to which they belonged.

[DogOnPorch]

Or Norway. The UK and Australia only consider the military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, to be a terrorist organization. So I guess that Makes Norway, the UK, and Australia radical countries.

And you?

[Guest TrueMetis]

And you?

I don't know enough about Hamas to comment.

[DogOnPorch]

I suppose one could say that the non-'arresty' portion of the Gestapo were merely administrative office workers, rather than Nazis. Pencil pushers.

[Jack Weber]

I suppose one could say that the non-'arresty' portion of the Gestapo were merely administrative office workers, rather than Nazis. Pencil pushers.

Pencil pushers...Useful idiots....Same thing,really...

[nicky10013]

The belief that the NRA put on a big pro-gun rally in response to Columbine is a myth largely created by Michael Moore, who presented footage of Heston speaking at other events ("from my cold dead hands!") and implied that this footage was from the NRA convention 10 days after Columbine. The truth is, they did respond to the sensitivity of the community by canceling most of the events that were planned.

I think that if the people behind this project had continued in the vein of what they are already operating on the site-- a low-key mosque like the other nearby ones, rather than a grand showcase for Islam-- I don't think there would be any controversy.

-k

I think a community centre (it's not even really a mosque) is the definition of low key. It's irrational, no matter how you slice it.