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

[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]
I only used him him as an example, his motivation is irrelevant. If a McVeigh type bomber did use christiinaty as his motivation, I still don't think anyone would care he was christian, it would be a footnote at best. The beliefs of the 9/11 hijackers are not the same as the beliefs of all other muslims in the world. I'm sorry that the pople who are upset with this can't see that, but that's their own problem. Nobody should have to wait until they're all dead to build this thing.
 
[quote name='depascal22']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]

Ah, so you'd have no problems working at an abortion clinic in the US? You really have no fear of extremist Christians?
 
[quote name='Knoell']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?[/QUOTE]
That's my point, it's all ridiculous. They'd have no more justification to protest the building of the church than the building of this mosque. And I fail to see how time has anything to do with this, it's been almost a decade since the 9/11 attacks, how long do these people need?
 
[quote name='camoor']Ah, so you'd have no problems working at an abortion clinic in the US? You really have no fear of extremist Christians?[/QUOTE]

Not at all. I still fly planes as well.

Also Knoell, you keep worrying about Muslim sensibilities over in the Middle East. Who cares about what they think or what they would allow to happen? Last time I checked this was America and we were supposed to be better. All I ever hear these days is that Muslims don't allow churches to be built and Mexicans don't allow illegal immigration. Again, who cares?
 
[quote name='depascal22']Not at all. I still fly planes as well.

Also Knoell, you keep worrying about Muslim sensibilities over in the Middle East. Who cares about what they think or what they would allow to happen? Last time I checked this was America and we were supposed to be better. All I ever hear these days is that Muslims don't allow churches to be built and Mexicans don't allow illegal immigration. Again, who cares?[/QUOTE]

You are right, this is America and we are better at these types of things. My point about other countries was in the face of calling anyone against the mosque bigots. My point was that if anyone against this mosque is a bigot, then anyone against the building of a church in the middle east is a bigot right? I then went on to clarify that I don't believe everyone in the middle east are bigots, the same as I don't believe most Americans are bigots.

As for Mexico, I believe their president came up here and criticized our government for not handling his crappy situation good enough. My question is why doesn't Mexico allow people from latin america into mexico illegally then?
 
Again, who cares if anyone is building churches in the Middle East? Stop comparing us to them.

Also, Where do you think all the illegals from South and Central America go first? It's not like they hop over the entire country of Mexico and land in Texas.

Again, the only way you can possibly be against this mosque being built is if you associate all Islam with the heinous acts of 19 hijackers. Do you have any legitimate qualms about the mosque at all?
 
lulz at people that criticize other countries based on the US Constitution. Who cares what Guam thinks about the building of synagogues? We're talking about a COMMUNITY CENTER and mosque (which by the way, I just learned the other day is already used as a mosque-yes, that's right, the dirty terrorists have been praying in the coat building for months! Egad!) which has people irrationally pissed off for reasons that make no sense, or require one to consider all muslims guilty by associattion, after being approved at least 4 different times by local boards and councils within the last year or so.

Dammit...now this thread is going to go on for another week.
 
[quote name='berzirk']lulz at people that criticize other countries based on the US Constitution. Who cares what Guam thinks about the building of synagogues? We're talking about a COMMUNITY CENTER and mosque (which by the way, I just learned the other day is already used as a mosque-yes, that's right, the dirty terrorists have been praying in the coat building for months! Egad!) which has people irrationally pissed off for reasons that make no sense, or require one to consider all muslims guilty by associattion, after being approved at least 4 different times by local boards and councils within the last year or so.

Dammit...now this thread is going to go on for another week.[/QUOTE]

double post sorry.
 
[quote name='depascal22']

Also, Where do you think all the illegals from South and Central America go first? It's not like they hop over the entire country of Mexico and land in Texas.

[/QUOTE]

Go look up the penalty for illegal immigration in mexico, then tell me why their president has a right to criticize our very lax non existant penalties.
 
[quote name='berzirk']lulz at people that criticize other countries based on the US Constitution. Who cares what Guam thinks about the building of synagogues? We're talking about a COMMUNITY CENTER and mosque (which by the way, I just learned the other day is already used as a mosque-yes, that's right, the dirty terrorists have been praying in the coat building for months! Egad!) which has people irrationally pissed off for reasons that make no sense, or require one to consider all muslims guilty by associattion, after being approved at least 4 different times by local boards and councils within the last year or so.

Dammit...now this thread is going to go on for another week.[/QUOTE]


Thats funny, I didn't know tolerance was limited to Americans and the constitution. The constitution does not protect people from other people disliking or even hating their religion. We are talking about common tolerance of which the middle east has none, and yet you guys hesitate to call them bigots. But an argument that a mosque near a catastrophic event of islamic terrorism is too insensitive and we are suddenly all bigots. (excluding berzirk since he claims he does not hold this view yet argues it consistantly.)

