Merged Two Mosques to be built near Ground Zero

I ain't even going to comment on what happened in 1863

1941 there was a war going on and the government did what they thought was right to protect the county, we treated our prisoners better than what the other country did to there prisoners of war.

In 1970 i went threw the forced busing and i'll tell you right now the racial tensions were brought on by the government and not the folks that were involved in it, over time we all healed and today i see everyone getting along just fine.
 
TheDevilCried said:
I 1941 there was a war going on and the government did what they thought was right to protect the county, we treated our prisoners better than what the other country did to there prisoners of war.
Click to expand...

err...um...we are talking AMERICAN CITIZENS....NOT POWS!!!

and btw, the SCOTUS found the internment to be a violation of the law.
 
were way off topic here but all i can say is we / Americans didn't be head folks or freeze body parts as our counter parts did and i don't think we will be starting to do that here just cause there is going to be an Islam Mosque built, we have the right to protest here in this country with out worrying about being shot and i think that a pretty cool deal.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
Ground zero for democracy is the shared covenant of agreeing to disagree nonviolently, without which freedom in diversity is impossible.

The polar opposite of democratic tolerance is the proposition that a particular belief is beyond question to the point of ascribing to itself the right to impose, by violence or subterfuge, its "truths." Islam does both, including support for ambushing and slaying non-believers (terrorism).

A totalitarian view is most definitely enshrined in the basic tenets and teachings of Islam, at its core and not just at the extreme fringes. While potent anti-violent themes ("love thy enemy") can be found at the core of Christianity to offset the arguments of its more extreme adherents, and Judaism, while intolerant, is by nature tribal and so lacks a global expansionist view, Islam preaches a view of all non-believers as lacking in rights and so any real protection from unbounded persecution, barring forced conversion. IOW, I may not subscribe to Christian nor Jewish beliefs, but feel there is a way to peacefully coexist with them in a 21st century democracy.

I would classify as sect any religious belief that does not allow for long-term, peaceful coexistence with non-believers, and does not allow its members to freely and without reprisal abandon the faith unconditionally. While a healthy democracy requires us to be open-minded and accepting of major differences, I see no contradiction in being intolerant of an aggressive sect, such as Islam, that openly preaches the antithesis of the cherished ideals that underlie democracy.

Not only would I say "no mosque at ground zero," but also no protection under the law as religion of any teaching that does not allow, indeed forbids, peaceful coexistence with nonbelievers. The right to freedom of religion (conscience) must be understood as equally guaranteeing freedom *from* religious coercion.
Click to expand...
Believe you me, the Christian bible is just as inolerant and barbaric as the Quaran. Fundamentalist pracitioners of Islam are not paticularly leniate when it comes to practicing the Religion like Christian Fundamentalist are. Generally speaking Christianity might be more "kind hearted" relative to Islam but if Christians were to stricly practice as directed by the bible then Christians would seem just as violent as Muslims. The Christian bible isn't very tolerant of non-Christians (See: Kill followers of other Religions).

Thankfully Christians are lazy enough to selectively read the bible or ignore the verses in the old testement that rub them the wrong way. :p No shellfish? Oh I like shellfish so i'll eat it. Homosexuality on the other hand?? Wrong..wrong...wrong cause the bible says so!! :mad:
 
TheDevilCried said:
Well i guess i am just old school and not too ready to change and embrace ways that i don't have any care about, for me it is more to do with disliking all forms of cult like religions than it has to do with people.
Click to expand...

manofthesea said:
I don't get all the righteous indignation being displayed in defense of a woo temple.
Click to expand...

The center of this question is the appropriate role of government, be they local, state, or national, and equal treatment of American citizens. It's not "righteous indignation" about religion as much as defense of the idea of personal liberty, and discussion of when such liberty is harmful enough to justify or require public impositions.

Do either of you think that the government should block the reconstruction of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church at the WTC site itself, because it is a woo temple? (Map here: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008020019 )

Do either of you think that the government should block the construction of a new nondenominational church in Summerville, South Carolina, because it is a woo temple?

Meanwhile, a new development plan has been released for a section of San Francisco, and people are complaining that no houses of worship have been planned for that neighborhood. Should the government block any such revisions to the plan, or the future construction of any woo temples?

Why or why not? In answering this last question you might go far in illuminating the differences in perspective around the Cordoba House issue.
 
