The Ground Zero Mosque

Sparticle

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think your missing the point of the CT: the proposed cultural centre had the intended effect of causing a backlash against Muslims everywhere.

I doubt it was intentional but it's definitely being used for nefarious purposes by the far right in the US.

Undergod

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's the atheists you really need to worry about anyways.

This bit's a joke, right?

Yitzhak Rabin

Undergod wrote: »

This bit's a joke, right?

I think his point is that tarring all Muslims as violent terrorists because of 9/11 is just as ridiculous as tarring all atheists as mass murderers because Stalin and Mao are.

Undergod

I figured, just making sure though.

everyday taxi

yekahs wrote: »

Bible promotes killing even your own family members if they preach a different religion.

"If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through.(Zechariah 13:3)

Or how God approves of the slaughter of an entire town by Micah

"Then, with Micah's idols and his priest, the men of Dan came to the town of Laish, whose people were peaceful and secure. They attacked and killed all the people and burned the town to the ground. There was no one to rescue the residents of the town, for they lived a great distance from Sidon and had no allies nearby. This happened in the valley near Beth-rehob.Then the people of the tribe of Dan rebuilt the town and lived there. They renamed the town Dan after their ancestor, Israel's son, but it had originally been called Laish. (Judges 18:27-29 NLT) "

(Note that God approves of this slaughter in verse 6.)

Another God approved slaughterfest by Judah

" When the men of Judah attacked, the LORD gave them victory over the Canaanites and Perizzites, and they killed ten thousand enemy warriors at the town of Bezek. While at Bezek they encountered King Adoni-bezek and fought against him, and the Canaanites and Perizzites were defeated. Adoni-bezek escaped, but the Israelites soon captured him and cut off his thumbs and big toes. Adoni-bezek said, "I once had seventy kings with thumbs and big toes cut off, eating scraps from under my table. Now God has paid me back for what I did to them." They took him to Jerusalem, and he died there. The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem and captured it, killing all its people and setting the city on fire. (Judges 1:1-8)

I can keep going if you wish.



Not sure, but it advises rape victims are to be married to their attackers.

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)"

God definitely condones rape of innocent people. Look at his punishment to David

"Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." [The child dies seven days later.]

This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!


Absolutely, a number of times:
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Bible, Leviticus 20:13)



Have a quick read of the book of Joshua and get back to me if you still think God doesn't condone and assist in the conquering of the region.



Well again if we follow the advice of the bible, then we are allowed to make sex slaves of them;

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11


But, not all Christians dogmatically carry out all of the commandments in the Bible. Just like not all Muslims act out every verse in the Koran. You can use those old books to justify just about anything you want.

Thankfully, people adapt their religions to fit with modern morals.

I can tell you one thing though. Removing people's freedom to practice their religion, is just about as anti-western ideology I can think of. I am not a religious person, and would love to see a world free from it. That does not mean I would ever advocate the suppression, in any way, of people's freedom to practice religion. Because one thing I can guarantee you that happens when you do that, is that genuine, good, moderate religious people, will become radicalized.

This is a good detailed response which i respect. You raise alot of vaild arguments about comparisons to the bible. I still feel however most christians recognise that stuff in the bible and generally ignore it, and focus mainly on the gospels etc and the word of Jesus. Although the majority of muslims are not radical, i believe there are sufficient numbers still that are to cause concern. I dont agree with removing their right to practice religion, getting back on track now, just i personally feel its inappropriate to put a mosque so close to GZ. I will say for tyhe last time too, i dont particularly have a problem with muslims pre se, its the teachinngs of the koran/hadith the likes of which inspired those young men on 9/11.

old_aussie

uprising2 wrote: »

Are you aware that maybe upto 1/3 of victims of 9/11 were muslim?

The death toll of the attacks was 2,996, including the 19 hijackers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

So you give the names(alphabetically) of about 60 people.

If there were more muslims killed I'm sure they would be listed.

How do you explain the other 900 plus muslim names being omitted?

I think you are a little bit out in your statement....

....."Are you aware that maybe upto 1/3 of victims of 9/11 were muslim?"

Way out.

Soveriegn

Surprising to hear this on mainstream news, great speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0

Duiske

According to this piece in the NY Times, there was a muslim prayer room in the WTC at the time of the attack.

Over the next few days, noticing some fellow Muslims on the job, Mr. Abdus-Salaam voiced an equally essential question: “So where do you pray at?” And so he learned about the Muslim prayer room on the 17th floor of the south tower.

He went there regularly in the months to come, first doing the ablution known as wudu in a washroom fitted for cleansing hands, face and feet, and then facing toward Mecca to intone the salat prayer.

On any given day, Mr. Abdus-Salaam’s companions in the prayer room might include financial analysts, carpenters, receptionists, secretaries and ironworkers. There were American natives, immigrants who had earned citizenship, visitors conducting international business — the whole Muslim spectrum of nationality and race.

A couple of questions stand out here.

1. Why are people bothered about the building of a place of muslim prayer outside the grounds of the WTC site, when there was already a place of prayer inside the site on 9/11.

2. Surely with all the controvercy going on over the building of this Mosque, the fact that there was one actually in the towers on 9/11 might sway some peoples opinions. So why is this story shoved away in the religion section of the NY Times ? Surely it deserves a bit more prominence ?

meglome

Duiske wrote: »

According to this piece in the NY Times, there was a muslim prayer room in the WTC at the time of the attack.

A couple of questions stand out here.

1. Why are people bothered about the building of a place of muslim prayer outside the grounds of the WTC site, when there was already a place of prayer inside the site on 9/11.

I think it's probably 2 simple reasons.
1. Pushing controversy makes for 'good' press.
2. Right wing Americans are happy to put the boot in on a lot of things but are usually to insular to notice it unless it's shoved in front of their faces.

Duiske wrote: »

2. Surely with all the controvercy going on over the building of this Mosque, the fact that there was one actually in the towers on 9/11 might sway some peoples opinions. So why is this story shoved away in the religion section of the NY Times ? Surely it deserves a bit more prominence ?

It does but won't sell the newspapers etc.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

I think it's probably 2 simple reasons.
1. Pushing controversy makes for 'good' press.
2. Right wing Americans are happy to put the boot in on a lot of things but are usually to insular to notice it unless it's shoved in front of their faces.



It does but won't sell the newspapers etc.

Its not pushing controversy though is it?

It is pushing hate.

See for yourself.

This, and the whole sorry affair suggests 3 things to me I have suspected for a quite a while

1. Many, many people are unawarily racist.
2. The power of the mainstream media to manipulate ignorant people.
3. How many ignorant people there are in the "civilised" world.

seannash

1

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Its not pushing controversy though is it?

It is pushing hate.

Well it's not actually pushing hate, It's sensationalising to sell whatever media is running it. I don't agree with it but nothing to stop them doing it. The fact that people cannot step back and see this is a storm in a teacup is a reflection on them. Right wing Americans or the fundamentalist types in any country don't really need any conformation to decide their views are right.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This, and the whole sorry affair suggests 3 things to me I have suspected for a quite a while

1. Many, many people are unawarily racist.
2. The power of the mainstream media to manipulate ignorant people.
3. How many ignorant people there are in the "civilised" world.

Even in ancient Greece they knew that democracy could easily be rule by the mob. They are now and have always been ignorant people.

IceMaiden

Not sure if this will help or hinder.



Ground Zero Islamic Centre
The plan to build an Islamic Centre near Ground Zero has polarised the United States and become a key political issue, playing heavily in the mid-term elections. Does it point to a rise in Islamaphobia as some people claim? And what could be the repercussions for America's relationship with Muslims at home and in the rest of the world?

In The Report, Linda Pressly traces the development of a controversy that has engulfed New York, and more widely, the nation.
Protestors against the development two blocks from where the World Trade Centre once stood voiced their opposition against the proposal on the anniversary of 9/11. They claim it is insensitive to the families who lost loved ones on that day and some
go so far as to equate it with another attack on America.
President Obama has stepped in to defend the principle of religious freedom and been the target of attacks from the former Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin and the popular conservative movement known as the Tea Party.
Taken from Thu 30 Sep 2010 20:00 BBC Radio 4
Full text & listen again pod cast
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tzlrf

Soveriegn

seannash wrote: »

1

Good point. You have a phenomenal way with words.