Stop making ridiculous posts highlighting and taking issue with points noone holds. Noone cares that anyone is praying anywhere, (the map I posted proves that) people do care that there will be a 100 million dollar landmark of islam right next to where islamic extremists blew up two buildings. Islamic extremism is related to islam whether you like it or not. This however does not mean that islam is always related to islamic extremism.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Thats funny, I didn't know tolerance was limited to Americans and the constitution. The constitution does not protect people from other people disliking or even hating their religion. We are talking about common tolerance of which the middle east has none, and yet you guys hesitate to call them bigots. But an argument that a mosque near a catastrophic event of islamic terrorism is too insensitive and we are suddenly all bigots. (excluding berzirk since he claims he does not hold this view yet argues it consistantly.)

Stop making ridiculous posts highlighting and taking issue with points noone holds. Noone cares that anyone is praying anywhere, (the map I posted proves that) people do care that there will be a 100 million dollar landmark of islam right next to where islamic extremists blew up two buildings. Islamic extremism is related to islam whether you like it or not. This however does not mean that islam is always related to islamic extremism.[/QUOTE]
Yes. Let's raze all of the Catholic churches in Boston because that's where a lot of the abuse happened. Oh, and let's also not have any YMCA's or YWCA's within a couple blocks of where the abuse happened. It's...insensitive.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Yes. Let's raze all of the Catholic churches in Boston because that's where a lot of the abuse happened. Oh, and let's also not have any YMCA's or YWCA's within a couple blocks of where the abuse happened. It's...insensitive.[/QUOTE]

So if a catholic church decided to build a 100 million dollar church next door to one of the victims of molestation because they wanted to show the victim that the catholic church is peaceful and not like that, you wouldn't have a problem with it? I certainly would think that it is insensitive, and hope that the catholic church would reconsider the way they should go about achieving their goals of showing the world the true face of catholicism.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Thats funny, I didn't know tolerance was limited to Americans and the constitution. The constitution does not protect people from other people disliking or even hating their religion. We are talking about common tolerance of which the middle east has none, and yet you guys hesitate to call them bigots. But an argument that a mosque near a catastrophic event of islamic terrorism is too insensitive and we are suddenly all bigots. (excluding berzirk since he claims he does not hold this view yet argues it consistantly.)

Stop making ridiculous posts highlighting and taking issue with points noone holds. :shock::shock::shock::shock: Noone cares that anyone is praying anywhere, (the map I posted proves that) people do care that there will be a 100 million dollar landmark of islam right next to where islamic extremists blew up two buildings. Islamic extremism is related to islam whether you like it or not. This however does not mean that islam is always related to islamic extremism.[/QUOTE]

K, last post, then I really think I'm done. You're ignorant of the world around you, particularly the Middle East. That doesn't make you a bad person, just means you read talking points and regurgitate them without any pratical basis or actual knowledge. Have you been to the Middle East? Do you know any Christians or Jews living in predominantly Muslim countries? Do you realize only 20% of the Muslim world population lives in the ME? The most populous Muslim country is Indonesia where there are TONS of churches. Did you know that it's a national law in Lebanon that if the Prime Minister is one faith, the second in command must be the other?

There are Christian and Jewish communities in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Iraq. I'm sure there are countless other ME countries that have decent minority communities too, I'm just not aware of them first hand. I've lived in the Middle East and traveled there. Many of the "Muslims" are that in name alone. (much like the US and Christianity, heck, any faith really, but Christianity as the majority here)

In addition to your lack of knowledge, Saudi Arabia is called the "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques", Mecca, and Medina. It's a Kingdom/Dictatorship, and if they want to make it a national law to prevent the building of churches (there are churches at the embasssy and military bases), they can do that...it's their country. So to compare bulding a church in Saudi, or Mecca specifically, you would have to first assume NY is the religious base for Christianity, or at least a major religious hub, AND for it to be against the law to build it. It's not, it's just a bunch of irrational f**kwits throwing a temper tantrum. Since it's not a religious hub, or against the law your idiotic "build a church in Saudi" dare is mind-bogglingly irrelevant for multiple reasons.

And it was cute how you try to say I don't call all protestors bigots, but I do. Be a man and either be comfortable with your lie and accusation, or completely retract it. Not this waffling bullsh**. It makes you look foolish...or worse...like John Kerry.
 
[quote name='berzirk']K, last post, then I really think I'm done. You're ignorant of the world around you, particularly the Middle East. That doesn't make you a bad person, just means you read talking points and regurgitate them without any pratical basis or actual knowledge. Have you been to the Middle East? Do you know any Christians or Jews living in predominantly Muslim countries? Do you realize only 20% of the Muslim world population lives in the ME? The most populous Muslim country is Indonesia where there are TONS of churches. Did you know that it's a national law in Lebanon that if the Prime Minister is one faith, the second in command must be the other?

There are Christian and Jewish communities in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Iraq. I'm sure there are countless other ME countries that have decent minority communities too, I'm just not aware of them first hand. I've lived in the Middle East and traveled there. Many of the "Muslims" are that in name alone. (much like the US and Christianity, heck, any faith really, but Christianity as the majority here)

In addition to your lack of knowledge, Saudi Arabia is called the "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques", Mecca, and Medina. It's a Kingdom/Dictatorship, and if they want to make it a national law to prevent the building of churches (there are churches at the embasssy and military bases), they can do that...it's their country. So to compare bulding a church in Saudi, or Mecca specifically, you would have to first assume NY is the religious base for Christianity, or at least a major religious hub, AND for it to be against the law to build it. It's not, it's just a bunch of irrational f**kwits throwing a temper tantrum. Since it's not a religious hub, or against the law your idiotic "build a church in Saudi" dare is mind-bogglingly irrelevant for multiple reasons.

And it was cute how you try to say I don't call all protestors bigots, but I do. Be a man and either be comfortable with your lie and accusation, or completely retract it. Not this waffling bullsh**. It makes you look foolish...or worse...like John Kerry.[/QUOTE]

Lol, So Italy's ban on mosques shouldn't affect you in the least since its a "religious hub" its ok huh?

Again you continue to argue points I don't make. I never said that the Muslim population in the Middle East was the highest in the world. Why exactly do you think I picked Saudi Arabia and the Middle East though?

I'm not sure what the rest of your post was even about, muslims in name only, and that their are other religious minorities in other countries, both of which I have neither commented on nor denied.

YOU KNOW BERZIRK, THERE ARE ALOT OF CHRISTIANS IN CANADA AND MEXICO. lol

Heres something else for you to focus your mind on.

So if a catholic church decided to build a 100 million dollar church next door to one of the victims of molestation because they wanted to show the victim that the catholic church is peaceful and not like that, you wouldn't have a problem with it? I certainly would think that it is insensitive, and hope that the catholic church would reconsider the way they should go about achieving their goals of showing the world the true face of catholicism.
Click to expand...

In this case would you say the catholic church is being insensitive?
 
[quote name='depascal22']Does it matter? Something got in his head that mass murder was OK. Should we live in fear for the rest of our lives?[/QUOTE]

He said if it was McVeigh, no one would think twice if a church was built nearby. So I pointed out McVeigh did not do what he did based on religion. And yes there is a double standard, but there shouldn't be.

[quote name='IRHari']@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]

And you think your position is right, as you said you want people to follow current policy simply because it is the policy in law, that is just as dangerous if not more dangerous than questioning policy.

[quote name='Clak']I only used him him as an example, his motivation is irrelevant. If a McVeigh type bomber did use christiinaty as his motivation, I still don't think anyone would care he was christian, it would be a footnote at best. The beliefs of the 9/11 hijackers are not the same as the beliefs of all other muslims in the world. I'm sorry that the pople who are upset with this can't see that, but that's their own problem. Nobody should have to wait until they're all dead to build this thing.[/QUOTE]

His motivation is completely relevant. Had the 9 11 attackers did what they did and had not done so based on their religious views the controversy over this mosque would not be what it is. There would still be some controversy, but it would be completely unfounded and nowhere near as bad. Likewise, if McVeigh's motivation was based on Christianity there would be more controversy but nowhere near what's going on with the mosque because yes there is a double standard.

We've already talked long about how many people who question the mosque being built where it is do understand the hijackers do not have the same beliefs - so there's no reason to bring that up to me. I also said it shouldn't be when they're all dead. I said 50 years at first and then I acknowledged that was impractical so I said 10 years.

[quote name='Clak']That's my point, it's all ridiculous. They'd have no more justification to protest the building of the church than the building of this mosque. And I fail to see how time has anything to do with this, it's been almost a decade since the 9/11 attacks, how long do these people need?[/QUOTE]

Have you ever had a family member murdered?

[quote name='depascal22']Again, who cares if anyone is building churches in the Middle East? Stop comparing us to them.

Also, Where do you think all the illegals from South and Central America go first? It's not like they hop over the entire country of Mexico and land in Texas.

Again, the only way you can possibly be against this mosque being built is if you associate all Islam with the heinous acts of 19 hijackers. Do you have any legitimate qualms about the mosque at all?[/QUOTE]

That's pigeonholing everyone into one mind set. Because a person opposes or supports something does not mean they each do it for the same reasons. Look beyond those who oppose you for the wrong reasons.

berzirk I am not pissed off at the mosque, or Islam, or even the attackers.
 
No I haven't, but if I had I wouldn't use it as leverage to try and deny someone their rights. For the record, I doubt it would have mattered if the hijackers hadn't used religion as their motivation. They're still "those people". People here were referring to them as "towel heads" for years before the attacks and they'll continue to do so. I think the fact that this place is less a mosque than it is a YMCA proves that it isn't only about religion.
 
The only justification for the 'insensitivity' is this:

-Muslims want to build a mosque near 9/11 GZ
-Muslims did 9/11
-QED
 
Thats the thing though, It will barely a mosque. It' will be a mosque as much as the YMCA is a church. Seriously, the "mosque" will be in the basement.
 
I love how your defense of it is that it isn't really a mosque. If it was a mosque by your definition would it then be insensitive? Be consistant at least.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Be consistent at least.[/QUOTE]

Funny I thought I was addressed quite directly. Or did you think I was playing the "I'm not talking to you" game. How cute.

[quote name='depascal22']Not at all. I still fly planes as well.

Also Knoell, you keep worrying about Muslim sensibilities over in the Middle East. Who cares about what they think or what they would allow to happen? Last time I checked this was America and we were supposed to be better. All I ever hear these days is that Muslims don't allow churches to be built and Mexicans don't allow illegal immigration. Again, who cares?[/QUOTE]

Nice try though.
 
[quote name='Clak']No I haven't, but if I had I wouldn't use it as leverage to try and deny someone their rights. For the record, I doubt it would have mattered if the hijackers hadn't used religion as their motivation. They're still "those people". People here were referring to them as "towel heads" for years before the attacks and they'll continue to do so. I think the fact that this place is less a mosque than it is a YMCA proves that it isn't only about religion.[/QUOTE]

You don't know their motivation for not wanting the mosque, but I doubt it's too deny people their rights any more than it is to avoid intense sorrow.

Just like people who support the mosque being built there at this time hold the thought that people who oppose it do so only based on a hatred towards Islam. People always have different motivations for their views and for their actions, yet everyone supporting the mosque here seems to think one can only oppose it if they hate Islam. That is being close minded regarding this issue.

What we probably would've seen if it wasn't based on their religion is people in the US being more against, fearing, or upset regarding their race and geographical origin than their religion, and some of that feeding into the same types of feelings toward religions from their area just nothing on this level regarding religion.

[quote name='IRHari']The only justification for the 'insensitivity' is this:

-Muslims want to build a mosque near 9/11 GZ
-Muslims did 9/11
-QED[/QUOTE]

You wouldn't oppose something that would constantly remind you, through association, of someone who murdered your family and of the source they used for their motivation? Instead, you believe you would oppose it simply because you want to take away their rights? This is what you're suggesting and it reflects very badly on you.
 
[quote name='J7.']Have you ever had a family member murdered?That's pigeonholing everyone into one mind set. Because a person opposes or supports something does not mean they each do it for the same reasons. Look beyond those who oppose you for the wrong reasons.[/QUOTE]

I've only seen two mindsets when opposition is brought up.

One is the half of the families that will get pissed no matter what gets built. You could build a golden statue of each and every person that died in the twin towers but then some of the families would call it sacriligeous. You could build a small memorial and half the families will call it a slap in the face for such a huge sacrifice. You will never appease them and they will bear their cross until they die.

They don't want to move on and maybe they shouldn't have to but they will bog down the country with their requests for the burial of 1.5 million tons of Ground Zero dirt because some of their families remains might be in there.

The other mindset is using the familes' pain as an excuse for their straight up bigotry. They know that the hijackers were Muslim and hate all Muslims now. They see a mosque and automatically think terrorist recruitment center. They're the ones that rant about Sharia law coming here and Obama being a secret Muslim.

I know those are very simplistic takes on the issue but please illuminate us on the other reasons for the opposition to building a church.
 
[quote name='J7.']You wouldn't oppose something that would constantly remind you, through association, of someone who murdered your family and of the source they used for their motivation? Instead, you believe you would oppose it simply because you want to take away their rights? This is what you're suggesting and it reflects very badly on you.[/QUOTE]

If pygmies killed my brother, no, I wouldn't throw a fit if the cast of Little People, Big Planet, wanted to build a half-sized building across the street from the site of the killing. I wouldn't equate all short people with the pygmies that killed my brother. Even if I did do that, insisting that because my feelings are hurt, others should be denied a basic American right would not be something I could even fathom.

Are you implying that just because one group has their feelings hurt, another group should have reduced rights, even though protected by the US Constitution? If this is what you're suggesting, it reflects very badly on you.
 
I think I now have to jump on the "don't build it" bandwagon simply because the architectural drawings are so shamefully ugly...

On the other hand, the are could sure use some construction money and I'm sure the people who end up building it will have an interesting time in deciding whether or not they should take the job if it goes against their principles.
 
[quote name='J7.']You wouldn't oppose something that would constantly remind you, through association, of someone who murdered your family and of the source they used for their motivation? Instead, you believe you would oppose it simply because you want to take away their rights? This is what you're suggesting and it reflects very badly on you.[/QUOTE]

Guilt by association is pretty awful. See: Presidential Election 2008

Nah brah, I never said I'd oppose anything. Nice try though. coolstarman
 
[quote name='Knoell']I love how your defense of it is that it isn't really a mosque. If it was a mosque by your definition would it then be insensitive? Be consistant at least.[/QUOTE]
No, but unlike you when I've been handed new information I adjust my opinion accordingly. As I said, it isn't even appropriate to call it a Mosque when that's but one small function of the place. It's a mosque as much as the Pentagon is for having a prayer room.
 
[quote name='J7.']You don't know their motivation for not wanting the mosque, but I doubt it's too deny people their rights any more than it is to avoid intense sorrow.

Just like people who support the mosque being built there at this time hold the thought that people who oppose it do so only based on a hatred towards Islam. People always have different motivations for their views and for their actions, yet everyone supporting the mosque here seems to think one can only oppose it if they hate Islam. That is being close minded regarding this issue.

What we probably would've seen if it wasn't based on their religion is people in the US being more against, fearing, or upset regarding their race and geographical origin than their religion, and some of that feeding into the same types of feelings toward religions from their area just nothing on this level regarding religion.