Juniversal said:
Thankfully Christians are lazy enough to selectively read the bible or ignore the verses in the old testement that rub them the wrong way. :p No shellfish? Oh I like shellfish so i'll eat it. Homosexuality on the other hand?? Wrong..wrong...wrong cause the bible says so!! :mad:
Click to expand...

i have had this argument with 'christians many times.
i am told that the old laws were cancelled by jesus, but since paul also condemned queers, that they are still an 'abomination'.:rolleyes:
 
I would have no problem with an inter-faith chapel being built within the GZ complex, but no specific houses of worship should be built.

whats done outside of GZ is not my concern.
 
Juniversal said:
Thankfully Christians are lazy enough to selectively read the bible or ignore the verses in the old testement that rub them the wrong way. :p No shellfish? Oh I like shellfish so i'll eat it. Homosexuality on the other hand?? Wrong..wrong...wrong cause the bible says so!! :mad:
Click to expand...

Read the New Testament; it's clear on both issues (shellfish fine, homosexuality not fine).
 
AvalonXQ said:
Read the New Testament; it's clear on both issues (shellfish fine, homosexuality not fine).
Click to expand...

ever ingest any blood with your steak or chicken? thats against the rules in the NEW Testament.

ever eat an animal that was killed by strangulation? that too violates the NT.

as does praying to idols, which ALL Roman Catholics are guilty of.

sorry for the derail.
 
Thunder said:
ever ingest any blood with your steak or chicken? thats against the rules in the NEW Testament.
Click to expand...

That's against the rules that a body of believers agreed upon for the Gentile Christians to follow in the early church.
In Romans 14, Paul also explains that dietary restrictions like this are a matter of cultural respect for the people around you, not a matter of salvation. Christians don't have dietary restrictions, but groups of Christians do collectively agree to avoid things others may have problems with or find offensive.
And this is a derail. Any response to your mistake regarding Japanese-American internment?
 
I've half considered going to the location to do my own counter-protest. With a sign reading "Freedom for all, not for some". Let them build the mosque. It's their right.
 
Mister Earl said:
I've half considered going to the location to do my own counter-protest. With a sign reading "Freedom for all, not for some". Let them build the mosque. It's their right.
Click to expand...

there is going to be a protest by these haters on 9-11.

wanna join me? its a Saturday? I'll be holding a sign regarding the 1st Amendment and American values.

maybe "Freedom of Religion for some= freedom for none".
 
...the one secret communist atheist antichrist kenyan muslim who is a shill for the all powerful joos and eats babies with dijon mustard on them.
 
Thunder said:
there is going to be a protest by these haters on 9-11.

wanna join me? its a Saturday? I'll be holding a sign regarding the 1st Amendment and American values.

maybe "Freedom of Religion for some= freedom for none".
Click to expand...

Sounds good, actually! Maybe I'll even come in my old military uniform. Also, perhaps we could counter-protest in the manner the comic-con folks counter protested the fred phelps gang? Here's what I suggest: One sign for each of us: One reading, "Careful, now!" and the other "Down with this sort of thing!"
 
Mister Earl said:
Sounds good, actually! Maybe I'll even come in my old military uniform. Also, perhaps we could counter-protest in the manner the comic-con folks counter protested the fred phelps gang? Here's what I suggest: One sign for each of us: One reading, "Careful, now!" and the other "Down with this sort of thing!"
Click to expand...

i'll wear my badge around my neck. and have an American flag as well.
 
AvalonXQ said:
No, they didn't. In Korematsu, SCOTUS upheld the internment as Constitutional.
Click to expand...

No they didn't. While SCOTUS has never declared the overall mass internment as unconstitutional, neither did they uphold its constitutionality. The Korematsu decision explicitly stated it was a ruling only on the matter of the general exclusion order and wasn't making any decision one way or another on the internment issue. Ex parte Endo, handed down the same day, did say that the government couldn't intern anyone they knew to be loyal, though, which is as close as SCOTUS got to ruling on the internment issue itself, and it was mostly unfavorable to the mass imprisonment of Japanese-Americans in camps.
 
Last edited:
Lurker said:
...the one secret communist atheist antichrist kenyan muslim who is a shill for the all powerful joos and eats babies with dijon mustard on them.
Click to expand...

How very like him to get cozy with the French, or should I say, the cheese-eating surrender-monkeys!

What more proof do we need?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom