Merged Two Mosques to be built near Ground Zero

[DC]

http://michellemalkin.com/2006/09/13/sharia-in-the-netherlands/

a Christian.......

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

a Christian.......

And well known US right wing loony I believe

 

[DC]

And well known US right wing loony I believe

also the Dutch Minister that said it must be possible for Sharia to be implemented via democratic means.

It was not even a Moslem suggesting it.

But i guess in amb's world, that just shows how far the Muslims assimilation is already advanced. Moslems are like the Borg

 

[Fishstick]

Apparently one CDA minister saying it should be possible via democratic means to implement sharia and deliberately denying he supports actually implementing it equals "Sharia law in the Netherlands is forthcoming".

eg "I don't like what you say but I'll fight for your right to say it"

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

also the Dutch Minister that said it must be possible for Sharia to be implemented via democratic means.

It was not even a Moslem suggesting it.

But i guess in amb's world, that just shows how far the Muslims assimilation is already advanced. Moslems are like the Borg

Sorry, I misunderstood your comment, I thought you were referring to Malkin. I must confess I hadn't even looked at the link as I thought the probability of learning something from it was so small.

 

[JonathanS]

This is a really simple dilemma to solve. If we don't allow the mosque to be built we'll offend the Muslim community and go against the basic premise of the Constitution.

On the other hand, if we build the mosque in this specific site where so many 9/11 victims' family members and other New Yorkers will be brutally offended, we have accomplished nothing in terms of understanding and bridge building.

SOLUTION?

Build it, but build it somewhere else. It really is that simple. The constitution allows it to be built, but common decency and understanding (which seems to be what this cultural center is all about) suggest it should be built in a less strategic area.

If the Imam can't/won't change his stubborn stance on the location, why should the 9.11 families or other Americans change their stubborn stance on being against the project?

This is about being fair to both sides -- IN THE NAME OF BUILDING BRIDGES -- which again, is the alleged purpose behind this project.

 

[ddt]

http://michellemalkin.com/2006/09/13/sharia-in-the-netherlands/

Yeah. I was expecting this answer - if any answer was forthcoming at all. Epic fail. Others have already pointed out most if not all what's wrong with the answer:
1) Piet Hein Donner - at the time he said this Minister of Justice, now (caretaker) Minister of Social Affairs and Employment - is a prominent member of the Christian-Democrat party.
2) Donner is an orthodox protestant, member of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, now part of the merger church PKN.
3) The quote has been widely mangled in the English-language media. Donner was purely speaking in the conditional mood. His statement would be more accurately translated into English as "if tomorrow there were a 2/3 majority in favour of Sharia law, then it would be possible to implement it via democratic means". Note the choice of auxiliary verbs. He meant to warn against it, rather than advocate it.
4) His statement came quite unprovoked. There had been no discussion about Sharia before (except some soundbites from Wilders and other scaremongers), let alone that any Muslim had advocated it. Hell, there's not even a Muslim political party.

And for a lighter note, here's a picture of Donner arriving at Parliament with his favourite mode of transport.

The movie claimed that Muslims were demanding for implementation of Sharia. So, no evidence I guess?

Above post is the last I will post on this subject as my blood is at present at boiling point and I may post something I will later regret. Goodbye. I will immediately unsubscribe from this subject. You lot may want to kiss muslim ass, I don't!!

Yeah, go away and flee. Blood boiling? You sure have chutzpah to suggest that you actually put effort in your posts.

ETA: ... and to say that after you lied about the contents of your own sources, and then linked a story which you knew doesn't fit the premises of the question.

 

[Ladewig]

Above post is the last I will post on this subject as my blood is at present at boiling point and I may post something I will later regret. Goodbye. I will immediately unsubscribe from this subject.

If you ever calm down, feel free to come back and try to defend your point of view.

You lot may want to kiss muslim ass, I don't!!

I don't either!!!

 

[Cleon]

You lot may want to kiss muslim ass, I don't!!

Why not just call everyone n*****-lovers?

 

[Chaos]

This is a really simple dilemma to solve. If we don't allow the mosque to be built we'll offend the Muslim community and go against the basic premise of the Constitution.

On the other hand, if we build the mosque in this specific site where so many 9/11 victims' family members and other New Yorkers will be brutally offended, we have accomplished nothing in terms of understanding and bridge building.

SOLUTION?

Build it, but build it somewhere else. It really is that simple. The constitution allows it to be built, but common decency and understanding (which seems to be what this cultural center is all about) suggest it should be built in a less strategic area.

If the Imam can't/won't change his stubborn stance on the location, why should the 9.11 families or other Americans change their stubborn stance on being against the project?

This is about being fair to both sides -- IN THE NAME OF BUILDING BRIDGES -- which again, is the alleged purpose behind this project.

The only ones here who sabotage the whole "building bridges" thing are the bigots who consider all Muslims terrorists, the bigots who don´t give a damn about other peoples´ constitutional rights, and the useful idiots who parrot the bigotted swill presented to them by right-wing opinion makers.

"Common decency and understanding" - which the community center´s opponents completely lack - dictates that one display enough decency and understanding to see that Sufi are not Wahhabi and thus have nothing at all to do with 9/11, and that thus there is no reason why a non-bigot would be offended by a community center built by Sufis.

I´m sick and tired of this "bigots are offended by the existence of people different than themselves - Solution: other people must compromise by removing themselves from bigots´ surroundings" crap.

 

[marksman]

You lot may want to kiss muslim ass, I don't!!

Is Muslim ass even halal? I mean, since the implementation of Sharia law is apparently an imminent and natural result of defending people's right to practice their religion peaceably, I'm going to need the answer to this question before I decide if this is something I would want to do.

 

[Fishstick]

Is Muslim ass even halal? I mean, since the implementation of Sharia law is apparently an imminent and natural result of defending people's right to practice their religion peaceably, I'm going to need the answer to this question before I decide if this is something I would want to do.

Ironically Muslim ham would be kosher.

 

[DC]

But to be fair, not too long ago i also had my blood boiling, at the JREFers, they were so in total denial of Cheney's Dictatorship, and sometimes i just laughed and thought, you all will see and will wish you had listened..... and i also believed the propaganda i have spread

oh well then everything came different

 

[Cleon]

Ironically Muslim ham would be kosher.

Actually, many Muslims do consider kosher meat to be acceptably halal.

Which again just goes to show that amb doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Hate first, facts second. At best.

 

[JonathanS]

The only ones here who sabotage the whole "building bridges" thing are the bigots who consider all Muslims terrorists, the bigots who don´t give a damn about other peoples´ constitutional rights, and the useful idiots who parrot the bigotted swill presented to them by right-wing opinion makers.

"Common decency and understanding" - which the community center´s opponents completely lack - dictates that one display enough decency and understanding to see that Sufi are not Wahhabi and thus have nothing at all to do with 9/11, and that thus there is no reason why a non-bigot would be offended by a community center built by Sufis.

I´m sick and tired of this "bigots are offended by the existence of people different than themselves - Solution: other people must compromise by removing themselves from bigots´ surroundings" crap.

Wrong.

Over 70% of the country seems to have a problem with the location of this mosque/center. Again, it's the LOCATION of Park51 most people are protesting. To call such an enormous chunk of Americans "bigots" is blatant ignorance. And "bigots" for what exactly? Sure, there are Americans who fear and despise "the other" (especially Muslims and Arabs post 9/11) but the majority of Americans are in favor of a mosque/center being built in NYC -- just not two blocks from ground zero.

What you're implying is extremely unfair. You're equating the opposition of Park51 with racism, bigotry and intolerance.

I'd say that the situation is literally the opposite of what you're proposing. We see that the vast majority of Americans support religious freedom but are also, understandably, still sensitive about what happened on 9/11 and are just trying to peacefully reason with Imam Rauf.

The Imam claims that if the center is moved to another location "the radicals have won". What kind of reasoning or logic is that? I don't think the heartstrings of the families of 9/11 victims should be used by the Imam as a way of sticking up to radical Islam.

And by the way, I'll say this because I'm not sure you get it -- Pastor Terry Jones, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Glenn Beck do NOT represent America.

And at the end of the day, as an American, my heart is with the families of those victims first and foremost because this was the area where there loved ones died. If they feel it is inappropriate, to me that speaks louder than the Imam's reasoning. If he can't appreciate the sensitivity of the situation and is dead set on building his center -- so be it -- but he will have taken the first step towards INTOLERANCE for no reason other than fearing what the Muslim world will think of him.

 

[ddt]

Over 70% of the country seems to have a problem with the location of this mosque/center. Again, it's the LOCATION of Park51 most people are protesting. To call such an enormous chunk of Americans "bigots" is blatant ignorance. And "bigots" for what exactly? Sure, there are Americans who fear and despise "the other" (especially Muslims and Arabs post 9/11) but the majority of Americans are in favor of a mosque/center being built in NYC -- just not two blocks from ground zero.

As you rightly note: it's two blocks away from ground zero. So how many blocks would be appropriate?

Would it be appropriate if a Muslim prayer room was built in the new building(s) on the WTC site?

What you're implying is extremely unfair. You're equating the opposition of Park51 with racism, bigotry and intolerance.

Thus far I haven't heard a non-bigoted reason.

 

[DC]

when the reason for their problem with the LOCATION is bigoted, its perfectly ok to call them bigots, because that is what they are.

 

[A'isha]

Wrong.

Over 70% of the country seems to have a problem with the location of this mosque/center. Again, it's the LOCATION of Park51 most people are protesting. To call such an enormous chunk of Americans "bigots" is blatant ignorance. And "bigots" for what exactly? Sure, there are Americans who fear and despise "the other" (especially Muslims and Arabs post 9/11) but the majority of Americans are in favor of a mosque/center being built in NYC -- just not two blocks from ground zero.

Why are they against it? What, exactly, is so offensive about Park51 that these people don't want it located so close to Ground Zero? What is it, specifically, about Park51 that gets people's ire up, in a way that churches and bars and even strip clubs being as close or closer to Ground Zero doesn't?

 

[Chaos]

Wrong.

Over 70% of the country seems to have a problem with the location of this mosque/center. Again, it's the LOCATION of Park51 most people are protesting. To call such an enormous chunk of Americans "bigots" is blatant ignorance.

Perhaps you can answer my question, since amb refused to: what else is acceptable if 70% of country want it? Reinstating slavery? taking away conservatives´ right to vote? Establishing a theocracy?

And "bigots" for what exactly?

They are bigots, for trying to prevent people who had nothing to do with 9/11 build a facility that has nothing to do with 9/11 in a location that has nothing to do with 9/11, using 9/11 as an excuse.

Sure, there are Americans who fear and despise "the other" (especially Muslims and Arabs post 9/11) but the majority of Americans are in favor of a mosque/center being built in NYC -- just not two blocks from ground zero.

We only know that they are not in favor of Park 51. What is your evidence that a facility farther away or further in the future would not be "too close too soon"?

What you're implying is extremely unfair. You're equating the opposition of Park51 with racism, bigotry and intolerance.

Because that´s what it is. Because no reason brought up against it showed any hint of being anything else.

I'd say that the situation is literally the opposite of what you're proposing. We see that the vast majority of Americans support religious freedom but are also, understandably, still sensitive about what happened on 9/11 and are just trying to peacefully reason with Imam Rauf.

No they do NOT support religious freedom. They support the freedom of people they like to do things they agree with - which is the opposite of freedom.

The Imam claims that if the center is moved to another location "the radicals have won". What kind of reasoning or logic is that? I don't think the heartstrings of the families of 9/11 victims should be used by the Imam as a way of sticking up to radical Islam.

But you are okay with them being used by bigots to destroy religious freedom in the US?

And by the way, I'll say this because I'm not sure you get it -- Pastor Terry Jones, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Glenn Beck do NOT represent America.

They do not? From what you say, they represent 70% of all Americans.

And at the end of the day, as an American, my heart is with the families of those victims first and foremost because this was the area where there loved ones died. If they feel it is inappropriate, to me that speaks louder than the Imam's reasoning. If he can't appreciate the sensitivity of the situation and is dead set on building his center -- so be it -- but he will have taken the first step towards INTOLERANCE for no reason other than fearing what the Muslim world will think of him.

Sure, and it was so damn intolerant of Civil Rights activists to tread on the toes of Southern racists, too.

At the end of the day, you´ll have to decide between defending people´s right to exercise their constitutionally guarantueed freedoms, and people´s "right" to revoke others´ constitutionally guaranteed freedoms based on their own inability to see the difference between "guilt" and "innocence". You´ve come down on the side of the tyrants, I see.

 

[nchammer326]

First off, explain why people think that building Park51 at its current location is being insensitive.

Second, explain how far from ground zero Park51 should be.

but the majority of Americans are in favor of a mosque/center being built in NYC -- just not two blocks from ground zero.

Source?

We see that the vast majority of Americans support religious freedom but are also, understandably, still sensitive about what happened on 9/11 and are just trying to peacefully reason with Imam Rauf.

How are they doing anything peacefully?

http://mediamatters.org/research/201009130028

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/orrin_hatchs_defense_of_park51.html

Opponents of the Park51 project say they aren't contesting the group's right to build there, but they actually spent months trying to use the landmarking process to prevent the project from being built, to the point of suing the Landmark Commission after it approved the project. Both Republican gubernatorial candidates supported the effort to landmark the building, and both promised to use government methods -- the public safety commission, eminent domain -- to block the project. There were also calls forinvestigations of the group's finances from politicians in Congress, absent anything resembling reasonable suspicion.

If opponents of the project had been successful in their efforts, it's likely that they would have run afoul of a 2000 era law Hatch sponsored that prevents the government from using onerous zoning requirements from blocking construction of religious buildings.

And by the way, I'll say this because I'm not sure you get it -- Pastor Terry Jones, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Glenn Beck do NOT represent America.

They're representing the opposition to Park51, in addition to plenty of bigoted bloggers.

The Imam claims that if the center is moved to another location "the radicals have won". What kind of reasoning or logic is that? I don't think the heartstrings of the families of 9/11 victims should be used by the Imam as a way of sticking up to radical Islam.

but he will have taken the first step towards INTOLERANCE for no reason other than fearing what the Muslim world will think of him.

The Imam is not concerned about how the radicals will think of him. He has condemned extremism and terrorism. He is a Sufi Muslim, who are often targeted by the extremists.

His point is that moving Park51 would be used as propaganda by radicals, who would use it as an example of how America hates Muslims. This no different than what mayor Michael Bloomberg had to say:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/nyregion/25bloomberg.html?_r=2

It was Mr. Bloomberg’s second major speech in three weeks supporting the plan, and its soaring tone and forceful arguments suggested that he had firmly embraced his role as a national defender of the plan for the center, even as high-profile voices have called for a re-examination of the wisdom of the current site.

Mr. Bloomberg rejected those calls, arguing that to move the center would slight American Muslims and damage the country’s standing.

“We would send a signal around the world,” he said, “that Muslim Americans may be equal in the eyes of the law, but separate in the eyes of their countrymen. And we would hand a valuable propaganda tool to terrorist recruiters, who spread the fallacy that America is at war with Islam.”