You wouldn't oppose something that would constantly remind you, through association, of someone who murdered your family and of the source they used for their motivation? Instead, you believe you would oppose it simply because you want to take away their rights? This is what you're suggesting and it reflects very badly on you.[/QUOTE]
I have no doubt some of these people protesting were and still are hurt by what happened, but they have no right to tell anyone where to build anything. As Americans, they should fight for the right of these people to build there, instead they're giving into pain,fear, and hatred by saying they shouldn't.

Let me just give you an example. The WBC folks, I can't stand those people, they disgust me. On the other hand, I'd fight for their right to spew forth the awful things that they do, anywhere they want. Is saying that shit at military funerals in bad taste? Yeah I'd say so, but I'm not going to tell them they should stop either.
 
[quote name='berzirk']

Are you implying that just because one group has their feelings hurt, another group should have reduced rights, even though protected by the US Constitution? If this is what you're suggesting, it reflects very badly on you.[/QUOTE]


I think we are arguing that the person building it should be more sensitive about the issue, especially since he said he is building it SPECIFICALLY to improve muslim, non muslim relations. I still don't understand how someone is taking away someones rights by protesting. Noone is forcing the guy to do or not do anything.

If this were the case, we couldn't persuade anyone to do anything because it would infringe on someone elses rights.

"Hey, can you not smoke in here?" Oops
"Hey, can you not shout so loud, I have a headache" Oops
"Hey, can you keep it down at night, my children are trying to sleep" Oops
 
[quote name='Knoell']I think we are arguing that the person building it should be more sensitive about the issue, especially since he said he is building it SPECIFICALLY to improve muslim, non muslim relations. I still don't understand how someone is taking away someones rights by protesting. Noone is forcing the guy to do or not do anything.

If this were the case, we couldn't persuade anyone to do anything because it would infringe on someone elses rights.

"Hey, can you not smoke in here?" Oops
"Hey, can you not shout so loud, I have a headache" Oops
"Hey, can you keep it down at night, my children are trying to sleep" Oops[/QUOTE]

Wasn't talking to you, but thanks anway.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Wasn't talking to you, but thanks anway.[/QUOTE]

"wah, wah, wah, someone disagrees with me so now im not talking to them."

So be it.
 
[quote name='berzirk']If pygmies killed my brother, no, I wouldn't throw a fit if the cast of Little People, Big Planet, wanted to build a half-sized building across the street from the site of the killing. I wouldn't equate all short people with the pygmies that killed my brother. Even if I did do that, insisting that because my feelings are hurt, others should be denied a basic American right would not be something I could even fathom.

Are you implying that just because one group has their feelings hurt, another group should have reduced rights, even though protected by the US Constitution? If this is what you're suggesting, it reflects very badly on you.[/QUOTE]

Pygmies to cast of Little People is like Christianity to Islam.

If you were in this thread earlier you would know I never said our government or anyone within our country should prevent the mosque being built. I've always said the builders of the mosque should agree to a new location out of their own goodwill. Any amendment's to the constitution that would impact something like this should only come after the situation has been resolved. And it goes beyond having their feelings hurt.

[quote name='Clak']I have no doubt some of these people protesting were and still are hurt by what happened, but they have no right to tell anyone where to build anything. As Americans, they should fight for the right of these people to build there, instead they're giving into pain,fear, and hatred by saying they shouldn't.

Let me just give you an example. The WBC folks, I can't stand those people, they disgust me. On the other hand, I'd fight for their right to spew forth the awful things that they do, anywhere they want. Is saying that shit at military funerals in bad taste? Yeah I'd say so, but I'm not going to tell them they should stop either.[/QUOTE]

They shouldn't tell someone where they can or can't build, but they should try to let them know how it makes them feel.

Freedom of speech is great, but should you really fight for the right for people to repeatedly kick someone when they're already on the floor in unimaginable pain trying to focus on saying their last goodbyes to someone and all they fucking hear is someone bashing them and their loved one the entire time? You wouldn't try to make them understand how it makes you feel? (not saying this is the same as the mosque, to me this is worse because we do know their motivation). I don't think our founding fathers ever envisioned people would use our freedoms to psychologically harass mourners. Would it be so bad to make such a thing a crime? Looks like that's already happened.

Do any of your family members have any faults that detract from their health? Would you really be okay with someone yelling, cursing, laughing, blaming them and you for their death, etc at you as you lower their grave into the ground and say goodbye? When you think back on that memory what would you remember and how would it make you feel? Yet, you would want to preserve such actions upon others?

[quote name='IRHari']Guilt by association is pretty awful. See: Presidential Election 2008

Nah brah, I never said I'd oppose anything. Nice try though. coolstarman[/QUOTE]

You understand that by you saying the only reason people would oppose the mosque, would be their motivation for hating Islam, means that if you were the one opposing the mosque this would be the only motivation you could have. Or if you switched sides all of a sudden you would now claim there are different motivations for opposing the mosque? I'm not trying to trap you into responding in a way that would make you look bad... if I wanted to I wouldn't have worded it the way I did. I'm trying to help you understand the other side of the issue. Just as you can help me understand your side.

