Ground Zero Mosque

Memnoch · 21-07-2010 11:58AM

I sincerely refudiate Sarah Palin.

Nody · 21-07-2010 12:20PM

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 · 21-07-2010 01:19PM

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.

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 · 21-07-2010 01:21PM

Oh for ****sake.

fontanalis · 21-07-2010 02:33PM

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 · 21-07-2010 02:37PM

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 · 21-07-2010 02:47PM

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 · 21-07-2010 03:01PM

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 · 21-07-2010 03:15PM

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 · 21-07-2010 03:30PM

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 · 21-07-2010 04:02PM

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 · 21-07-2010 04:20PM

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 · 21-07-2010 04:54PM

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 · 21-07-2010 10:42PM

This post has been deleted.

kev9100 · 21-07-2010 10:48PM

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 · 22-07-2010 12:22AM

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 · 22-07-2010 12:47AM

This post has been deleted.

Damocles2 · 22-07-2010 10:39PM

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 · 23-07-2010 12:01AM

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 · 23-07-2010 12:33AM

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.

Permabear · 23-07-2010 01:08AM

This post has been deleted.

Killer Wench · 23-07-2010 02:06AM

From what I understand, the official American position is that we are engaged in a war on terrorism. To seek to not have this Mosque built would be to acknowledge that we are engaged in a religious war. If we fall into defining the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as being conflicts based upon religion, we are no longer a free and democratic society.

BluePlanet · 23-07-2010 10:07AM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I reckon you've got that wrong.
Listen to what you wrote:

Protesting the building of one specific mosque, impedes the free exercise of religion.

It does indeed. If the protest prevents people from freely attending the mosque to exercise their religion, then yes infact it is imeding their 1st Amendment rights.

Eliot Rosewater · 23-07-2010 10:36AM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If planning permission was denied simply because it was a mosque, would that be discriminatory do you think? Or would its neighbours dislike of having a mosque nearby be adequate justification?

Permabear · 23-07-2010 10:57AM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 23-07-2010 11:14AM

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet · 23-07-2010 12:12PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm going to bookmark this post. It's one of the most hypocritical things i've read from you to date.

Where o where is that Libertarianism now?

Memnoch · 23-07-2010 12:21PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But it's not just a claim of discrimination here. It's obvious that's exactly what's going on. People's fear and ignorance causing them to rally against a particular religion?

Permabear · 23-07-2010 01:56PM

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch · 23-07-2010 02:19PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The protest isn't the issue. It's the fact that construction of the mosque might be stopped for discriminatory reasons, due to the fear and ignorance of these people.

I don't see how anyone can sit here with a straight face and argue that not letting this mosque be built would not be discrimination(is there a valid alternate reason I'm unaware of?). I understand the difficulty of proving this in a court of law, but in the land of common sense, it seems pretty obvious to me.

Ground Zero Mosque

Comments