Merged Two Mosques to be built near Ground Zero

amb said:
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.
Click to expand...

Banning the Burqa was stupid. It was not only an infringement on rights it completely failed to address the actual problem.

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...

Where the money comes from is irrelevant. What matters is how the money is used and until you can come up with a blueprint that shows a "Room To Prepare For The Overthrow Of Western Society" you have nothing. If I accept money from a reprehensible person but I do something positive with it am I a monster? Of course not.
 
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?
Click to expand...
Dust from the collapse of the Towers covered most of lower Manhattan. If we wanted to designate all of lower Manhattan a gravesite, the appropriate response is to use the power of eminent domain to seize all the land in lower Manhattan and turn it into a memorial.

But we're not doing it. Rather, some people want to prevent one building from being built because of either the religious purpose to which the building will be put, the religion of the people making the building, the unevidenced fears that the building will be used for something unlawful, or the fear that bigots will be inflamed into committing horrible crimes by the presence of a mosque within three blocks of Ground Zero.

This is not about a gravesite. How do I know this? Because nobody wants the buildings on either side of the planed Islamic Center treated as a gravesite.

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?
Click to expand...
It is okay.

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...
The government does not build Shinto shrines or Islamic Centers. These are built with private donations on private land.
 
I'm sure there are a ****-ton of bodies buried all over Manhattan, but that's never stopped development before...
 
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...

So, you're openly stating that your objection to this is because you consider the whole of Islam to be evil and equivalent to great evils of last century? A simple yes or no answer would be acceptable.

amb said:
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...

Sam Harris is lying (which is unsurprising), repeating falsehoods for political purposes. Please feel free to provide a shred of evidence for any of the sources of funding for this project, since the Cordoba Initiative is currently not claiming any funding yet outside of Soho Properties having contributed the building space. As soon as you can come up with a reason that isn't making crap up or open bigotry toward Muslims feel free to let us know.
 
amb said:
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.
Click to expand...

You insisted that the Constitution is outdated and needs updating. I asked how you would update it and then you called my question a trap. It is not a trap - it is the next step in a discussion of the topic. I would like to hear your answer about how to update it, but if you still refuse, I'd like to hear an explanation of why my question was a trap.


A case in point is the teaching of creationism in a classroom,
Click to expand...

Creationism again!? I have provided reliable evidence showing that the number of Christian creationists in the U.S. greatly numbers the total number of Muslims in the U.S. And that teaching science in classrooms does not diminish creationism in the U.S.
Creationism is not the issue.


a mad mullah teaching hatred of the West and anti antisemitism in a mosque.
Click to expand...

That is legal in the U.S. While I may not like it, such teaching scares me much, much less than a federal government deciding what can and cannot be said in a house of worship.


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...

And France does not have a Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Of course, we could fix that by changing the Constitution. Tell me, Amb, which parts would you change.
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...

However sympathetic I may be to his grief, in the U.S. the Constitution trumps the wishes of parents of 9/11 victims.

But perhaps I am misunderstanding your perspective. What exactly would you have the city, state, or federal government do to prevent the building of the mosque?


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...


Directly over the USS Arizona Memorial? I would be very much against building a religious shrine on land owned by the National Park Service (a branch of the federal government). If on the other hand, there were a place near the memorial where there were hotels, churches, bars, topless bars, restaurants, and abandoned buildings, then I would support the right of a Shinto congregation to purchase land and erect something that accorded with local building ordinances. Are you suggesting that you wouldn't?
 
Bill Thompson said:
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.
Click to expand...

What an excellent basis for a system of law. Allow the grief-stricken to have final say on all legal matters despite the inconvenience of reality.
 
From the Mosque/Mohamed picture thread:
johnny karate said:
I've yet to see a reason for opposing Park51 that wasn't rooted in bigotry.
Click to expand...


I've re-posted this statement here because it was felt by tsig that discussing opposition to Park51 was off-topic in the other thread.

However, tsig took offense to this position, and I offered the opportunity to challenge it. So far, the challenge has been unmet, and I'm now resubmitting it in a more appropriate thread.

The challenge is open to all comers.
 
GreNME said:
So, you're openly stating that your objection to this is because you consider the whole of Islam to be evil and equivalent to great evils of last century? A simple yes or no answer would be acceptable.



Sam Harris is lying (which is unsurprising), repeating falsehoods for political purposes. Please feel free to provide a shred of evidence for any of the sources of funding for this project, since the Cordoba Initiative is currently not claiming any funding yet outside of Soho Properties having contributed the building space. As soon as you can come up with a reason that isn't making crap up or open bigotry toward Muslims feel free to let us know.
Click to expand...

The bloody inman was asked on several occasions whether his trips to the Middle East, payed for by the American public by the way, were to raise money for the mosque, and whether he will accept donations from Iran, or any other terrorist organization. On all occasions he has said: " No Comment. "
Sam Harris only tells the truth when he is condemning christianity, is that right? Criticizing Islam is a no no, according to this reasoning, and is blatant lies by Harris.:rolleyes:
 
amb said:
The bloody inman was asked on several occasions whether his trips to the Middle East, payed for by the American public by the way, were to raise money for the mosque, and whether he will accept donations from Iran, or any other terrorist organization. On all occasions he has said: " No Comment. "
Sam Harris only tells the truth when he is condemning christianity, is that right? Criticizing Islam is a no no, according to this reasoning, and is blatant lies by Harris.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So, firstly, you are still unwilling or unable to spell "imam" correctly.
Secondly, in the USA, "no comment" means "I admit to everything you accuse me of, in the worst way possible", rather than "that´s none of your business, you bigotted jerk"?
Thirdly, wrong again - a lie is a lie when it´s a lie, no matter who or what it is about. Unlike in the USA, where apparently anything is true if you like what it says.
 
amb said:
The bloody inman was asked on several occasions whether his trips to the Middle East, payed for by the American public by the way, were to raise money for the mosque, and whether he will accept donations from Iran, or any other terrorist organization. On all occasions he has said: " No Comment. "
Click to expand...

That's quite a vague statement you have there. Do you have any evidence supporting it or are you simply repeating it because you've seen others claim it?

amb said:
Sam Harris only tells the truth when he is condemning christianity, is that right? Criticizing Islam is a no no, according to this reasoning, and is blatant lies by Harris.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If Harris or yourself can provide any evidence as to funding to support claims made, feel free. Pleading incredulity about Harris despite lack of evidence seems more like confirmation bias on your part than it does a rational argument.
 
Harris had nothing to do with that statement of funding. I have lost it now, but it was in the New York Times.
 
Harris lies about Rauf's character, the Cordoba Initiative, and about the project specifically. Provide any proof, amb, instead of your spaghetti-on-the-wall nonsense and quit appealing to authority when no authorities have been established beyond who has a big enough mouth or got published in an online article.

Claims require evidence, amb. You've failed repeatedly at supplying any.
 
I posted the article from Sam Harris some pages back. That article has not been refuted by anyone!
 
amb said:
Harris had nothing to do with that statement of funding. I have lost it now, but it was in the New York Times.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting to hear how the funding is in any way relevant.
 
JihadJane said:
Apologists do a bit more than just apologize.

Can you give some examples of what you mean by "apologizing for Islam".
Click to expand...

I think there have been plenty of examples given but, if you insist, it is the pretense that Islam itself has nothing to do with Radical Islam (or terrorism, or Islamic Theocracy dictatorships, or second class rights for women). All that bad stuff is just an abberation of (as we hear here) 0.0001 percent of Muslims, and anyone who suggests differently is a bigot.

That is what apologists say.

Here is a good summary of one part of the world.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/August/Islamization-of-Paris-a-Warning-to-the-West/

My daughter and her girl friends were groped and accosted by one of these crowds after being caught up in downtown Paris ritual car burn. They will never return there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom