Ground Zero Mosque

Black Swan

A community board in New York approved the building of a 13-story mosque and Islamic cultural centre near the Ground Zero site where the twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11.

Today former Alaska Governor and 2008 Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin was quoted as opposing the construction.

"Twin Towers site is too raw. Peace-seeking Muslim, pls (please) understand, Ground Zero mosque is unnecessary provocation. Pls (please) reject it in interest of healing," she tweeted.

Do you agree or disagree with Sarah Palin's opposition of building the Mosque, and why?


Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/Palin-tweets-against-mosque-near-Ground-Zero/articleshow/6190625.cms

fontanalis

Well it's not at ground zero for a start but facts don't get in the way of hysteria. How far form ground zero would be acceptable?
Also it's safe to say that many of the opponents are pro constitution and pro small government but they want some form of government intervention to prevent someone from the constitutional right to practice their religion.

Black Swan

fontanalis wrote: »

Well it's not at ground zero for a start but facts don't get in the way of hysteria. How far form ground zero would be acceptable?

"Plans for the construction of a mosque just two blocks from Ground Zero are prompting outrage in the blogosphere, but the emotional reaction appears to falling on deaf ears."

Don't tell me that the news media makes mistakes?
/face palm!

"The Cordoba House project, according to CNN, calls for a 15-story community center that would include a performance-art center, gym, swimming pool, and a mosque."

Source: http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/05/10/right-wing-mosque-at-ground-zero-is-a-quot-slap-in-the-face-quot.html

"...a New York community board approved the building of a 13-story mosque and Islamic cultural centre close to the Ground Zero site..."

Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/Palin-tweets-against-mosque-near-Ground-Zero/articleshow/6190625.cms

Just a couple stories difference, among all the other stories on this issue?

Amerika

I have read some of the quotes and viewpoints of Feisal Abdul Rauf, the NYC imam who wants to build this mosque. Hmmmm, so all the radical islamic terror problems we are facing today are the fault of Christians? I think Sarah Palin was far too kind in her tweet.

Where’s the Grizzly momma we all love? She’s starting to sound far to presidential.

fontanalis

Calling it the ground zero mosque is implying building on the site, how far would be ok for them?

fontanalis

Amerika wrote: »

I have read some of the quotes and viewpoints of Feisal Abdul Rauf, the NYC imam who wants to build this mosque. So all the terrorist problems are the fault of Christians? I think Sarah Palin was far too kind in her tweet.

Where’s the Grizzly momma we all love? She’s starting to sound far to presidential.

She'd refudiate that.

Amerika

fontanalis wrote: »

She'd refudiate that.

Yup... Her and Shakespeare.

fontanalis

Amerika wrote: »

Yup... Her and Shakespeare.

Ya becha, over and out toddmeister.

Amerika

fontanalis wrote: »

Calling it the ground zero mosque is implying building on the site, how far would be ok for them?

Iran?

Black Swan

fontanalis wrote: »

She'd refudiate that.

"Sarah Palin's inflammatory tweets calling on New Yorkers to "refudiate" a planned mosque near the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks has made her both a satirical target and a thorn in the side of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg..."

Amerika wrote: »

Where’s the Grizzly momma we all love? She’s starting to sound far to presidential.

"Refudiate?" Does this sound like a Bushism Sarah Palin statement?

Source with Palin vid: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/sarah-palin-riles-nyc-mayor-michael-bloomberg-mosque/story?id=11203590

***

Does the Tea Party stand with Sarah Palin's opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque? Oh... Which Tea Party?

"Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams has offered up insulting rants regarding the proposed mosque at Ground Zero."

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/07/18/2010-07-18_tea_party_express_leader_mark_williams_expelled_over_colored_people_letter.html

Amerika

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"Refudiate?" Does this sound like a Bushism Sarah Palin statement?

Didn’t William Shakespeare also make up words, where by the nature of the word would cause people to understand the meaning? Sounds like she’s in good company.

"Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams has offered up insulting rants regarding the proposed mosque at Ground Zero."

Don't you mean EX-Tea Party member (from yeah, you guessed it... California)? You aren't still calling Benedict Arlen a republican are you?

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

You aren't still calling Benedict Arlen a republican are you?

Specter: A haunting or disturbing image or prospect (for the Republican Party). :eek:

Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specter

Amerika wrote: »

Didn’t William Shakespeare also make up words, where by the nature of the word would cause people to understand the meaning? Sounds like she’s in good company.

The transition in tweets is telling?

1. The Twittersphere erupted Sunday when former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin tweeted that "peaceful Muslims" should "refudiate" the mosque being built in New York City near where the Twin Towers once stood. Palin found herself the butt of many tweets, as refudiate, of course, is not a word in the English language.
   
2. After deleting the offending tweet, Palin replaced it with another calling on "peaceful New Yorkers" to "refute the Ground Zero mosque plan," which only added to the confusion because it would appear the word she was looking for was "repudiate."
   
3. Then came the kicker: To quell the vicious Twitter-ribbing she was receiving, Palin unleashed yet another tweet comparing herself to no less than the Bard of Avon.

Does Palin have a problem admitting that she made a silly mistake? She should read about how Ronny Ray Gun handled such mistakes when he would comment after making one: "There I go again." Many would laugh with him, instead of at him.

Source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/07/palin-invents-word-compares-he.html

Einhard

Amerika wrote: »

Didn’t William Shakespeare also make up words, where by the nature of the word would cause people to understand the meaning? Sounds like she’s in good company.

Shakespeare done it on purpose. Palin does it because she has a poor grasp of English*.










And some would say reality...

PopeUrbanII

Don't fall for Muslim trickery. Don't allow the building of the mosque at Ground Zero. No way............:mad:

pickarooney

Einhard wrote: »

Shakespeare done it on purpose. Palin does it because she has a poor grasp of English*.

Haha, it's funny when you do it deliberately like that.

Byron85

It's hysterical nonsense. Case and point:

At one point, a portion of the crowd menacingly surrounded two Egyptian men who were speaking Arabic and were thought to be Muslims.

"Go home," several shouted from the crowd.
"Get out," others shouted.
In fact, the two men – Joseph Nassralla and Karam El Masry — were not Muslims at all. They turned out to be Egyptian Coptic Christians who work for a California-based Christian satellite TV station called "The Way." Both said they had come to protest the mosque.

"I'm a Christian," Nassralla shouted to the crowd, his eyes bulging and beads of sweat rolling down his face.

But it was no use. The protesters had become so angry at what they thought were Muslims that New York City police officers had to rush in and pull Nassralla and El Masry to safety.

"I flew nine hours in an airplane to come here," a frustrated Nassralla said afterward.

stretchtex

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Specter: A haunting or disturbing image or prospect (for the Republican Party). :eek:

Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specter


The transition in tweets is telling?

1. The Twittersphere erupted Sunday when former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin tweeted that "peaceful Muslims" should "refudiate" the mosque being built in New York City near where the Twin Towers once stood. Palin found herself the butt of many tweets, as refudiate, of course, is not a word in the English language.
   
2. After deleting the offending tweet, Palin replaced it with another calling on "peaceful New Yorkers" to "refute the Ground Zero mosque plan," which only added to the confusion because it would appear the word she was looking for was "repudiate."
   
3. Then came the kicker: To quell the vicious Twitter-ribbing she was receiving, Palin unleashed yet another tweet comparing herself to no less than the Bard of Avon.

Does Palin have a problem admitting that she made a silly mistake? She should read about how Ronny Ray Gun handled such mistakes when he would comment after making one: "There I go again." Many would laugh with him, instead of at him.

Source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/07/palin-invents-word-compares-he.html

Refudiate is not at word in the English language and there are not 57 states as Obama believes. Obama also sincerely believes that a breathalyzer is used for the treatment of asthma.

rovert

Ill really torn on this issue one part of me says this is an issue maybe you shouldnt fight for on the other hand if this part of a geniune peace and reconcilation effort then go ahead.

PopeUrbanII wrote: »

Don't fall for Muslim trickery

Card games, cups that sort of thing?

jank

fontanalis wrote: »

Well it's not at ground zero for a start but facts don't get in the way of hysteria. How far form ground zero would be acceptable?
Also it's safe to say that many of the opponents are pro constitution and pro small government but they want some form of government intervention to prevent someone from the constitutional right to practice their religion.

Ex-Fcuking-actly

jank

Again, another issue where the right seems to be playing to their base but the rest of america is looking on wondering "Are these guys for real"?

Freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution therefore this mosque should be built.

/Thread

Carcharodon

fontanalis wrote: »

Well it's not at ground zero for a start but facts don't get in the way of hysteria. How far form ground zero would be acceptable?
Also it's safe to say that many of the opponents are pro constitution and pro small government but they want some form of government intervention to prevent someone from the constitutional right to practice their religion.

That about sums it up in short.

I am far for religious but all this just stinks of hypocrisy right across the board and highlights the lack of knowledge and intelligence of people making a big fuss over this.

I wonder do the same people objecting to this, object to churches being set up in Iraq.

Black Heart

If they want to help and heal, then building a mosque is a very stupid idea. It only takes common sense to see that this will upset people. It's that simple. You can't force this down the throat of people who are still angry that their loved ones died. Common sense should reign over these issues. There are quite a number of people out there who have not had closure of any sort, everyone knows that, so how on earth would this help heal those people's grieving hearts?

I have nothing against Islam (it's no different from any of the other fairy tales people believe in), but common sense is enough to tell me that this idea would not go down well.

rovert

Black Heart wrote: »

If they want to help and heal, then building a mosque is a very stupid idea. It only takes common sense to see that this will upset people. It's that simple. You can't force this down the throat of people who are still angry that their loved ones died. Common sense should reign over these issues. There are quite a number of people out there who have not had closure of any sort, everyone knows that, so how on earth would this help heal those people's grieving hearts?

I have nothing against Islam (it's no different from any of the other fairy tales people believe in), but common sense is enough to tell me that this idea would not go down well.

Do people object to building churches in Norman, Oklahoma?

Black Heart

Great, that answers everything. :rolleyes: If you want to educate people about why a mosque at, or anywhere near, 'ground zero' is not a threat, you'll have to think of an argument that can persuade the people who matter, not me.

*agrees to disagree, then leaves argument to people who know better*

rovert

Black Heart wrote: »

Great, that answers everything. :rolleyes: If you want to educate people about why a mosque at, or anywhere near, 'ground zero' is not a threat, you'll have to think of an argument that can persuade the people who matter, not me.

*agrees to disagree, then leaves argument to people who know better*

So you are not going to answer the question? Just because they are Muslum shouldnt change the principle.

old_aussie

After seeing the reaction of New Yorkers to what they thought were two muslims, if the mosque gets built, I'm predicting that it will be destroyed within months by New Yorkers.

Time will see if that prediction comes true.

Carcharodon

Black Heart wrote: »

If they want to help and heal, then building a mosque is a very stupid idea.

I would of actually thought the opposite, thought it would show that people can rise above such acts by minorities and that being Muslim doesn't mean your a terrorist.

It's not like it is going to be some mammoth structure that shadows over New York.

irishconvert

There is absolutly no reason a Mosque can't be built on the site which is not Ground Zero, but two blocks from it. There has already been a mosque at that site for quite a while, they just want to redevelop it.

What happened on 9/11 was against Islamic beliefs. Muslims are only allowed to fight when being attacked and are not allowed target civillians. The people who comitted these atrocities were not representing Muslims. In fact if you believe the official stories then you will see their attacks were politicial in nature, not religious.

irishconvert

old_aussie wrote: »

After seeing the reaction of New Yorkers to what they thought were two muslims, if the mosque gets built, I'm predicting that it will be destroyed within months by New Yorkers.

Time will see if that prediction comes true.

Your prediction , although you would love it to some through, will not. Once the media and the rent a mob crowd get tired of the story and go away, life will go on.

Eliot Rosewater

jank wrote: »

Freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution...

The constitution seems to have fallen out of fashion.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

I sincerely refudiate Sarah Palin.

Nody

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The constitution seems to have fallen out of fashion.

Not true; it is the holiest of holy texts if it means you can use it to carry a gun to protect from a future invastion of US of A (those Canadian mooses are dangerous ya know!).

Podman

There's nothing wrong with a Mosque at "ground zero", Christians are supposed to be tolerant aren't they?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That has yet to be proven.
(talk about opening a huge can of worms, but not in this thread)

The Patsie flying the plane is just a distraction, as is the racial hatred and any 911 arguments using this as a basis.

America has been a police state for nearly 10 years now, that overrules the Constitution.

amacachi

Oh for ****sake.

fontanalis

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The constitution seems to have fallen out of fashion.

Or into fashion depending on whether or nor it goes with your opinion.
The bottom line is that the vast majority of the oppenents are people who will beat their chest about freedom and liberty blah blah blah
True freedom also means putting up with things you don't like, that also applies to much of the liberal movement in the US.

Overheal

irishconvert wrote: »

What happened on 9/11 was against Islamic beliefs. Muslims are only allowed to fight when being attacked and are not allowed target civillians. The people who comitted these atrocities were not representing Muslims. In fact if you believe the official stories then you will see their attacks were politicial in nature, not religious.

This. Much as I despise the attack, the Muslim community at large does as well.

Eliot Rosewater

Nody wrote: »

Not true

The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I don't see how trying to stop a religious building being constructed simply because you don't believe in that religion is compatible with this.

What with the burqa a ban and this kind of thing, it seems to me that freedom of the individual is going out of vogue. To see a poll in the Atheist forum, a place where one would expect to find people in favour of liberty and the individual, showing over 60% in favour getting the government to control what people wear makes me despair.

Is tolerance going to become a thing of the past?

Overheal

The Burqa is another story altogether, to be completely fair. And while people still wear motorcycle helmets and ski in balaclavas, you're still asked to remove both when you enter a 7-11 for obvious reason.

jank

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The constitution seems to have fallen out of fashion.

Dont worry these same wing nuts will be stomping around the place in a few weeks when something they take offence to occurs and they will be pointing to the constitution to backup their claims.

Seems the constitution is just a way to curry favor to whatever is flavour of the week. Of course when something else occurs they don't quite like but seems to be enshrined in the constitution then that of course is never mentioned.

Eliot Rosewater

Overheal wrote: »

The Burqa is another story altogether, to be completely fair. And while people still wear motorcycle helmets and ski in balaclavas, you're still asked to remove both when you enter a 7-11 for obvious reason.

(The burqa ban is for all public places, not just indoors.)

The point I was trying to make is that people are intolerant of opposing view points. I certainly don't like women wearing the burqa, but I'm tolerant of them and respect their right to do so. Equally, though I'm really non-religious, I'd be tolerant of someone's desire to build a place of worship to a some deity.

Not liking what someone is doing is not justification for preventing them from doing that.

jank wrote: »

Dont worry these same wing nuts will be stomping around the place in a few weeks when something they take offence to occurs and they will be pointing to the constitution to backup their claims.

It also seem to be used to prove patriotism. Politicians saying something like "our beloved constitution". If you feel it's so beloved why don't you live and govern by its ideals?

fontanalis

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

(The burqa ban is for all public places, not just indoors.)

The point I was trying to make is that people are intolerant of opposing view points. I certainly don't like women wearing the burqa, but I'm tolerant of them and respect their right to do so. Equally, though I'm really non-religious, I'd be tolerant of someone's desire to build a place of worship to a some deity.

Not liking what someone is doing is not justification for preventing them from doing that.



It also seem to be used to prove patriotism. Politicians saying something like "our beloved constitution". If you feel it's so beloved why don't you live and govern by its ideals?

Yes, if people are mentally ill enough to want to wear one and if they harm no-one in the process then go ahead.

BluePlanet

jank wrote: »

Dont worry these same wing nuts will be stomping around the place in a few weeks when something they take offence to occurs and they will be pointing to the constitution to backup their claims.

Sure they've already been doing that.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/17/american-atheists-nationwide-campaign

Overheal

fontanalis wrote: »

Yes, if people are mentally ill enough to want to wear one and if they harm no-one in the process then go ahead.

I can see why in the current political climate they have been banned though. Either way thats a tangent to the New York Mosque.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kev9100

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats all Palin is interested in imho. As long as she keeps the far-right and the Tea Party onside, she can continue to stay in the spotlight and make a hell of a lot of money.

Eliot Rosewater

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But in fairness that's just indirectly breaching it. Sure, she's only offering opposition, but the goal of said opposition is surely to force some prevention of the mosque's construction. Most protests seem to have the goal of forcing some government's hand, from what I can see.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

Newt Gingrich announced (by proxy) that he will be a Republican candidate for president 2012, then...

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is the latest high-profile national political figure to come out against the proposed mosque near Ground Zero."

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/07/22/2010-07-22_newt_gingrich_comes_out_against_planned_cordoba_house_mosque_near_ground_zero.html

Gingrich, writing on his blog, said there should be no house of worship for Muslims near Ground Zero in New York "so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia."

"The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over," he continued.

Source: http://www.myfoxla.com/dpps/news/newt-gingrich-opposes-planned-ground-zero-mosque-dpgonc-20100722-fc_8789130

Why did Gingrich isolate one country, Saudi Arabia, out of the several about the world that have majorities that practice Islam? All people of the Islamic faith do not live in Saudi Arabia.

Will he also proclaim that America should not buy Saudi oil, and that America pull its military bases out of Saudi Arabia if Christian churches are not built there?

Does Gingrich believe in the separation of church and state in America, while at the same time demanding that the Saudi Arabian government do something so that Christian churches can to be built?

Does anyone see the craic when Gingrich mentions "double standard?"

Eliot Rosewater

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Gingrich, writing on his blog, said there should be no house of worship for Muslims near Ground Zero in New York "so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia."

This kind of sentiment came out during the burqa debates here. The insinuation is that we should base our moral code on that of one of the worst countries in the world. Utter farce.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't have a problem with the protest itself, and I obviously believe Ms Palin should have the right to air her views. I have a problem with it if these protesters intend to use the government's coercive ability to achieve their aims. Now that would surely be a case of the government breaking the first amendment by recognising a religion.

southsiderosie

To be honest I haven't followed the 'controversy' that closely (I am suffering from faux-outrage fatigue), but...

1) Why is there a big stink about this now? The NY Times did an article on this back in December, and both the city and the neighbors seemed to support the project? If that is the case, then who gives a crap what Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin think? According to Palin, New York isn't "Real America" anyway, so why doesn't she mind her own business and let the godless heathens of Gotham get at it?

2) I agree with an earlier poster - I don't think Sarah Palin gives a **** about this; I just think she is chatting it up to play to the base, and other conservatives eying the mid-term elections are doing the same.

3) The fact that the Twin Towers were attacked almost ten years ago and there is still a gaping hole in the ground is an illustration of everything that is wrong with the building and planning process in New York City times one hundred. To be fair (ok, to crap on) New Yorkers, there would be a knock-down, drag-out fight about whatever they decided to build in the area. The difference here is the level of media hype made it a national story and, yes, the fact that some people would see this as a provocation. But considering that a) it's not on the site, b) no matter what is proposed in the area, some of the victims families complain, and c) the proposal actually tried to focus on constructive engagement, something that the Muslim community is always lectured about in Western societies, I don't actually get what all of the fuss is about.