Ground Zero Mosque

GuanYin

Amerika wrote: »

How about that! Most of the American people are siding with that horrible Sarah Palin

I'd like the evidence of that please. I want to see where you get your figures for Most of the American people.

That certainly isn't what I'm seeing.

Amerika

GuanYin wrote: »

I'd like the evidence of that please. I want to see where you get your figures for Most of the American people.

The source you asked for.

Most of the American people are siding with the dread Sarah Palin who was quick to say, "Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where the radicals killed 3,000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have a right to do it, but should they? And no, this isn't above your pay grade."

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/19/worse-than-carter

Amerika

GuanYin wrote: »

Mod:
Regarding sources, if you're attributing a quote or a fact and are asked for a source, provide it or retract.

Hopefully this will suffice:

It was originally reported by Lisa Gardiner of the Fremont Argus in 1998 that Omar Ahmad, CAIR's co-founder and longtime Board Chairman, said: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

Years later after he received unwelcome publicity as a result of this statement, Omar Ahmad denied saying it, but again that was several years after the fact.

Lisa Gardiner of the Fremont Argus, stands by her story.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20100726.DC40493&show_article=1

Overheal

That's a colorful editorial-interpretation of the CNN survey. I could easily opposse the Mosque and still think Sarah Palin was about as wise as a fruit cup when it came to politics.

I think it's more apt to say Sarah Palin is siding with most of the American people, according to a survey that polled about 800 people in New York City. Not the other way around.

Amerika

GuanYin wrote: »

Mod:
Guys, calm down or I will take out the ban stick.

Two posts, both geared at me. I can take a hint.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Two posts, both geared at me. I can take a hint.

To be fair

wes

Amerika wrote: »

Hopefully this will suffice:

It was originally reported by Lisa Gardiner of the Fremont Argus in 1998 that Omar Ahmad, CAIR's co-founder and longtime Board Chairman, said: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

Years later after he received unwelcome publicity as a result of this statement, Omar Ahmad denied saying it, but again that was several years after the fact.

Lisa Gardiner of the Fremont Argus, stands by her story.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20100726.DC40493&show_article=1

So its he said/she said story........

Oh and Breitbart? Why would anyone believe anything from that site, considering the fact they Breitbart has a habit of being less than truthful:

Big Falsehoods: An updated guide to Andrew Breitbart's lies, smears, and distortions

Don't believe a word of anything from his site or any of your sources, from right wing blogs and what not.

Oh and I have always found it funny that American's can fund Jewish extremists openly for some reason:

Tax-Exempt Funds Aid Settlements in West Bank

Bit of a double standard me thinks......

Palmach

Overheal wrote: »

To be fair

It says a lot of the preciousness of some people if something like goober gets them all huffy.

demonspawn

"Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where the radicals killed 3,000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have a right to do it, but should they? And no, this isn't above your pay grade."

Of course they should, why not? The U.S. is engaged in a war against terrorism, not Islam. Just more sensationalized media bulls**t that the U.S. is so famous for. I'm sure most rational Americans would agree, but they seem to be few and far between these days.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

It says a (..........)all huffy.

If you'd be as good as to get back to me...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67549627&postcount=471

Palmach

Nodin wrote: »

You stated that a place of worship should be kept out of sight of an area. We're therefore into exclusion zones and notions of ritual purity..................Then why do you equate an Islamic community centre being proposed by a Sufi with a small group who'd kill the same gentleman as an apostate?

Ground zero has strong emotional attachment for Americans. People inspired by Islam carried out the attack. It should be obvious that would grate with many people. They have every right to build the Mosque but they shouldn't with sight of ground zero. I don't think that concept is too hard to grasp. I would understand if some people opposed an Irish cultural centre within sight of IRA bombings in London where people were killed.

There are many Mosques in the US so it ridiculous to suggest Muslims don't have freedom to build Mosques or that this part of a general pattern of opposition to Mosques. Many Mosques have been recruiting grounds for terrorists and have been hot beds of extremism and people get rightly concerned when they open up nearby.

O Hindu nationalism? Yes, they do much the same kind of thing, with the added joy of caste violence. Do you think we should judge the average Hindu on their behaviour? If not, why not?

Who said I had time for the Hindu nationalists? Once again India a majority Hindu nation gives equal rights to all minorities. Compare and contrast with say............... Iran.

There's at least 400,000 settlers, if memory serves, not counting their supporters abroad, who send money and lobby for them. So again - if its ok to discriminate against muslims and a community centre because of the activities of a minority, why doesn't the same hold true for Jews?

I am not discriminating against Muslims I have saying this centre which is the topic of this thread should not be built. They can build it somewhere else. Also the 40,000 settlers are out of 5 million Jews.

We aren't talking about states - virtually everything I've mentioned was carried out by settlers, not the state of Israel - we are talking about religion.

More moral equivalence. My original as I posted a link earlier detailing how the organisation building this centre had on its front page a statement that the Sharia was about the protection of minorities. This is absurd and disingenuous. If you look at the world's only Jewish state and compare the treatment of minorities there to the treatment (or mistreatment) of minorities in countries with Sharia law a clear difference emerges as I am sure you see. As people's morality and sense of justice is often formed by their religion it is clear to me which one has the greater sense of justice.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

Ground zero has strong emotional attachment for Americans. People inspired by Islam carried out the attack. It should be obvious that would grate with many people. They have every right to build the Mosque but they shouldn't with sight of ground zero. I don't think that concept is too hard to grasp. I would understand if some people opposed an Irish cultural centre within sight of IRA bombings in London where people were killed..

So you do think they're all the same. You seem very confused on that.

As pointed out no end of times now, its not a mosque, its a community centre that will have a prayer room in it (effectively a small mosque).

Palmach wrote: »

There are many Mosques in the US so it ridiculous to suggest Muslims don't have freedom to build Mosques or that this part of a general pattern of opposition to Mosques. Many Mosques have been recruiting grounds for terrorists and have been hot beds of extremism and people get rightly concerned when they open up nearby. ..

The part I've bolded is contradictory of the part left unaltered. Additonally....
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/murfreesboro-tennessee-mosque-plan-draws-criticism-residents/story?id=10956381
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/18/local/la-me-mosque-20100718
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330216,00.html

Palmach wrote: »

Who said I had time for the Hindu nationalists? Once again India a majority Hindu nation gives equal rights to all minorities. Compare and contrast with say............... Iran...

We are talking about religions and judging all of them by the activities of a minority of their followers. Extreme hindu nationalists number in the millions. Why do you not pass judgement on all hindus by the activity of those, but do so for muslims and muslim extremists?

Palmach wrote: »

I am not discriminating against Muslims I have saying this centre which is the topic of this thread should not be built. They can build it somewhere else. ...

You're equating a place of worship and the faith therein with the activities of a minority, nominally of the same faith. Essentially you're discriminating against Episcopalians because of Seventh Day Adventists on the grounds they're both protestant. So yes, you are discriminating against muslims.

Palmach wrote: »

Also the 40,000 settlers are out of 5 million Jews....

400,000 settlers. Out of 5 million. Not counting their supporters thats nearly 10%....

Palmach wrote: »

More moral equivalence. ............

Indeed, its a minority group within a particular faith. Its verifiably extreme. But for some reason, the existence of a minority of extremists doesn't nessecarily mean that you'll tar them all with the same brush.....that would suggest that you apply one standard to one community and a rather different one to others.

BluePlanet

Palmach

Would you object to an Islamic Community Centre, that omitted a mosque within it's walls?

Overheal

Palmach wrote:

They have every right to build the Mosque but they shouldn't with sight of ground zero.

It's not.

