Plan to Build Mosque Near Ground Zero Riles Families of 9/11 Victims

[quote name='Knoell']I quoted you arguing with me. What part of that involves a third party?

Unless you are now going to admit that EVERYONE against the mosque is not bigoted or racist? I would like a confirmation from you on that, since you are taking the position that you never made that argument.

I have told you the reasons, you won't accept them. 1. People feel it is insensitive. 2. The guy is building it there because it is near ground zero. 3. It will be a tool for the extremists. Edit: I should clarify that by tool, I mean recruiting, morale, etc not a physical tool.

If you disagree with those reasons, fine, but how is it fair to say "oh thats not a good enough reason, you must just hate muslims"?[/QUOTE]

Dude...I keep trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you misunderstood something, and not that you're a f****g moron. Why are you fighting so hard against this positive assumption?

Anyhoo, you were replying to people questioning some recent survey saying it should exclude kids and all that when your started talking about 200-some million, 190-some million people this and that. It had nothing to do with any point I had made, so you quoted me in response to myke I think it was.

I'm not sure I've called people against it bigots or racists (definitely not racists, because "Islam" is not a race). I've said their feelings are not grounded in logic or fact, and is irrational. I'd probably allign them with idiots or people who misunderstand facts. I'm sure a subset of these peolpe are bigots and racists, if that is enough to get you to stand on a soapbox though.

THANK YOU for finally listing out real points. They all require assuming the worst of people, which is amusing, but props to you, you actually made a list. I feel it should be built for these reasons:

1) God will strike New York down for having a strip club so close to Ground Zero. This interfaith community center will shield NY from God's wrath and protect the fine citizens of NYC.
2) God's chosen people are the Jews. The Burger King close to Ground Zero serves too much bacon on their burgers. The interfaith community center may choose to serve only kosher and halal foods, which will please the chosen people, bringing together the community.
3) Imam Rauf hates coats, so do the American people. In tearing down a former Burlington Coat Factory building, he can continue his jihad against warm outerwear.

If you disagree with those reasons, fine, but how is it fair to say "oh thats not a good enough reason, you must just hate americans"?
 
[quote name='berzirk']

Then regarding middle eastern "bigotry or racism" against Christians-I've spent a great deal of time in a couple different countries over there. Dear friends with hundreds who were born and raised throughout the Middle East. I've even read the Qur'an a few times. Christians are referred to (with Jews) as Ahl -al-kitaab-literally, "People of the Book". It's a title of respect saying these people were presented with Prophets and Messengers. Over time, according to Muslims, through translation mistakes, power struggles, or other means the books got corrupted, but the fact remains, they are mentioned in the Qur'an as some of the earliest good, religious people.

Muslims are allowed to eat meat slaughtered by Christians and Jews and marry from members of those faiths. If Abdullah doesn't like Fred the Christian because he's Christian, then he's not practice a part of his faith.

If Fred opposes mosques being built because they are mosques, then he's opposing his countries' values.

Both men would be wrong in their actions, and would be off of nothing more than emotional reasons, not grounded in logic or fact.

(and this is assuming that Abdullah isn't in an occupied country trying to rebuild after foreign attacks)

So now that I blew a hole in your accusation that I would only criticize irrational Christians or non-Muslims, what will your next accusation be?

I apologize to anyone named Fred or Abdullah who hate Muslims and Christians respectively.[/QUOTE]

But Abdullah isn't just one person. Abdullah is a part of many countries who have zero tolerance for christianity. You act as if we are talking hypotheticals when the truth is we are talking recent history to the present day. If you are going to call the millions of people against this one mosque bigots and racists, then I want to know if any country that has a low tolerance for christianity, or any other religion for that matter should be labeled bigots and racists as well. Or are you going to claim that there isn't anti christian sentiments in primarilly muslim countries? If we took a poll in saudia arabia how many people would be for the building of a church?
 
[quote name='berzirk']

THANK YOU for finally listing out real points. They all require assuming the worst of people, which is amusing, but props to you, you actually made a list. I feel it should be built for these reasons:

1) God will strike New York down for having a strip club so close to Ground Zero. This interfaith community center will shield NY from God's wrath and protect the fine citizens of NYC.
2) God's chosen people are the Jews. The Burger King close to Ground Zero serves too much bacon on their burgers. The interfaith community center may choose to serve only kosher and halal foods, which will please the chosen people, bringing together the community.
3) Imam Rauf hates coats, so do the American people. In tearing down a former Burlington Coat Factory building, he can continue his jihad against warm outerwear.

If you disagree with those reasons, fine, but how is it fair to say "oh thats not a good enough reason, you must just hate americans"?[/QUOTE]

Im not sure what you are trying to get out of this, but I wouldnt say you hate Americans because you have those nonsense reasons.
 
[quote name='Knoell']But Abdullah isn't just one person. Abdullah is a part of many countries who have zero tolerance for christianity. You act as if we are talking hypotheticals when the truth is we are talking recent history to the present day. If you are going to call the millions of people against this one mosque bigots and racists, then I want to know if any country that has a low tolerance for christianity, or any other religion for that matter should be labeled bigots and racists as well. Or are you going to claim that there isn't anti christian sentiments in primarilly muslim countries? If we took a poll in saudia arabia how many people would be for the building of a church?[/QUOTE]

*yawn. To extropolate, if a muslim is anti-christian, they are implementing their faith poorly. If an American is anti-mosque, they are implementing their Constitution poorly.

Allowing a church to be built in Saudi is nothing like allowing a COMMUNITY CENTER and mosque to be built in NYC. Each country is governed by their own laws (or occassionally the laws of outside influences when deemed convenient).

