Mosque at 51 Park Place, NY, NY
I searched Cellar, but did not find recent postings about the proposed "Mosque at the WTC",
but I'm sure everyone has heard of the furor that has started over it.
I was curious as to just where this mosque would be since some were saying it was just 2 blocks away from Ground Zero,
and others were asking how many blocks away should it be.
The location is at the "pink dot" on the Google map below.
It looks as though there are other religious facilities within roughly the same distance. (catholic, methodist, etc)
Well, while we have lost some freedoms thanks to 9/11, I don't believe religous freedom is one of them. They can build the Satanic Chapel of Shit Kicking Cat Worshippers on or near the site of 9/11, and the only people who would object would be those ungodly dog lovers with which this nation unfortunately abounds.
What are we going to do? Prohibit the construction of all mosques forever? Or a mosque is okay if its at least 100 miles away from 9/11? What about a cat's whisker less than 100 miles? Is one mile away blasphemy, but two miles away is fine? I think that the people who get riled up over this have too much time on their hands.
I think Saudi Arabia would be far enough. And the Catholics, Methodists, or the Satanic Chapel of Shit Kicking Cat didn't attack us, or fly planes into the world community that worked in the twin towers.
I think its akin to the relatives of the guys that murdered your husband/wife/children/parents/friends and or neighbors moving in down the street from you. . . sorta.
Likewise Catholic churches and pedophiles.
I am so scared of
this place. You can't help but see it on the way to Toledo.
;)
Come on. Completely unrelated to terrorists, there are good citizens of other nationalities.
Your xenophobia is showing, c-man.
Perhaps you prefer this
graven image. Burnt but will rise again.
They're doing the same thing in London, the site and size was chosen to be in your face.
I think its akin to the relatives of the guys that murdered your husband/wife/children/parents/friends and or neighbors moving in down the street from you. . . sorta.
A real big sorta...
The mosque in London was initiated in 2004 and planned for use during the Olympics.
Last July
construction began on an expansion project described as:
"The East London Mosque and London Muslim Centre have commenced building works on an eight and half storey project which is primarily focussed on women's need. It will contain brand new funeral facilities, new prayer space for men and women, women' educational facilities and a women's health and fitness centre. "
Now
events are being held to unite local communities.
A real big sorta...
How so?
If you were closer to this perhaps you'd think differently.
I know people who used to work at the WTC and/or lost loved ones in the attack - thats pretty much what they've told me.
Just because you are a Muslim doesn't mean that you are a terrorist any more than being a Christian means you're a member of the Spanish inquisition.
We either have freedom of religion in this country or we don't. I for one do not want a government that tells me when and where I can worship the god(s) it has chosen for me.
There's nothing to discuss.
The US Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wasn't discussing that at all. Just offering the opinions of some who were more directly affected by this than perhaps the rest of us.
I think its akin to the relatives of the guys that murdered your husband/wife/children/parents/friends and or neighbors moving in down the street from you. . . sorta.
Likewise Catholic churches and pedophiles.
I read these two as being very similar... not as xenophobic
Who said anything about xenophobic?
:lol2:
You insensitive fucking bastard! I know a guy who knew a guy whose friend's second cousin worked at the WTC and he lost his xenophobic cat on 9/11! As him how HE feels about mosques and stuff like that. :mad:
How so?
If you were closer to this perhaps you'd think differently.
I know people who used to work at the WTC and/or lost loved ones in the attack - thats pretty much what they've told me.
Honestly, it is more situation dependent than anything. Even though legally there is very little that can be done, if the mosque was sponsored or run by extremists Muslims, yes, that would be very insulting to anyone who was affected by 9/11. If the mosque is like most mosques in the US, and not radical, then there is no more relation between them and Al Qaeda as there is between a liberal Christian and the Westboro fuckers.
I think it is in bad taste either way but whatever.
I think it is in bad taste either way but whatever.
..
..
..
..
Honestly, it is more situation dependent than anything. Even though legally there is very little that can be done, if the mosque was sponsored or run by extremists Muslims, yes, that would be very insulting to anyone who was affected by 9/11. If the mosque is like most mosques in the US, and not radical, then there is no more relation between them and Al Qaeda as there is between a liberal Christian and the Westboro fuckers..
^ What he said ^
I think it is in bad taste either way but whatever.
WTF???
That's like saying no Christians can attend funerals because of the Westboro fuckers?!
You either have a Constitution or you don't.
If you guarantee rights and are justifiably proud that you did so WAY before any other country, then you have to stick to that, unpleasant incidents notwithstanding.
If you penalise New York dwelling American Muslims, tax paying, law abiding, family oriented people who came to America to live and worship in freedom then I have to ask what you have left to defend.
But but but, Sundae, they might be here illegally, taking all the jobs cleaning hotels and stuff. They look different so we must be very wary. :unsure:
Seriously, that is such a good point. What is there left to defend: a xenophobic nation that certainly didn't start out as such. Small-minded people are scared to death.
If you penalize New York dwelling American Muslims, tax paying, law abiding, family oriented people who came to America to live and worship in freedom then I have to ask what you have left to defend.
How are they being penalized? From what I have been told those who lost loved ones simply don't want it so close to the WTC. When asked how far away was far enough - no concrete answer. You can't really draw a line in the sand on something like this.
Like he said ...
I think it is in bad taste either way but whatever.
those who lost loved ones simply don't want it so close to the WTC.
I understand this, but ultimately, they don't get a say.
Imaginary people rarely do.
Bruce is exactly correct about 'in your face'. The imam behind the drive for this mosque has a history of supporting Islamic terrorists, and was NOT critical at all of the 9/11 bombers. In fact, where are all these 'moderate' Islamic leaders-even here in the US? Are there any? Yassar Arafat always condemned terrorists to the Western press-does anyone believe he ever did anything to stop it? Oh yes. they believe the Koran permits lying and deceiving us infidels to achieve their objectives.
This is definitely an 'in our face' effort. What will be the perception in the Muslim world outside this country---'We bombed their heart, and those stupid infidels allow us to put a mosque right next door'.
Will peace with the West be preached there-or will Hate America be spouted, and recruiting be going on in our face? What do you think? Don't give me the love stuff, give me the history.
Doesn't matter if even 99% of Muslims were not terrorism supporters. It is the ones that are who control the schools, learning centers, mosques, and are the only ones we hear from. They have the influence in the Muslim world because they hold all the positions of authority. NOT ONE has spoken out firmly and without equivocation against what happened on 9/11. Or in fact oppose the Taliban or Al Qaeda. They will never not support a fellow Muslim-they are not allowed to. And the handful of ordinary Muslims that stand up become pariahs in their community and are disowned.
I understand this, but ultimately, they don't get a say.
Thats true, and sad, very sad.
How are they being penalized? From what I have been told those who lost loved ones simply don't want it so close to the WTC. When asked how far away was far enough - no concrete answer. You can't really draw a line in the sand on something like this.
My point exactly. It's segregation. Catholic terrorists can shake the President's hand (McGuiness/ Clinton). Law abiding Muslims can't worship except where we tell them to. Sitting at the back of the bus is not equality.
In fact, where are all these 'moderate' Islamic leaders-even here in the US? Are there any?...
Doesn't matter if even 99% of Muslims were not terrorism supporters. It is the ones that are who control the schools, learning centers, mosques, and are the only ones we hear from...
Blame your press if they are the only ones you hear from.
Have you heard from the mosque Seema's family attend? It's in Houston somewhere. She was my work colleague and I know she was appalled that someone used her religion as an excuse to kill people.
Did you hear from Father Frank and Father Harris during the atrocities? I doubt it. They didn't support the IRA and their sermons were to a small Buckinghamshire community. Did you hear from Sister Una, who grew up and taught in Belfast, where the children would walk to school via routes lined with bombsites? No. But she was my headmistress. You might have heard from the Reverend Ian Paisley though. I know we did. Why? Spewing hate is far more newsworthy than preaching on the nuances of The Sermon on the Mount or why Jesus really blasted the fig tree, or what St Paul really meant.
(Disclaimer - Paisley is a Protestant and therefore on the other side of the divide, but he preached hate as much as any un-named Catholic priest supporting the glory of the Republic from the pulpit).
If 99% of Muslims are peaceful and you have freedom of speech and the right to assemble and the right to worship enshrined in law (and I admire you for it) then I fail to see how it can be American to deny it. American does not equal Christian. American equals a commitment to these ideals. Ideals which some Muslims probably hold more dear than some Christians at this point.
I'm sorry that Muslims bombed the World Trade Centre. Many people lost their lives, or their relatives, their livelihood, sense of peace, their property etc etc. When? Where? In attacks in the British Isles by Protestants and Catholics during The Troubles. Don't blame religion for genocidal tendencies. Blame people.
My point exactly. It's segregation. Catholic terrorists can shake the President's hand (McGuiness/ Clinton). Law abiding Muslims can't worship except where we tell them to. Sitting at the back of the bus is not equality.
What the hell are you on about? I shared the opinions of those I knew about the mosque and its proximity to the WTC. THAT IS ALL.
:mad: Ferfuxache.:mad2:
Don't blame religion for genocidal tendencies. Blame people.
And many of the same folks get really angry if we imply that it's guns that kill people, not people who kill people.
It is the people we should be concerned about. Again- where are the 'moderate leaders' of the Muslim community to temper the inflammatory rhetoric of those who hate us? Are there any? Every time a deep look is taken at a 'leader' he turns out to sympathize or outright support terrorism either by actions, statements or inaction.
You do have a right to conduct your religion as you see fit, but not an unbridled right. As soon as you threaten the public safety, or incite someone else to, you lose the right. And, again, not one Muslim clerical leader has stood with us against the terrorists. Have a name?
Never been any hesitation at squashing or verbally attacking dangerous Christians in this country. And rightly so. Because they are in the majority, its ok? So when Muslims are in the majority then we will be ok with demanding a higher level of personal responsibility by them.
Uh oh. Too late by then. We'll all be Muslim or be headless.
The only religion that advocates forced conversion or death. Face the reality of our enemy. Harsh words but true. That's what the Muslim leadership says. Doesn't matter what we think. We're just politically correct dopes. Why are they held to a lower standard than others?
It is the people we should be concerned about. Again- where are the 'moderate leaders' of the Muslim community to temper the inflammatory rhetoric of those who hate us? Are there any? blah, blah, blah, etc., etc., ipso facto, blah
We have met the enemy and he is us. :rolleyes:
WTF???
That's like saying no Christians can attend funerals because of the Westboro fuckers?!
You either have a Constitution or you don't.
If you guarantee rights and are justifiably proud that you did so WAY before any other country, then you have to stick to that, unpleasant incidents notwithstanding.
If you penalise New York dwelling American Muslims, tax paying, law abiding, family oriented people who came to America to live and worship in freedom then I have to ask what you have left to defend.
Penalize how? I do not support taking away their right to build a mosque near the WTC.
My stance on this topic is that it should be a non-issue. Unless they purposely built the mosque as close to the WTC as possible, I don't see this as an insult. On the other hand, I do believe it was in bad taste unless they had a good logical reason for building the mosque on that site, which they very well may.
It is similar to those guys who wore an American flag t-shirt on Cinco de Mayo. I don't see it as an insult to Mexican culture unless they purposely tried to make a statement, and it seemed like they weren't. On the other hand, even if they did wear that shirt on regular occasion, I still think it is in bad taste to wear it on that day. They have a right to wear it, just like these Muslims have a right to build the mosque there, but they both had to know it would start some controversy and many times it is better to just avoid those situations.
Would folks feel the same way if the situation were say ... a Christian Identity church being built around the corner from Auschwitz or the Holocaust Museum?
Let's build Catholic Churches across the street from every nursury school, day care center, and elementary school. That is a greater threat than any Mosque.
Let's build Catholic Churches across the street from every nursury school, day care center, and elementary school. That is a greater threat than any Mosque.
Shhh, that's all secret. You're not supposed to bring that up.
Shhh, that's all secret. You're not supposed to bring that up.
That's what they kept telling the kids. Apparently it worked.
All those people in robes are a threat? In white robes in the deep south. In red and black robes in cathedrals. And in robes in the desert. Which proves the only good people wear blue jeans.
Timothy McVeigh wore blue jeans. You can't trust anyone these days.
Bwahahaha! Good Point Sam!
That's what they kept telling the kids. Apparently it worked.
All those people in robes are a threat? In white robes in the deep south. In red and black robes in cathedrals. And in robes in the desert. Which proves the only good people wear blue jeans.
What about that
reverend in blue jeans of the famous song? What? Huh? OH....it was FOREVER in blue jeans? Never mind. [/Emily Littela]
I am unable to find one photo of Mr McVeigh in blue jeans, even googling Timothy McVeigh in blue jeans. There is, however, a lot of prison orange (post blow-up) and lots of military camouflage (pre blow-up). Just sayin'
I am unable to find one photo of Mr McVeigh in blue jeans, even googling Timothy McVeigh in blue jeans. There is, however, a lot of prison orange (post blow-up) and lots of military camouflage (pre blow-up). Just sayin'
Here you go:
That's my neighbor guy, Woody!
Was Tim married? I had no idea!
He looked just like the boy next door, didn't he? He never married - too busy building bombs, I guess. I still remember the day of the Oklahoma City bombing. The news came on the radio as I was driving to work. I heard about all those little kids in the day care center, and I started crying and had to pull off the road for a few minutes. :(
Would folks feel the same way if the situation were say ... a Christian Identity church being built around the corner from Auschwitz or the Holocaust Museum?
Europe and the US are lousy with Christian churches, and the only reason there isn't one (if there isn't one) within two blocks of the Holocaust Museum is that it's surrounded by parks and Federal buildings.
He's got what looks like a weddin' ring on. *shrug*
"I'm not sure that's Pete" or Tim. ;)
Very sad though. :(
McVeigh was a loser who repelled women. Maybe if he got laid once in a while, he wouldn't have been such an evil prick.
:lol:
That ain't him, either.
Maybe if he got laid once in a while, he wouldn't have been such an evil prick.
Chicks dig the bad boys. He got a marriage proposal while he was in jail.
Luckily for (insert male dwellar name here), Tim wasn't interested. :lol:
Europe and the US are lousy with Christian churches, and the only reason there isn't one (if there isn't one) within two blocks of the Holocaust Museum is that it's surrounded by parks and Federal buildings.
"Christian Identity" is a sect closely associated with the KKK, Aryan Nation, and other white supremacist groups. They're not your average Christians.
Why not lump Christians together, if we're doing it to Muslims?
Hahaha...on a related note re: her new word:
Refudiate: (verb) a word Sarah Palin just coined on Twitter.
Meaning: something "peaceful muslims" should "pls" do.
Use in a sentence: "Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn’t it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate."
Country of Origin: Unclear, but you can see Russia.
~snip~
Maybe she'll prove me wrong and "refudiate" will catch on. But if she runs in 2012, I hope we’re horpswangling enough to grountify her. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/07/refudiate_sarah_palins_new_pol.htmlShe "corrected" herself later by changing it to "refute". Which is a difficult thing to do to a building.
So she, herself, did not know she might have meant:
re·pu·di·ate/riˈpyo͞odēˌāt/Verb
1. Refuse to accept or be associated with.
Its just too silly and shows an impressive narrow mindedness to agree with Palins assessment. Shes an idiot.
She "corrected" herself later by changing it to "refute". Which is a difficult thing to do to a building.
She wasn't talking to a building she was talking to moderate muslims . . . not that it really matters. (see below)
Shes an idiot.
Yup and if the R's select her as their candidate then I am getting the BEST :tinfoil: and going 100% conspiracy theorist cuz thats as good as giving the election away. [SIZE="1"](not that I'm impressed by any other candidate they have to offer)[/SIZE]
Timothy McVeigh wore blue jeans. You can't trust anyone these days.
Which proves you can only trust naked people. Maybe Spencer Tunick knows more than all of us? Many with clothes get hateful when Tunick advocated nakedness.
Now if Palin would just take her clothes off.
She wasn't talking to a building she was talking to moderate muslims . . . not that it really matters. (see below)
And asking them to refudiate and/or refute the building.
Yeh thats what she meant. :eyebrow:
"Christian Identity" is a sect closely associated with the KKK, Aryan Nation, and other white supremacist groups. They're not your average Christians.
Why not lump Christians together, if we're doing it to Muslims?
good fucking question.
I doubt you'll get a substantive answer. Ever.
She wasn't talking to a building she was talking to moderate muslims . . . not that it really matters. (see below)
Yup and if the R's select her as their candidate then I am getting the BEST :tinfoil: and going 100% conspiracy theorist cuz thats as good as giving the election away. [SIZE=1](not that I'm impressed by any other candidate they have to offer)[/SIZE]
As opposed to Obama or Biden? :rolleyes:
Its just too silly and shows an impressive narrow mindedness to agree with Palins assessment. Shes an idiot.
Nah. The narrowmindedness is all on the anti-Palin side. Were you not a dreadful troglodyte you might have perceived that. Leftism makes you blind.
I doubt you'll get a substantive answer. Ever.
To a rhetorical question, however good and fucking? :3eye:
Leftism makes you blind.
And rightism makes you stupid.
No wonder politics is so messy.
To a rhetorical question, however good and fucking? :3eye:
yes.
why not? you deal in rhetoric *all* the time, now you're shy?
as i said, a substative answer to this substantive question is probably not coming soon. What did you used to call that kind of double standard? Oh yeah... moral equivalence.
Leftism makes you blind.
If I represent Leftism then you are incorrect. But then if you represent Rightism, I have nothing to worry about.
In truth, I'm a fool for even replying. But I think that is down to me as a person, regardless of social class, political ideology, genetic makeup or upbringing.
Rising to a bait that obvious must be a sign of evolution.
<flap,flap,sigh>
NY Times 7/31/10
Bold for emphasis added by me.
An influential Jewish organization on Friday announced its opposition to a proposed Islamic center and mosque two blocks north of ground zero in Lower Manhattan, intensifying a fierce national debate about the limits of religious freedom and the meaning of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The decision by the group, the Anti-Defamation League, touched off angry reactions from a range of religious groups, which argued that the country would show its tolerance and values by welcoming the center near the site where radical Muslims killed about 2,750 people.
<snip>
Oz Sultan, the programming director for the center, said the complex was based on Jewish community centers and Y.M.C.A.’s in Manhattan.
It is to have a board composed of Muslim, Christian and Jewish leaders and is intended to create a national model of moderate Islam.
“We are looking to build bridges between faiths,” Mr. Sultan said in an interview.
<snip>
City officials, particularly Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, have forcefully defended the project on the grounds of religious freedom, saying that government has no place dictating where a house of worship is located. The local community board has given overwhelming backing to the project, and the city’s landmarks commission is expected to do the same on Tuesday.
For me, this action by the ADL is short sighted, and says "Don't discriminate against us, but do discriminate against them"
It's another example of "puking on your own reputation".
For me, this action by the ADL is short sighted,
Let's pass a simple law. All mosques and synagogues must be adjacent buildings - or close their doors. No more problems. Best way to deal with the hate than causes this thread to exist.
Let them build it... then we can crash a plane into it.
Let them build it... then we can crash a plane into it.
Is that supposed to be funny... I think, NOT
Is that supposed to be funny.
No, not at all.
No, not at all.
Such actions are how extremist promote more hate and gain power. He wasn't joking. Extremists wish for such events.
Such actions are how extremist promote more hate and gain power. He wasn't joking. Extremists wish for such events.
Given the statements you said about my wife I would fully support a plane crashing into your house as well.
Not to change the subject from the same old broken records, but does anyone really know where the money to build this is coming from? I've read and heard different things.
Considering the closed method of money transfer in the Islamic world I am sure it would be difficult to follow the money trail. Sort of like following the money trail of a Synagogue, the donors are hidden.
Let them build it... then we can crash a plane into it.
One can only hope you're a pilot. :right:
Even bringing up something tw said about a zillion years ago didn't divert this post from being one of the most hateful things I've ever read, and not just toward the muslims: it was quite disrespectful to 9/11 survivors as well. I was going to ignore the ugliness, but hey, you know me.
I think merc just likes to *shock* us. :shocking:
Keep up the good work, you
good man deep down inside.
Considering the closed method of money transfer in the Islamic world I am sure it would be difficult to follow the money trail. Sort of like following the money trail of a Synagogue, the donors are hidden.
Agreed, they are in fact having a complete network system to transfer even a single penny according to one article I read some time ago. It will be more like trying to find sand in sand...........until/unless there is a sabotage.
I believe Mayor Bloomberg made a heroic statement
here....
Bold is mine.
<snip>
...The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.
The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right - and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question - should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.
The World Trade Center Site will forever hold a special place in our City, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves - and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans - if we said 'no' to a mosque in Lower Manhattan.
Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values - and play into our enemies' hands - if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists - and we should not stand for that.
For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime - as important a test - and it is critically important that we get it right.
Mayor Bloomberg is right, but I wish those Muslims would consider that going against popular sentiment doesn't help their cause much. If the majority are offended, they are right to express their opposition.
The telling thing is, there might be protests, but there won't be murders and bombs and such, as there would be in certain other countries... I think it'll be a symbol of tolerance, though I count myself as one who is offended by it at the same time.
The telling thing is, there might be protests, but there won't be murders and bombs and such, as there would be in certain other countries...
Hopefully.
I think it'll be a symbol of tolerance, though I count myself as one who is offended by it at the same time.
So what would you say had bin Laden been a computer scientist? Would you ban all computer stores from lower Manhattan?
11 September was not about Islam. It was 100% about bin Laden and his organization - Al Qaeda. Nothing more. You should only be offended by one thing. The American president all but protected bin Laden. Even disbanned Alec Station. Let bin Laden run free. Killed 4000 good American soldiers conducting war on a mythical enemy - while letting bin Laden run free.
If anything should offend you, it is George Jr's picture anywhere on the island of Manhattan.
Every light was flashing red. He even had a memo on his desk warning of the threat. And he did nothing – both before and after 11 September. That it is THE most offensive. He even let bin Laden run free. Then his political extremist propaganda machine invents and blames Islamofascism. That is also far more offensive.
Bin Laden reportedly died in the early 2000's. Apparently from some heart or kidney issue.
Now that they have Park Place, if they get Boardwalk we'll really be screwed.
Now that they have Park Place, if they get Boardwalk we'll really be screwed.
:lol:
UT, you know when the Monopoly Board Bombers start, you're gonna be hauled in for questioning, right?
Except isn't the US version based in Atlantic City or something?
Ours is based in London, and while it misses obvious targets (excuse the language) like Downing Street, it's would certainly close down the rest of London. Kings Cross is one of the stations for example. Although oddly - no-one seems to agree where the Angel Islington actually is. Perhaps a joke by the makers - I certainly had a username "Islington" for a while, because obviously I am an angel. Until people from North London started to make assumptions. Never trust a North Londoner. Sez my Dad.
I had not thought of the international implications!
Yes, the original is based on street names in A.C.
Ours is based in London, and while it misses obvious targets (excuse the language) like Downing Street, it's would certainly close down the rest of London. Kings Cross is one of the stations for example. Although oddly - no-one seems to agree where the Angel Islington actually is. Perhaps a joke by the makers - I certainly had a username "Islington" for a while, because obviously I am an angel. Until people from North London started to make assumptions. Never trust a North Londoner. Sez my Dad.
Ever
read or
see "Neverwhere"? A lot of old tube stations make appearances.
SO the Imam of this place is totally anti-american and blame the US for 9/11. Nice....
And the people of NYC should support him because?
Is there an argument against the project that isn't rooted in a fairly fundamental discomfort with Islam?
Not only is it going to be a fairly architecturally ambiguous project (minaret-free, as it were), the mosque is actually going to be
fairly far, in an urban sense, from ground zero.
I'm posting this because I feel exactly the same about the Anti Defamation League and it's recent decision about the Mosque...
Fareed Zakaria's Letter to the ADL
Dear Mr. Foxman,
Five years ago, the ADL honored me with its Hubert Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize. I was delighted and moved to have been chosen for it in good measure because of the high esteem in which I hold the ADL. I have always been impressed by the fact that your mission is broad – “to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens” – and you have interpreted it broadly over the decades. You have fought discrimination against all religions, races, and creeds and have built a well-deserved reputation.
<snip>
I cannot in good conscience hold onto the award or the honorarium that came with it and am returning both. I hope that it might add to the many voices that have urged you to reconsider and reverse your position on this issue.* This decision will haunt the ADL for years if not decades to come. Whether or not the center is built, what is at stake here is the integrity of the ADL and its fidelity to its mission. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain your reputation.
I wonder how long it will take Fareed to admit his.
???
You know something about him that I should know ?
This guy frigging nails it...
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/pat-condell-on-ground-zero-mosque-is-it-possible-to-be-astonished-but-not-surprised.html
Wow. Saudis. UN. IslamoNazis. German Nazis. The Koran. All have conspired in an axis of evil to destroy America. Pat Condell told us - it must be true.
Pat Condell forgot to dress in his white 'glory suit', ignite a cross, and salute the Imperial Wizard before recording a tirade endorsed by TheMercenary. Wow. One could not ask for a more racist hate speech. The only word he forgot to use to describe Muslims was nigger.
As an extremist, he even 'proved' the UN has conspired with Islam to destroy America.
Why are Islam and 11 Sept related? The enemy is bin Laden and Al Qaeda. A terrorist organization based in hate. Why are so many upset? Because wackos have successfully got so many blaming Islam for 11 Sept. Same logic from George Jr also blamed Saddam so that George Jr could waste the lives of 4000 American soldiers.
At what point does everyone associate 11 September with real enemies? bin Laden. Wackos have so many blaming Islam for 11 September. Wackos, who all but protected bin Laden and who gain power by promoting hate, need us to hate Muslims. And so many oblige.
Wackos have again spun us into lying to ourselves. 11 Sept is about bin Laden; not about Islam. And bin Laden is not building a mosque.
Better is to have everyone ask the only relevant question when 11 September is mentioned. When do we get bin Laden? Wackos hope you never ask that question. Wackos gain power through hate; by blaming Muslims. By endorsing Pat Condell's bigotry.
Yeah, 9-11 was bin Laden's doing, but there were plenty of radical Muslims in the middle east and Indonesia that didn't like us, because of our support for Israel. This gave bin Laden a large pool to recruit from, and funding too.
Then invading Iraq gave them the chance to turn to moderate Muslims and say, see, see, I told you so, which really fucked things up.
Read the story of Abd el-Kader, whom Elkader, Iowa, was named after... the only Arab to be so honored.
viaEver read or see "Neverwhere"? A lot of old tube stations make appearances.
But of course. I think I've bought everything ever published by Neil Gaiman, many more than once (as presents). I've been keeping him in the gothic style to which he has become accustomed for years now.
But, yes, I had completely forgotten about
his Angel Islington.
And d'ya know what? I never knew it started as a TV show. When it was released on DVD a while back I avoided it out of principle, assuming it could never be as good as the book! Fool. Next, someone will be telling me the Iain Banks'
The Crow Road was worth watching...
Anyway, back to Muslims and mosques an all that.
Anyway, back to Muslims and mosques an all that.
I'd just as soon talk about Neverwhere as get into another hate fest. Good book. Lil' Pete's English teacher assigned M is for Magic to her class two years back.
The enemy is bin Laden
At what point does everyone associate 11 September with real enemies? bin Laden. Wackos, who all but protected bin Laden
11 Sept is about bin Laden;
And bin Laden is not building a mosque.
When do we get bin Laden?
Again -
Bin Laden reportedly died in the early 2000's. Apparently from some heart or kidney issue.He reportedly owns Snapple, too.
:lol:
I'd just as soon talk about Neverwhere as get into another hate fest. Good book. Lil' Pete's English teacher assigned M is for Magic to her class two years back.
I can also recommend Gaiman's "The Graveyard Book". Mrs. Z got it for her tween students, but I got to read it before it went off to school. I liked the old-fashioned folk-tale feel to the story. The characters were memorable and the plot was well done.
He reportedly owns Snapple, too.
Careful. Classicman will also quote you as a source.
Quoting oneself was learned from tw.
Quoting oneself was learned from tw.
Inventing lies to promote fear. So necessary for wackos to achieve power. Where are those Saddam WMDs? What does the party line say?
The CIA chief in an interview maybe one year ago said he does not know where bin Laden is. He is probably in Pakistan. And was known to be alive some years ago. As long as bin Laden runs free, wacko extremists must invent his death. Otherwise they must admit why bin Laden runs free. .
Classicman just posted that bin Laden was selling the best thing on earth! Then he deleted it. Did he mean terrorism or Snapple? Terrorism is the best thing on earth for extremists. It promote hate.
Be careful what you tell extremists. They will quote anything that promotes their political agenda.
Sponge Bob is no longer wearing square pant. Bob must be gay. Gays conspired with Saddam to attack the WTC? And bin Laden is dead. More tales from an extremist’s crypt. Amazing the nonsense an extremist will post to promote hate. And to take cheap shots at Obama.
The CIA chief in an interview maybe one year ago said he does not know where bin Laden is. He is probably in Pakistan. And was known to be alive some years ago. As long as bin Laden runs free, wacko extremists must invent his death. Otherwise they must admit why bin Laden runs free.
Bin Laden is most likely dead. Why would the head of the CIA not admit that? Think about it. Easy answer.
Classicman just posted that bin Laden was selling the best thing on earth! Then he deleted it.
Completely FALSE! Ask a Mod.
Be careful what you tell extremists. They will quote anything that promotes their political agenda.
True
Tw spouts:
Be careful what you tell extremists. They will quote anything that promotes their political agenda.
Which is why this Nazi spouts off the party line of the Obama/Pelosi Cabal. Drink the water scumbag.....
http://theodoresworld.net/pages/september11.htm
Perhaps you'd have more support if you could link the two issues.
Perhaps you'd have more support if you could link the two issues.
Are you talking about TW, the scumbag who said those things about my wife?
I was talking in general about the position thats been debated about the connection between the 9/11 extremists being the posterboys for islam.
Should there be a mosque there? I don't really like it. If I had my choice, no. But where then does the line get drawn? 10 blocks? 1 mile? 5 miles??? There is no clear answer.
On the other hand there are those that see everything Muslim as bad. I disagree with that point of view as well.
There are those who see all of Islam as bad. I disagree with this too.
There are those who claim that "they" are treating this like a dog marking its territory. Spain is used to support this position. If thats the case ... well I won't go there.
Still others say they are using our laws and freedoms against us and this is a grand conspiracy... uh ok.
If, and its a big if, this mosque is part of or funded by those who perpetrated the 9/11 attack, then I think there should be a clear link drawn and the project refused. I have, as of yet, not seen that link.
If, and its a big if, this mosque is part of or funded by those who perpetrated the 9/11 attack, then I think there should be a clear link drawn and the project refused. I have, as of yet, not seen that link.
I doubt that would ever happen because this is one of the situations where the problem pretty much solves itself.
If the people running the mosque has any legitimate connections with terrorists, the CIA and FBI would (hopefully) be down the their asses instantly. If you run a mosque two blocks from ground zero you basically are painting a very big target on you.
"Will the victims of an atrocity that happened a few blocks away be distressed?"
Obviously the answer here is yes, but that question is not at the heart of the issue.
In general, zoning decisions based are not made based upon who will be offended, and if Islam were not involved here, I'm sure it wouldn't even be a consideration.
The basic question, which precedes any questions of policy, is "Would it be consistent with American or NYC law to discriminate against a particular religion in zoning decisions?"
What do photos prove? Really?
Clinton shook Gerry Adams' hand.
Yeah, he was a DEMONCRAT, but he was also an American President. Should we raze Catholic Churches to the ground?
Omagh
Manchester
Manchester again, and Deal
Baltic Exchange, City of London (that's the square mile of trading, inside London itself - like Wall Street but bigger and older)
Enniskillen.
Grrrrrrrrrr :dedhorse:
Addressed last night
Anyway, back to Neil Gaiman...
Nah, I'd best just start a thread. His world of mythology and literature and classical references does not sit well here.
The "Ramadan" issue of "Sandman" fits this thread well... Written during the HWBush Gulf War, I read it for the first time around the WBush Gulf War.
Remember:
Pearl Harbor
The Armenian Massacre
The Chinese massacre of 1871
The Massacre at Wounded Knee
The Massacre at Mountain Meadows
Merc: Where is the line drawn to separate actions of a few from hatred of the entire group ?
Attempting to demean an entire group by hatred of the few is futile tactic, whether it be in religion or in war.
the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre of August 24, 1572
Hey, let's make the list longer...
The Granada massacre - 1066 CE
The St Brice's Day massacre - 1002 CE
The Massacre of Thessaloniki - 390 CE
The Menai Massacre- 61 CE
And don't forget all Students because of the Columbine Massacre
Should there be a mosque there? I don't really like it. If I had my choice, no.
No only because you associate 11 September with a hate of Islam. There is no valid relationship between Islam and 11 September. A moderate does not care whether is it is called a church, synagogue, temple, oracle, or mosque. No relation to 11 September exists if ignoring wacko extremist rhetoric. The same rhetoric that preaches IslamoFascism.
I love it when TheMercenary replies. He demonstrate the hate that underlies extremist politics. The only reason we are discussing this mosque: so many believe lies and hate promoted by wacko extremists. The same hate that TheMercenary posts at me - and uses to constantly attack Obama.
The enemy is bin Laden. Some extremists are so full of hate to automatically associate a mosque and Islam with 11 September. Islam is a convenient target to power extremism. For Hitler, it was the Jews. Hate empowers extremists. If you have any problem with that mosque, then you are too entrenched in the hate advocated by extremism.
This thread exists only because too many are brainwashed in the hate and fear of Muslims. Notice how often the routine extremists have posted. Notice how easy they get angry when the reasons for their hate is identified. Too many conveniently forget who the enemy is – bin Laden - not that mosque and not Islam.
But there's not a complete disconnect, that's what makes it difficult. Separating radical Islamics from the rest is probably easier in person, in that they're the ones trying to kill you, than it is in the abstract.
Of course not making that distinction is intellectually, and morally, lazy, but certainly easier, and makes for more compact sound bites.
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Uh, no.
The enemy [strike]is[/strike] was bin Laden. Too many conveniently forget who the enemy [strike]is[/strike] was – bin Laden.
Who apparently died several years ago due to heart or kidney malfunction.
This is like a car race. You just keep going in circles.
There has been no sighting of bin Laden since December 2001.
No intelligence has reported anything of himsince 2001.
Most international observers believe bin Laden died years ago.
bin Laden would not have remained silent for so long if he were still alive. He always liked to take credit even for things he had nothing to do with.
bin Laden was often reported to be in poor health & to have a life expectancy of only months perhaps a year back in 2001 & 2002.
tx - You go ahead and beat the drum on the dead guy because its good for YOUR extremist hateful view. You are blind to that reality. Honestly, thats ok. Just leave me the out of it - mmmkay?
Here are a couple more links ...
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/06/karzai.binladen/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2135473.stm
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/10/26/binladen.will/Oh for pete's sake. Where are you getting bin Laden died?
THERE IS NO PROOF THAT Osama bin Laden is dead. Even
snopes says it's an ill-advised rumor (undetermined but ridiculous to just think that it's true.) That's a funny thing to hang your hat on, in your ongoing act of putting your fingers in your ears and mumbling "blah blah blah blah" so as not to actually hear anything.
Oh yeah, I know you're ignoring me, but maybe someone else will tell you to find something better for your debate about whether the mosque is appropriate or not (or in your constant match with tw to decide who gets to pee in what spot) than "OSAMA IS DEAD." Whether he is or not is irrelevant to this discussion anyway (though it would be in the interest of extremists and the former Bush admin for us to BELIEVE it...whew, damn, good thing he's dead, right?)
Sigh. I try, I really do...but the ignorance, it stings.
tw, you're right about extremists, and bruce put it in a good way (that it's difficult to discern radicals from regulars, just like say, Catholics)...but this same crap over and over and over... Right about now we need a picture of 9/11 to remind us to hate.
:mad:
Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all Abrahamic religions, as they all worship the God of Abraham. There shouldn't be houses of worship for any of these religions near ground zero.:bolt:
Who apparently died several years ago due to heart or kidney malfunction.
This is like a car race. You just keep going in circles.
I can't say I've peered into the depths of tw's brain but I'm assuming he is using Osama Bin Ladin as anyone who shares the same extremist world view. Just because Bin Ladin
may have died does not mean the same anti-western philosophies don't exist and thrive in certain areas of the world. Bin Ladin's direct influence is probably extremely low even if he did survive to this day. But, he will live on as a symbol for a long time.
Uh, no.
Who apparently died several years ago due to heart or kidney malfunction.
This is like a car race. You just keep going in circles.
There has been no sighting of bin Laden since December 2001.
No intelligence has reported anything of himsince 2001.
Most international observers believe bin Laden died years ago.
bin Laden would not have remained silent for so long if he were still alive. He always liked to take credit even for things he had nothing to do with.
bin Laden was often reported to be in poor health & to have a life expectancy of only months perhaps a year back in 2001 & 2002.
tx - You go ahead and beat the drum on the dead guy because its good for YOUR extremist hateful view. You are blind to that reality. Honestly, thats ok. Just leave me the out of it - mmmkay?
Here are a couple more links ...
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/06/karzai.binladen/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2135473.stm
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/10/26/binladen.will/
:redcard:
BTW, photos/video or it never happened
I can't say I've peered into the depths of tw's brain
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:D
:redcard:
BTW, photos/video or it never happened
Don't worry, he's ignoring you too. He's told you and told you that!
Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all Abrahamic religions, as they all worship the God of Abraham. There shouldn't be houses of worship for any of these religions near ground zero.:bolt:
This point of view sounds more based in atheism than in religion.
Now I'm gonna go beat up on the fat target.
Tw forgets that Osama bin Laden wouldn't have gone anywhere nor become anything without Islam generally. He got positive feedback by the ton lot from the anti-Western sector of Islam. Not Christianity, not Judaism, nor even the Copts, still less the Cathars: he got it from Islam.
Tw's other point of inattention is he believes his personal opinions to be both neutral and natural. Then he tries to tell half the world it should agree they are, in the presence of the half that knows they are not. I'd try and repair that sort of thing if it happened to me...
I can't say I've peered into the depths of tw's brain but I'm assuming he is using Osama Bin Ladin as anyone who shares the same extremist world view.
As I have said many times when Classicman was constantly posting lies about his death: The enemy is bin Laden and his organization called Al Qaeda. But since I was replying again to Classicman, I dumbed it down only to bin Laden. No reason to write it all out. He will not hear it anyway. Limbaugh has not yet told him how to think.
Which changes nothing. This discussion exists because extremists have promoted hate and fear of Islam.
An extremist keep citing himself as a citation to prove bin Laden is dead. Another technique taught in propaganda school. Anything to obfuscate those inciting hate and fear of Muslims. It’s only a mosque. Not an axis of evil – another myth invented by same extremists to create fear and hate. The enemy is bin Laden – and those who invent fear of Muslims for political power. Oh. It’s all Obama’s fault.
Greg Gutfield:
I'm building an Islamic gay bar next to the GZ mosque
This is not a joke. I've already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.
As you know, the Muslim faith doesn't look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I'm building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.
The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps - but still want to dance.
Have you not quoted yourself repeated tw? I did it intentionally to mock you.
Even you are not that much a fool not to see that.
And again for the record. I do not listen to nor agree with Limbaugh.
Your extremist views seem to blind you from the truth. Why is it that you cannot see?
This discussion exists because extremists have promoted hate and fear of Islam.
Are you able to acknowledge and state these extremists were nineteen Muslims, the blind sheikh and how many convicted co-conspirators? Are you able to even read these words?
Oh. It’s all Obama’s fault.
No. But look how much else is; it's plenty. Jeezus, kid, you're worse than Redux. Knowing you, I cannot say I'm surprised. But what a terrible thing to make an effort for! I'll blame you personally for Obama; no one can blame me for voting against that stuck-in-the-Sixties Socialist because I'm too smart to believe in bread and circuses. I voted against him once and will do it again. But I can blame you for breaking the economy because you weren't with it enough to read and digest Henry Hazlitt, can't I?
Next to that Gay bar should be a
NOW chapter
And there's another toughie: calculating the desirability of having drunked-up NOW people spilling into the streets. Oyyyy.
This:
As I have said many times when Classicman was constantly posting lies about his death: The enemy is bin Laden and his organization called Al Qaeda. But since I was replying again to Classicman, I dumbed it down only to bin Laden. No reason to write it all out. He will not hear it anyway. Limbaugh has not yet told him how to think.
Which changes nothing. This discussion exists because extremists have promoted hate and fear of Islam.
An extremist keep citing himself as a citation to prove bin Laden is dead. Another technique taught in propaganda school. Anything to obfuscate those inciting hate and fear of Muslims. It’s only a mosque. Not an axis of evil – another myth invented by same extremists to create fear and hate. The enemy is bin Laden – and those who invent fear of Muslims for political power. Oh. It’s all Obama’s fault.
tw, will you marry me? ;)
[YOUTUBE]7FJVAcvVcPQ[/YOUTUBE]
Après qu'on fetche la vache, we'll tell him we've got another!
Now they've gone too far!
The Muslims have built a minaret on the
2012 Republican Convention logo!
As much as I would love to attack the Republicans for being "Islamic Fascist" as a University of Tampa student
the minaret is part of Plant Hall on our campus.
bold mine ...
This is a non-story. It was a non-story when the right was going nuts about the new missile defense logo (http://biggovernment.com/fgaffney/2010/02/24/can-this-possibly-be-true-new-obama-missile-defense-logo-includes-a-crescent/) and it's a non-story now that the GOP is using a logo with minarets.
Let's not get into meaningless symbology.
I would have thought that it was obvious that I was being tongue in cheek.
I'm more concern about the red exploding oil rig on the logo. :eek:
David Frum figures it out: the mosque idea is a real estate developer's floated notion, and it was just a stunt and will never be built. This seems highly plausible to me.
And to imagine all the bs that was generated over the issue. Another example of the volatility information age, add a little internet and a hot button issue. What would motivate someone to start this rumor.
And to imagine all the bs that was generated over the issue. Another example of the volatility information age, add a little internet and a hot button issue. What would motivate someone to start this rumor.
Extremists used animosity to blame 11 September on Saddam and Islam. No extremist hatred; then no volatility.
Neither Islam nor Saddam created 11 September. Volatility and "Mission Accomplished" both directly traceable to an extremist agenda. Extremism is the only reason why this thread even exists.
Good that the mosque was proposed. Demonstrated how widespread and explosive this extremist hostility is. Volatility identifies both extremists and those easily brainwashed by their political agenda. Shame on them for so dishonoring the 3000 that died with lies. Islam did not create 11 September. Only lies from a political agenda - not the Internet - created this resulting volatility.
Amazing how some still deny the only reason for this controversy.
I think you've mentioned that. :haha:
Extremists have not apologized yet for promoting hate that made this issue volatile. Not that I expect extremists to be honest. The purpose of extremism is to lie for a political agenda. An honest apology would only subvert the agenda.
“Fear, little girl. There might be a Muslim hiding in your closet.” Once the word Muslim was replaced by Jew. Same hate. Different bogeyman. Different century. Same purpose.
Next, we will start blaming immigrants. Always have an enemy. Hate makes recruiting the most naïve easy.
No, just illegal immigrants.
Extremists have not apologized yet for promoting hate that made this issue volatile. Not that I expect extremists to be honest. The purpose of extremism is to lie for a political agenda. An honest apology would only subvert the agenda.
“Fear, little girl. There might be a Muslim hiding in your closet.” Once the word Muslim was replaced by Jew. Same hate. Different bogeyman. Different century. Same purpose.
Next, we will start blaming immigrants. Always have an enemy. Hate makes recruiting the most naïve easy.
When we say "It's Bush's fault" it's akin to saying "it was Hitler's fault" in my eyes.
I thought about that last night, and was glad to see tw put it much more eloquently than I would have.
If'n you all want to fear someone, fear ME! :rolleyes:
No, just illegal immigrants.
Already some of the most right wing is talking about a population explosion and why we must further restrict all immigration.
The #1 reason for illegal immigration is immigration laws so ridiculous and restrictive as to make people we need go illegal.
So extremists invent myths such as increased kidnapping in Phoenix AZ. Reality. As the number of illegal immigrants increases, kidnappings decreased in Phoenix. Extremisms is about inventing lies to promote hate - ie increased kidnapping in Phoenix. Or Saddam's WMDs - a classic example.
We don’t have an illegal immigration problem. We have screwed up immigration laws. But attacking illegal immigrants is another easy target to promote hate - to promote the wacko extremst agenda.
The #1 reason for illegal immigration is immigration laws so ridiculous and restrictive as to make people we need go illegal.
Yeah, you know, it's just like banks. If they weren't so damn secure and restrictive fewer people would have to rob them.
Jackass.
The #1 reason for illegal immigration is immigration laws so ridiculous and restrictive as to make people we need go illegal.
False - The #1 reason for illegal immigration is because America is 5 gazillion times better than where they are coming from.
False - The #1 reason for illegal immigration is because America is 5 gazillion times better than where they are coming from.
So why does the Silicon Valley in less than one week use up all the HiB visas for the entire year. Why do we need 1.8 million farm workers and only issue visas for 20,000? Why do numbers and reality always disagree with wacko rhetoric?
Oh. Islam attacked the WTC. So now its all about evil immigrants - who are traditionally the source of the most productive Americans. Clearly we must protect America from these evil people.
Thanks for proving my point.
Whether you like Obama or not, he has made an exceptional statement in support of freedom of religion,
and (therefore) in support of building this mosque.
NY Times article
Obama Strongly Backs Islam Center Near 9/11 Site
In part, he said:
“I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground,” the president said in remarks prepared for the annual White House iftar, the sunset meal breaking the day’s fast.
But, he continued: “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.”
In his remarks, Mr. Obama distinguished between the terrorists who plotted the 9/11 attacks and Islam. “Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam — it is a gross distortion of Islam,” the president said, adding, “In fact, Al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion, and that list includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.”
Noting that “Muslim Americans serve with honor in our military,” Mr. Obama said that at next week’s iftar at the Pentagon, “tribute will be paid to three soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq and now rest among the heroes of Arlington National Cemetery.”
I have posted this statement by Obama, and previously posted Mayor Bloomberg's statement, in the hope that people will see that this is not an issue for partisan politics or even of the "war on terrorism".
It is a matter of basic freedom of religion and is essential for our form of government.
I have posted this statement by Obama, and previously posted Mayor Bloomberg's statement, in the hope that people will see that this is not an issue for partisan politics or even of the "war on terrorism".
Too late for that. Sarah Palin wasted no time using hate to gain political support. From The Economist of 7 Aug 2010:
In a tweet last month from Alaska, Ms Palin called on "peaceful Muslims" to "refudiate" the "ground-zero mosque" because it would "stab" American hearts. But why should it? Cordoba House is not being built by al-Qaeda. To the contrary, it is the brainchild of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a well-meaning American cleric who has spent years trying to promote interfaith understanding, not an apostle of religious war like Osama bin Laden. He is modelling his project on New York's 92nd Street Y, a Jewish community centre that reaches out to other religions. The site was selected in part precisely so that it might heal some of the wounds opened by the felling of the twin towers and all that followed. True, some relatives of 9/11 victims are hurt by the idea of a mosque going up near the site. But that feeling of hurt makes sense only if they too buy the false idea that Muslims in general were perpetrators of the crime.
Even The Economist notes bin Laden is the enemy. And that blaming Muslims can only promote more pain and hate. So why do so many extremists promote that loathing. It was not just Palin.
The former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives may or may not have presidential pretensions, but he certainly has intellectual ones. That makes it impossible to excuse the mean spirit and scrambled logic of his assertion that "there should be no mosque near ground zero so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia". Come again? Why hold the rights of Americans who happen to be Muslim hostage to the policy of a foreign country that happens also to be Muslim? To Mr Gingrich, it seems, an American Muslim is a Muslim first and an American second.
... Imam Feisal says he chose "Cordoba" in recollection of a time when the rest of Europe had sunk into the Dark Ages but Muslims, Jews and Christians created an oasis of art, culture and science. Mr Gingrich sees only a "deliberate insult", a reminder of a period when Muslim conquerors ruled Spain. Like Mr bin Laden, Mr Gingrich is apparently still relitigating the victories and defeats of religious wars fought in Europe and the Middle East centuries ago. He should rejoin the modern world, before he does real harm.
Why are extremists quoted by The Economist using expressions such as "deliberate insult", "ground-zero mosque", and "stab" American hearts? Same revulsion that also said, "We want Obama to fail."
A strong movement in the Republican party even attacks their own including moderate Republicans including Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins. These Conservative Republican Senators are too liberal for extremists inspired by animosity and daily doses of Limbaugh and Beck.
This mosque made painfully obvious the hate and resulting nastiness behind extremist posts. Hate that even blames immigrants for crime waves that do not exist. Hate intentionally used by Palin to rally support.
Kudos to Imam Rauf for exposing this hate fundamental to and that inspires our extremists.
German authorities say they have closed a Hamburg mosque used by the Sept. 11 attackers as a meeting place before they moved to the United States.
A statement by Hamburg officials says the Taiba mosque was shut down and its cultural association was banned on Monday.
The prayer house, formerly known as al-Quds mosque, used to be a meeting and recruiting point for some of the Sept. 11 attackers.
Weekly news magazine Focus cites a report by a local intelligence agency branch in saying the mosque has again become the city's "main center of attraction for the jihad scene." It says some members who belonged to the Taiba group and prayed at the mosque have moved on to a radical training camp in Uzbekistan.
Officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
Link
even more details here
Soooo... I guess this is just food for thought.
The same distance as the mosque site, from "hallowed ground".
Bruce? You ok? No review? WTH?
You're slippin' in your retirement years...
Politics or Hypocrisy -
Or, What comes around eventually goes back around
After all the problems the Church of Latter Saints has had in it's history here in the US,
you would think Senator Reid would have better judgement...
or else he has committed the sin of hypocrisy for political reasons.
I don't know his true motivations, but I certainly question his judgment in making this feeble announcement.
Doing or saying anything at all
just to get re-elected will come back to bite him where it hurts...
ABC NEWS
By RUSSELL GOLDMAN
Aug. 16, 2010
Sen. Harry Reid Breaks With Obama Over 'Ground Zero Mosque'
President Obama's Support for Islamic Center Opened Door to Republican Assault
President Obama's staunchest ally in the Senate broke with the president today over the controversial Islamic center planned for a site near Ground Zero, and said he is opposed to its construction.
The office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada issued a statement saying, "The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Senator Reid respects that, but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else."
Thinking the mosque should be built somewhere else, and doing something governmental to prevent it being built there are two very separate things.
Thank you Jinx. I disagree with tw - I don't think you are an extremist.
Thank you Jinx. I disagree with tw - I don't think you are an extremist.
What is an extremist to an extremist? According to classicman, there are no extremists. Couldn't be. A xenophobe could not see a xenophobe as a xenophobe. To a xenophobe, xenophobia is normal behavior.
the mosque has again become the city's "main center of attraction for the jihad scene."
So has Starbucks. But hate to advance a political agenda does not work by blaming Starbucks. Extremist seek easier targets: niggers, spics, kikes, fags, short people, Hilary, and Muslims. It is still intolerance. Xenophobia promoted to rally their supporters. No wonder these same extremists advocate, “We want Obama to fail.”
This mosque simply makes radicalism and bigotry obvious.
niggers, spics, kikes, fags, short people, Hilary, and Muslims.
Nice list - All but three of which are in my immediate or extended family. No relation to Hillary (correct spelling) sorry.
So because I agree with her and not you, we are xenophobes as well as extremists? Thanks. I like the company I am in.
*points and laughs*
You're related to short people!
HEY! Watch it!
I AM short people
HEY! Watch it!
I AM short people
Where?
In your nightmares.
Ya know, It sucks when reality hits you in the face and you realize you were totally wrong.
Too bad some cannot see nor admit that. They are called extremists by some. Typically, those people who are calling them extremists are themselves as extreme as those they are calling extremists are as extreme as those they are calling extremists are as extreme as those they are calling extremists are as extreme as those they are calling extremists are as
In your nightmares.
Ya know, It sucks when reality hits you in the face and you realize you were totally wrong.
Once a xenophobe is identified, then he no longer appreciates humor.
Xenophobe. Clearly Islam must be evil because Limbaugh, et al warns us of Islamofascism. And because classicman tells us Islam created 11 September. Must be true. Limbaugh, Palin, and Gringrich say it is so.
Islam did not do 11 September. Amazing how extremists will do everything to avoid going after bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Islam is an easy target. Always attack easy targets. Enflame your supporters by created mythical evil.
So enflamed by hate, is he, as to not even see a good joke. So easily made angry. He is a wacko extremist. The definition of xenophobia. Enemies are lurking everywhere to kill us all - an axis of evil. Only a xenophobe fears Islam and mosques – because Limbaugh and Hannity tell him how to think – no hate.
Alive and exposed is xenophobia - even from short people.
I didn't realize you were short. That might explain your napoleon complex.
Classic and TW, these latest are not showing the best of either of you.
Can each get some new thoughts - without personal attacks ?
Sure as long as its a two way street.
Why are all the liberal tit suckers suddenly worried about the freedom of religious expression when they continually hammer Christians? Just wondering.
Not being a tit-sucker myself, I'll leave that question to those it is directed at.
The 'rents' right wing paper is on the case now (as up to date as always!)
There were two letters yesterday from people saying it was an insult to the memory of those who died. One from someone who lost a son on 9/11. Really.
I drafted a letter in response, but caught myself in time. There's no point.
Not wanting to impose any degradation on any religion, I have to suppress my words but then this "religion" might be the most pathetic and useless term that human culture has raised. Its really bemusing to see a race of certain people compiling one of the largest religious group in the world fail to see that there's nothing sacred about shedding the blood. You don't kill in name of good. Plain, simple, full-stop. Perhaps we should have done better without "gods" and there "non-existent" interference with humans.
Its clear to see that the profound religions on earth are more a product of the politics than the divine interference of some brighter-than-stars entity. You don't have to go beyond wikipedia to notice this. And of course there are better research works if anyone is interested in details.
Perhaps the backward societies still have ample time to sit and wander and create there plethora of meaningless "jihads" when we are busy getting into the our daily races to win the bread. You may keep a man in desert with few others of his type with nothing to do. And besides eating, fucking and shitting, he will come up with his beliefs after a time. True if you go n hit him when he's still coming to terms with rest of the world, he will become angered. But then is this malice justified when the rage becomes meaningless fire in the wind.
The point is........they are not at all in the desert, they are not at all just eating, fucking and shitting around, they have got some logic inside their dated minds too. So how does it become so plaintively simple for them to spread violence everywhere?
Or is it greed that drives them. A dream to rule the world? And that too on the name of God. There's been crusades and jihads, wars and bloodsheds. Perhaps we will never learn.
Sorry guys if this has been like another one of my ramblings. But I have personal reasons to never forget that doom of 9/11.
The 9-11 crew, and many of the imported al-Qaida fighters in Iraq, seem to be recruited from middle class families. Teenage angst, and twenty something disappointment with what they see their lives ahead will be, I guess.
I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody...
Why are all the liberal tit suckers suddenly worried about the freedom of religious expression when they continually hammer Christians? Just wondering.
'Most any LTS will tell you that the 1st Amendment covers both activities. The thing is going to be on private property, we have no say. We all have a say about what they do in the public sphere. You've seen how worked up the LTSs get over Baby Jesus on the court house steps, just imagine the response if they tried to put burkas on our daughters. LTSs are your allies in this. Next time you see public dollars going to some Christian outfit and the LTSs get bent out of shape just replace First Podunk Christian Church with First Reformed Shiite Mosque and see if you're being consistent. We can kick Islams ass in the war of ideas but to do it we must remain true to our ideals.
Dear Griff
Well put, but I hasten to add that you underestimate, nay, overlook entirely the flexibility of such double standards. Every opinion that I've seen that opposes this building plan *IS* consistent, but the frame of reference doesn't extend beyond their own individual interests, despite dressing such interests in constitutional clothes.
Yours,
LTS #59,196,140
Irrationality is hammered. Christianity bears the brunt because there are more of them in the US, and they are more often the ones trying to make their religion into law. Any Muslim attempting to push for Sharia would (if he weren't simply laughed off the stage) be hammered just as hard.
In this case, what they are trying to do is build a properly zoned building on their own property. What's to hammer?
I've heard it will be visible from the WTC site. It won't. It's in the middle of a block on a road that does not intersect the site. If they ever build the tower, you probably will be able to see part of the roof, but that's true of most of Manhattan.
I've heard it will cast a shadow on the WTC site. It won't. At least one building between it and the WTC site is taller than it.
It's not even on a route to the WTC, unless you are zigzagging through the blocks.
I've heard it's too close. But mosques across the country are protested.
I've heard the guy in charge is a terrorist sympathiser. But he's been sent overseas by the US government as a goodwill ambassador. The quote used to paint him as a terrorist sympathiser is essentially saying that US foreign policy has made things worse in the Middle East.
The argument against the building could be used to say that a Baptist church shouldn't be built near a daycare center because some Catholic priests molested children, and Catholic priests are Christian, and so are Baptists, so the Baptist church is insensitive to area parents.
That's the best response yet, HM.
That's the best response yet, HM.
Seconded. I like thinking people.
HM, that was part of my drafted response (see above). I suggested that no Catholic churches could be built in Birmingham, Manchester, Omagh etc because of the IRA bombs there.
Good point, better made than my drafts anyway..
The quote used to paint him as a terrorist sympathiser is essentially saying that US foreign policy has made things worse in the Middle East.
Well... Um... Ya think? :lol2:
This article has more to do with the recent flood that put 1/5 of Pakistan underwater but it has some relevance to the mosque debate. I am not posting it as a guilt trip but this flood has the potential to be a very large national security risk. If the US or Pakistan does not provide relief......guess who will (and has been).
-snip-
Yet, all of the focus on the Ground Zero mosque controversy may now be having the ironic effect of distracting us from a much more important and much more urgent issue in that ideological struggle: the vast humanitarian crisis caused by the floods in Pakistan. The human toll is staggering, and that alone ought to be enough to prompt an outpouring of generosity from the American people.
But if you are not moved by the human suffering, perhaps the national-security concerns will prompt you into action. Pakistan is at the epicenter of the war on terror, and it is hard to see how that larger struggle will turn out well if the Pakistani state collapses and the society plunges into anarchy. The country was already teetering on the edge with a bankrupt economy, severe food and water problems, and an ongoing insurgency in Balochistan. And, by the way, al Qaeda and other terrorist networks are primarily in Pakistan, not Afghanistan -- indeed, several of the recent attempted terrorist attacks in the United States have originated from or had links to groups in Pakistan. Oh, and Pakistan has a sizable nuclear arsenal.
The stakes in Pakistan are exceptionally high and the international response thus far has been inadequate. The United States has done better than most, but we could do more. The most successful things the Bush administration ever did in the war of ideas were the rapid and substantial responses to the Asian tsunami of 2004/2005 and the Pakistan earthquake of 2005. More than anything, our actions confounded critics in the Muslim world (and elsewhere) and thwarted al Qaeda's goal of fostering a war between Islam and the West.
The current Pakistan crisis dwarfs both of those prior disasters, but the international response, beginning with ours, has not yet been commensurate. There are many reasons for that, but maybe one of those reasons is our national preoccupation with the mosque debate.
-snip-
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/18/stop_talking_about_the_mosque_start_doing_something_to_help_pakistanAnd maybe his presumption that the response has "not yet been commensurate", stems from the fact that the world can't afford it. And if he thinks Bush is so good at this shit, send him.
I am surprised, and I want to give Ron Paul credit for his statement today.
It is a long statement and I have sniped out quite a bit and added a few spaces for readability;
BUT IT IS ALL WORTH READING
( This being said by a flaming liberal who would not vote for Ron Paul for any elected office)
Ron Paul.com
Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?
<snip>
The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.
Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”
Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides.
The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?
In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.
They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.
<snip>
Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque.
They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.
This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.
<snip>
If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.
The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.
Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.
Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.
The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives’ aggressive wars.
<snip>
This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.
We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.
Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.
Yeah, Ron Paul
The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate
I am thankful I am missing all this attention, wherever it is that its being debated.
I have heard compelling arguments that those conservatives fueling the mosque debate are specifically doing so to distract from the fact that they voted against a bill to provide medical care and support to 9/11 first responders who are still suffering from trauma they received at that time (like inhaling smoke and crumbling building dust.)
Ron Paul may be kind of a goof, but he is dead-on right with this statement:
The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives’ aggressive wars.
The second largest shareholder in News Corp. -- the parent company of Fox News -- has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to causes linked to the imam planning to build a Muslim community center and mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan, says a report from Yahoo!News.
According to the report from Yahoo!'s John Cook, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who owns seven percent of News Corp., "has directly funded [Imam Feisal Abdul] Rauf's projects to the tune of more than $300,000."
link
I read another article how when the project was announced FOX News, along with the rest of the media, gave it there blessing. Four months later, Fox News stared stirring up shit. Methinks I smell politics.:eyebrow:
I'm sure Dwellars are tired of my posting about the Mosque, but please give me this one more without charge...
(Quote-formatting below is for readability only)
I was just watching a cable talk-show with NY Gov Petraki (sp ?) talking about the mosque in NYC.
His very strong position was the usual:
THEY have the legal right to build there, but THEY should be sensitive to how WE feel about Ground Zero... etc., etc., and so on.
The very next topic was Glen Beck's crowd-gathering at the Lincoln Memorial planned for Saturday,
which is the 38th anniversary of Dr. King's "I have a dream" speech on the steps of that same Lincoln Memorial.
The talking heads argued that Beck had
deliberately set his event to conflict with this anniversary.
What happened next was pure TV irony...
They had an interview with ML King Jr.,
and he started his remarks started with:
BECK has the legal right to hold his meeting there, but HE should be sensitive to how WE feel about that date and place. etc., etc., and so on...!
You can't make up this stuff... :D
Keeping the
hate alive.
GAINESVILLE, Fla. — If building an Islamic center near ground zero amounts to the epitome of Muslim insensitivity, as critics of the project have claimed, what should the world make of Terry Jones, the evangelical pastor here who plans to memorialize the Sept. 11 attacks with a bonfire of Korans?
Team play continues.
It's kind of sweet that small minds have other small minds to play with, otherwise their grandiose beliefs might just fizzle out. :rolleyes:
Dr. Khan said that “Mr. Jones is hijacking Christianity” just as “Al Qaeda hijacked Islam.”
Funny how the shoe isn't quite as comfortable on the other foot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I found the article very strange it seemed to jump all over the place without actually giving much information.
I hope he goes out there and burns thousands of them or his "followers" all over burn them and the idiotic press covers each asshole in their front yard with a gas can and a burning book.
Then the islamic extremists can go around to their houses and blow themselves up on the asshole's doorstep - Two birds with one bomb - rather fitting.
I found the article very strange it seemed to jump all over the place without actually giving much information.
Kinda like one of your posts.
Kinda like one of your posts.
:thumb2::rotflol::beer:
Sounds like a good time to invest in Koran printers.
Well, at least he found the article! :lol:
Now, if you'll excuse me I have some fences to straddle and some asses that need my nose shoved firmly in them.
Ye gads, it's spreading...
I just heard on TV that the owners of the Empire State Building are complaining about a proposed new skyscraper because it will be so close and only 34 ft lower than the ESB and will block their view.
Of course, they have the right to build there but they should be sensitive to our....
The debate is giving some nutters something to fixate on.
This sounds like a psychotic episode.
As the cab inched up Third Avenue and reached 39th Street, Mr. Sharif said in a phone interview, Mr. Enright suddenly began cursing at him and shouting “This is the checkpoint” and “I have to bring you down.” He said he told him he had to bring the king of Saudi Arabia to the checkpoint.
Late in the article it mentions this, curiouser and curiouser...
Mr. Enright is also a volunteer with Intersections International, an initiative of the Collegiate Churches of New York that promotes justice and faith across religions and cultures. The organization, which covered part of Mr. Enright’s travel expenses to Afghanistan, has been a staunch supporter of the Islamic center near ground zero. Mr. Enright volunteered with the group’s veteran-civilian dialogue project. Funny how the shoe isn't quite as comfortable on the other foot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A classic deflection to divert attention from one's own intolerance....a common practice of the right.
Much like another recent comment here about the "liberal tit suckers" war on christianity.
Small minds here do think alike.
[YOUTUBE]4Jp8KmOJAb0[/YOUTUBE]
Ye gads, it's spreading...
I just heard on TV that the owners of the Empire State Building are complaining about a proposed new skyscraper because it will be so close and only 34 ft lower than the ESB and will block their view.
Of course, they have the right to build there but they should be sensitive to our....
Reminds me.
In the following photo, there are two large condos right next to each other in the middle of the photo. Two separate owners. The condo on the right, built first, has four rooms on each floor, each getting a separate direction to look out of. The condo on the left, built after, has one room to each floor. Notice how the side facing the first condo has no windows.
Of course, they have the right to build there but they should be sensitive to our....
Almost like a "spite-fence"
How the heck are you supposed to peek at the neighbors in the next building without windows? Makes no sense :headshake
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A classic deflection to divert attention from one's own intolerance....a common practice of the right.
Much like another recent comment here about the "liberal tit suckers" war on christianity.
Small minds here do think alike.
I can't make my mind small enough to think or believe alike with Redux. He's so
proud of his superstitions and his ignorance of the Right. That pride in his ignorance, popular among that heavily Democratic group the KKK, denotes an inferior sort of mind. This is the kind of conscienceless guy who votes for Democrats.
Don't claim enlightenment around me, Redux. You for one cannot know it. Do you think you have it? -- well, you're not right, you're left.
I think this perspective sums it up very well...whether its Beck and the Tea Party crowd screaming "socialism" and "Obama is a racist" and "destroying the American way of life" or the anti-Muslim bigotry that is raging across the country:
Ever watch a child have a tantrum? I don't mean the kind when a child is so distressed they need adult help to calm down. I mean the appearance of a "little Nero" who wants control at any cost. You know, the yelling and screaming, the endless demands and attempts at manipulation.
Hmm, this all sounds so familiar....right, I am talking about Glenn Beck ...and leaders in the TEA party...but I'm also talking about you and me.
Tantrum morality (a type of Bunker Security) is about raging against anything that you consider a threat to your power and prvilege. So the TEA partiers, sponsored by the wealthy and promoted by Fox News, who earn more than average Americans, are concerned for their own well being, not necessarily that of anyone else. For example, they are more likely to think that the Obama administration favors the poor and blacks over others. You can see they want to continue tilting the social table towards the wealthy (see David Cay Johnston's books).
When you are raised and immersed in a culture that promotes insecurity (as our culture does), you are likely to be attracted to the rhetoric of blaming (discounted) others for any problem you have. Hence, Glenn Beck's success. The Bunker Security world view is that you have to be aggressive to keep a sense of control. Witness the tragic bullying of Phoebe Prince (which became vicious morality).
Glen Beck's Tantrum Morality is highly destructive because he appears on a news network and the naïve viewer thinks he is only telling them what is true (after all, it is on TV and on a news channel). Find someone convenient to blame for your troubles and have at it. People who look or act differently are especially attractive (e.g., Obama, immigrants).
So when you are mad for not getting your way, you point to the "difference" in your opponent (race, sex, origin) or their area of vulnerability. You pull out the zinger that you know will strike at the heart. "I always knew you were weak." "My mother warned me about you people." You throw emotional Molotov cocktails to try to get your way.
Tantrum Morality is centered on one's own emotions and perspective.Fueled by panic and rage, a person can't consider alternative perspectives. These emotions overcome neocortical thinking and positive emotions.
Tantrum Morality is reckless. It has little sense of the future or consequences.
Tantrum Morality is harmful to cooperation and community because it cuts off dialogue. It is difficult to have a dialogue when one side keeps yelling and shouting insults.
Tantrum Morality is not grounded in reality but reactive to fantasy (Obama as foreigner, Obama as Nazi, Obama as socialist).
Tantrum Morality is truthy. You go with your feelings or intuitions, regardless of whether they are true or where they came from (and if they come from Glenn Beck, beware!)
It's harmful to the self (the tantrumer) because it gives the illusion of doing "something constructive" when it is only destructive.
Ultimately, Tantrum Morality is blind and dumb. It does not see how the individual's actions are connected to everyone else. It cannot move beyond its own narrow perspective which is partially fantasy. It cannot access capacities for thoughtful, rational thinking because the activated reptilian brain is in charge.
Any way you slice it, Tantrum Morality is harmful.
...If the tantrumer gets his or her way, it does long-term damage because the lesson learned is that screaming pays off. You have to nip bullying in the bud, just like you have to nip domestic abuse in the bud. Once a bully/abuser/tantrumer gets his or her way, it is much more difficult to prevent the same thing in the future. They have tasted power and want to keep it.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201004/tantrum-morality-tea-party-and-glenn-beck
You, sir, (and a few select others here - one who rages against the ""liberal tit suckers" war on christianity) repeatedly demonstrate the tantrum morality.
My suggestion....heed the advice offered:
[INDENT]How to get out of your own Moral Tantrum:
Pause. Breathe. Step back and look at yourself (often this is triggered when someone questions what you are doing). Pay attention to where you are and what is around you (right brain). Be self-reflective: Why am I trying to coerce? What am I afraid of? Is there a better way to persuade? How can I stay in a respectful relationship with this person?[/INDENT]
Have a great day. :)
Under the constitution the state/goverment cannot tell anyone if they can build a church, mosque or synagogue,or even a lions club for that matter.
It would set a dangerous precedent. Case closed.
That said, there is something creepy about a mosque being build so close to ground zero, but if I were better educated I would understand I am just being an ignorant bigot.
Behavior in this thread has been poor. It is advised that we try to stay on the topic of the thread without addressing each other.
The constant reference to it as the "ground zero" mosque and the gross misrepresentations of the words and actions of the imam director of the community center in question by the right wing media and the opposition to the facility only spread ignorance and intolerance.
The result is the backlash against Muslim and other mosques across the country. Islamaophobia is not only counter to American values but dangerous at many levels.
Perhaps a visual will help:
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
Pause. Breathe. Step back and look at yourself (often this is triggered when someone questions what you are doing). Pay attention to where you are and what is around you (right brain). Be self-reflective: Why am I trying to coerce? What am I afraid of? Is there a better way to persuade? How can I stay in a respectful relationship with this person?
Behavior in this thread has been poor. It is advised that we try to stay on the topic of the thread without addressing each other.
I realize you were posting in general, but since you posted to censor after pages of posts, I need to clarify.
I was talking about myself and it was no veiled judgment against another.
I really do find myself having irrational objections about a mosque being built so close to ground zero.I think it is insensitive. That said,I tell myself it is probably because I am an uneducated bigot.
I wonder if I educated myself about what Islam really is I would feel better about it. :rolleyes:
One does not need to education oneself about Islam to understand that many of the more vocal and vitriolic arguments against the building of this community center are based on demagoguing, fear-mongering and gross misrepresentation of the facts.
The "sensitivity" of building at this location (not within sight of Ground Zero) is another question but where do you draw the line?
If the mission of the community center is to encourage constructive engagement between Muslims, Christians and Jews and if the moderate imam in charge has a history of such bridge-building, does that not display sensitivity and a positive voice in the community?
When a vocal opposition (even if is the majority) ignores the facts and instead, act on emotion, we ultimately create separate standards of what is acceptable based on our own biases (against a race or religion) rather than what is right...and that is dangerous....because you (me or anyone of us) could be next group exercising our rights in a manner that might offend the sensibilities of others .
...but since you posted to censor after pages of posts, I need to clarify.
Not censor posts of fact or opinion, censure personal attacks. ;)
Not censor posts of fact or opinion, censure personal attacks. ;)
censure, yes. I used the wrong word. I thought about it too late to edit.
[YOUTUBE]WvelLJ12yhM[/YOUTUBE]
Mr. Redux would like us not to have a look at the character and history of the fellow ramrodding the Islamic Cultural Center project. Is he not a be-all-end-all advocate of Sharia law, just as -- or more than -- Redux thinks the Democratic Party is his be-all-end-all?
UG - I've asked this several times now ... without response, but I'll ask again.
What factual information do you have on this/these fellows?
I haven't seen a thing anywhere.
The facts are that the imam who heads up the community center has been sent to the Middle East by both the Bush and Obama State Departments on several occasions to help the US promote religious tolerance.
He has a long history of promoting religious tolerance and building bridges between Muslims, Christians and Jews in his writings and his actions.
His views are mainstream Muslim but have been twisted and vilified by the right in an ignorant attempt to justify their own intolerance.
But it's so offffffennnnnnnsivvvvvvvvvvvve. [/whine]
I have it on good authority that every single one of the 9/11 hijackers were men.
And yet. [SIZE="4"]And yet.[/SIZE] There are dozens of Men's rooms in the area around ground zero. Many sources are saying that one of the attendants is also a man. [SIZE="3"]And[/SIZE] that he's even been to training at a well known Hooters.
These buildings should be sensitive to the history of the area!
Pete says there are dozens of these Men's room in the area but we only have his word for it, he hasn't actually provided any evidence to support his statement.
Pete says there are dozens of these Men's room in the area but we only have his word for it, he hasn't actually provided any evidence to support his statement.
Beck says it is not true. That proves it.
Pete, that bathroom sympathizer. Puh.
Pete, that bathroom sympathizer. Puh.
I have Crohn's Disease, so I have a bathroom dependency. :D
Another reason not to freak out.
Now, if you'll excuse me I have some fences to straddle and some asses that need my nose shoved firmly in them.
You gotta pull it outta refux's ass first.
Oh goody, I'm off ignore!
It's OK, pinocchio, one day you may turn into a real live boy.
So, who's building the 51 Park Place Islamic Community Center with Mosque and, they say, a swimming pool, and what are their connections with that faction of Islam we have come to know and loathe? There is one
Sharif El-Gamal who became suddenly and mysteriously very rich and is buying properties such as 45 Park Place. The mystery is like unto Hillary's $100,000,000 success in cattle futures.
Where does El-Gamal's money come from? He won't say. But the money trail is growing.
What does he do for fun?
“. . . there is a video of Ground Zero Mosque developer Sharif El-Gamal at an Anti-Israeli rally in NYC yelling inflammatory statements over a bullhorn. This video supposedly will be made available in the following weeks leading up to the 9/11 anniversary on September 11th, 2010.”
Sounds revealing. From further down in the same article:
“There is word of a[n] investigation that is ongoing into Sharif El-Gamal of the SOHO Properties real estate business by the NYS Division of Licensing Real Estate*in Manhattan for non-payment of apartment rental deposits to customers that were supposed to be in escrow…The NYS Division of Licensing Real Estate in Manhattan will neither confirm or deny that there is a investigation*into Sharif El-Gamal*and SOHO Properties that started in May of 2010.Sharif el-Gamal’s guarantor’s (co-signer)*on a $39 million mortgage, Hisham Elzanaty, is evidently the same person listed as having contributed $1,000 to Obama’s campaign, as well as numerous other donations to other politicians, including recently to Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a mosque supporter.”
Mmhmm. From
here.
Bit of
blog-swatting about it over here. My my.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf –
such a peach:
"'The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets.'
This is outrageously specious, but it depends on the ignorance of the listeners. The bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima were not justified by the bombers on the basis of Christian theology. The bombings by terrorists -- 9/11, 3/11, etc. -- are justified on the basis of Islamic theology. By claiming that they are equivalent, Abdul Rauf obscures the Islamic roots of modern-day terrorism, thus hindering the prospects for the reform within Islam that is so desperately needed if jihad terrorism is ever going to cease.
Imam Feisal said the bombing in Madrid had made his message more urgent. He said there was an endless supply of angry young Muslim rebels prepared to die for their cause and there was no sign of the attacks ending unless there was a fundamental change in the world.
Yes indeed. But displaying a lack of the self-critical faculty that he shares with radical Muslims, he makes no mention, at least according to this report, of the Islamic roots of terror, and of the need for Muslims who truly (rather than deceptively) oppose terror to address this problem."
That's from
AtlasShrugs2000. Paints the picture of the imam who will, with no regard to fairness, himself displease when it comes to us, meaning thee and me. Like he needs to do this crap, and like we need to put up with it. I mean, we could bomb his car. Look what it did for the Corleones.
There's more. This fellow may charitably be described as "part of the precipitate."
And Imam Rauf's funding comes from whom and where, again?
But meanwhile,
Yossi Klein Halevi. He's a “gentleman crying, 'Peace, peace,' yet there is no peace.”
Stupid, stupid, because there is no smart!
“The proposed site was close enough to have been hit by a landing-gear assembly from one of the crashed airliners on 9/11 -- and that's way too close.
They're also nervous about the project's backers -- even before Elzanaty popped up -- deciding that, with those folks involved, anywhere might be too close.
As The Post reported yesterday, Rauf has been catching iffy tax breaks since 1998 for an organization run from his wife's Upper West Side apartment.
How'd he do it? By telling the IRS the one-bedroom digs were actually a mosque where 500 people prayed daily.
These are only the latest revelations about the mosque's backers, who've run up a cumulative record of petty crime, slumlording and tax-scamming.
And that's being generous.
Rauf, who's due back in New York this weekend after a long trip abroad, has plenty of explaining to do to the people he's been thumbing in the eye for weeks.
First there is Elzanaty's role, of course.
Then there's the elephant in the room: Whence the $100 million needed for the mosque?”
From
The New York Post.
Really, the contention that Imam Rauf is not a terrorism practitioner seems unduly disingenuous. He's an orchestrator, and manifestly thinks himself an armed Soldier Of God.
And is Rauf the moderate, as these people go? Shouldn't we send such “moderation” straight to hell? Is this sort of thing acceptable to free, adult mankind?
There will be no help to be found in Obama. Breaking the enemies of mankind and democracy is not what he wants to do. No wonder I voted for Bush twice – his is a much better character. No wonder I will vote against Obama next chance I get. However personable he can be, he believes in all the wrong things, and so does Michelle.
Add to that
this from American Thinker. Something rather different.
Sure, there's the Time article anybody can find... but.
Here's another view of Sharif el-Gamal
link
He doesn't seem quite so sinister in this view.
(bold and quote formats are mine for readability)
He comes from the well-off family of a bank executive, but not from real estate billions.
His father, an Egyptian, was a managing director at Chemical Bank.
His parents divorced; he lived in Brooklyn until age 9, when his mother, a Polish Catholic, died.
He then followed his father to Liberia and to Egypt, where he attended the The Shultz American School:
(The Schutz American School founded in 1924, was originally a boarding school for children of missionaries)
Mr. Gamal returned to the United States for college, studying architecture and economics before dropping out.
He was not raised in a religious household, but Islam helped Mr. Gamal out of a troubled youth, Mr. Kopp said.
After a stint waiting tables, Mr. Gamal entered the close-knit New York real estate world, where he is better known as a broker than as a developer.
Sharif el-Gamal is a relative newcomer to the New York City real estate business.
He got his broker’s license in 2002.
He is developing two condominium projects:
turning a building in TriBeCa into six lofts, and
planning apartments on what is now a West Side parking lot.
He began buying buildings three years ago.
As an owner and developer, though, he is just getting started, by New York standards.
Public filings show Mr. Gamal bought, starting in 2007, a half-dozen apartment buildings
in Harlem and Washington Heights for $1.075 million to $2.8 million.Two have outstanding building violations and owe the city money.
He also manages properties in Chelsea and Harlem. He bought his first major office building, 31 West 27th Street, in 2009, for $45.7 million.
Mr. Gamal attended two Lower Manhattan mosques that were overflowing, and decided to build a mosque and community center, a Muslim version of the J.C.C.
In July 2009, Mr. Gamal paid $4.85 million, a bargain price, for the property on Park Place, two blocks from ground zero.
Mr. Gamal has told supporters that he will take no money linked to “un-American” values and that donations will be vetted by federal and state authorities and separate boards for the center and the mosque.
Comparable projects like the Jewish Community Center of Manhattan, on the Upper West Side — Mr. Gamal is a member; his daughters learned to swim there — have planned their programming before financing the construction, to show they will have revenue from, say, gym memberships or day care.
Mr. Gamal hopes to raise $70 million through tax-exempt bonds, which religiously affiliated nonprofit groups can obtain — but only if they prove that the facilities will benefit the general public, with religious functions separately financed.
"Mr. Gamal has told supporters that he will take no money linked to “un-American” values and that donations will be vetted by federal and state authorities and separate boards for the center and the mosque."
Strange, and yet much of the controversy surrounds the fact that he intended not to tell everyone where his money came from, esp countries like Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. So which is it?
Well, within the link I gave above it also says...
Mr. Gamal has traveled to the Middle East, as have many New York developers. Gulf oil money is one of their few financing sources in the current market. But Mr. Gamal says his only current investors are from the United States and Israel.
But since he is not required to expose where the money comes from that leaves an opening. Given the current climate, esp in a place like NYC, I suspect there is a low threshold of trust for the legitimacy of the sources of funding for the building of a mosque.
Sorry, in copying from the link I had intended to include the following:
Mr. Gamal hopes to raise $70 million through tax-exempt bonds, which religiously affiliated nonprofit groups can obtain — but only if they prove that the facilities will benefit the general public, with religious functions separately financed.
Would such bonds be enough to gain the public trust ?
It seems to me that as much distrust as there is regarding this man and this project,
something more sinister would have been evident by now
given the amount of media and public scrutiny he has received.
Certainly the legal problems he had with the City of NY
was no different than a very large number of landlords have had
regarding rent deposits not being held in escrow,
and not nearly enough to warrant such distrust.
One could wonder if any major project like this community center could stand up to a similar level of scrutiny.
The question is....why should they?
I find it odd that, in large part, it is the conservative free marketeers who are the ones wanting to intervene in a private venture.
I find it odd that, in large part, it is the conservative free marketeers who are the ones wanting to intervene in a private venture.
Who are those. I don't see anyone who is protesting and wanting to intervene wearing such signs.
Who are those. I don't see anyone who is protesting and wanting to intervene wearing such signs.
Those are the ones who have vilified the private community center project by raising the specter of ties to terrorists organizations and by demanding an accounting of funding.
Really? Where are these conservative free marketeers? I just see a lot of regular people.
Where is the contrary evidence that there are no ties to terrorist states? The money is hidden.
Really? Where are these conservative free marketeers? I just see a lot of regular people.
Where is the contrary evidence that there are no ties to terrorist states? The money is hidden.
There is no evidence of funds for the community center tied to terrorists states. Its called a witch hunt.
I suspect you would be outraged if a private entity you supported was subject to the same level of scrutiny....calling it leftist extremism and unAmerican.
Who are the regular people to whom you refer?
Pamela Geller, the blogger leading the crusade against the Islamization of America? or the
Dove Outreach Church and its "burn a Koran" day?
Or perhaps, just those who state that l
iberal tit suckers continually hammer Christians?
There is no evidence of funds for the community center tied to terrorists states. Its called a witch hunt.
I suspect you would be outraged if a private entity you supported was subject to the same level of scrutiny....calling it leftist extremism and unAmerican.
Who are the regular people to whom you refer? Pamela Geller, the blogger leading the crusade against the Islamization of America? or the Dove Outreach Church and its "burn a Koran" day?
Or perhaps, just those who state that liberal tit suckers continually hammer Christians?
Then they have nothing to hide and can account for every dollar donated to build said mosque to the public.
Anything you suspect about me will be abjectly wrong and biased.
I never stated I supported a Koran burning wacko.
Yes, I believe liberal tit suckers are among those who continually hammer Christians. And under our Constitution I guess they have every right to do so, just as others want to hammer the rise of Islam in this country. Ain't it great! :D
I never stated I supported a Koran burning wacko.
Yes, I believe liberal tit suckers are among those who continually hammer Christians. And under our Constitution I guess they have every right to do so, just as others want to hammer the rise of Islam in this country. Ain't it great! :D
From hammering the rise of Islam (and the witch hunt over a private project that you evidently support) to burning Korans is just a matter of extremes.
Neither supports the concept at the very foundation of our country to protect and respect the rights of the minority.
Where did I say that I support "the witch hunt over a private project"?
Kitchens said it best...
Now to Islam. It is, first, a religion that makes very large claims for itself, purporting to be the last and final word of God and expressing an ambition to become the world's only religion. Some of its adherents follow or advocate the practice of plural marriage, forced marriage, female circumcision, compulsory veiling of women, and censorship of non-Muslim magazines and media. Islam's teachings generally exhibit suspicion of the very idea of church-state separation. Other teachings, depending on context, can be held to exhibit a very strong dislike of other religions, as well as of heretical forms of Islam. Muslims in America, including members of the armed forces, have already been found willing to respond to orders issued by foreign terrorist organizations. Most disturbingly, no authority within the faith appears to have the power to rule decisively that such practices, or such teachings, or such actions, are definitely and utterly in conflict with the precepts of the religion itself.
Reactions from even "moderate" Muslims to criticism are not uniformly reassuring. "Some of what people are saying in this mosque controversy is very similar to what German media was saying about Jews in the 1920s and 1930s," Imam Abdullah Antepli, Muslim chaplain at Duke University, told the New York Times. Yes, we all recall the Jewish suicide bombers of that period, as we recall the Jewish yells for holy war, the Jewish demands for the veiling of women and the stoning of homosexuals, and the Jewish burning of newspapers that published cartoons they did not like. What is needed from the supporters of this very confident faith is more self-criticism and less self-pity and self-righteousness.
Those who wish that there would be no mosques in America have already lost the argument: Globalization, no less than the promise of American liberty, mandates that the United States will have a Muslim population of some size. The only question, then, is what kind, or rather kinds, of Islam it will follow. There's an excellent chance of a healthy pluralist outcome, but it's very unlikely that this can happen unless, as with their predecessors on these shores, Muslims are compelled to abandon certain presumptions that are exclusive to themselves. The taming and domestication of religion is one of the unceasing chores of civilization. Those who pretend that we can skip this stage in the present case are deluding themselves and asking for trouble not just in the future but in the immediate present.
http://www.slate.com/id/2266154/?from=rssWhere did I say that I support "the witch hunt over a private project"?
When you said...
"Then they have nothing to hide and can account for every dollar donated to build said mosque to the public."
Why should they?
When you hold one particular private enterprise on private property to different standard that you hold all other private enterprises on private property....then IMO, it is a witch hunt.
Kitchens said it best...
http://www.slate.com/id/2266154/?from=rss
Kitchens just screams about the coming caliphate like a madman.
Most disturbingly, no authority within the faith appears to[COLOR="Red"] have the power[/COLOR] to rule decisively that such practices, or such teachings, or such actions, are definitely and utterly in conflict with the precepts of the religion itself.
not in my mind - The fact that they don't WANT to or REFUSE to do so is more troubling IMO.
Of course I am on the record as saying that they should be able to build the damn thing - whatever it is being called this week.
When you said..."Then they have nothing to hide and can account for every dollar donated to build said mosque to the public."
Why should they?
How the hell do you get that I support a witch hunt (your words) out of that?
Kitchens just screams about the coming caliphate like a madman.
Where is he wrong?
How the hell do you get that I support a witch hunt (your words) out of that?
Simple.
As I said, unless you hold all other private enterprises to the same standard...its a witch hunt.
Just my opinion.
Where is he wrong?
There is no evidence of this coming Caliphate (particularly among Muslims in the US) other than in the mind of Kitchens and other Islamaphobes.
I am all for the government investigating potential terrorists threats (within the limits of the law) where every they may be.
I am not for demagoguing a religion of 1+ billion, the overwhelming majority of whom just want to mind their own business and practice their religion without being subject to intolerance.
And I am not for imposing a double standard on one religion in the US based on fear.
After a long absence while controversy over the mosque near Ground Zero smoldered, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf finally held forth this week both in the New York Times and on CNN.
Imam Rauf and his supporters are clearly more interested in making a political statement in relation to Islam than in the mosque's potential for causing community division and pain to those who lost loved ones on 9/11. That division is already bitterly obvious.
As someone who has been involved in building mosques around the country, and who has dealt with his fair share of unjustified opposition, I ask of Imam Rauf and all his supporters, "Where is your sense of fairness and common decency?" In relation to Ground Zero, I am an American first, a Muslim second, just as I would be at Concord, Gettysburg, Normandy Beach, Pearl Harbor or any other battlefield where my fellow countrymen lost their lives.
I must ask Imam Rauf: For what do you stand—what's best for Americans overall, or for what you think is best for Islam? What have you said and argued to Muslim-majority nations to address their need for reform? You have said that Islam does not need reform, despite the stoning of women in Muslim countries, death sentences for apostates, and oppression of reformist Muslims and non-Muslims.
You now lecture Americans that WTC mosque protests are "politically motivated" and "go against the American principle of church and state." Yet you ignore the wide global prevalence of far more dangerous theo-political groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and all of its violent and nonviolent offshoots.
In your book, "What's Right With Islam," you cite the Brotherhood's radical longtime spiritual leader Imam Yusuf Qaradawi as a "moderate." Reformist American Muslims are not afraid to name Mr. Qaradawi and his ilk as radical. We Muslims should first separate mosque and state before lecturing Americans about church and state.
Imam, tell me if you can look into the eyes of children who lost a parent on 9/11 and convince them that this immodest Islamic center benefits them. How will it in any way aid counterterrorism efforts or keep one American any safer? You willfully ignore what American Muslims most need—an open call for reformation that unravels the bigoted and shoddy framework of political Islam and separates mosque and state.
There are certainly those who are prejudiced against Muslims and who are against mosques being built anywhere, and even a few who wish to burn the Quran. But most voices in this case have been very clear that for every American freedom of religion is a right, but that it is not right to make one's religion a global political statement with a towering Islamic edifice that casts a shadow over the memorials of Ground Zero.
As an American Muslim, I look at that pit of devastation and contemplate the thousands of lives undone there within seconds. I pray for the ongoing strength to fight the fanatics who did this, and who continue their war against my country with both overt violence and covert strategies that aim to undo the very freedoms for which so many have fought and died.
Imam Rauf may not appear to the untrained eye to be an Islamist, but by making Ground Zero an Islamic rather than an American issue, and by failing to firmly condemn terrorist groups like Hamas, he shows his true allegiance.
Islamists in "moderate" disguise are still Islamists. In their own more subtle ways, the WTC mosque organizers end up serving the same aims of the separatist and supremacist wings of political Islam. In this epic struggle of the 21st century, we cannot afford to ignore the continuum between nonviolent political Islam and the militancy it ultimately fuels among the jihadists.
Dr. Jasser, a medical doctor and a former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander, is the founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix, Ariz
WSJ
As I said, unless you hold all other private enterprises to the same standard...its a witch hunt.
True. Have they asked all those guys building
men's rooms where their money came from?
If "Ground Zero" is four blocks by four blocks (16 blocks), and no Islamic Cultural Center is to be built within 3 blocks of it (10x10=100 blocks), that is a prohibition of 84 city blocks where no Islamic Cultural Center can be built. (GZ is not exactly 4x4 and there are not exactly 3 buildable blocks in every direction. But you get the point.)
There is no evidence of this coming Caliphate (particularly among Muslims in the US) other than in the mind of Kitchens and other Islamaphobes.
Evidently you have no knowledge at all of the Islamofascists' mind, their expressed goals, and so forth, all out of their own mouths.
The Muslims in the US are less inclined to such things than overseas fascists, and that's a saving grace. And yet... the overseas fascists remain capable of recruiting among Americans.
Consider the potential reduction of our troubles if there were no Islamofascists. (Cue John Lennon's "Imagine") Now wouldn't that be nice? Lots fewer non-fascist Muslims getting blown up every other day, too, not so?
You persistently don't seem very capable of understanding an enemy, Redux, and you exhibit this inability in writing. That's why I keep telling you you're fatuous -- you can be relied upon to show it.
If "Ground Zero" is four blocks by four blocks (16 blocks), and no Islamic Cultural Center is to be built within 3 blocks of it (10x10=100 blocks), that is a prohibition of 84 city blocks where no Islamic Cultural Center can be built. (GZ is not exactly 4x4 and there are not exactly 3 buildable blocks in every direction. But you get the point.)
There has been a small mosque/Islamic center within four blocks of "Ground Zero" for years.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/16/the-other-mosque-already-standing-near-ground-zero/
The small mosque within the proposed cultural/community center would replace that old existing mosque.
But the cultural/community center would be much more. With a proposed board of directors including Christian and Jewish religious leaders as well as other community leaders, its mission is to facilitate a greater understanding of each others religious beliefs and strengthen relations to help counter radical ideology and religious intolerance where ever it exists (and that includes dispelling the myths of Hitchins and his followers here).
Seems like a reasonable goal to me...but haters (and those with a political agenda) will still find a reason to hate....on both sides.
The small mosque within the proposed cultural/community center would replace that old existing mosque.
I heard not replace, but augment, as the current mosque is seriously overcrowded, with people waiting in line to get in.
With a proposed board of directors including Christian and Jewish religious leaders as well as other community leaders, its mission is to facilitate a greater understanding of each others religious beliefs and strengthen relations to help counter radical ideology and religious intolerance where ever it exists (and that includes dispelling the myths of Hitchins and his followers here).
:lol2: Sorry but this is just to funny. "Proposed". I guess that is why there are so many people standing up to support it. Like I said earlier, he certainly has a right to build it. And people have a right to protest it and block it by any legal means. That is the way the system works.
I heard not replace, but augment, as the current mosque is seriously overcrowded, with people waiting in line to get in.
I stand corrected.
Not a big deal, but I think it's important to note there's a need, or at least desire, the builders are responding to, not simply provocation.
The community center is also providing numerous services and facilities for the entire lower Manhattan community -- 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare area, bookstore, culinary school, art studio, food court....
Uh oh...child care center...where terrorist supporters can indoctrinate children. :eek:
That's OK, they're children of terrorists anyway.
BTW, the 17th floor of the south tower had a prayer room for Muslims that worked at, or were visiting, the WTC.
No wonder Jews conspired with bin Laden to attack it. Must be true. Some extremist told me how to think.
Christian Science Monitor
The real battle
Haass: If you were to go ahead with the center, and given the larger mission of interfaith dialogue and bridges between faiths that you’ve dedicated so many years to, what sorts of things can you do to heal the rifts that have come about?
Rauf: Let me speak about the larger context. The charge that has been thrown to me since 9/11 is how to improve Muslim-West relations. All of my work since then has been based on doing that.
For many years people have asked, “Where are the moderate Muslims? Where are they? Where are they?” But we moderates couldn’t get any attention. Now that we’ve gotten attention, I’m accused of being immoderate!
In any crisis there is an opportunity. The challenge we have together is how to deploy ourselves in a way that will capitalize on these opportunities within the window of time we have so we can leverage the voice of the moderates – not only to address the causes that have fueled extremism, but enable the moderates to wage a war against the extremists.
Ninety-nine-plus percent of Muslims all over the world, I assure you, absolutely, totally find extremism abhorrent. Let there be no mistake, Islam categorically rejects the killing of innocent people. Terrorists violate the sanctity of human life and corrupt the meaning of our faith. In no way do they represent our religion. And we must not let them define us. [SIZE="4"]Radical extremists would have us believe in a worldwide battle between Muslims and nonMuslims. That idea is false. The real battlefront today is not between Muslims and nonMuslims, but moderates of all faith traditions against the extremists of all faith traditions.[/SIZE]
What has been so heartwarming to me (during the crisis over the community center) has been the tidal wave of people all across America who have inundated us with offers of help.
Emphasis mine, but this emphasis should be **everyone's**.
mine too.
Yet you support governments legislating to restrict personal religious /cultural practices (bans on burqa-style Islamic veils)?
Yet you support governments legislating to restrict personal religious /cultural practices (bans on burqa-style Islamic veils)?
Shall we not discuss that in the appropriate thread?
Yet you support governments legislating to restrict personal religious /cultural practices (bans on burqa-style Islamic veils)?
That gets into tricky area, Redux. In this case, you have to judge the religious freedom of the individual against the need for public safety.
That gets into tricky area, Redux. In this case, you have to judge the religious freedom of the individual against the need for public safety.
I agree if there is ANY substantive evidence that women wearing burhkas pose a public safety threat.....any more than Sikhs wearing turbans. And I have seen none.
Yet you support governments legislating to restrict personal religious /cultural practices (bans on burqa-style Islamic veils)?
I guess not - ok. YES I do... to an extent.
That gets into tricky area, Redux. In this case, you have to judge the religious freedom of the individual against the need for public safety.
In my religion, wearing cloths when temperatures exceed 21 degrees C is a sin. Nakedness is my demand for religious freedom. After all, a naked body is not a threat to public safety. Especially my body (an example of how man was created in the image of god).
I demand to be freed from the bonds of cotton. I demand my religious freedom.
My religion requires wearing an AK-47 and hand grenades.
Actually, Sikh daggers do run into this very issue on occasion.
I subscribe to the Ben Franklin notion that "those who sacrifice liberty for safety (security) deserve neither."
Particularly when it is based on emotions and not evidence that such sacrifices of liberty will ensure greater safety/security.
Sad and embarrassing. It made me laugh, but only for a moment or two. Unfortuntately I've come into contact with characters like these far too often.
building a mosk on ground zero is like providing cotton feilds ford unemployed people
I'm sorry... what?
This is actually fairly entertaining, I may be killing time on OpenBook more often.
I never heard of OpenBook before. It's a neat idea.
funny, sad and true ... oh and entertaining.
Koran burner Derek Fenton booted from his job at NJ Transit
The protester who burned pages from the Koran outside a planned mosque near Ground Zero has been fired from NJTransit, sources and authorities said Tuesday.
Derek Fenton's 11-year career at the agency came to an abrupt halt Monday after photographs of him ripping pages from the Muslim holy book and setting them ablaze appeared in newspapers.
Fenton, 39, of Bloomingdale, N.J., burned the book during a protest on the ninth anniversary of Sept. 11 outside Park51, the controversial mosque slated to be built near Ground Zero.
He was apparently inspired by Pastor Terry Jones, the Florida clergyman who threatened to burn the Koran that day but later changed his mind.
NJ Transit said Fenton was fired but wouldn't give specifics.
"Mr. Fenton's public actions violated New Jersey Transit's code of ethics," an agency statement said.
"NJ Transit concluded that Mr. Fenton violated his trust as a state employee and therefore [he] was dismissed."
Fenton was ushered from the protests by police on Saturday and questioned, but he was released without charges.
"He said, 'This is America,' and he wanted to stand up for it, in a Tea Party kind of way," a police source said.
If Fenton was fired for burning the Koran while off-duty, his First Amendment rights probably were violated, Chris Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union said.
"The Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to burn the flag. As reprehensible as it may be, burning the Koran would be protected as well."
Read more:
Here we go ...................
on a lighter note...
The internet has a new hero: Amarillo, Texas, skateboarder Jacob Isom.
The 23-year-old single-handedly stopped a Koran burning in an Amarillo park Saturday by swiping the kerosene-soaked holy book when the militant Christian protest leader's back was turned.
"He said something about burning the Koran and I was like, 'Dude, you HAVE no Koran' and ran off," Isom told local TV News Channel 10.
Read more: I agree if there is ANY substantive evidence that women wearing burhkas pose a public safety threat.....any more than Sikhs wearing turbans. And I have seen none.
We're talking about this, yes?
If I worked in a bank, I'd be worried if this couple came in. You have no way of knowing if there are firearms under there. Nor indeed whether the wearer is actually a woman.
It doesn't matter if they're women or not. Women rob banks. Women carry bombs and blow themselves up. But I wouldn't let 'em cash a check.
Pete - If I owned a deli or a convenience store or any retail anything... I'd wanna see everyone's face - period. There is no statistical data to support this I am sure, but banks are not real keen on them coming in dressed this way.
We're talking about this, yes?
If I worked in a bank, I'd be worried if this couple came in. You have no way of knowing if there are firearms under there. Nor indeed whether the wearer is actually a woman.
The ban is not based on public safety, at least according to Pres. Sarkozy, but is addressing the issue of the need for Muslims to become more integrated into French society in order to be more accepted and because he believes it is a form of oppression.
I agree with Sarkozy that is is absolutely a form of oppression for those women forced into wearing the burkha by their husbands rather than be choice.
The problem with the law is that it wont accomplish what is intended; it wont lead to these women becoming more integrated into French society or being less oppressed...but will likely leave them even more oppressed....prisoners in their own homes.
Who knows what they're packing underneath those robes.
Fair enough, Spex. But at least you'd be able to identify them on the security cameras after they whacked you on the back of the hand with a ruler.
Fair enough, Spex. But at least you'd be able to identify them on the security cameras after they whacked you on the back of the hand with a ruler.
They could fit a yardstick under all that stuff. We're talking heavy artillary.:p:
The developers behind the proposed Ground Zero mosque have applied for about $5 million in federal grant money set aside for redeveloping downtown Manhattan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to a new report.
The application was submitted as a "community and cultural enhancement" grant, which is a program run by the Lower Manhattan Redevelopment Corp.
Developer Sharif El-Gamal discussed the grant proposal in recent closed-door meetings, according to The Daily Beast.
Read more:
This should make everyone feel much better - This way the money won't be coming from supposed terrorists - it'll be coming from us. Problem solved.
The BBC had an interview with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf this morning. He comes off as a moderate religious voice much like those Christians and Jews we used to hear from before everything changed©.
The BBC had an interview with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf this morning. He comes off as a moderate religious voice much like those Christians and Jews we used to hear from before everything changed©.
Which is copyrighted. Change? Or everything changed? And who owns the copyright? Disney?
It would be a weird movie from Disney. "Everything Changed - a 9 11 Toy Story".
Everything Changed in all its iterations is a copyrighted phrase owned by Fox News Corpse.
I'm curious.
Are you saying that specific phrase is copyrighted, or is it a piece of music of that title ?
e.g.,
Everything changed
Document number:
V2617P109
Date of Recordation:
January 24, 1991
Entire Copyright Document:
V2617 P97-194
Registration Number Not Verified:
EP305137 (1972)
Title:
Everything changed / By Andrae Crouch. EP305137 (1972)
Number of similar titles:
33
Title appears in Document:
Above this life & 1,925 other titles; musical compositions. (Part 002 of 010)
Read more: http://www.faqs.org/copyright/everything-changed-and-5-other-titles/#ixzz17xFDOhKm
Fox will see Mr. Crouch in court.
Maybe the other way around - Crouch registered in '72