[quote name='depascal22']I've only seen two mindsets when opposition is brought up.

One is the half of the families that will get pissed no matter what gets built. You could build a golden statue of each and every person that died in the twin towers but then some of the families would call it sacriligeous. You could build a small memorial and half the families will call it a slap in the face for such a huge sacrifice. You will never appease them and they will bear their cross until they die.

They don't want to move on and maybe they shouldn't have to but they will bog down the country with their requests for the burial of 1.5 million tons of Ground Zero dirt because some of their families remains might be in there.

The other mindset is using the familes' pain as an excuse for their straight up bigotry. They know that the hijackers were Muslim and hate all Muslims now. They see a mosque and automatically think terrorist recruitment center. They're the ones that rant about Sharia law coming here and Obama being a secret Muslim.

I know those are very simplistic takes on the issue but please illuminate us on the other reasons for the opposition to building a church.[/QUOTE]

That's the mindsets you've chosen to focus on and you're excluding any other possible mindsets by your own choice.

I think I already have. Person uses source as reason to murder your family. Another person uses the same source for peaceful means. You associate the source with what happened to your family. It's only natural to. You're not against those who use the source, you're gravely upset by the source being put so close to where your family died as a result of that source. The source affects you, you can't change that. Doesn't make the source bad. Makes the choice of putting it there questionable and asking the builders to reconsider their plans is a means of asking for them to understand your situation.

[quote name='berzirk']Wasn't talking to you, but thanks anway.[/QUOTE]

It's not like he's shitting some diarrhea on someone's coffin as it's being lowered into their grave.
 
I already said I didn't like the WBC and what they do, but censoring speech is a slippery slope and one I'm not willing to slide ass over head down. Letting someone know you aren't ok with something is fine, but they aren't just saying that in NY, they're saying they want them to move somewhere else, that's different. Though like I said, they're giving into pain, fear I'd say some of them have of Muslims, and the hatred that some of them have been displaying.

They could embrace these people and welcome them, even try to find some common ground, but they don't seem interested in that. I mean if the people building this were in NY during the attacks, they were effected too, some of them may have even known people killed in the attacks. There is common ground to be found if everyone is willing to get past the past so to speak.
 
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it...unless you're saying something I don't like or are brown, in that case fuck you. Why can't you people be more sensitive?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']I already said I didn't like the WBC and what they do, but censoring speech is a slippery slope and one I'm not willing to slide ass over head down. Letting someone know you aren't ok with something is fine, but they aren't just saying that in NY, they're saying they want them to move somewhere else, that's different. Though like I said, they're giving into pain, fear I'd say some of them have of Muslims, and the hatred that some of them have been displaying.

They could embrace these people and welcome them, even try to find some common ground, but they don't seem interested in that. I mean if the people building this were in NY during the attacks, they were effected too, some of them may have even known people killed in the attacks. There is common ground to be found if everyone is willing to get past the past so to speak.[/QUOTE]

Laws against people being verbally abusive towards mourners at a funeral have been made and there's been no slope effect. I'm not saying there won't be, but sometimes you need to take some calculated risk to make things right. So far the laws have helped and prevented further altercations involving people attacking the WBC to stop them themselves. This isn't an issue with much slope to it frankly. When not taking action is worse than taking action, action should be taken. Remember this isn't censoring speech, they just can't do it in their face, they're free to do it 300-500 ft away. Not trying to compare WBC to the WTC situation, only comparing it in the terms you brought it into the discussion with since I'm sure someone would come in here and think I'm trying to make a direct comparison because I must hate Islam to oppose the current plan. As for mourners being strong enough to ignore WBC and such, when they're in that emotional state they're in no place to be able to.

WBC is still allowed to protest, just not within a certain amount of feet from funerals depending on each law written up to stop them. Not similar to people wanting the mosque a certain distance away from GZ?

And the builders of the mosque and people who would use it could embrace the families as I suggested they should. You and I are asking for the same thing to be done here, just different sides. Compromise would be nice, but only portions of each side feel that way.

[quote name='Sporadic']I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it...unless your saying something I don't like or are brown, in that case fuck you. Why can't you people be more sensitive?[/QUOTE]

A bit sporadic, meaning I don't know who you're referring to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']"wah, wah, wah, someone disagrees with me so now im not talking to them."

So be it.[/QUOTE]

Heh, that was my way of basically saying you and I have gone back and forth for pages (an event that clearly the new guy didn't catch, considering he's come into the thread so late to revive it-tip...read the past 20 pages, you'll see my name often), nothing you say is going to make me believe your position, nothing I say is going to make you believe my position, so you replying to me when I wasn't addressing you is truly pointless. There's nothing else to be said on the topic between you and I. If you're hoping for a revival of personal attacks lobbed back and forth, I'm not really interested. We've already done that.

Sorry if I've grown bored of arguing with you, I figured I'd just acknowledge your post, and tactfully disregard it. Next time I'll call you a twat or something, and Ctl-F5 it until I get a response.

Nite, nite.
 
[quote name='berzirk'] (an event that clearly the new guy didn't catch, considering he's come into the thread so late to revive it-tip...read the past 20 pages, you'll see my name often), .[/QUOTE]
In that case you would know I was not 'implying that just because one group has their feelings hurt, another group should have reduced rights, even though protected by the US Constitution'. I stated the builders need to make that choice and that any changes to law should be made after this type of situation is resolved.

Thing is I've been in this thread since pg 28 and like yourself I haven't read every post, only those that were addressed to me, until recently where I have been reading every post. So I didn't notice your posts earlier and you didn't notice mine.
 
[quote name='J7.']That's the mindsets you've chosen to focus on and you're excluding any other possible mindsets by your own choice.

I think I already have. Person uses source as reason to murder your family. Another person uses the same source for peaceful means. You associate the source with what happened to your family. It's only natural to. You're not against those who use the source, you're gravely upset by the source being put so close to where your family died as a result of that source. The source affects you, you can't change that. Doesn't make the source bad. Makes the choice of putting it there questionable and asking the builders to reconsider their plans is a means of asking for them to understand your situation.[/QUOTE]

The association is extremely superficial. You think about it for 5 seconds and you realize oh one is an extremely RADICAL version that advocates violence, and the other is extremely MODERATE version that advocates peace and vehemently condemns violence. It's completely disingenuous to suggest those two are even remotely related beyond 'they're both versions of islam'; and that in and of itself to me isn't enough to oppose someone building something that they have the right to.
 
[quote name='Knoell']So if a catholic church decided to build a 100 million dollar church next door to one of the victims of molestation because they wanted to show the victim that the catholic church is peaceful and not like that, you wouldn't have a problem with it? I certainly would think that it is insensitive, and hope that the catholic church would reconsider the way they should go about achieving their goals of showing the world the true face of catholicism.[/QUOTE]

Noone ever answered this, and I think it hits on the points IRHari just made. Would opposing the building of that church mean I hate catholics? Would it mean I think all catholic priests molest little boys? Does it mean I wish to take away the rights of catholics?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='J7.']Laws against people being verbally abusive towards mourners at a funeral have been made and there's been no slope effect. I'm not saying there won't be, but sometimes you need to take some calculated risk to make things right. So far the laws have helped and prevented further altercations involving people attacking the WBC to stop them themselves. This isn't an issue with much slope to it frankly. When not taking action is worse than taking action, action should be taken. Remember this isn't censoring speech, they just can't do it in their face, they're free to do it 300-500 ft away. Not trying to compare WBC to the WTC situation, only comparing it in the terms you brought it into the discussion with since I'm sure someone would come in here and think I'm trying to make a direct comparison because I must hate Islam to oppose the current plan. As for mourners being strong enough to ignore WBC and such, when they're in that emotional state they're in no place to be able to.

WBC is still allowed to protest, just not within a certain amount of feet from funerals depending on each law written up to stop them. Not similar to people wanting the mosque a certain distance away from GZ?

And the builders of the mosque and people who would use it could embrace the families as I suggested they should. You and I are asking for the same thing to be done here, just different sides. Compromise would be nice, but only portions of each side feel that way.



A bit sporadic, meaning I don't know who you're referring to.[/QUOTE]I I know they have to do it from a certain distance away, that changes nothing of what I said.

The difference between them being forced to stay a distance away and this building being built nearby is that most people would agree that what the WBC are doing is a negative thing, they aren't adding anything positive to the area or funeral. The people building this place in NY aren't trying to be hateful or antagonize anyone.

I know people would disagree and say that they're trying to send some message with this building in NY, but that can't be proven and seems a bit paranoid, on the other hand, there is no mistaking the message of the WBC.
 
http://www.openleft.com/diary/20435...n-any-islamic-center-built-in-lower-manhattan

@ Knoell
Let em build it. Hopefully that church isn't playing a part in covering up the sex abuse scandals. If they're not then that's cool, no problem with it. Remember the builders of Park 51 vehemently condemned terrorism?

EDIT: IT ISNT INSENSITIVE NOR IS IT DOUCHY, there

The kids were molested by pedophiles who were Catholic priests. Any attempt to tie Catholicism to what they did is incredibly disingenuous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']Noone ever answered this, and I think it hits on the points IRHari just made. Would opposing the building of that church mean I hate catholics? Would it mean I think all catholic priests molest little boys? Does it mean I wish to take away the rights of catholics?[/QUOTE]
I'll answer it by saying that I'd hope the victim would understand that not every Catholic is a child molester. However, your comparison isn't really fair. Lets say this theoretical church is built near the site of the molestation, not where the person lives(I'm sure some people in NYC live near the place, but not everyone protesting it), lets also say that there is already a Catholic church nearby, finally we'll say that the "church" portion is but one function of the place. Then you'd have a credible comparison.
 
[quote name='IRHari']The association is extremely superficial. You think about it for 5 seconds and you realize oh one is an extremely RADICAL version that advocates violence, and the other is extremely MODERATE version that advocates peace and vehemently condemns violence. It's completely disingenuous to suggest those two are even remotely related beyond 'they're both versions of islam'; and that in and of itself to me isn't enough to oppose someone building something that they have the right to.[/QUOTE]

It's only superficial if you assign no blame to the source. They don't have to be related just like if I use a gun to get dinner and someone uses it to murder, we're not related, but the gun is still the means used to accomplish something. Maybe this means guns shouldn't be outlawed, maybe it means there needs to be a way to avoid guns to be used this way, maybe it means there needs to be a way to avoid the additional fallout from the way guns are used, maybe it means there's a better way to hunt than shooting...

You ignored my response that was directed towards your previous post and chose to reply only to a post I made towards someone else. If you say the only reason people would oppose the mosque is due to hating Islam that means if you were in that type of situation you would only be opposing something for one reason alone and the worst negative reason you could think of. Wouldn't you agree that you could hold different ideas for opposing something and that each person could have different ideas to oppose?

[quote name='IRHari']http://www.openleft.com/diary/20435...n-any-islamic-center-built-in-lower-manhattan

@ Knoell
Let em build it. Hopefully that church isn't playing a part in covering up the sex abuse scandals. If they're not then that's cool, no problem with it. Remember the builders of Park 51 vehemently condemned terrorism?

EDIT: IT ISNT INSENSITIVE NOR IS IT DOUCHY, there

The kids were molested by pedophiles who were Catholic priests. Any attempt to tie Catholicism to what they did is incredibly disingenuous.[/QUOTE]

How do you feel about the person?

[quote name='Clak']I I know they have to do it from a certain distance away, that changes nothing of what I said.

The difference between them being forced to stay a distance away and this building being built nearby is that most people would agree that what the WBC are doing is a negative thing, they aren't adding anything positive to the area or funeral. The people building this place in NY aren't trying to be hateful or antagonize anyone.

I know people would disagree and say that they're trying to send some message with this building in NY, but that can't be proven and seems a bit paranoid, on the other hand, there is no mistaking the message of the WBC.[/QUOTE]

Okay, what I know is that you said people protesting the mosque have no right to tell anyone where to build. Agreed, but they can make their feelings known. You said they should fight for the right of these people to build there. This would be admirable, but if it's not possible for them to do this because of what happened to them and what it did to them, they're entitled to feel the way they do. The builders face the same thing and they hold the power here so it is up to them to decide. If the builders changed their plans it would be seen as a gesture of humanity. If they don't it's like they could care less.

Then you said an example is the WBC and that you'd fight for their right to do what they do based on principle. So I said there's been laws that do not violate the rights of WBC. They're still allowed to do what they do only in a location more respectful towards the mourners. Those against the [location of] mosque want the same thing. Those who demand government to do it are wrong. Those who ask the builders to do it are not trying to force anything, but are asking for compassion imo.

Yes there is a clear difference and it is why we should be and were allowed to make a law against the WBC, but is why we should not be able to make such a law against the builders of the mosque, only let them know how we feel and ask them to understand. We tried that with WBC and obviously it would not and does not work when their intentions are evil. Now if we knew the builders were doing it for the wrong reasons then we should be allowed to step in and stop it, but since we don't know we need to leave the choice up to the builders.

[quote name='Clak']I'll answer it by saying that I'd hope the victim would understand that not every Catholic is a child molester. However, your comparison isn't really fair. Lets say this theoretical church is built near the site of the molestation, not where the person lives(I'm sure some people in NYC live near the place, but not everyone protesting it), lets also say that there is already a Catholic church nearby, finally we'll say that the "church" portion is but one function of the place. Then you'd have a credible comparison.[/QUOTE]

Let's make the comparison even more credible:
How much therapy would it take for the person to break the association between Catholicism and the people who were not only Catholic members but high ranking members who preached Catholicism? Would they even be able to afford such therapy?

Was the person Catholic? How else was he involved close enough to be molested? If he was Catholic obviously he knows Catholicism is a good thing so that doesn't mean the association he has is due to thinking Catholicism is evil...

How would the person know if there was one bad Catholic among hundreds of good Catholics? Is the guy's therapist located next door to the church (i.e. WTC memorial site)? How many churches are nearby? A lot of churches do have multiple functions, particularly one that would cost $100 million. Is the molestation site and church talked about, written about, shown on tv, etc all the time?

Should the church show that it values his plight and offer to help him in some way, whether it be moving the site, helping him move far away, help him pay for therapy, etc? Would this or would ignoring him and doing what they want be more indicative of Catholicism and spreading peace?
 
Depends on the people, some are asking for compassion, I'm sure some would like to force them to find another place. The guy who burned the koran for example wasn't asking for compassion, he was sending a message.

I'm going to stop here, because I feel like we're basically nitpicking or arguing over the particulars.
 
[quote name='Clak']Depends on the people, some are asking for compassion, I'm sure some would like to force them to find another place. The guy who burned the koran for example wasn't asking for compassion, he was sending a message.

I'm going to stop here, because I feel like we're basically nitpicking or arguing over the particulars.[/QUOTE]

To those people I would say the same thing I have to you more or less, and probably bring up some things you have.

That's fine, if you decide to post because something really draws you back into the discussion I would welcome that too because you do a good job of illustrating the other side of the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top