Merged Two Mosques to be built near Ground Zero

amb said:
This thread has gone way beyond topic.
The furor in the States has not abated one iota in this matter of a mosque on Park 51 area.
It's still 7 out of ten against it.
Click to expand...

I´ve asked this question before, and you ignored it, so I´ll ask it again:

Which other constitutionally guaranteed should be revoked from which sections of the population, if 70% of those polled demand it?
 
Chaos said:
I´ve asked this question before, and you ignored it, so I´ll ask it again:

Which other constitutionally guaranteed should be revoked from which sections of the population, if 70% of those polled demand it?
Click to expand...

Tell me, how would you feel if members of a pro Nazi organization invoked the constitution to allow them to build a monument to Hitler or the moderate defense minister in the Nazi government Albert Speer in Times Square?

The imnan who is planning this project with money donated from various Muslim nations, including Iran, if he was a decent guy and he can see the furor this is causing, and the offense caused to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11 would either call it off or go somewhere else far away, preferably in Alaska to build his mosque of hate. As Sam Harris has stated, this he won't do and is citing bigotry and racism to the 71% of people who are against it.
 
amb said:
So NBC and Time magazine have no credibility now because the outcome of a poll was not to your liking. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's not what he's saying. There's no issue of credibility with the poll. He saying that just because 7 out of 10 people are for something that is wrong, it doesn't make it any less wrong. Just like GreNMe wrote in post #939, even if 10 out of 10 are for something that is wrong, it doesn't make it less wrong.
 
amb said:
Tell me, how would you feel if members of a pro Nazi organization invoked the constitution to allow them to build a monument to Hitler or the moderate defense minister in the Nazi government Albert Speer in Times Square?

<snip>
Click to expand...

I'd have to defend their right to do it. I may not like them, or what they stand for, but defending freedom of speech (or religion) isn't about defending only the people you agree with.

The ACLU understands this, which is why they defend Jews and Nazis, blacks and the KKK.

Bigots don't, which is why they think the ACLU are gullible chumps.

I can make a fairly accurate judgment about someone's honest commitment to freedom based on their position on issues like that alone.
 
In that case the American constitution needs some attention in bringing it up to the 21st century world we now find ourselves in. There were no islamic terrorist when it was written.
No one then imagined in their worst nightmare that something like 9/11 could ever happen in America, the London bombings, the Bali bombings all in the name of a vile violent religion.
 
amb said:
In that case the American constitution needs some attention in bringing it up to the 21st century world we now find ourselves in. There were no islamic terrorist when it was written.
No one then imagined in their worst nightmare that something like 9/11 could ever happen in America, the London bombings, the Bali bombings all in the name of a vile violent religion.
Click to expand...


The framers of the U.S. Constitution were not strangers to bloody religious dispute. Many of their families had ended up in the colonies specifically as a result of that. When it comes to mayhem and massacre in the name of somebody's god or another the Europe of the Seventeenth Century made our current travails look like children in a playground.

The protections for religion and speech which they crafted into our Constitution were not made in the absence of foreknowledge of modern times, they were targeted specifically because of their certain knowledge of their own recent past. There is an almost uncanny prescience in that document, not a failure of anticipation

It would be wiser if the 21st century world we now find ourselves in were to pay some more attention to history and the hard-won lessons which had already been learned instead of making the same mistakes all over again out of pride and ignorance.
 
Last edited:
amb said:
Tell me, how would you feel if members of a pro Nazi organization invoked the constitution to allow them to build a monument to Hitler or the moderate defense minister in the Nazi government Albert Speer in Times Square?

The imnan who is planning this project with money donated from various Muslim nations, including Iran, if he was a decent guy and he can see the furor this is causing, and the offense caused to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11 would either call it off or go somewhere else far away, preferably in Alaska to build his mosque of hate. As Sam Harris has stated, this he won't do and is citing bigotry and racism to the 71% of people who are against it.
Click to expand...

I hate Nazis and I would defend their right to build a Nazi monument anywhere in NYC if they purchased private land and followed all building codes. Did you really think the posters defending the mosque would not defend the right of Nazis to build monuments?
 
Last edited:
No one then imagined in their worst nightmare that something like 9/11 could ever happen in America, the London bombings, the Bali bombings all in the name of a vile violent religion.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously saying that the Founding Fathers could not have imagined 3000 civilians killed by religious zealots?

amb said:
In that case the American constitution needs some attention in bringing it up to the 21st century world we now find ourselves in. There were no islamic terrorist when it was written.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll ask one more time. What specific changes would you make to the Constitution to remedy this problem?
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
Are you seriously saying that the Founding Fathers could not have imagined 3000 civilians killed by religious zealots?



OK, I'll ask one more time. What specific changes would you make to the Constitution to remedy this problem?
Click to expand...

I will not fall into your trap except to say that radical fundamentalist religions of any kind should not have any rights to insist on any part of their agenda.
A case in point is the teaching of creationism in a classroom, a mad mullah teaching hatred of the West and anti antisemitism in a mosque. France seems to have the right idea if it passes through their Parliament, the banning of muslim women wearing the Burqa. At least it's a start.
 
amb said:
In that case the American constitution needs some attention in bringing it up to the 21st century world we now find ourselves in. There were no islamic terrorist when it was written.
No one then imagined in their worst nightmare that something like 9/11 could ever happen in America, the London bombings, the Bali bombings all in the name of a vile violent religion.
Click to expand...

Nightmares of bad things happening to America are nothing new and worse things have happened in the world than 9/11, 7/7 and the Bali bombings; the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, for example.

America has a long history of fear of "outsiders" including native Americans, the Irish, Germans, Italians, Chinese, Catholics, Mormons, Communists, black people, the Japanese, Jews and other immigrants. On every occasion "well-meaning worriers" were easily stirred up by unhinged bigots like Glenn Beck. Now it's the Muslims' turn.



amb said:
France seems to have the right idea if it passes through their Parliament, the banning of muslim women wearing the Burqa. At least it's a start.
Click to expand...

Xenophobic France. Hitler didn't like gypsies either.

"Thousands of people have attended rallies in Paris and 130 other French towns to protest at the government's policy of deporting Roma people.
...

With polls suggesting at least 65% of French people back the policy, the government played down the protests.
...

The League of Human Rights, which called for the demonstrations, said it wanted to counteract government "xenophobia" and what it described as the systematic abuse of Roma in France."

Protests against Roma expulsions held in France
 
Last edited:
Nightmares of bad things happening to America are nothing new and worse things have happened in the world than 9/11, 7/7 and the Bali bombings; the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, for example.
Click to expand...
No comparison. Those events probably saved the the lives of up to a million American soldiers lives had they had to invade the islands of Japan itself one by one. There was no sign that the Japanese were about to surrender. This furphy is often trotted out by the left to imply that only America ever used atomic bombs on another country.
You can bet your life on it that had Hitler or even the Japanese had the bomb in 1945, they would have obliterated London and the Japanese would have had no hesitation in also using it.
 
The site where the World Trade Center once stood is a grave site. Some bodies were never recovered since they were turned to dust. That dust is still there.

If a Dad says that the mosques) desecrate their son's grave site, doesn't he get a final say? In the end, what does it matter if Islam is peaceful and that the building they are planning is not offensive and good and all that.

End the end, it does not matter if the people who do not want the mosque build are "wrong" to protest it. If they feel it is wrong because of their wishes over their family members grave, they win the argument. Or am I missing something?

Suppose the religion that gave birth to japanese militarism wanted to build a shrine over the sunk ship in Pearl Harbor, would that be ok? Ok or not, if family members of the bodies still in the sunken ships protest it, should the government step in and build the shrine anyway?
 
Last edited:
amb said:
Tell me, how would you feel if members of a pro Nazi organization invoked the constitution to allow them to build a monument to Hitler or the moderate defense minister in the Nazi government Albert Speer in Times Square?
Click to expand...

Where the *********** hell do you get the idea that this community center is a monument to Bin Laden?

The imnan who is planning this project with money donated from various Muslim nations, including Iran, if he was a decent guy and he can see the furor this is causing, and the offense caused to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11 would either call it off or go somewhere else far away, preferably in Alaska to build his mosque of hate. As Sam Harris has stated, this he won't do and is citing bigotry and racism to the 71% of people who are against it.
Click to expand...

So your evidence that he is an extremist is that he is trying to build a community center?


I repeat: which constitutional rights may be revoked at the whim of those who respond to polls?
 
Bill Thompson said:
The site where the World Trade Center once stood is a grave site. Some bodies were never recovered since they were turned to dust. That dust is still there.

If a Dad says that the mosques) desecrate their son's grave site, doesn't he get a final say? In the end, what does it matter if Islam is peaceful and that the building they are planning is not offensive and good and all that.

End the end, it does not matter if the people who do not want the mosque build are "wrong" to protest it. If they feel it is wrong because of their wishes over their family members grave, they win the argument. Or am I missing something? Suppose the religion that gave birth to japanese militarism wanted to build a shrine over the sunk ship in Pearl Harbor, would that be ok? Ok or not, if family members of the bodies still in the sunken ships protest it, should the government step in and build the shrine anyway?
Click to expand...


Just for starters you're missing the fact that no one is trying to build a mosque on the site of the WTC. At least no one I've heard about.

Knowing that (now, allegedly), how does it change your opinion of the dispute?

If you feel that anywhere that dust from the WTC landed should be hallowed ground subject to the whims of anyone who lost relatives there then the building restrictions in NYC are going to become really stringent.

And rather widespread.
 
It's not denied then that the inman is raising money for his project from a radical muslim government of Iran besides the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia and others?
 
amb said:
It's not denied then that the inman is raising money for his project from a radical muslim government of Iran besides the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia and others?
Click to expand...


I don't know. Who's it not denied by?

Is it denied that Rupert Murdock raises money for his projects from Muslim dictators?

Who cares? Isn't what the money is used for a little bit more important? If you want to wander down the path of money's provenance and the effects that has on its application then you could find yourself in very confusing and disputatious territory. I'd leave that one alone if I were you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom