Merged Two Mosques to be built near Ground Zero

Bell said:
And there Newt Gingrich Godwinned the debate, comparing it to the Nazis not having the right to put op a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. Of course a mosque TWO blocks away from Ground Zero is exactly the same :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I have got a Godwin for Newt. Conservatives in Germany circa 1932 deciided there was political advantage in teaming with the Nazi, and thought that one in power they could "control" the Nazis. Big Mistake.
 
Cleon said:
This is called "blaming the victim."

Would you chide a black community for building a church in rural Alabama in the 60s? Or would that be "stupid" because they're not building "goodwill" with their racist neighbors?
Click to expand...

Sure...because thinking it is stupid to build a mosque two blocks from a place where their co-religionists performed the worst attack on a country in its history, explicitly justifying that attack with their religious beliefs, but having absolutely no problem with those exact same people building anything they want in any other part of the city...

is exactly the same as not allowing blacks to build any church at all simply because they are black, completely unrelated to their religion.

Gotcha.

If, for instance, a group of extremist Mormons blew up the California capitol building, I would consider it stupid if Mormons (nice, non extremist Mormons) had a plan to then build a mega temple within shouting distance of the site of the attack.
 
MikeMangum said:
If, for instance, a group of extremist Mormons blew up the California capitol building, I would consider it stupid if Mormons (nice, non extremist Mormons) had a plan to then build a mega temple within shouting distance of the site of the attack.
Click to expand...


really?? why?
if they were not the group guilty of the bombing, it should be fine.
do you think there are any christian churches within shouting distance of abortion clinics attacked by christian wing-nuts?
 
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/08/17/paterson-king-hope-for-mosque-compromise/

"
NEW YORK (CBS 2) – There was a possible resolution in the works Tuesday night in the debate surrounding the proposed mosque and Islamic cultural center near ground zero.
CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer has learned it looks as if the developers of the mosque may be willing to budge and move away from the Park 51 location where they originally planned the construction.
So will the mosque be moving?
New York Gov. David Paterson plans to meet with developers of the controversial ground zero mosque as early as this week to offer them state land – at another location – for their cultural and religious center. Paterson told Congressman Peter King about the meeting, and King said the governor asked him to make it public."
 
applecorped said:
[...] "New York Gov. David Paterson plans to meet with developers of the controversial ground zero mosque as early as this week to offer them state land – at another location – for their cultural and religious center."
Click to expand...

Here? :D
 
Right, because a government giving government-owned land to a religious organization for religious purposes doesn't raise any serious First Amendment issues...

Jesus H. Christ.
 
Paranormal Inquirer said:
Has anyone gotten the chance to verify whether this is true or not: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/behind_the_mosque_yXUJDCpszRLF9dG1heLU1H
Click to expand...

It's total crap. Rauf is Sufi. Modern Wahhabists consider Sufis to be heretical (up until couple years ago, Sufis were routinely imprisoned, killed, had their holy sites destroyed, and prevented from having their own mosques in Wahhabist-dominated Saudi Arabia, and their mosques are the subjects of suicide bomb attacks even now in Wahhabist-heavy Pakistan).

As for the rest, this opinion piece itself makes some odd twists to try and connect Rauf to those extremists who'd kill him and other Sufis just as soon as they'd kill any other infidel. Of special note is how it tries to paint the "modernists" Rauf supports as some sort of radicals who wish to institute a Muslim theocracy in the West, despite admitting right there in the article that they saw Islam as fully compatible with Western concepts of human rights.

Al-afghani, for instance, often seemed skeptical of religion (though he was inconsistent in this regard - some modern writers try to reconcile that by saying he was strong supporter of traditional Islam in public in order to garner support for his fight for Muslim unity and against Western imperialist rule, but was more open about his desire for reform in private) and certainly was a supporter of science and rationalism. He undoubtedly felt that Muslims were being held back by the intolerance of their religion in things like science and freethinking, an intolerance that he thought Christianity had managed to free itself from this restriction, and hoped that Islam would follow: "If it is true that the Muslim religion is an obstacle to the development of sciences, can one affirm that this obstacle will not disappear someday? How does the Muslim religion differ on this point from other religions? All religions are intolerant, each one in its way. The Christian religion, I mean the society that follows its inspirations and its teachings and is formed in its image, has emerged from the first period to which I have just alluded; thenceforth free and independent, it seems to advance rapidly on the road of progress and science, whereas Muslim society has not yet freed itself from the tutelage of religion. Realizing, however, that the Christian religion preceded the Muslim religion in the world by many centuries, I cannot keep from hoping that Muhammadan society will succeed someday in breaking its bonds and marching resolutely in the path of civilization after the manner of Western society…No I cannot admit that this hope be denied to Islam.” That is pretty much the exact opposite of what Wahhabist extremists think.

Abduh, for his part, is regarded as the founder of Islamic Modernism, who wanted to integrate Western science and rationalism into Islam, to the point where he was even an evolution believer in a time when even the West did not fully accept it (the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial" happened twenty years after Abduh died). The article conveniently doesn't mention that Abduh, in his role as Grand Mufti of Egypt (supreme religious leader of the country) issued a fatwa declaring that Muslims and non-Muslims were fully equal under the law, with full citizenship rights (ie, non-Muslims would not be subject the religious restrictions of dhimmi under sharia) something that modern Wahhabists would freak out about, to say the least. His embrace of Western ideas even led him, during his tenure as Grand Mufti, to support reforming Egyptian schools and judicial institutions along British lines, and even pushed for things like allowing interest on loans and letting Muslims eat meat slaughtered by Jews and Christians, all of which are antithetical to sharia (especially the brand of sharia sought after by modern Wahhabists).

And lastly, the capper is how the article writer crows about some of the non-modernist views held by Abu Hamed Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali...who lived and wrote in the 12th Century! That's akin to saying a modern liberal Catholic secretly wants America to be a theocracy where all non-Catholics would be killed because he wrote approvingly of Thomas Aquinas and Aquinas (who lived in the 1200's) once declared that all heretics deserved death.

In short, this opinion piece is wrong to the point of blatant lies about Rauf and Wahhabism.
 
Last edited:
MikeMangum said:
Sure...because thinking it is stupid to build a mosque two blocks from a place where their co-religionists performed the worst attack on a country in its history, explicitly justifying that attack with their religious beliefs, but having absolutely no problem with those exact same people building anything they want in any other part of the city...

is exactly the same as not allowing blacks to build any church at all simply because they are black, completely unrelated to their religion.

Gotcha.

If, for instance, a group of extremist Mormons blew up the California capitol building, I would consider it stupid if Mormons (nice, non extremist Mormons) had a plan to then build a mega temple within shouting distance of the site of the attack.
Click to expand...

So you hold all of Islam responsible for 9/11. Gotcha.
 
MikeMangum said:
Sure...because thinking it is stupid to build a mosque two blocks from a place where their co-religionists performed the worst attack on a country in its history, explicitly justifying that attack with their religious beliefs, but having absolutely no problem with those exact same people building anything they want in any other part of the city...
.
Click to expand...

guilt by association noted.

Bernie Madoff was a Jew. I guess we should keep all Jews out of banking and investment firms huh?
 
nchammer326 said:
Rauf is a Sufi.
Click to expand...

There are differing types of sufism. The majority accept all religions.

A quasi religio/ secular facility would suffice then. A super Y. (ymca)

Edit. Caution, I may mean non secular above. Non religious in other words. Scientific for you guys.
 
Last edited:
amb said:
I heard today that this decision has split the Democratic party. Most are against the idea.
This has the potential to make Obama a one term president.
Click to expand...

And the potential to make the Bill of Rights a one-term document.. The intolerant need to stop ignorantly aiding our real enemies. All of these bigots will have blood on their hands when they are used as recruitment tools by real terrorists.

Also the media and Obama need to stop dignifying these people with attention. The infantile politicians are playing with matches this time. The best of the anti-mosque crowd improperly understand American principles or can't fully accept them, the worst (anyone attempting direct govt interdiction) would edge close to actually betraying the Republic.
 
Last edited:
amb said:
I heard today that this decision has split the Democratic party. Most are against the idea.
This has the potential to make Obama a one term president.
Click to expand...
I can't explain how rediculous this sounds. The building of a single mousque (in a former Burlington Coat Factor store mind you) in New York City being the deciding factor in a Presidential election? Mind you i'm not saying it's not true but I also imagine by 2012 this will be all but forgotten and other issues will be much more pertinent in deciding the election. The fact that the American people would let something so highly based on so-called "principle" or personal oppinion that would only effect an extreme minority of the country (i.e. New Yorkers. Specifically those that live in Manhattan) decide the election is disturbing.
 
The Republicans will squeeze every ounce of juice out of such an outrage come any election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom