So you find the symbolism of the site a delusion, in the minds of those building the thing.bells said:As an atheist, I would have to say no. As you said yourself, the land was cheap and no one wanted it.
Think of all the churches built on what was once home or holy grounds for Native Americans. Though a church might be preferable to a mall, I suppose, whatever the mistreatment of NAs either sanctioned or directly perpetrated by various churches.
Think of all the churches built on what was once home or holy grounds for Native Americans. Though a church might be preferable to a mall, I suppose, whatever the mistreatment of NAs either sanctioned or directly perpetrated by various churches.
So you find the symbolism of the site a delusion, in the minds of those building the thing.
Is it therefore harmless?
That's two blocks - maximum.bells said:I'm sorry, but claiming that this site is symbolic because part of the plane fell on it when it destroyed the buildings several blocks away is delusional.
Are you actually telling us that because you don't believe in their symbols etc, they don't either?bells said:You are asking me if building it there is somehow religiously symbolic for Muslims? I responded with no, I don't think it is, because being an atheist, I don't believe in such things.
If you read the statements of the people who named, organized, and publicly celebrated this building, you'll discover that having that symbolic site available and affordable was a sign of a "divine hand" working in their favor.bells said:Now you can believe that this is somehow religiously symbolic to Muslims to build it there or you can believe that it was cheap to build it there.
They're theists. What did you expect?That's two blocks - maximum.
But OK.
The people building the thing are delusional. I don't think anyone objecting to the building would disagree.
Nope. I am saying that they should be free to believe in their symbols where they damn well please.Are you actually telling us that because you don't believe in their symbols etc, they don't either?
As I said, they are legally allowed to build what they choose there. I have never seen a Mosque with a swimming pool and cinema before, but hey, to each their own. They are obviously trying to conquer the US with their swimming pools. I am saying that they should not be banned from building a house of worship, along with a swimming pool, cinema and whatever else, because of the inherent belief that their religion is offensive in that area. The argument used against the building of this 'House' is offensive in and of itself.If you read the statements of the people who named, organized, and publicly celebrated this building, you'll discover that having that symbolic site available and affordable was a sign of a "divine hand" working in their favor.
The question is not whether something called the "Cordoba House" built on the site of the wreckage from 9/11 is "symbolic" to the people building it. The question is whether the symbolism involved, the purpose and motive and fondest dreams of the builders, are objectionable to reasonable people.
There are so many excuses being branded around about why this building should not be built that it is looking like a desperate attempt to simply keep the Muslims out.
wow. this thread is 14 pages long. you guys need valium. there are mosques everywhere, why can't there be one near ground zero? it's not ON the spot anyhoot. and is it a muslim free zone? what about when "christian" extremists bomb abortion clinics, is it rude to pray for the victims or to build a church near it?
everyone is an individual first, and a member of a group second. can't blame a group for idiot individuals who formed a subgroup and did shit in the name of the bigger group unless the bigger group officially accepts these acts of the subgroup and claims the subgroup as their own. like catholics and their pedopriests whom were shipped off to other parishes instead of dealt with. this is an example of the bigger group accepting the smaller group as their own.
Headline News
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Israeli general opposes Ground Zero mosque
Brig.-Gen. Dov Shefi (ret.), a former chief IDF prosecutor who today serves as attorney-general of Israel's Defense Ministry, lost his son, Haggai, nine years ago when Muslim terrorists flew two passenger jets into the World Trade Center towers in New York City.
He is appalled that today the city of New York seems ready to approve the construction of a mosque at the site of history's most bloody Islamic terrorist attack.
"I think that the establishment of a mosque in this place, a place that serves as a memorial site for [thousands of] families, is like bringing a pig into the Holy Temple," Shefi told Israel's Arutz 7 radio station. "It is inconceivable that in all the city of New York, this site was specifically chosen to establish an institution that represents the culture that led the terrorists of Al-Qaeda to carry out the greatest crime ever."
Shefi said that people around the world admire America for its openness and commitment to personal freedom, but lamented that "this belief often makes [Americans] lose sight of reality."
Shefi has joined with several conservative groups in the US that are fighting to make sure a mosque is not erected at Ground Zero, as it would be seen throughout the Muslim world as a testament to the domination of the world's greatest economic and military power by Islam.
Unreported was the fact that the death of Haggai Shefi in the southern World Trade Center tower on September 11, 2001 stands in sharp contrast to the conspiracy theorists who claim the terrorist attack was orchestrated by Israel, and that all Jews were secretly evacuated.
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=21641
It's crazy alright, real crazy. But I'm not the one that thought it up.Ooh. Haven't had this sort of crazy on the thread yet. Welcome.