If we took a poll in the Vatican City, how many people would be for the building of a mosque?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Im not sure what you are trying to get out of this, but I wouldnt say you hate Americans because you have those nonsense reasons.[/QUOTE]

NONSENSE? So insensitive. How dare you tell me these real feelings are nonsense just because you don't agree with them. :nottalking:
 
[quote name='berzirk']*yawn. To extropolate, if a muslim is anti-christian, they are implementing their faith poorly. If an American is anti-mosque, they are implementing their Constitution poorly.

Allowing a church to be built in Saudi is nothing like allowing a COMMUNITY CENTER and mosque to be built in NYC. Each country is governed by their own laws (or occassionally the laws of outside influences when deemed convenient).

If we took a poll in the Vatican City, how many people would be for the building of a mosque?[/QUOTE]

There is a mosque in the Vatican for one.

I can deal with saying the people against the mosque are implementing their constitution poorly. For the most part this thread has been about saying that the people against the mosque hate muslims by default.
 
[quote name='berzirk']NONSENSE? So insensitive. How dare you tell me these real feelings are nonsense just because you don't agree with them. :nottalking:[/QUOTE]

Haha, the problem is I don't have a problem with you all disagreeing with the reasons. I have a problem with you disagreeing and changing their reasons to bigotry because you don't think they have a good enough first reason.
 
[quote name='Knoell']There is a mosque in the Vatican for one.

I can deal with saying the people against the mosque are implementing their constitution poorly. For the most part this thread has been about saying that the people against the mosque hate muslims by default.[/QUOTE]

I've repeatedly called them irrational, misinformed, intentionally ignorant of facts, and yes, some of them just hate muslims, and this gives them a mob to join and spout hate.

Also, please link to anything that shows there is a mosque in the Vatican. I've searched and only found people saying there is not.

Edit: So if we all called the protestors to the mosque idiots, instead of bigots, you'd shrug your shoulders and say, "OK, works for me!"

Do I have to wait for you to reply to call out "bullsh**?"
 
[quote name='berzirk']I've repeatedly called them irrational, misinformed, intentionally ignorant of facts, and yes, some of them just hate muslims, and this gives them a mob to join and spout hate.

Also, please link to anything that shows there is a mosque in the Vatican. I've searched and only found people saying there is not.

Edit: So if we all called the protestors to the mosque idiots, instead of bigots, you'd shrug your shoulders and say, "OK, works for me!"

Do I have to wait for you to reply to call out "bullsh**?"[/QUOTE]

They are mostly in Rome, I guess it isn't technically the vatican. Fairly close though. Just type in mosques in vatican city in google maps.

Very close, the name is Cipro Musei Vaticani
 
[quote name='Knoell']Haha, the problem is I don't have a problem with you all disagreeing with the reasons. I have a problem with you disagreeing and changing their reasons to bigotry because you don't think they have a good enough first reason.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Knoell']They are mostly in Rome, I guess it isn't technically the vatican. Fairly close though. Just type in mosques in vatican city in google maps.

Very close, the name is Cipro Musei Vaticani[/QUOTE]

So in summary, no, there is not a mosque in the Vatican, as you stated earlier. Is that a correct statement? So insensitive! Bigots.
 
[quote name='berzirk']So in summary, no, there is not a mosque in the Vatican, as you stated earlier. Is that a correct statement? So insensitive! Bigots.[/QUOTE]

What is funny is that you are mocking me for applying your own (or whoever elses) criticisms of Americans to another country.

I don't believe the entirety of Saudi Arabia is full of bigots because they don't allow churches. You or whoever else believe the entirety of the anti mosque crowd are bigots, because they don't want this particular mosque in that particular location.

Who is assuming the worst out of people here? If someone truely believes that the mosque will be used as a taliban recruitment tool, even if he is wrong, how does he hate muslims?

Edit: I don't even know what we are arguing about if you don't believe all the people against the mosque hate muslims, that is all ive wanted to get across to this thread for the last 20 pages.
 
[quote name='Knoell']What is funny is that you are mocking me for applying your own (or whoever elses) criticisms of Americans to another country.

I don't believe the entirety of Saudi Arabia is full of bigots because they don't allow churches. You or whoever else believe the entirety of the anti mosque crowd are bigots, because they don't want this particular mosque in that particular location.

Who is assuming the worst out of people here? If someone truely believes that the mosque will be used as a taliban recruitment tool, even if he is wrong, how does he hate muslims?

Edit: I don't even know what we are arguing about if you don't believe all the people against the mosque hate muslims, that is all ive wanted to get across to this thread for the last 20 pages.[/QUOTE]

Probably could have ended your post there and I would have agreed.

It's assuming the worst, or it's stupidity at a level that is scary. You think that with all the attention the building has received, the feds would let sleeper cells set up shop? Derr, derr, derr. Sounds realistic to me!

My beef with you is when you said the guys wanting to build the COMMUNITY CENTER and mosque were douchy for picking that spot. Later comments got even more insane, like saying these protestors had rational opinions on the matter, and they were justified. To say that everyone opposed to the mosque is a bigot, would be inaccurate. To say that no one opposed to the mosque is a bigot, would also be inaccurate. To say that any opposition is grounded in law or rational thought, is also not true.

If people protested it because they were worried about the impact on traffic, they thought the building would be an eyesore on the city landscape because of its architecture, they thought that many people in a building would be a fire or crowd control hazard, I'd understand their opposition. People saying it's a victory mosque, it'll be a den for terrorists to plot their next attack, or it's "too close to hallowed ground" are making unrealistic, and outright idiotic statements. What fuels the idiocy is not entirely known. Lots of different reasons, I presume.
 
Who cares what other countries do? I thought this was America? You bitch and moan that this is a free country but do everything to limit the freedoms of anyone you don't like, Knoell.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I have never commented on non ground zero mosques, but 62% of the country isn't against them. Doesn't that make you think the area must have something to do with it?[/QUOTE]

You said the answers are there. I can't seem to find them. An easier way to find out would be for you to respond to the simple hypothetical above. Don't punt and don't deflect, just state the reasons why people would protest non-GZ mosques.
 
[quote name='IRHari']You said the answers are there. I can't seem to find them. An easier way to find out would be for you to respond to the simple hypothetical above. Don't punt and don't deflect, just state the reasons why people would protest non-GZ mosques.[/QUOTE]

Why do I care about non-GZ mosques? Look at the title of the thread.
 
I am just trying to get a strait answer... i even tried to give you simple guidelines like bringing up how the other people consider 60% of Americans bigots. i am not saying they are bigots... this is all i want to know... I would like your response to this question... no hypothetical, has nothing to do with other mosque only the one at ground zero...

Why do you (60% of Americans) oppose the mosque being built at ground zero?
 
[quote name='berzirk']Probably could have ended your post there and I would have agreed.

It's assuming the worst, or it's stupidity at a level that is scary. You think that with all the attention the building has received, the feds would let sleeper cells set up shop? Derr, derr, derr. Sounds realistic to me!

[/QUOTE]

You misunderstand, by recruiting people, I mean like across the world, not sleeper cells setting up shop in that mosque. Derp. IRHari already showed that the taliban are showing an interest if it doesn't get built, I can't imagine they would let the opportunity pass either way.

We disagree on particular reasons fine. I just don't want to be labeled as hating muslims because we disagree on reasons that have nothing to do with the like or dislike of muslims.

Again if someone truely believes terrorists will use this mosque as a recruitment tool and motivator across the world, even if it can be proven to be untrue, how does that mean I hate muslims?

[quote name='An J0e']I am just trying to get a strait answer... i even tried to give you simple guidelines like bringing up how the other people consider 60% of Americans bigots. i am not saying they are bigots... this is all i want to know... I would like your response to this question... no hypothetical, has nothing to do with other mosque only the one at ground zero...

Why do you (60% of Americans) oppose the mosque being built at ground zero?[/QUOTE]

I have posted them several times throughout this thread. Find them yourself, I am done with this thread.
 
I have gone through and examined your responses (you can see where i went to your page on your profile) and i examined you post in this thread (and a fair share of the thread as a whole before first commenting) i have failed to find a direct and clear example of what validates any reasons that you oppose the mosque.

It seems that every one of the reasons are based on assumptions, which just validate the opposition against you.

I am simply asking for you to present an argument that will better validate your opinion. Because if all of your current beliefs are based on assumptions, then what are we left of your character but to make assumptions of are own.
 
[quote name='An J0e']I have gone through and examined your responses (you can see where i went to your page on your profile) and i examined you post in this thread (and a fair share of the thread as a whole before first commenting) i have failed to find a direct and clear example of what validates any reasons that you oppose the mosque.

It seems that every one of the reasons are based on assumptions, which just validate the opposition against you.

I am simply asking for you to present an argument that will better validate your opinion. Because if all of your current beliefs are based on assumptions, then what are we left of your character but to make assumptions of are own.[/QUOTE]

What assumptions? Have you read the posts where I have said the mosque will be peaceful and most likely benefit the community? Negative assumptions generally occur when one opposes something in the future. I cannot say it is doing anything wrong presently because it does not exist presently.
 
Haa haa haa. All of the sudden "on topic matters". Didn't matter when three different threads were being spammed with the "Mosques in America" image (this one, the Koran burning-GZ Mosque one, and the Islamaphobia in America one).

Knoell:
"Have you read the posts where I have said the mosque will be peaceful and most likely benefit the community?"
-No...actually I haven't. It's possible I missed them, but considering you don't have the best track record of "truthiness" in this thread, I'll elect to hold to my version of the truth until it's disproven.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Haa haa haa. All of the sudden "on topic matters". Didn't matter when three different threads were being spammed with the "Mosques in America" image (this one, the Koran burning-GZ Mosque one, and the Islamaphobia in America one).

Knoell:
"Have you read the posts where I have said the mosque will be peaceful and most likely benefit the community?"
-No...actually I haven't. It's possible I missed them, but considering you don't have the best track record of "truthiness" in this thread, I'll elect to hold to my version of the truth until it's disproven.[/QUOTE]

The myth of Islamophobia,
Ground Zero Mosque riles families,
subscribed.gif
subscribed.gif
Koran Burning, Ground Zero Mosque: Same Shit?

Each have nothing to do with the hundreds of mosques in the country huh? Seems pretty on topic to me.

Protesting a mosque in Quahog doesn't have much to do with the plans to build mosque near ground zero riling families.

Anyways I am still waiting for one of you to post one post of my "terrible" track record for hating on muslims. Just one post, unmanipulated by your explanation and in context. I have made hundreds, it should be very easy if I am such a big bad mean bigot. Why not prove me to be a bigot before you so willingly accept it and ask me to prove I am not?
 
[quote name='Knoell']The myth of Islamophobia,
Ground Zero Mosque riles families,
subscribed.gif
subscribed.gif
Koran Burning, Ground Zero Mosque: Same Shit?

Each have nothing to do with the hundreds of mosques in the country huh? Seems pretty on topic to me.

Protesting a mosque in Quahog doesn't have much to do with the plans to build mosque near ground zero riling families.

Anyways I am still waiting for one of you to post one post of my "terrible" track record for hating on muslims. Just one post, unmanipulated by your explanation and in context. I have made hundreds, it should be very easy if I am such a big bad mean bigot. Why not prove me to be a bigot before you so willingly accept it and ask me to prove I am not?[/QUOTE]

Agreed, Koran burning and how many mosques are in America aren't remotely related. In fact, this GZ mosque thread isn't really related either. You're the only one that elected to copy and paste spam three threads. That's "douchy".

And once again, you've misinterpreted a very simple statement. I said you have a shi*** record regarding truthful statements. Most recently when you told me there was a mosque in Vatican City, which you then quickly said, "oh yah, well there's lots in Rome!" We weren't discussing whether you hate muslims or not. We were discussing your accidental or intentional misrepresentations and fabrications.

I'm sure what you'll get out of this, is that I am accusing you of dog fighting...didn't you say you were done with this thread?
 
It has nothing to do with the GZ mosque, but you kept deflecting in the other Islamophobic thread so I kept pressing wherever I could.

Still don't see an answer to the Quahog hypothetical though, that's pretty telling.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']We've had the dialogue multiple times in this thread.
Here's how a lot of thread in Vs. work:
1. One side develops an opinion.
2. Another side develops an opinion.
3. Each side presents the backing to their opinion.
4. The thread dies for the most part.
5. Somebody wanders into the Vs. forum and states an opinion identical to one side without reading anything else in the thread.
6. Somebody receives insults based on how crude the stated opinion is compared to the current form of the argument.

Case in point, you post the page 1 argument of "Islam is Terrorism!"

Despite being an intelligent and sensitive person in other areas, you're holding the opinion of a bigot on this topic.

Do you have something more to offer than "Islam is Terrorism!"?[/QUOTE]

I think both sides have a point, but I disagree that my opinion equates to Islam is terrorism. That is an exaggeration. Through dialogue we can eventually come to a mutual understanding of each other or close to it, even if we choose not to acknowledge such understanding. Very few people ever do. We're not built to, yet.

[quote name='IRHari']Ah so we can presume that if the Park 51 dudes built it 50 years after 9/11 and not 7-9 years later it wouldn't be as controversial? Nice arbitrary sensitivity timeline.[/QUOTE]

It would probably be almost as controversial (or even more or less controversial depending on what happens over history), but that is not the problem here. The problem is the effect this has on the families. 50 years is not arbitrary. By that time most of the parents will be dead and the others will have had more time to get over their loss.

What about the first part of the sentence? "Was your dad murdered by this Christian because their interpretation of Christianity made them believe he was their enemy and did your bosses go and erect crosses next to where he died, in good intentions, even though there was another site down the road where they could have done it instead? And did they try to do it 7-9 years later, not 50?"

If members of your family were murdered, do you give every CAG the authority to erect memorials that are associated in some way with the murderer next to places you hold memories of your family? He murdered your family believing it was a call from god for the benefit of mankind and we don't take the same beliefs that he did from these memorials and game he carried around. What we are trying to do is make these memorials and game known to people who wrongly believe they're evil so that we can build peace between us. However, we want to do this at the expense of you and your family and even if we are offered areas not associated with your family we don't want to use those. But hey, it's for the greater good right? Like you know if we killed some people in order to save even more, even though there were other options open to us, that's the best way to go about it.

[quote name='IRHari']
What does it represent? I think you're implying that this mosque represents terrorism. That's Islam = terrorism.
[/QUOTE]

No that could not be farther from the truth. The mosque represents a religion that is about peace. However, to the families it represents the religion that misguided individuals used as inspiration to kill their wives, daughters, sons, husbands, brothers, sisters, etc. It is a constant reminder in their minds. Because I oppose a mosque so close to ground zero it does not mean I am against Islam.

This page should help illustrate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Unfortunately there are idiots out there that oppose this issue because they actually do believe Islam = terrorism or they use that as their only means to oppose the location. And they do more harm to everyone. So people focus on that and don't see where some of us are coming from. I understand what you're trying to say. To prevent a mosque there would go against what we stand for and would not be right towards those who want to build it and followers of Islam. So we shouldn't force it to not be there but we should try to make them understand why it should not be built there right away and ask them to please make this decision themselves.

[quote name='IRHari']
Look, the builders of this mosque had nothing to do with 9/11. They're Muslims, and the people who did 9/11 were crazy people who just happened to follow an extreme version of Islam. They have no responsibility to move the mosque because they were in no way responsible for 9/11.
[/QUOTE]
They don't have to move the mosque, but they should in a gesture towards the families.

[quote name='IRHari']The NRA didn't move their annual convention near Columbine when people said it was 'insensitive', because the NRA was in no way responsible for the Columbine tragedy.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't have forced the NRA to move their convention, but I would've told them I find it offensive to the families of the Columbine victims and I would appreciate if they would move it temporarily out of respect for them and hope they would make an effort to understand. By not forcing them I am giving them respect to make the correct decision and I would hope they would return it.

But doing so would acknowledge that by putting time, effort, and money into keeping guns legal and on the market they helped there a supply on the market ultimately available to killers. You can say well how is that different from religion. The thing is there are other ways to hunt, to protect yourself, and to defend yourself against government. Religion stands for much higher ideals to those who are in it for good and it brings much better things to them. Religion also holds a control over your eternity, at least in belief.

Do I think we'd be better off without any religion, eventually, yes when we have reached that stage of evolution. Will I force people to give up their religion if they're not directly harming anyone, no. One can only ask others to put themselves into the shoes of those who have lost the greatest thing you could ever lose and give up something for those people even if it means bringing negativity to yourself in other's eyes. Ultimately, it will make them more admirable and strong.

You can reverse this and say why not American's do this. We already have by allowing freedom of religion and the mosque should be allowed (even within ground zero) at some point, but temporarily those building it should make the decision to delay building one so close until the families have had their time. Even if something was for the greater good I would not be able to stick the knife in the back of any single person to achieve that, I'd rather achieve something almost as good and wait for the day when the greatest good could be achieved without a greater loss to a small few.

[quote name='IRHari']
In the end, your 'mosque-free' zone that you've drawn around GZ is completely arbitrary.[/QUOTE]

It is not arbitrary to move it further away out of respect on their own accord and eventually be allowed to have it closer. In fact it should be put in a contract that they can move it closer without issue after the families have had more time to grieve.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Through the use of fiction, I'll try to point out the stupidity of the bigots' side.

A decade ago, a man from out of state walked into a packed swimming pool. He pulled out several guns and started shooting whilst screaming "Imma Jew!" This man killed fity men. Afterward, the pool was drained and never reopened.

Today, a local man wants to build a synagogue and a payday advance five blocks away from the swimming pool. People in the community are outraged because somebody would build symbols of Judaism so close to a tragic hole in the ground.

...

Random thought 1: Ramadan doesn't translate into Ramming Speed.

Random thought 2: Those damn, dirty Muzzies actually believe in giving money to the poor.[/QUOTE]
But in this case the pool is rebuilt with a memorial within it and it's not just a pool, it's a WTC. What if instead the local man builds replicas of the pool in the backyards of the family member's survivors to say he's sorry for what happened, hopes this daily reminder will help spread peace among the community, and he has Jewish families move in next door who come over to use the pools. Granted he is doing it with good intentions. Would it be fair to ask him if he could build the pool in the neighbors yard instead?

Let's now turn that around and also ask, should we have rebuilt the WTC in the same place and put the memorial on site? How hard was it to find another site (I believe it was extremely hard) and should we just cover up the area with residential, commercial, or industrial buildings? If so, then maybe there's no reason to have any memorials at all or it makes more sense to bury your relatives in some obscure location? I'm posing this as a question, not a statement, with good intentions. Sorry for the irony.
 
But the idea that it represents the religion of a bunch of misguided people could be said about plenty of religious structures. What if a Muslim said he didn't want a Catholic church built nearby because centuries ago a bunch of Catholic crusaders killed lots of his people? I mean here in the U.S. btw.
 
[quote name='berzirk']

And once again, you've misinterpreted a very simple statement. I said you have a shi*** record regarding truthful statements. Most recently when you told me there was a mosque in Vatican City, which you then quickly said, "oh yah, well there's lots in Rome!" We weren't discussing whether you hate muslims or not. We were discussing your accidental or intentional misrepresentations and fabrications.

I'm sure what you'll get out of this, is that I am accusing you of dog fighting...didn't you say you were done with this thread?[/QUOTE]

Ok so you agree I am not a bigot? We are finally agreed! Would you mind explaining that to these guys?

Have you ever seen the Vatican? In person or on a map? Yes you are correct in stating there is no mosque in the vatican but it renders your comparison to saudi arabia irrelevant.
vatican.jpg


Saudi_Pol.jpg
 
[quote name='Clak']But the idea that it represents the religion of a bunch of misguided people could be said about plenty of religious structures. What if a Muslim said he didn't want a Catholic church built nearby because centuries ago a bunch of Catholic crusaders killed lots of his people? I mean here in the U.S. btw.[/QUOTE]

Yes I think if the crusades were 10 years ago, someone may consider the building a church next to the al Aqsa mosque today to be a bit harsh
(that was sarcasm, it would be alotta harsh, just in case IRHari wants to misinterpret me).
Do you think muslims would flip out if christians tried? Do you think they would flip out if it was centuries ago? Do you think it matters if the atrocity was centuries ago? Do you think it would be OK for them to flip out in either case?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='J7.']The mosque represents a religion that is about peace. However, to the families it represents the religion that misguided individuals used as inspiration to kill their wives, daughters, sons, husbands, brothers, sisters, etc. It is a constant reminder in their minds. Because I oppose a mosque so close to ground zero it does not mean I am against Islam.[/QUOTE]

The religion was perverted. The form of Islam that the hijackers practiced is completely different from the Islam that the majority of Muslims practice. One practices violent methods to advance their ideology, the other is absolutely peaceful and condemns violence in any form.

It takes like 5 seconds to look at the mosque and think oh this isn't the Islam that the hijackers practiced. This isn't the Islam I'm looking for.

droids.jpg


I'm able to make that distinction, a lot of 9/11 families are able to make that distinction, and other people on this forum are able to make that distinction.
 
[quote name='Clak']But the idea that it represents the religion of a bunch of misguided people could be said about plenty of religious structures. What if a Muslim said he didn't want a Catholic church built nearby because centuries ago a bunch of Catholic crusaders killed lots of his people? I mean here in the U.S. btw.[/QUOTE]

Which is why I believe ultimately we would be better off without any religion.

Well that's different. I am not arguing that the mosque should never be allowed right next to ground zero or have to wait hundreds of years. If we let it go on forever no one would be able to live next to anyone.

I am saying just until the family members of the dead have some time to get over it and that we try to make the other side understand and make the choice themselves rather than force them, in return we give them a contract allowing them to build closer later on and we could even give an incentive too like a tax break (half now, half later) when that happens as an expression of our gratitude.

[quote name='IRHari']The religion was perverted. The form of Islam that the hijackers practiced is completely different from the Islam that the majority of Muslims practice. One practices violent methods to advance their ideology, the other is absolutely peaceful and condemns violence in any form.

It takes like 5 seconds to look at the mosque and think oh this isn't the Islam that the hijackers practiced. This isn't the Islam I'm looking for.

droids.jpg


I'm able to make that distinction, a lot of 9/11 families are able to make that distinction, and other people on this forum are able to make that distinction.[/QUOTE]

It all came from the same source to begin with. It's just how it was used. It doesn't make the source bad (I know you know this, I am showing you I also know this).

I've made that distinction. Because I disagree does not mean I haven't made that. I also make the distinction that it does offend many 9 11 families and they cannot change that. So I ask for a dual peace offering, instead of one side getting what they want. You can have what you want, but you must also give a little back, in this case to those who experienced something far worse than what most people ever do. It may not be what you want at this very instant, but you will be assured to get it. In the meantime you can have something very close to what you want and ease other's suffering at the same time, and they can do this by their own choice.
 
[quote name='J7.']I also make the distinction that it does offend many 9 11 families and they cannot change that.[/QUOTE]

You're not making any kind of distinction because no one disputes that it offends 9/11 families.

It's that the offense that the 9/11 families are feeling isn't rational. There isn't a reason to be offended unless Al Qaeda was building the mosque and Al Qaeda was praying in it. If that were the case I would absolutely agree with you that it's insensitive.

Same source? That doesn't fucking matter. They both practiced Islam, fine. But take like 3 seconds to think about it and it clearly isn't the same kind of Islam.

[quote name='J7.']
I am saying just until the family members of the dead have some time to get over it
[/QUOTE]

If you ask me the phrase 'get over it' is far more offensive then this mosque.

They have a say in what gets built on GZ. 2 blocks away? 3 blocks away? There's also a mosque 4 blocks away, should we tell them to stop praying there? It's the same source right? Or have pre-9/11 mosques been 'grandfathered' in?
 
[quote name='IRHari']You're not making any kind of distinction because no one disputes that it offends 9/11 families.

It's that the offense that the 9/11 families are feeling isn't rational. There isn't a reason to be offended unless Al Qaeda was building the mosque and Al Qaeda was praying in it. If that were the case I would absolutely agree with you that it's insensitive.

Same source? That doesn't fucking matter. They both practiced Islam, fine. But take like 3 seconds to think about it and it clearly isn't the same kind of Islam.[/QUOTE]

You dispute that it doesn't offend 9 11 families enough to take their feelings into consideration.

It is rational. They don't have to have ill feelings about Islam. If someone killed your family because of a book they read because they believed it told them your family were aligned with the devil, how would you feel when people reminded you of the book? You don't think you would associate it with the psychopath who murdered your family?

So the source of something doesn't matter? Without the source Al Qaeda wouldn't have developed their ideology against other people. Do you get irritated when someone disagrees with you?

Can a gun that puts meat on your table not be a gun that is shot at a human? Does it make the gun evil? Do you really think I am saying a gun is evil...

[quote name='IRHari']
If you ask me the phrase 'get over it' is far more offensive then this mosque.

They have a say in what gets built on GZ. 2 blocks away? 3 blocks away? There's also a mosque 4 blocks away, should we tell them to stop praying there? It's the same source right? Or have pre-9/11 mosques been 'grandfathered' in?[/QUOTE]

If I had said "why don't they just get over it" it would have been offensive. But I did not. I said they need time to get over it. I'm asking for them to be given more time. It's how you use the words and what you mean by them, not the words themselves.

If the mosque was there first there is no problem. It's the intentional building of a mosque closer to ground zero, not the idea of a mosque being there. Let it be built as close as any existing mosque, then after time for the families, let it be built anywhere near ground zero.
 
You're placing the blame on the source. Not fair. The majority of Muslims use that source in a peaceful benevolent way. It's not the source it's the way that source is interpreted and misused to recruit terrorists and practice violence.

Your hypothetical book isn't the problem, unless that book is inherently violent and preaches violence. If that were the case then 'the source matters' as you say. If the book isn't inherently violent/preaches it, then it's clearly the way the psychopath interpreted the book. In that case it's really unfair to say 'the source matters' because it isn't the sources fault (or adherents of the source) that some batshit motherfucker manipulated it to practice violence.

Islam doesn't kill people. People kill people. Al Qaeda kills people. You're asking moderate Muslims to face repercussions (not building mosques) for what a small sliver of batshit Muslims did. Very unfair.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Islam doesn't kill people. People kill people. Al Qaeda kills people. You're asking moderate Muslims to face repercussions (not building mosques) for what a small sliver of batshit Muslims did. Very unfair.[/QUOTE]

Any more fair than those who threatened Americans with repercussions (i.e.: death to our soldiers and more terrorists attacks) for what one batshit pastor in Florida was going to do?
 
Yep that is unfair too. They probably look at that one batshit pastor and assume he represents all of Christianity, which of course isn't true.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Yep that is unfair too. They probably look at that one batshit pastor and assume he represents all of Christianity, which of course isn't true.[/QUOTE]

Would you assume they despise christianity? If they opposed building a church near them because of this guy would you assume they just hate christians?

Acts of terror, intolerance, or just plain idiocy hurt all parties involved regardless of the known fact that the majority is not represented by those people.
 
[quote name='J7.']Which is why I believe ultimately we would be better off without any religion.

Well that's different. I am not arguing that the mosque should never be allowed right next to ground zero or have to wait hundreds of years. If we let it go on forever no one would be able to live next to anyone.

I am saying just until the family members of the dead have some time to get over it and that we try to make the other side understand and make the choice themselves rather than force them, in return we give them a contract allowing them to build closer later on and we could even give an incentive too like a tax break (half now, half later) when that happens as an expression of our gratitude.
[/QUOTE]
That's slippery slope territory, just like distance from the trade center site. How long is enough time to grieve? It's been nearly a decade, give it another 10 years? I mean how long do they need?

I'll agree about being better off wihtout religion though. Things like this prove to me that religion divides people far more than it brings them together.
 
[quote name='IRHari']You're placing the blame on the source. Not fair. The majority of Muslims use that source in a peaceful benevolent way. It's not the source it's the way that source is interpreted and misused to recruit terrorists and practice violence.

Your hypothetical book isn't the problem, unless that book is inherently violent and preaches violence. If that were the case then 'the source matters' as you say. If the book isn't inherently violent/preaches it, then it's clearly the way the psychopath interpreted the book. In that case it's really unfair to say 'the source matters' because it isn't the sources fault (or adherents of the source) that some batshit motherfucker manipulated it to practice violence.

Islam doesn't kill people. People kill people. Al Qaeda kills people. You're asking moderate Muslims to face repercussions (not building mosques) for what a small sliver of batshit Muslims did. Very unfair.[/QUOTE]

Because we're capable of intelligent thought all blame can lie with a source. This in itself is not fair, life is not fair. It's not fair to build it there and it's not fair to not build it there. Like I said just like a gun. The gun is not evil, it can be used for good and bad, but there should be some regulation. Now America allows separation of church and state. This needs to be upheld. Thus, why I say we should only help those wanting to build it understand and let them make the right choice.

I didn't say the book is the problem, I said it was the psychopath who used that book in the wrong way and I asked you, would you associate this book with the person if he killed your family, yet you don't address that. If all blame were to lie with the book, then it should be banned, but we're not suggesting that mosques be banned.

No one is saying that mosques shouldn't be allowed to be built. It is only the location. And I am even saying they should get that location eventually or even closer, contractually. How fair is it to make 9 11 families undergo even more suffering that could be prevented? Should 9 11 families be forced to undergo some sort of psychological counseling so that the mosque being built there does not offend them? How ethical is that and how long would that take them if it even could be successful.

I don't believe this, but it needs to be thrown out there as well:
Do you know the actual motives of all the people building and funding the building of the mosque? How do you know that some could not be doing it for the wrong reasons? The actual people using the mosque would be very likely to use it for the right reason, at least the far majority. Are they being manipulated? Question both sides of this, but fall onto a solution that benefits both sides.

[quote name='Clak']That's slippery slope territory, just like distance from the trade center site. How long is enough time to grieve? It's been nearly a decade, give it another 10 years? I mean how long do they need?

I'll agree about being better off wihtout religion though. Things like this prove to me that religion divides people far more than it brings them together.[/QUOTE]

Well for distance I'd say as close as any mosque that was already there. I agree it is slippery slope territory for delaying building closer. I don't know that building it there right now is any better though. Maybe someone can come up with a better solution that addresses both sides.

It would be nice if all direct survivors of the dead alive when it happened were allowed to pass on before it occurs, but that's not practical. I said 50 years earlier because I figured at least the parents would be gone by then and not have to face it, but that is also too long I now realize. I'd be willing to go with 10-20 years.

I'm sure this was something never thought of when they wrote the constitution. Separation of church and state was to prevent these types of situations, the tragic irony. It shows we need to amend the constitution (not to take away separation of church and state) but to refine many things within it. Our two party system does not want to work together though so one wants to put things in the other would never agree to. It makes me question if we can ever fix it to where it needs to be without the country breaking off from itself again.
 
But should they have to delay building this just because it hurts the feelings of some people? I mean I sympathize with the folks, but they have no right to use their pain to deter someone from their rights as Americans. Otherwise that opens the floodgates to all sorts of things. What if someone who was abused by a priest doesn't want a Catholic church built nearby? Do they get to say it can't be built there?
 
[quote name='Clak']But should they have to delay building this just because it hurts the feelings of some people? I mean I sympathize with the folks, but they have no right to use their pain to deter someone from their rights as Americans. Otherwise that opens the floodgates to all sorts of things. What if someone who was abused by a priest doesn't want a Catholic church built nearby? Do they get to say it can't be built there?[/QUOTE]

I agree, I also think they don't have a right to build there as if it's perfectly okay. In this case we can't move the new WTC and it wouldn't make much sense to move the memorial when the new WTC is still there. It does open the floodgates, but maybe a law can be written that no religious buildings of any denomination can be built a certain amount of mileage near sites where thousands were killed by the likes of terrorists associated with said religion for a certain period of time to prevent stuff like this occurring again. That way both sides can avoid this situation without getting into it in the first place.

The church should help raise money to allow him to have his home moved to another location, out of their own goodwill. That way he gets to keep his home even if he has to leave his community behind. But he should have to prove the abuse occurred and that he is still affected by it.
 
[quote name='J7.']It does open the floodgates, but maybe a law can be written that no religious buildings of any denomination can be built a certain amount of mileage near sites where thousands were killed by the likes of terrorists associated with said religion for a certain period of time to prevent stuff like this occurring again.[/QUOTE]

:rofl:

Please tell me you realize how dumb you sound.
 
I just don't think the mosque should have to move because of irrational emotions. If we'd allow a church or synagogue there then there it is unfair to ask a mosque to move, regardless of any emotions. There shouldn't be double standards for moderate Muslims especially since moderate Muslims didn't attack us on 9/11.

[quote name='J7.']
I agree, I also think they don't have a right to build there as if it's perfectly okay. In this case we can't move the new WTC and it wouldn't make much sense to move the memorial when the new WTC is still there. It does open the floodgates, but maybe a law can be written that no religious buildings of any denomination can be built a certain amount of mileage near sites where thousands were killed by the likes of terrorists associated with said religion for a certain period of time to prevent stuff like this occurring again. That way both sides can avoid this situation without getting into it in the first place.[/QUOTE]

I hope this is sarcasm. First, they absolutely have the right to build there. Amendment 1 baby. Second, I didn't realize you wanted your opinion reflected in policy. I certainly don't want mine.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']:rofl:

Please tell me you realize how dumb you sound.[/QUOTE]

That's your opinion. I can understand why you'd feel that. How often do attacks like 9 11 happen though in countries with freedom of religion and separation of church and state? I also realize such a law would go against separation of church and state, but like I said I think we need to make amendments to the constitution.

[quote name='IRHari']I just don't think the mosque should have to move because of irrational emotions. If we'd allow a church or synagogue there then there it is unfair to ask a mosque to move, regardless of any emotions. There shouldn't be double standards for moderate Muslims especially since moderate Muslims didn't attack us on 9/11.



I hope this is sarcasm. First, they absolutely have the right to build there. Amendment 1 baby. Second, I didn't realize you wanted your opinion reflected in policy. I certainly don't want mine.[/QUOTE]

It's irrational to you and me, but it's not irrational to the families. You would only know if you were in their shoes. If it was Christian extremists who did the attacks would they be allowed there? If they were, without a reaction like this from our people then we our an even worse society than what is going on now. There's no double standard currently because there wasn't Christians or Jews involved in any attacks there and moderate Muslims are being allowed mosques, including this one if they would move it.

I think that if you refine law over time you can make it work better for everyone. Your opinion is reflected in policy when you support a standing policy. Because it already exists doesn't make it perfect.
 
[quote name='J7.']I also realize such a law would go against separation of church and state, but like I said I think we need to make amendments to the constitution.[/QUOTE]

You want amendments to the Constitution based on what you admit are irrational feelings, not even ideas. That is absolutely terrifying.

Current policy is with the proper permits and such, anyone has the right to build whatever they want on that spot. That's the way it should be.
 
I have no doubt in my mind that if some sort of Timothy McVeigh type bomber had carried out the attack, nobody would think twice about a church being built nearby. Nobody would even make the connection between the church and the fact that the bomber was Christian. It's a double standard plain and simple. The U.S. is a "Christian nation" and people make exceptions for Christianity.
 
[quote name='Clak']I have no doubt in my mind that if some sort of Timothy McVeigh type bomber had carried out the attack, nobody would think twice about a church being built nearby. Nobody would even make the connection between the church and the fact that the bomber was Christian. It's a double standard plain and simple. The U.S. is a "Christian nation" and people make exceptions for Christianity.[/QUOTE]

I said this several pages ago and I think we all argued the difference between 19 hijackers blowing shit up in the name of Islam and 2 crazy dudes blowing shit up in the name of Christianity. I think the consensus on the right is that individual Christians represent themselves but Islam is a Borg type collective that is responsible for 9/11.
 
[quote name='IRHari']You want amendments to the Constitution based on what you admit are irrational feelings, not even ideas. That is absolutely terrifying.

Current policy is with the proper permits and such, anyone has the right to build whatever they want on that spot. That's the way it should be.[/QUOTE]

No. It appears irrational to you and to me because we are not them. It is rational to them. The families are offended and some are not, just like some followers of Islam support the mosque there and others do not, and some of us defend it and others do not. I don't think we can say who is right among any of these people. We can only look at the motivations behind their views.

Should we blindly follow all policies and law without questioning them at all? Because that's what you're suggesting.

[quote name='Clak']I have no doubt in my mind that if some sort of Timothy McVeigh type bomber had carried out the attack, nobody would think twice about a church being built nearby. Nobody would even make the connection between the church and the fact that the bomber was Christian. It's a double standard plain and simple. The U.S. is a "Christian nation" and people make exceptions for Christianity.[/QUOTE]

Did McWeigh do it based on his religion or was the source of his actions based on his view of the government?
 
[quote name='J7.']No. It appears irrational to you and to me because we are not them. It is rational to them. The families are offended and some are not, just like some followers of Islam support the mosque there and others do not, and some of us defend it and others do not. I don't think we can say who is right among any of these people. We can only look at the motivations behind their views.

Should we blindly follow all policies and law without questioning them at all? Because that's what you're suggesting.



Did McWeigh do it based on his religion or was the source of his actions based on his view of the government?[/QUOTE]

Does it matter? Something got in his head that mass murder was OK. Should we live in fear for the rest of our lives?
 
@J7.
Clearly you think people who hold your position are in the right, because you want to amend the Constitution such that your position is legal and my position is illegal.
[quote name='J7.']
It does open the floodgates, but maybe a law can be written that no religious buildings of any denomination can be built a certain amount of mileage near sites where thousands were killed by the likes of terrorists associated with said religion for a certain period of time to prevent stuff like this occurring again. That way both sides can avoid this situation without getting into it in the first place.[/QUOTE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top