The location of the Community Center:



Show me how it's within sight of Ground Zero. And before you take height into account, actually look at the location, and the building that's taller than it, directly blocking it's line of sight. It's the Burlington Coat Factory, shown - which some images on google incorrectly marked as being on Murray St, not Park Place. Even the proposed 13 story rebuild would be hard-pressed to have a view of the Ground Zero site over the 11, 12, and 13 story buildings across from it. At best, it will have a wonderful glimpse of the Freedom Tower, whenever that happens.

Carcharodon

I freakin love Jon Stewart, the most reliable man on tv.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/19/jon-stewart-mosque_n_688546.html

Palmach

BluePlanet wrote: »

Palmach

Would you object to an Islamic Community Centre, that omitted a mosque within it's walls?

I am not objecting merely seeing the point of view of those who do oppose the centre and mosque in the location it is in. I would imagine removing the mosque from the centre would help reduce opposition.

Palmach

Nodin wrote: »

So you do think they're all the same. You seem very confused on that.

And you seem unable to read. I said they are all NOT the same. What part of that don't you understand.

As pointed out no end of times now, its not a mosque, its a community centre that will have a prayer room in it (effectively a small mosque).

So it's not a mosque but it is a mosque. You are the confused one methinks.

The part I've bolded is contradictory of the part left unaltered. Additonally....
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/murfreesboro-tennessee-mosque-plan-draws-criticism-residents/story?id=10956381
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/18/local/la-me-mosque-20100718
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330216,00.html

A handful of examples. There are 2000+ Mosques in the US and the vast majority have been built with no objection. Stop trying to pretend otherwise.


[quoteWe are talking about religions and judging all of them by the activities of a minority of their followers. Extreme hindu nationalists number in the millions. Why do you not pass judgement on all hindus by the activity of those, but do so for muslims and muslim extremists? [/quote]

You're equating a place of worship and the faith therein with the activities of a minority, nominally of the same faith. Essentially you're discriminating against Episcopalians because of Seventh Day Adventists on the grounds they're both protestant. So yes, you are discriminating against muslims.

Total rubbish. All Muslims share certain beliefs irrespective. Certain beliefs are common to ALL Muslims everywhere.

400,000 settlers. Out of 5 million. Not counting their supporters thats nearly 10%....

Most settlers are not fanatics. They are often poor Jews who got cheap housing in the West Bank so the figure of 40,000 is give or take right interms of the number of Jewish extremists.

Indeed, its a minority group within a particular faith. Its verifiably extreme. But for some reason, the existence of a minority of extremists doesn't nessecarily mean that you'll tar them all with the same brush.....that would suggest that you apply one standard to one community and a rather different one to others.

You have missed the whole point. The hijackers on 9/11 were inspired by Islam and acting as they saw it in accordance with their religion. They may been a minority but they were still Muslims. Many families of victims of 9/11 would be upset to see a symbol of that religion so close to such a terrible terrorist atrocity where their loved ones died. Dissecting it down to the nuances of the different schools of Islamic thought won't make it any easier.

You wouldn't build a German cultural centre close to Auschwitz. It doesn't mean you are tarring all Germans with the same brush as culpable but you are saying some Germans were culpable. I'd imagine Jews would rightly get upset if they saw such a centre close to Auschwitz.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

And you seem unable to read. I said they are all NOT the same. What part of that don't you understand.
.

Well I understood that quite well. The problem is that later on you state

People inspired by Islam carried out the attack. It should be obvious that would grate with many people. They have every right to build the Mosque but they shouldn't with sight of ground zero. I don't think that concept is too hard to grasp. I would understand if some people opposed an Irish cultural centre within sight of IRA bombings in London where people were killed.

mosque=Islam=people who carried out 9/11. That looks like 'they're all the same' to me.

Total rubbish. All Muslims share certain beliefs irrespective. Certain beliefs are common to ALL Muslims everywhere.

Trying to justify 'they're all the same' again?

Palmach wrote: »

A handful of examples. There are 2000+ Mosques in the US and the vast majority have been built with no objection.

....a handful of examples of something that would have been considered unthinkable not long ago. You even equivocated when talking about it, adding in a justification for protests.

Palmach wrote: »

Total rubbish. All Muslims share certain beliefs irrespective. Certain beliefs are common to ALL Muslims everywhere.

'all the same'

The man pushing the project is a Sufi. The Wahabi sect, from which the 9/11 bombers came orginally, consider Sufis heretics, apostates or non-muslims, depending on the mood they're in. They'd kill him. Why not look up something about it, rather than just ignoring me pointing it out?

Palmach wrote: »

Most settlers are not fanatics. They are often poor Jews who got cheap housing in the West Bank so the figure of 40,000 is give or take right interms of the number of Jewish extremists.

My ass. However, they're still a bunch of extremists, they still use their religion as an excuse. Yet why don't you tarnish all of Judaism because of them?

Palmach wrote: »

You have missed the whole point. The hijackers on 9/11 were inspired by Islam and acting as they saw it in accordance with their religion. They may been a minority but they were still Muslims. .

So was Dr Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir and their supporters. They were/are still Jews.

Palmach wrote: »

Many families of victims of 9/11 would be upset to see a symbol of that religion so close to such a terrible terrorist atrocity where their loved ones died. Dissecting it down to the nuances of the different schools of Islamic thought won't make it any easier. .

'They're all the same and don't try to differentiate between them'?

The familys terrorised by settlers would be upset to see a symbol of that religion so close to where they were beaten/shot. Dissecting it down to the nuances of the different schools of Rabbinical thought won't make it any easier.

Palmach wrote: »

You wouldn't build a German cultural centre close to Auschwitz. It doesn't mean you are tarring all Germans with the same brush as culpable but you are saying some Germans were culpable. I'd imagine Jews would rightly get upset if they saw such a centre close to Auschwitz.

Islam is neither a monolith nor a nation.

And again - given the extreme right of Hindu mationalism in India numbers in the millions, why don't you associate that faith with its extreme?

Palmach

Nodin wrote: »

mosque=Islam=people who carried out 9/11. That looks like 'they're all the same' to me.

Trying to justify 'they're all the same' again?

'all the same'

You can misquote what I said but it won't change what I actually said.

The man pushing the project is a Sufi. The Wahabi sect, from which the 9/11 bombers came orginally, consider Sufis heretics, apostates or non-muslims, depending on the mood they're in. They'd kill him. Why not look up something about it, rather than just ignoring me pointing it out?

Great comfort to the families of 9/11 victims I'm sure.

My ass. However, they're still a bunch of extremists, they still use their religion as an excuse. Yet why don't you tarnish all of Judaism because of them?

'They're all the same and don't try to differentiate between them'?

The familys terrorised by settlers would be upset to see a symbol of that religion so close to where they were beaten/shot. Dissecting it down to the nuances of the different schools of Rabbinical thought won't make it any easier.

Islam is neither a monolith nor a nation.

And again - given the extreme right of Hindu mationalism in India numbers in the millions, why don't you associate that faith with its extreme?

When in conflict religion becomes a shield and a bone of contention. One has to look at Muslims, Jews and Christians and other religions living in places where conflict does not occur. How many Hindus have blown up something because of the plight of the Tamils? How many Jews because of their mistreatment in say, Yemen go out and blow something up? A large section, a minority feel it is their duty to spread Islam and subjugate the world under Islam. This will mean Jews and Christians living as second class dhimmis and god help you if you are not "of the book". There is no equivalent of dhimmi in other religions. Nor is their the same exigency to go out and visit violence on non-Muslims.

demonspawn

This is a complete non-issue, just more sensationalized media bulls**t. I'd be more worried about what's not being reported while all this nonsense is going on.

Edit: Everyone in the world knows there's a lot of misplaced anger and hatred towards Islam and Muslims in the U.S. This is not news.

Overheal

Carcharodon wrote: »

I freakin love Jon Stewart, the most reliable man on tv.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/19/jon-stewart-mosque_n_688546.html

lol,

Dick Morris: "Terrorist Command Center"

Not as shocking as the 2009 clips where FOX News Pundits were supporting the mosque o_O

****ing hypocrites.

Clawdeeus

Nodin wrote: »

Well I understood that quite well. The problem is that later on you state


mosque=Islam=people who carried out 9/11. That looks like 'they're all the same' to me.



Trying to justify 'they're all the same' again?



....a handful of examples of something that would have been considered unthinkable not long ago. You even equivocated when talking about it, adding in a justification for protests.



'all the same'

The man pushing the project is a Sufi. The Wahabi sect, from which the 9/11 bombers came orginally, consider Sufis heretics, apostates or non-muslims, depending on the mood they're in. They'd kill him. Why not look up something about it, rather than just ignoring me pointing it out?




My ass. However, they're still a bunch of extremists, they still use their religion as an excuse. Yet why don't you tarnish all of Judaism because of them?




So was Dr Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir and their supporters. They were/are still Jews.



'They're all the same and don't try to differentiate between them'?

The familys terrorised by settlers would be upset to see a symbol of that religion so close to where they were beaten/shot. Dissecting it down to the nuances of the different schools of Rabbinical thought won't make it any easier.




Islam is neither a monolith nor a nation.

And again - given the extreme right of Hindu mationalism in India numbers in the millions, why don't you associate that faith with its extreme?

A mosque is a symbol of many things to many people, but regardless of how wrong it is, it certainly IS a symbol of the ideology of the men who commited the attack.

If the attack were percipitated by a communist fringe group, I certainly wouldnt blame everyone who subscirbed to communism. I would question the appropriateness of a centre dedicated to communism right down the road. This applies to all ideologies/religions in whos name attrocities are commited, especially one of this magnitude, and the areas in which they take place. It really is just common sense.

I also find it strange that people are seeing this as some kind of all out attack on religious freedom. There is a mosque a bloc away, therefore I seriously doubt its ment to cater to a Muslim community in the area that cant find a place of worship.

And it does not necessarily follow that if you object to a mosque being built there you must be islamophobic. Of course Islam has negative connotations in that area, and a mosque is going to viewed differently being built there than a synagogue or a chruch. To deny that is being willfully blind, even if it was just a handful of people from a community of millions that actually carried out the act.

It was also incredibly wrong for any politicians to get involved (on either side).

Although I appreciate what the builders of the mosque were (I hope) trying to do, it was also almost childish. They have pushed newyorkers in the area to make what (they will percieve) as a lose lose decision on this matter. Its sad, especially considering how remarkably little of a backlash on the muslim community in New York there was following the attack.

demonspawn

Ok, just to put things into perspective. Here's a google map of the location of the mosque and the site of the WTC. Visitors to the WTC, or anyone who didn't know of it previously, would never have even known of the mosque's existence if it weren't for this media circus.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=W+Broadway+at+Vesey+St,+NY&daddr=45+Park+Place,+New+York,+NY&hl=en&geocode=Ff85bQId-quW-yktMYF6GVrCiTFnGrTEC3ua6Q%3BFUU-bQId0bKW-ynzWfMlGVrCiTGMLJmWn2uicw&mra=ls&dirflg=w&sll=40.712386,-74.011213&sspn=0.003952,0.009559&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=18

Now can we please stop giving this story the attention it clearly does not deserve?

Clawdeeus

demonspawn wrote: »

Ok, just to put things into perspective. Here's a google map of the location of the mosque and the site of the WTC. Visitors to the WTC, or anyone who didn't know of it previously, would never have even known of the mosque's existence if it weren't for this media circus.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=W+Broadway+at+Vesey+St,+NY&daddr=45+Park+Place,+New+York,+NY&hl=en&geocode=Ff85bQId-quW-yktMYF6GVrCiTFnGrTEC3ua6Q%3BFUU-bQId0bKW-ynzWfMlGVrCiTGMLJmWn2uicw&mra=ls&dirflg=w&sll=40.712386,-74.011213&sspn=0.003952,0.009559&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=18

I agree, it really shouldnt have been an issue. But now that it IS it changes the dynamics of the argument. Typical slow news week crap, someone looking to make some news out of nothing, and it gaining traction.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

You can misquote what I said but it won't change what I actually said.

I didn't misquote you. Kindly keep false accusations out of it please.

Palmach wrote: »

Great comfort to the families of 9/11 victims I'm sure.

Does that mean you acknowledge that they are different but don't want to know, or that essentially 'they're all the same' regardless of theological and ethical differences? Please clarify.

Palmach wrote: »

When in conflict religion(.....)on non-Muslims.

And again, you're being entirely inconsistent, constantly trying to find circumstances that excuse other groups, while full square treating muslims as 'all the same'.

Clawdeeus wrote:

A mosque is a symbol of many things to many people, but regardless of how wrong it is, it certainly IS a symbol of the ideology of the men who commited the attack..

No more than a Baptist church could be considered a symbol of the Westboro people.

Palmach

Nodin wrote: »

No more than a Baptst church could be considered a symbol of the Westboro people.

Clawdeeus in post 503 has hit the nail on the head. If you can't (or most likely thanks to cafe left pc moral self righteousness won't) understand why people object I can't help you.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

Clawdeeus in post 503 has hit the nail on the head.

O this?

A mosque is a symbol of many things to many people, but regardless of how wrong it is, it certainly IS a symbol of the ideology of the men who commited the attack.

A mosque is a building used by the various muslim sects - Alevi, Shia, Sunni and all their various subdivisions. To associate it with the ideology of a tiny offshoot of the Wahabi sect is ignoring the vast majority and concentrating on a minority.

Again, its rather telling that you differentiate Judaism/Hinduism, but refuse to differentiate Islam. It's bigotry, plain and simple.

Clawdeeus

Nodin wrote: »

O this?



A mosque is a building used by the various muslim sects - Alevi, Shia, Sunni and all their various subdivisions. To associate it with the ideology of a tiny offshoot of the Wahabi sect is ignoring the vast majority and concentrating on a minority.

Again, its rather telling that you differentiate Judaism/Hinduism, but refuse to differentiate Islam. It's bigotry, plain and simple.

No, it is not. I address that later in the post.

The reason alot of people are annoyed is it shows a complete lack of empathy on the part of the people building it.

At THAT location, it is certainly that minority which the building will first represent to many residents. You are acting like it "just another place to put a mosque" and to object to it there is to reject Islam everywhere. Thats sensationalist.

Although I do recognise that there are a core of people, who perhaps stirred the controversy who ARE anti-Islam.

demonspawn

Clawdeeus wrote: »

No, it is not. I address that later in the post.

The reason alot of people are annoyed is it shows a complete lack of empathy on the part of the people building it.

At THAT location, it is certainly that minority which the building will first represent to many residents. You are acting like it "just another place to put a mosque" and to object to it there is to reject Islam everywhere. Thats sensationalist.

Although I do recognise that there are a core of people, who perhaps stirred the controversy who ARE anti-Islam.

I'd love to know what your average New Yorker on the street thinks of all this. I bet ya 50 cents they don't give a flying f**k. There are more important things to worry about like losing their jobs and homes.

Clawdeeus

demonspawn wrote: »

I'd love to know what your average New Yorker on the street thinks of all this. I bet ya 50 cents they don't give a flying f**k. There are more important things to worry about like losing their jobs and homes.

Originally they were ok with it (like in the region of 75% thinking it was a good thing) now its swished the other way.