Unf**king Believable, A mosque to be built at Ground Zero

[GeoffP]

Quite the contrary. I think it points to the hypocrisy of those against it who are citing the 'hallowed ground of "Ground Zero"'.. Muslims also flew planes into the Pentagon. Why is that less sacred ground?

It's a multi-faith chapel.

How about they build a Catholic Church there? Which would be funded by the Catholic Church which has consistently and repeatedly supported and hidden child molesters within its confines, to the utter detriment of their previous, present and future victims. Kiddy fiddlers unite!

If only Catholic kiddie-fiddlers had driven planes full of abused children into the Twin Towers.

But apparently, they would be more acceptable.

Rather, this would be a point not relevant to the discussion.

Again, the abject hypocrisy of this whole debate is astounding, but not unexpected.

The law in the US, backed by the Constitution, allows them to preach wherever they so choose.

It does not permit hate speech, however; and it is likely that Saudi funding for this mosque, if any, would be little different from any of the others they fund.

Let us examine two others opposed to this mosque:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ground_zero_mosque_imam_says_radical_7rGRZmCD1Lh7sf2QSiYSRJ

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

Quite the rogue's gallery of evildoers, eh?

It is not for you to determine what brand of Islam should be spread and what should not.

Interesting: I've never seen this argument actually come out before. I've seen the Constitutional argument on group usage without reference to ideology, and the argument that Rauf is not a conservative extremist (although what kind of Sufi he is is not at all clear) but never this. I disagree strongly, naturally: it is entirely for me to be involved in this debate about the kind of Islam likely to be there, as it is my business if the KKK decide to set up a new facility somewhere.

You seem to assume that Muslims in New York would not be able to determine what is best for themselves and you are also assuming that they would automatically all become Islamists..

This is some wide generalization: all Muslims in New York? Moreover, it's kind of a herring: who is saying all? That's the problem with some people's perspective: proportionality.

You can try and rant and rave

Sorry: can I try to rant and rave, or can I successfully rant and rave?

about who is funding this Mosque, but at the end of the day, the clear message coming out of your side is that you don't want Muslims there, full stop.

I've already outlined several alternative ideas in this area: you have missed them, as well as the general context of the discussion.

Therefore, you would support denying them their Constitutional rights to have a house of worship where they so choose, because of your own personal bias.

False. Perspective. Context. Relevant.

 

[Bells]

It's a multi-faith chapel.

And?

If only Catholic kiddie-fiddlers had driven planes full of abused children into the Twin Towers.

Of course. Because all Muslims are to blame for 9/11, correct?

Oops, I forgot the "".

Rather, this would be a point not relevant to the discussion.

Why not?

Why would a bunch of paedophiles and supporters and protectors of paedophiles be more acceptable?

It does not permit hate speech, however; and it is likely that Saudi funding for this mosque, if any, would be little different from any of the others they fund.

And this is where you lost this argument. You have no proof that this will occur in this Mosque. Absolutely none.

You are basing your support for refusing this mosque based on a 'what if'.

Interesting: I've never seen this argument actually come out before. I've seen the Constitutional argument on group usage without reference to ideology, and the argument that Rauf is not a conservative extremist (although what kind of Sufi he is is not at all clear) but never this. I disagree strongly, naturally: it is entirely for me to be involved in this debate about the kind of Islam likely to be there, as it is my business if the KKK decide to set up a new facility somewhere.

Why?

Are you a victim of discrimination by Islamists? Do you have proof that they will be detrimental to society as a whole in the area? Do you have proof that they pose a danger to the personal safety of the general public or certain groups in the area? Yes or no?

This is some wide generalization: all Muslims in New York? Moreover, it's kind of a herring: who is saying all? That's the problem with some people's perspective: proportionality.

Why do you assume that the Muslims in the area are going to be supportive of a more conservative or Islamist ideology? You are saying that this Mosque should be disallowed because of the people building it and because of the type of message they may try to convey there. Why do you assume that the local Muslims would fall prey? Do you think they are so weak as to allow themselves to be led astray? Don't you trust the local Muslims to do what is right?

False. Perspective. Context. Relevant.

You can claim that as much as you like. But the reality is that is what is coming out of your side. Blatant bigotry and fear mongering.

 

[GeoffP]

And?

And so it is not the same scenario as that at the Ground Zero mosque.

Of course. Because all Muslims are to blame for 9/11, correct?

Oops, I forgot the "".

This last comment didn't make any sense. Can you explain?

Why not?

Why would a bunch of paedophiles and supporters and protectors of paedophiles be more acceptable?

Well, if there were any reason to think they'd be using the site explicitly for that, or soliciting funds from other paedophiles, you'd have a point. Of course, you'd also have to have an attack of paedophiles at the site on, say, 3,000 or more children.

I suppose I don't have to remind you that calling all Catholics or even all Catholic clergy paedophiles is inaccurate and offensive.

And this is where you lost this argument. You have no proof that this will occur in this Mosque. Absolutely none.

Rather, this is where the argument strengthens: Rauf has a checkered history ("Dawah from the rubble of the Twin Towers" being onesuch), and appears to be no real Sufi at all. Many, many Muslims and non-Muslims have the same questions.

Why?

Are you a victim of discrimination by Islamists?

Personally? I've witnessed some anti-Semitism by Islamists, or an Islamist working in a related department. My son was transiently the victim of a presumed Islamist's bigotry, although nothing serious. I've never been attacked by Nazis other than verbally, but I have reason enough to despise and interfere with their doings.

Do you have proof that they will be detrimental to society as a whole in the area?

Islamists? Utterly, of course.

Do you have proof that they pose a danger to the personal safety of the general public or certain groups in the area? Yes or no?

Islamists? Utterly, of course. :shrug: And?

Why do you assume that the Muslims in the area are going to be supportive of a more conservative or Islamist ideology?

For the same reason that people anywhere are likely to be swayed by slick, bigoted outreach campaigns. It happens. Why would I let it do so, without appropriate vetting?

Don't you trust the local Muslims to do what is right?

The same issue here: don't I think people are smart enough to ignore the KKK? Don't I think Australians are kind enough to demand that the Aborigines with respect? Don't I think men are good enough that we don't need to raise awareness of women's rights and social equality, or even to run abused women's shelters? Surely I think that men are good enough to learn from their mistakes, admit guilt and change? Etc.

You can claim that as much as you like. But the reality is that is what is coming out of your side.

Really?

Your "side" supports the execution of homosexuals, the virtual imprisonment of women, and the suppression of other religions and races. Not so? :shrug:

 

[joepistole]

A mosque to be built at Ground Zero.
They have got to be kidding surely.
http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell#p/u/0/vjS0Novt3X4
This is a disgusting idea. To build a 13-story mosque at ground zero and have the grand opening on September 11th 2011 !! And politicians who support this atrocity claiming it's okay because of America's diversity are simple deluded beyond belief. What an insult to all who were murdered, to have this insulting building of the religion of peace shoved in American's faces.
Pat has it right let them build the thing in Death Valley, or not at all.

Well you might have a case if indeed what is being talked about is building a mosque at ground zero. But the reality is (not that conservatives care) that what is being constructed is NOT A MOSQUE. And it is not located at ground zero. In fact, ground zero cannot even be seen from the community center.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anushay-hossain/park-51-the-ground-zero-m_b_686950.html

 

[pjdude1219]

Great start at that, this isn't.

the problem isn't with them but with the people attacking them.

If it turns out that the major support for this thing is in fact from Wahabi Saudis, they do have the agenda it appears they have, and its purpose is their purpose, will you re-evaluate your currently completely uninformed stance?

So because I'm not willing to blindly hate I'm uninformed. I'm sorry For you and geoff but before you make accusation you need fucking proof which neither of you have because if you did you would have presented it. This is america damn it and all citizens have the same rights fucking deal with it.

 

[pjdude1219]

So can we drop the repeated attempts to brand this as nothing but anti-Islam bigotry, hatred of mosques, etc, and consider what is actually going on here?

The people defending this are we just waiting for you to catch up.

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

To those who disagree that opposition to this isn't anti-Islam/Arab bigotry, consider this, other cities in other states are trying to ban the construction of other centres and masjids all across America. "Build it somwehere else," really? Then why is construction of such religious buildings being opposed across America? I even suspect the same argumentation is being used in those cities as well. How dare Muslims be allowed to worship here.

 

[iceaura]

Quite the contrary. I think it points to the hypocrisy of those against it who are citing the 'hallowed ground of "Ground Zero"'.. Muslims also flew planes into the Pentagon. Why is that less sacred ground?

Why is that mosque being compared with this one? It's origination, support, financing, apparent purpose, and actual role seem quite different.

It is not for you to determine what brand of Islam should be spread and what should not.

So I'm not allowed to even raise an objection, express a doubt, no matter what "brand of Islam" this thing is intended to spread? No matter what means its supporters are intending to employ, no matter what ends they envision?

They get to talk, and I don't, apparently. They get to wrap themselves in the banners of peace and understanding and mutual comity while building an international symbol of the triumph of Wahabi fundamentalism, naming it the Cordoba House, and thanking Allah for the "divine hand" that provided its location; I'm a hypocrite for thinking there is something wrong with that, because I'm not similarly objecting to all of Islam?

the problem isn't with them but with the people attacking them.

My problem is with them, their support, apparent purpose, and chosen means.

So because I'm not willing to blindly hate I'm uninformed.

Because you don't know who is actually supporting and financing this thing, and why. You are ascribing all kinds of laudable purposes and noble motives, without information and in the face of some disturbing indications.

You are lumping all Muslims together, and assuming this thing represents the best of their religion as interpreted by you.

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

WTC Strippers Indifferent To Islamic Centre:
click here

One even said I quote:

“I don’t know what the big deal is,” Cassandra said. “It’s freedom of religion, you know?”

Says a "business woman," who works in the area.

 

[GeoffP]

Well you might have a case if indeed what is being talked about is building a mosque at ground zero. But the reality is (not that conservatives care) that what is being constructed is NOT A MOSQUE. And it is not located at ground zero. In fact, ground zero cannot even be seen from the community center.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anushay-hossain/park-51-the-ground-zero-m_b_686950.html

It is a mere 600 feet from the site of impact. And there is a mosque in the building.

Can we have an interdict on the rehashing of the latter argument? If everyone wants to run around saying it's not just a mosque: great. But saying that it isn't a mosque is just not true.

 

[GeoffP]

To those who disagree that opposition to this isn't anti-Islam/Arab bigotry, consider this, other cities in other states are trying to ban the construction of other centres and masjids all across America. "Build it somwehere else," really? Then why is construction of such religious buildings being opposed across America? I even suspect the same argumentation is being used in those cities as well. How dare Muslims be allowed to worship here.

I think there are objections as to funding; if Saudi money is being pumped into them, then they have no place in American society. Aside from that, I object to those objections.

Your case also ignores the central point of this case: Ground Zero.

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

Your case also ignores the central point of this case: Ground Zero.

No, I'm not, if there can be strip clubs, gambling parlors and other such things around this "holy site," then why can't there be an Islamic Centre? There already is a masjid in the exact same neighborhood. I mean there already exists a masjid that is next to ground zero, what's the deal? It was even there before the WTC.

 

[S.A.M.]

Has there ever been a discussion of any other construction near "ground zero" since 2001?

Or is this a first?

 

[IamJoseph]

WTC Strippers Indifferent To Islamic Centre:
click here

One even said I quote:



Says a "business woman," who works in the area.

What does the islamic center say of a mosque dumped in the most sacred site of the Jews and of the hindus in Jerusalem [Israel] and the Bakri mosque [India] respectively? What of the rights of the Jews and Hindus - none whatsoever because they are infidels - so sayeth the new kid on the block?

Most people who discuss a mosque in the 9/11 situation have no idea what its significance points to. Its only about Muslims dumping mosques every other place - beginning with Jerusalem. Forget this sign and omen sent to humanity - and humanity can forget about 9/11. In the case with the Jews, the situation is 1000's of times more severe: it has no other meaning than DEATH TO THE JEWS - candy coated as the persucuted Pretend Pals - a triple-hank job that its become. :bawl:

 

[IamJoseph]

Has there ever been a discussion of any other construction near "ground zero" since 2001?

Or is this a first?

The real GZ is under the al uqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

What does the islamic center say of a mosque dumped in the most sacred site of the Jews and of the hindus in Jerusalem [Israel] and the Bakri mosque [India] respectively? What of the rights of the Jews and Hindus - none whatsoever because they are infidels - so sayeth the new kid on the block?

Most people who discuss a mosque in the 9/11 situation have no idea what its significance points to. Its only about Muslims dumping mosques every other place - beginning with Jerusalem. Forget this sign and omen sent to humanity - and humanity can forget about 9/11. In the case with the Jews, the situation is 1000's of times more severe: it has no other meaning than DEATH TO THE JEWS - candy coated as the persucuted Pretend Pals - a triple-hank job that its become. :bawl:

How much crack do you have to smoke in order to come up with your posts?

 

[GeoffP]

No, I'm not, if there can be strip clubs, gambling parlors and other such things around this "holy site," then why can't there be an Islamic Centre? There already is a masjid in the exact same neighborhood. I mean there already exists a masjid that is next to ground zero, what's the deal? It was even there before the WTC.

That's one of the salient differences: already exists. For that matter, the mosque in the Burlington Coat Factory already exists, although not as a formal mosque. You're injecting the "holy" into the issue. I refer you to the original challenge of Rauf himself and his funding.

Has there ever been a discussion of any other construction near "ground zero" since 2001?

Or is this a first?

No, there's a Greek Orthodox church that's being prevented from reconstruction on the site also. Or rather, it is being prevented from being rebuilt and the mosque is not being so inhibited.

 

[GeoffP]

How much crack do you have to smoke in order to come up with your posts?

He makes a salient point here: it's an old habit to build on the ruins of your enemies as a triumphal statement. Many religions do this. It's been bandied about regarding the Ground Zero Mosque; it may be the case, or not.

 

[IamJoseph]

How much crack do you have to smoke in order to come up with your posts?

Does crack make Muslims call the Temple they destroyed a Zionist myth? Or is my analogy not related to 9/11?! I suspect that is the reason for your evasion.

"I SHALL MAKE JERUSALEM AS A BURDEN UNTO THE NATIONS"

 

[IamJoseph]

He makes a salient point here: it's an old habit to build on the ruins of your enemies as a triumphal statement. Many religions do this. It's been bandied about regarding the Ground Zero Mosque; it may be the case, or not.

The Indian people, who have been so generous to Muslims, finally saw red and destroyed the Bakri mosque erected atop their most sacred site. In the case of Israel it is different - the Muslims get away with their evil deeds because Europe plays silent when it should shout loudest - even when the muslim denial of the Jewish temple effects Christianity more than it does Jews: the Gospels says one JC visited this mythical zionist temple!

Here, the 9/11 issue becomes nothing more than an effect - but still well outside the world's radar. The rule is:

WHAT IS HATEFUL TO YOU - DO NOT UNTO OTHERS. Yes, this even when applies to the Zionists.