Mosque at Ground Zero

[obfuscator]

To be honest, the old testament has as many if not more incidents of violence than the Quran does.

 

The main issue here is not law based - by all legal and moral means any faith community should be able to build their mosque, church, community centre or whatever, wherever they have legally purchased property. Unfortunately, Muslims are stereotyped by a small number who do live with violence and who are murderers and terrorists.

 

Will this mosque refuse to allow entry to Islamic radicals and jihadists? I doubt it. Will they refuse financing from these same people? I doubt it. Herein is where the insult to the memories of those who perished in 911 lies.

 

Some may say, there are just as many radical Christians, radical jews, etc, etc who also turn to violence. I don't agree that there is the same percentile as seen in the muslim faith, however that doesn't change the fact that both are a tiny minority.

 

However - looking at least in the catholic religion, the very doctrine of the faith is anti-violence. A terrorist who performs a terrorist act in the name of Christianity has committed a mortal sin and thus is destined for hell according to the teachings of the faith. That's the difference - at no point does any catholic organization condone or accept violence. To say the same of Islam is frankly a lie.

 

That said, the first amendment is clear here. The mosque should be built.

 

EDIT: I've realized I'm being rather ambiguous in my use of christianity and catholicism - certainly there are christain sects (Westboro for instance) whose radical views are unacceptable.

[Yoko Kurama]

 

Will this mosque refuse to allow entry to Islamic radicals and jihadists? I doubt it. Will they refuse financing from these same people? I doubt it. Herein is where the insult to the memories of those who perished in 911 lies.

 

 

 

Will Catholic Churches around the world refuse to allow entry to Priests who have been involved in the molestation of children?I doubt it, in fact, this has happened in the past when priests who were caught molesting kids were just shipped from one parish to another, escaping the reach of the law. Will Catholic Churches refuse financing from these same people(The Vatican) which have been known to terrorize children? I doubt it. Historically, I am correct again. I guess we better start refusing to allow the construction of any further Catholic churches in communities where kids were molested by priests because that would be an insult to those families, and heck, who knows, maybe Catholic churches everywhere are training grounds for child molesters?

 

Al-Qaeda is ONE organization, and a political one too. To insinuate that because of ONE organization radicalism has somehow spread amongst Muslims everywhere is idiotic. It doesn't represent all Muslims unlike the Catholic Church which represents a large number of Christians.

 

See what I did there? If that argument isn't plausible enough against other religious groups in similar circumstances, then levying it against Muslims doesn't simply make it plausible.

[jjrox32]

To be honest, the old testament has as many if not more incidents of violence than the Quran does.

 

The main issue here is not law based - by all legal and moral means any faith community should be able to build their mosque, church, community centre or whatever, wherever they have legally purchased property. Unfortunately, Muslims are stereotyped by a small number who do live with violence and who are murderers and terrorists.

 

Will this mosque refuse to allow entry to Islamic radicals and jihadists? I doubt it. Will they refuse financing from these same people? I doubt it. Herein is where the insult to the memories of those who perished in 911 lies.

 

Some may say, there are just as many radical Christians, radical jews, etc, etc who also turn to violence. I don't agree that there is the same percentile as seen in the muslim faith, however that doesn't change the fact that both are a tiny minority.

 

However - looking at least in the catholic religion, the very doctrine of the faith is anti-violence. A terrorist who performs a terrorist act in the name of Christianity has committed a mortal sin and thus is destined for hell according to the teachings of the faith. That's the difference - at no point does any catholic organization condone or accept violence. To say the same of Islam is frankly a lie.

 

That said, the first amendment is clear here. The mosque should be built.

 

EDIT: I've realized I'm being rather ambiguous in my use of christianity and catholicism - certainly there are christain sects (Westboro for instance) whose radical views are unacceptable.

 

The Catholic Church doesn't like violence, yet they were the ones responsible for the crusades, which, from what I remember from religion class (my high school is catholic) involved them killing women and children and looting the cities they destroyed.

 

The Catholic Church also, according to my textbook, at one point sent a group of children on a crusade, who were then captured and sold into slavery. So don't get all high and mighty about Christians never killing people.

 

If you look into the Old Testament, there were many, many bloody battles started by God's people, where they murdered thousands upon thousands of people, but its apparently OK because God told them it was OK?

[fakeitormakeit2]

To be honest, the old testament has as many if not more incidents of violence than the Qu'ran does.

Out of pure curiosity, how much of the Qu'ran and the books of the Old Testament have you read to intellectually state this?

 

I agree but then again the Qu'ran is shorter, written differently, uses a later developed understand of God ("NT" God understanding vs. "OT" God) and has a few instances of aggression. I'm just curious to see if you thought that out or just felt like making a statement based on nothing.

[obfuscator]

To be honest, the old testament has as many if not more incidents of violence than the Qu'ran does.

Out of pure curiosity, how much of the Qu'ran and the books of the Old Testament have you read to intellectually state this?

 

I agree but then again the Qu'ran is shorter, written differently, uses a later developed understand of God ("NT" God understanding vs. "OT" God) and has a few instances of aggression. I'm just curious to see if you thought that out or just felt like making a statement based on nothing.

I won't claim to have read more than a few books of the bible, and probably no more than a few pages of the Qu'ran. Would you like me to start searching through the texts and start posting violent passages?

 

My point is that neither book is exempt from violent referrals and instances, of which I think you'll agree.

 

----------------

 

There have been many incidents of church sponsored violence in the past - however in the present this is not the case.

 

In terms of the remarks about pedophile priests - these people are rogues, who are not sponsored by the church as a whole. I challenge you to find any member of the church who will say that their actions are justified.

 

I do agree that the manner in which some cases are largely ignored is unacceptable - but it's not the same thing as sponsoring those actions as part of your religion.

[jjrox32]

So when a priest or someone of the like does something wrong, then their actions don't reflect the religion's views in general. But when a Muslim terrorist does something evil, their actions reflect their religion as a whole?

[Giordano]

So when a priest or someone of the like does something wrong, then their actions don't reflect the religion's views in general. But when a Muslim terrorist does something evil, their actions reflect their religion as a whole?

But we shouldn't cancel the creation of a Catholic school because it will be run by priests though.

[jjrox32]

I just don't understand the logic of some people. Some priests are pedos, but that's a small minority and doesn't reflect Catholics as a whole. Some Muslims are extremists, that's also a small minority except it does reflect them as a whole.

[obfuscator]

I just don't understand the logic of some people. Some priests are pedos, but that's a small minority and doesn't reflect Catholics as a whole. Some Muslims are extremists, that's also a small minority except it does reflect them as a whole.

Please, show me where I said all muslims are extremists and it represents them as a whole.

 

What I said was; priests who are pedophiles are alienated from the church community because they explicitly have broken the rules of the church in this regard. Radical Muslims are not alienated or refused service. Once again, this ties in with my original point - this mosque will not exclusively serve those muslims(the huge majority) who are normal and not radical. It will serve the radicals as well, and therein lies the offensiveness.

[Nenga]

I just don't understand the logic of some people. Some priests are pedos, but that's a small minority and doesn't reflect Catholics as a whole. Some Muslims are extremists, that's also a small minority except it does reflect them as a whole.

Please, show me where I said all muslims are extremists and it represents them as a whole.

 

What I said was; priests who are pedophiles are alienated from the church community because they explicitly have broken the rules of the church in this regard. Radical Muslims are not alienated or refused service. Once again, this ties in with my original point - this mosque will not exclusively serve those muslims(the huge majority) who are normal and not radical. It will serve the radicals as well, and therein lies the offensiveness.

If you looked at a man you had never met, could you tell just by looking he was a pedophile? How about a extremist? Care to say how they would discover these people as this?

[jjrox32]

I just don't understand the logic of some people. Some priests are pedos, but that's a small minority and doesn't reflect Catholics as a whole. Some Muslims are extremists, that's also a small minority except it does reflect them as a whole.

Please, show me where I said all muslims are extremists and it represents them as a whole.

 

What I said was; priests who are pedophiles are alienated from the church community because they explicitly have broken the rules of the church in this regard. Radical Muslims are not alienated or refused service. Once again, this ties in with my original point - this mosque will not exclusively serve those muslims(the huge majority) who are normal and not radical. It will serve the radicals as well, and therein lies the offensiveness.

 

I didn't say you, did I?

 

Also, did those pedo preists really get alienated? I remember seeing this awhile ago, the priests just got moved to different parishes.

[Troacctid]

Once again, this ties in with my original point - this mosque will not exclusively serve those muslims(the huge majority) who are normal and not radical. It will serve the radicals as well, and therein lies the offensiveness.

What radicals? You mean those radical terrorist supporters who live in lower Manhattan? :roll:

 

The people responsible for this project do not condone terrorism and it's stupid to suspect that they're going to be some sort of terrorist base, harboring a terrorist conspiracy. As for radical Muslims who are not involved in acts of terror, they can do what they please; they have the right to believe what they like as long as they keep it to themselves. Like neo-nazis or the KKK, we may not like their views, but that should be all the more reason why they need to be protected.

[obfuscator]

I just don't understand the logic of some people. Some priests are pedos, but that's a small minority and doesn't reflect Catholics as a whole. Some Muslims are extremists, that's also a small minority except it does reflect them as a whole.

Please, show me where I said all muslims are extremists and it represents them as a whole.

 

What I said was; priests who are pedophiles are alienated from the church community because they explicitly have broken the rules of the church in this regard. Radical Muslims are not alienated or refused service. Once again, this ties in with my original point - this mosque will not exclusively serve those muslims(the huge majority) who are normal and not radical. It will serve the radicals as well, and therein lies the offensiveness.

 

I didn't say you, did I?

 

Also, did those pedo preists really get alienated? I remember seeing this awhile ago, the priests just got moved to different parishes.

Well yeah, they did end up doing coverups and such. One of the reasons I'm not Catholic anymore ;)

 

But in general, they've been at least defrocked(should be criminally charged, although that doesn't happen quite as often).

 

@Nenga: No, obviously I can't tell. The thing is, it's made quite clear by the church that pedophile priests are not welcome. That same distinction has not been made by the muslim community as a whole (although some smaller councils have done so).

 

I'm in favour of this mosque being built - all I'm trying to say is that I can sympathize with those who find it offensive.

[sees_all1]

I just don't understand the logic of some people. Some priests are pedos, but that's a small minority and doesn't reflect Catholics as a whole. Some Muslims are extremists, that's also a small minority except it does reflect them as a whole.

Please, show me where I said all muslims are extremists and it represents them as a whole.

 

What I said was; priests who are pedophiles are alienated from the church community because they explicitly have broken the rules of the church in this regard. Radical Muslims are not alienated or refused service. Once again, this ties in with my original point - this mosque will not exclusively serve those muslims(the huge majority) who are normal and not radical. It will serve the radicals as well, and therein lies the offensiveness.

If you looked at a man you had never met, could you tell just by looking he was a pedophile? How about a extremist? Care to say how they would discover these people as this?

 

Easy. Just wait a few months. If they raped a boy they're a pedo, if they blew themselves up it was an extremist.

 

 

If you look at a list of designated terrorist organizations on wikipedia, you'll notice a majority of them are Islamic. I for one find it backwards that the religion of peace has more terrorist organizations than the rest of the religions.

[obfuscator]

To be fair, it's not Muslims making that list :lol:

[fakeitormakeit2]

To be fair, it's not Muslims making that list :lol:

Yep. There are many Islamic terror groups but also many of them, like Hamas and Hezbollah, have many innocent people caught up with them and also double as political parties [although even that aspect of them I hate]. And many people seem to make it sound sometimes as if all Middle Eastern people, let alone Muslims, support the militant factions. I for one have heard many people call the supposed "Hezbollah" (Party of God) Al Hezb-Al Shaytan (The Party of/for Satan). I found it funny though because the Patriarch of the Maronites called Hezbollah "the so-called Hezbollah" and they got extremely insulted.

 

It's a bit hazey because not everyone in the group are crazy extremists who make acts of terrorism, but the group itself illegally hoards weapons, commits to terrorism and controls their own militia.

[Saru Inc]

I have never said that i believe every muslim is a murderer nor would i think that about christianity if the same would happen. I don't know why these assumptions are made.

For the sake of having an enemy I think. The average American, if he isn't Christian himself probably counts a few among his friends, and unless he hates everything related to religion, knows that if a Christian group did the same they don't represent the whole. I'd assume it's different for Islam. Could assume that the average American doesn't know many Muslims personally, but he is going to see everything in post-9/11 pop culture saying they're evil.

 

 

 

While my stance on the mosque remains, this is unfortunately true. I do believe (though I haven't read the koran [And most of you haven't either] so I have all the potential in the world to be wrong) that Islam is a violent religion. However, I still do not believe that every single muslim, not even the majority harbor hate. Though I believe many many do (maybe 40-45% IN MY OPINION), to think everyone does is simply foolish. And you're exactly right ALG again, we call Timothy Mcveigh a freak, we call Osama Bin Laden a muslim. While Osama is definitely higher up there (obviously) in the terrorist realm, the term muslim has become synonymous with terrorist.

[Nenga]

I have never said that i believe every muslim is a murderer nor would i think that about christianity if the same would happen. I don't know why these assumptions are made.

For the sake of having an enemy I think. The average American, if he isn't Christian himself probably counts a few among his friends, and unless he hates everything related to religion, knows that if a Christian group did the same they don't represent the whole. I'd assume it's different for Islam. Could assume that the average American doesn't know many Muslims personally, but he is going to see everything in post-9/11 pop culture saying they're evil.

 

 

 

While my stance on the mosque remains, this is unfortunately true. I do believe (though I haven't read the koran [And most of you haven't either] so I have all the potential in the world to be wrong) that Islam is a violent religion. However, I still do not believe that every single muslim, not even the majority harbor hate. Though I believe many many do (maybe 40-45% IN MY OPINION), to think everyone does is simply foolish. And you're exactly right ALG again, we call Timothy Mcveigh a freak, we call Osama Bin Laden a muslim. While Osama is definitely higher up there (obviously) in the terrorist realm, the term muslim has become synonymous with terrorist.

Islam stems from Christianity. They ever recognize Jesus as a prophet. It is hard to imagine they would be a violent religion since they do.

[Saru Inc]

I have never said that i believe every muslim is a murderer nor would i think that about christianity if the same would happen. I don't know why these assumptions are made.

For the sake of having an enemy I think. The average American, if he isn't Christian himself probably counts a few among his friends, and unless he hates everything related to religion, knows that if a Christian group did the same they don't represent the whole. I'd assume it's different for Islam. Could assume that the average American doesn't know many Muslims personally, but he is going to see everything in post-9/11 pop culture saying they're evil.

 

 

 

While my stance on the mosque remains, this is unfortunately true. I do believe (though I haven't read the koran [And most of you haven't either] so I have all the potential in the world to be wrong) that Islam is a violent religion. However, I still do not believe that every single muslim, not even the majority harbor hate. Though I believe many many do (maybe 40-45% IN MY OPINION), to think everyone does is simply foolish. And you're exactly right ALG again, we call Timothy Mcveigh a freak, we call Osama Bin Laden a muslim. While Osama is definitely higher up there (obviously) in the terrorist realm, the term muslim has become synonymous with terrorist.

Islam stems from Christianity. They ever recognize Jesus as a prophet. It is hard to imagine they would be a violent religion since they do.

 

 

They do not stem from Christianity, if only in name only. Ishmael, the bastard son (effectively) of Abraham was kicked out, and forced to wander the desert with his mother, so he made a religion that hates on Abraham's people. And who cares if they recognize Jesus as a prophet, again, that's in name only. And having Jesus in a religion isn't what makes it peaceful, herp. It's the actions and power Jesus has, derp.

[sees_all1]

Islam stems from Christianity. They ever recognize Jesus as a prophet. It is hard to imagine they would be a violent religion since they do.

 

If a Christian said that Jesus was *only a prophet*, that would be blasphemous. In fact, Jesus said He was the Son of God. So either He was, or He was a liar. There is no middle ground.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

I can't agree with this at all. Religion tied together ancient communities and was what tied the hunter-gatherers together to create actual peoples. Without religion the world would not be as it is and people wouldn't be as unified as they were and are.

Such as? What points in history was religion the cause of advancement for the human race? I can pull out a history book and show you about a million instances where scientific logic and reason led to human advancement, but I dont recall ever reading anything about the foundation of religion directly causing anything that advanced society. Historically, people have united based on geographical location, not religion.

Despite the fact religion is a reason for war and a reason for fighting, it is still something that built this world to what it is. It still lingers, and despite the fact it is something that unifies one people, other people's hate the others. I have no problem with religion whatsoever as long as people don't use it as a means to fight and don't shove it in my face and tell me to accept a God.

Unfortunately, your personal take on religion is not the view that is shared with most establisments of organized religion.

Gods, in my opinion, are not a being as much as an ideal, that ideal being the fear of the unknown. You aren't praying to a nonexistent entity as much as you are making yourself feel better about the fact that we don't know a lot of things and most people find that religion can fill that gap and keep their brains away from it.

This might be useful if we didnt know a lot. However, we do know a lot. Evolution has basically been proven as a fact, yet we are still facing controversy in teaching it in our schools

And I think that that is perfectly fine. If it gets you to sleep at night, then I don't care.

I do care. I'm pretty sure Hitler slept pretty well at night, feeling secure about his beliefs. I don't think people should have the right to irrationally believe in delusions

I'm not intolerant of any religion just because I find Gods to be ideals and I find most religious texts to be lessons to live by. At least, Christianity I feel that way. The Koran, if it were updated, would not produce such radicals as it does. But as it stands, it still has good lessons and Muslims are good when it comes to charity and helping the poor. But otherwise women are treated poorly and everything about being a martyr needs to be updated.

Yes, morality is a good thing, but morality can be had perfectly fine when it is separated from religion. We can teach people morality without threatening them with hell or teasing them with heaven. I'm an atheist and I probably act more morally than my christian friends, tbh. There are plenty of works of philosophy that rationally examine human morality without calling upon any type of god or religious belief.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

However, I still do not believe that every single muslim, not even the majority harbor hate. Though I believe many many do (maybe 40-45% IN MY OPINION),

 

How in the world can you have an opinion over whether or not a certinan population exibits a certain trait?

 

That would be like saying "In MY OPINION, 98% of the people in the USA are Cuban and the rest are Russian"

 

You can't just have an opinion about anything.

[Saru Inc]

 

However, I still do not believe that every single muslim, not even the majority harbor hate. Though I believe many many do (maybe 40-45% IN MY OPINION),

 

How in the world can you have an opinion over whether or not a certinan population exibits a certain trait?

 

That would be like saying "In MY OPINION, 98% of the people in the USA are Cuban and the rest are Russian"

 

You can't just have an opinion about anything.

 

 

... But I just did.

 

What I am saying is I believe that despite they say they are peaceful, I think otherwise.

[jjrox32]

 

However, I still do not believe that every single muslim, not even the majority harbor hate. Though I believe many many do (maybe 40-45% IN MY OPINION),

 

How in the world can you have an opinion over whether or not a certinan population exibits a certain trait?

 

That would be like saying "In MY OPINION, 98% of the people in the USA are Cuban and the rest are Russian"

 

You can't just have an opinion about anything.

 

 

... But I just did.

 

What I am saying is I believe that despite they say they are peaceful, I think otherwise.

 

Here's what I don't understand about what you said. There's what, 1.5 billion muslims in the world? And you think roughly half of them hate you with a burning passion. So 750 million Muslims want to destroy you? I'd start saying your prayers because you are royally [bleep]ed if that's the case.

[Nenga]

 

However, I still do not believe that every single muslim, not even the majority harbor hate. Though I believe many many do (maybe 40-45% IN MY OPINION),

 

How in the world can you have an opinion over whether or not a certinan population exibits a certain trait?

 

That would be like saying "In MY OPINION, 98% of the people in the USA are Cuban and the rest are Russian"

 

You can't just have an opinion about anything.

 

 

... But I just did.

 

What I am saying is I believe that despite they say they are peaceful, I think otherwise.

That is the dumbest thing i've heard in a while.