Mosque at Ground Zero

[Troacctid]

Right, so in other words, you're trolling. :thumbdown:

 

I might enjoy stirring up a little controversy, but I wouldn't call it trolling. To troll would mean I don't actually believe what I said.

Then you are severely misguided.

 

Mosques are places of worship. People visit them to pray and practice their religion. No conquest necessary; it's just not the purpose of the building. Sure, you can question their motives if you really want, but you can question anybody's motives if you really want (for example, I could question whether you only want to buy a house so you can use it as a meth lab). Such speculation is largely baseless; the proponents have no history of radicalism or anything. There's nothing about this particular project that should logically require any more scrutiny than any other unless you hold the practice of Islam to be an inherently suspicious activity. If you accept that it is not, then subjecting the builders' motives to more scrutiny than you would anyone else would seem to imply a double standard of some sort. :shame:

 

 

So there's that. Now, let's dissect your original statement:

 

I just read up more on the idea behind building Mosques, and apparently they are built in areas where Muslims have had military victories - a symbol of conquest. So, by allowing them this right, wouldn't America be admitting their defeat?

Okay, first problem. Mosques are built in areas where Muslims have had military victories. Building something in a territory you're occupying does not make that building a symbol of conquest. For example, American soldiers in Afghanistan might build schools in Afghan villages. Schools are not a symbol of conquest.

 

Second, America guarantees everyone the right to their places of worship (within the relevant zoning restrictions, of course). Upholding that right is not an admission of defeat; I'm sure many would agree with me when I say it's exactly the opposite.

 

Third, who exactly would be defeating us anyway? The Muslims worshiping there would be ordinary, everyday citizens. It's not as if it's supposed to be a base of operations for Al Qaeda. The mere presence of Muslims in the vicinity of Ground Zero is in no way a victory for terrorism--in fact, the strength of opposition to this project is high-octane propaganda fuel for those same terrorists. They gain much more if it's scrapped or relocated than if it's actually built as planned.

 

Or, in short:

So, by allowing them this right, wouldn't America be admitting their defeat?

No. :ugeek:

[Dupin]

I just read up more on the idea behind building Mosques, and apparently they are built in areas where Muslims have had military victories - a symbol of conquest. So, by allowing them this right, wouldn't America be admitting their defeat?

 

 

Hay guise i herd that all of our presidents except Obama and Bill Clinton (cause there balck) were secretly lisard men from mars. SO this is why i think we should never elect white presidents nemor. u see, the aliens want to invade our contry and if we elect president that are lisard we are liek giveing them a trophy. So anyways this random thing i herd is y i make xenophobic opinions, but u cant prove this wrong cause u hav no pics, k? Cause i no its completely ridiculous this thing i am saying but i am just trying to repersent all the sides of the argueement.

 

While we're assuming that American Muslims living in New York City will suddenly become terrorists and snicker about how they got us gullible liberals to follow our own laws, I think we should consider the important possibility that these individuals may practice voodoo in the prayer center. I mean, the last thing we need is a bunch of bad mojo floating around New York City. Think what that would do for the city's image! Appalling.

[Zierro]

There's nothing about this particular project that should logically require any more scrutiny than any other unless you hold the practice of Islam to be an inherently suspicious activity. If you accept that it is not, then subjecting the builders' motives to more scrutiny than you would anyone else would seem to imply a double standard of some sort. :shame:

 

I would "scrutinize" a Christian or Jewish building just as quickly as I would an Islamic one. The suspicious activity is the fact that 9/11 happened only ten years ago. Sorry, but I just don't give religion as much undeserving credit as you do. While there are some great generous deeds done in the name of religion, you can't forget about the atrocities.

 

Okay, first problem. Mosques are built in areas where Muslims have had military victories. Building something in a territory you're occupying does not make that building a symbol of conquest. For example, American soldiers in Afghanistan might build schools in Afghan villages. Schools are not a symbol of conquest.

 

After some more reading, another plausible theory is that the one they are building in NY is a sign of peace. However, seeing that video of their average citizens celebrating over 9/11 is what causes suspicion.

 

Second, America guarantees everyone the right to their places of worship (within the relevant zoning restrictions, of course). Upholding that right is not an admission of defeat; I'm sure many would agree with me when I say it's exactly the opposite.

 

I said this in the same post you yelled about.

 

 

 

And Bent, what are you talking about? I can't decipher any of that.

[sees_all1]

I've been listening to talk radio for the past week, and some of the hosts have brought up points I think are being overlooked.

 

1. The mosque is being built two blocks away from where the WTC stood, but it's still ground zero. The building at the current address (where the "community center" is planned on being built) was hit by a large section of airplane, several floors of this building were destroyed by the airplane debris.

 

("The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, 'where a piece of the wreckage fell,' said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, 'sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.

'We want to push back against the extremists,' added Imam Feisal, 61." - NYT 12/8/2009)

 

 

2. One of the proposed goals in building this "community center" is to reach out to the community, and improve relations between Muslims and Americans. What I can't understand (and maybe a few of you could help me out) is how they plan on improving relations when they're offending so many people by this. If you want to improve the relationship you have with someone, you shouldn't start by spitting in their face.

 

 

3.Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man leading the project is not without controversy. In 2005 while speaking in a lecture sponsored by the University of South Australia, he said:

"We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non Muslims."

He also refuses to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization (in an interview last June).

[Saru Inc]

 

3.Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man leading the project is not without controversy. In 2005 while speaking in a lecture sponsored by the University of South Australia, he said:

"We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non Muslims."

He also refuses to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization (in an interview last June).

 

 

I'm assuming he means all the muslim blood from iraq? Cuz its a war?

 

 

And this is both related and unrelated, why do most atheists assume ( I say assume as this is just what the majority of posts here imply, if you specifically don't then I'm not talking about you) that Christians are automatic liars, and Muslims don't automatically per se tell the truth, but will always be given the benefit of the doubt. Why can't the imam be lying? Maybe he wants to build there to "remind: the world who brought down the great monuments. I'm not saying it's his intention (though I personally believe so) but maybe people should ponder that. I mean could he be wanting to improve relations? Well of course, but couldn't he be also doing the exact opposite?

[sees_all1]

3.Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man leading the project is not without controversy. In 2005 while speaking in a lecture sponsored by the University of South Australia, he said:

"We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non Muslims."

He also refuses to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization (in an interview last June).

I'm assuming he means all the muslim blood from iraq? Cuz its a war?

 

There's a critical difference though. One side is targeting militia, and the other side is targeting civilians. Comparing the two in the manner he did suggests that the United States military is a terrorist organization, or that al-Qaeda is a legitimate military.

He used that statement to justify why he believes that the United States provoked 9/11 (and why al-Qaeda or Hamas or whatever should be blameless for their actions).

[Saru Inc]

3.Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man leading the project is not without controversy. In 2005 while speaking in a lecture sponsored by the University of South Australia, he said:

"We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non Muslims."

He also refuses to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization (in an interview last June).

I'm assuming he means all the muslim blood from iraq? Cuz its a war?

 

There's a critical difference though. One side is targeting militia, and the other side is targeting civilians. Comparing the two in the manner he did suggests that the United States military is a terrorist organization, or that al-Qaeda is a legitimate military.

He used that statement to justify why he believes that the United States provoked 9/11 (and why al-Qaeda or Hamas or whatever should be blameless for their actions).

 

No I understood that part, I was just curious as to which incident he was referring to.

[Troacctid]

I've been listening to talk radio for the past week, and some of the hosts have brought up points I think are being overlooked.

 

1. The mosque is being built two blocks away from where the WTC stood, but it's still ground zero. The building at the current address (where the "community center" is planned on being built) was hit by a large section of airplane, several floors of this building were destroyed by the airplane debris.

 

("The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, 'where a piece of the wreckage fell,' said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, 'sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.

'We want to push back against the extremists,' added Imam Feisal, 61." - NYT 12/8/2009)

...So?

 

 

2. One of the proposed goals in building this "community center" is to reach out to the community, and improve relations between Muslims and Americans. What I can't understand (and maybe a few of you could help me out) is how they plan on improving relations when they're offending so many people by this. If you want to improve the relationship you have with someone, you shouldn't start by spitting in their face.

Seems ironic, yeah, but it's not really their fault if people are up in arms about it for no real reason, is it?

 

3.Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man leading the project is not without controversy. In 2005 while speaking in a lecture sponsored by the University of South Australia, he said:

"We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non Muslims."

He also refuses to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization (in an interview last June).

...So...you're saying he's a terrorist sympathizer, or what? What exactly is this supposed to imply? Also:

He also refuses to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization (in an interview last June).

So does Wikipedia. Big deal.

 

And this is both related and unrelated, why do most atheists assume ( I say assume as this is just what the majority of posts here imply, if you specifically don't then I'm not talking about you) that Christians are automatic liars, and Muslims don't automatically per se tell the truth, but will always be given the benefit of the doubt.

What. No. Nobody said or implied that.

 

Why can't the imam be lying? Maybe he wants to build there to "remind: the world who brought down the great monuments. I'm not saying it's his intention (though I personally believe so) but maybe people should ponder that. I mean could he be wanting to improve relations? Well of course, but couldn't he be also doing the exact opposite?

Suspecting him is one thing, but publicly attacking his intentions and his reputation without evidence is another. Leave that to the FBI.

[Saru Inc]

If a muslim says ONE THING. To think otherwise is to be a xenophobic racist. [source:magekillr]. As I said, not everyone states that, but surprisingly quite a bit do.

[Troacctid]

If a muslim says ONE THING. To think otherwise

More like to automatically associate an entire religion with terrorist extremists, which is the basic premise of any cries of insensitivity and so on.

[Giordano]

And you just like to assume everybody is against Christians and uphold it no matter what. You're exactly the same.

[Skully]

Wow, Zierro. You're good at owning people. :thumbsup:

[Saru Inc]

And you just like to assume everybody is against Christians and uphold it no matter what. You're exactly the same.

 

 

Nope. I'm not. But you can think that. It's ok :) However it's completely reasonable to say the vocal part of this forum dislikes the christian religion, which can be construed as being against it.

[Giordano]

Right.

[Troacctid]

And you just like to assume everybody is against Christians and uphold it no matter what. You're exactly the same.

 

 

Nope. I'm not. But you can think that. It's ok :) However it's completely reasonable to say the vocal part of this forum dislikes the christian religion, which can be construed as being against it.

Nope. We don't. But you can think that. It's ok. :rolleyes:

[Zierro]

Hay guise i herd that all of our presidents except Obama and Bill Clinton (cause there balck) were secretly lisard men from mars. SO this is why i think we should never elect white presidents nemor. u see, the aliens want to invade our contry and if we elect president that are lisard we are liek giveing them a trophy. So anyways this random thing i herd is y i make xenophobic opinions, but u cant prove this wrong cause u hav no pics, k? Cause i no its completely ridiculous this thing i am saying but i am just trying to repersent all the sides of the argueement.

 

While we're assuming that American Muslims living in New York City will suddenly become terrorists and snicker about how they got us gullible liberals to follow our own laws, I think we should consider the important possibility that these individuals may practice voodoo in the prayer center. I mean, the last thing we need is a bunch of bad mojo floating around New York City. Think what that would do for the city's image! Appalling.

 

Just got done decoding your hilarious post.

 

As for the point you're trying to get across, you're putting terrorism on the same level as terrestrial lizard men. :wall: Uhhh, you do know terrorism does happen, right? Did America get attacked by lizard men over the past ten years? Also, forgive me for not blindly assuming that religion is so docile and innocent, as you do. It's not like anyone has ever killed anyone over religion so any speculation or suspicion here would be completely ludicrous! No, religion is only about peace and community!

 

With the constant flow of reductio ad ridiculum and strawmen, this might be one of the funniest "debates" I have seen. It's moreso just a bunch of overly sensitive people trying to expound the idea into my head that NOTHING BAD EVER COMES OUT OF ISLAM - THEY ARE ONLY AS BAD AS ANY OTHER RELIGION, LIKE CHRISTIANITY... which, guess what, can be pretty [bleep]ing bad. NO THERE ARE ONLY FEW TERRORISTS, THE REST ARE NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL. Then explain to me why I saw a video of an entire Islamic town celebrating the 9/11 event? Or you also have the option of thinking of a cop-out, and posting something along the lines of WELL OTHER RELIGIONS DO THAT TOO!, which I'm assuming will be done based on the vast majority of "rebuttals" I've been getting.

 

And you say I'm the one who believes in lizard men? lol

 

Wow, Zierro. You're good at owning people. :thumbsup:

 

All thanks to years of practice, young one. :ugeek:

[Saru Inc]

And you just like to assume everybody is against Christians and uphold it no matter what. You're exactly the same.

 

 

Nope. I'm not. But you can think that. It's ok :) However it's completely reasonable to say the vocal part of this forum dislikes the christian religion, which can be construed as being against it.

Nope. We don't. But you can think that. It's ok. :rolleyes:

 

I hardly see you post on this forum, so I don't count you per se, as I don't really know what your views are.

[Saru Inc]

Hay guise i herd that all of our presidents except Obama and Bill Clinton (cause there balck) were secretly lisard men from mars. SO this is why i think we should never elect white presidents nemor. u see, the aliens want to invade our contry and if we elect president that are lisard we are liek giveing them a trophy. So anyways this random thing i herd is y i make xenophobic opinions, but u cant prove this wrong cause u hav no pics, k? Cause i no its completely ridiculous this thing i am saying but i am just trying to repersent all the sides of the argueement.

 

While we're assuming that American Muslims living in New York City will suddenly become terrorists and snicker about how they got us gullible liberals to follow our own laws, I think we should consider the important possibility that these individuals may practice voodoo in the prayer center. I mean, the last thing we need is a bunch of bad mojo floating around New York City. Think what that would do for the city's image! Appalling.

 

Just got done decoding your hilarious post.

 

As for the point you're trying to get across, you're putting terrorism on the same level as terrestrial lizard men. :wall: Uhhh, you do know terrorism does happen, right? Did America get attacked by lizard men over the past ten years? Also, forgive me for not blindly assuming that religion is so docile and innocent, as you do. It's not like anyone has ever killed anyone over religion so any speculation or suspicion here would be completely ludicrous! No, religion is only about peace and community!

 

With the constant flow of reductio ad ridiculum and strawmen, this might be one of the funniest "debates" I have seen. It's moreso just a bunch of overly sensitive people trying to expound the idea into my head that NOTHING BAD EVER COMES OUT OF ISLAM - THEY ARE ONLY AS BAD AS ANY OTHER RELIGION, LIKE CHRISTIANITY... which, guess what, can be pretty [bleep]ing bad. NO THERE ARE ONLY FEW TERRORISTS, THE REST ARE NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL. Then explain to me why I saw a video of an entire Islamic town celebrating the 9/11 event? Or you also have the option of thinking of a cop-out, and posting something along the lines of WELL OTHER RELIGIONS DO THAT TOO!, which I'm assuming will be done based on the vast majority of "rebuttals" I've been getting.

 

And you say I'm the one who believes in lizard men? lol

 

Wow, Zierro. You're good at owning people. :thumbsup:

 

All thanks to years of practice, young one. :ugeek:

I don't think I understand your argument.

 

You're pointing out ulterior motives for building a mosque there, correct? But why? There is no reason to suspect that they are doing anything other than building a mosque.

 

He's responding to my post I'm pretty sure.

 

And there's no reason to suspect they *aren't*. I'm just asking you to try out both sides of the playing fields, explore the possibilities.

[Zierro]

You're pointing out ulterior motives for building a mosque there, correct? But why? There is no reason to suspect that they are doing anything other than building a mosque.

 

Like I've said time and time again, the fact that 9/11 happened and that it was being casually celebrated raises a bit of suspicion. I'm not jumping to conclusions though. I'm merely being speculative. But the fact that you guys are going to complain about me being speculative really shows how biased you are towards always giving Islam the benefit of the doubt.

 

Don't get me wrong - no ulterior motives behind the mosque is a possibility as well, but this isn't the only possibility. And with religion being involved, that's just a little too hard to swallow that easily.

 

PS: I was responding to Bentomat in that post.

[Saru Inc]

Guys, this is unrelated to the current discussion at hand, but I actually hadn't thought of this. While the Mosque should be allowed to be considered building due to freedom of speech, is there a freedom of building? People are guaranteed life, liberty and happiness, but would those supporting the mosque still be upset if it was turned down even after being considered?

 

 

 

To summarize: How do you see freedom of speech, and freedom to build (for lack of a better term) coinciding with each other?

[Troacctid]

Like I've said time and time again, the fact that 9/11 happened and that it was being casually celebrated raises a bit of suspicion.

Okay, see, no. It's completely unrelated. It shouldn't raise any suspicion. Being suspicious of some random Muslim because of 9/11 or because some other random Muslims supported the attack is predicated on a basic association of Islam itself with terrorism in general. And that's wrong.

 

Guys, this is unrelated to the current discussion at hand, but I actually hadn't thought of this. While the Mosque should be allowed to be considered building due to freedom of speech, is there a freedom of building? People are guaranteed life, liberty and happiness, but would those supporting the mosque still be upset if it was turned down even after being considered?

 

 

 

To summarize: How do you see freedom of speech, and freedom to build (for lack of a better term) coinciding with each other?

This is what zoning regulations are all about. They have the clearance from the city, so there aren't any zoning issues here. *shrug*

[Giordano]

The freedom to build is called zoning laws to restrict careless development (power plant in residental area), to maintain the cityscape (No building may be higher than the Washington momument in DC, no skyscrapers in suburbs), and business allocations (gentlemen club near schools).

 

If a building is allowed within zone laws, they can build anything they want. The only legality againist it would be allocation, a relgious place so close to 9-11.

 

Which still falls under relgious prejudce because there's no pratical reason why the building can't be located there.

[Zierro]

Okay, see, no. It's completely unrelated. It shouldn't raise any suspicion. Being suspicious of some random Muslim because of 9/11 or because some other random Muslims supported the attack is predicated on a basic association of Islam itself with terrorism in general. And that's wrong.

 

Again, if terrorism is such a small-scale unheard of thing, explain why I saw a video of an entire Islamic town (children and everything) celebrating over 9/11 during that week. It really is ridiculous to assume that the only ones with terrorist ideals in their minds are solely the hijackers and bombers.

 

Yes, it was casually celebrated by people who were Muslims. Now these people (who also happen to be Muslims) want to build a community center, and you are suspicious of them because some other Muslims celebrated 9/11?

 

I like how you jump to the conclusion that they are definitely a whole separate unrelated group of Muslims. Am I the only one here NOT jumping to conclusions?

[Nenga]

Guys, this is unrelated to the current discussion at hand, but I actually hadn't thought of this. While the Mosque should be allowed to be considered building due to freedom of speech, is there a freedom of building? People are guaranteed life, liberty and happiness, but would those supporting the mosque still be upset if it was turned down even after being considered?

 

 

 

To summarize: How do you see freedom of speech, and freedom to build (for lack of a better term) coinciding with each other?

They're two halves of the same coin.

 

What about freedom of expression? I can go out, buy a flag, and burn it while standing on the street corner in public. Yet you can't have a mosque there? Why? Because the people who attacked happened to be Muslim? The sight is not holy, and there is no reason to not build it. People are just afraid that the mosque is going to encourage more attacks, because, they're stupid. There's just no other way to put it, they're idiots. I'm sure if they wanted to build a golden statue with diamond lining of Hitler, there it still wouldn't be such an issue.

 

It's a case of people, still not moving on. Though I suppose if everyone thought like me the world would be a better place. A much better place.

[Zierro]

The fact that some Americans march around with signs saying "Kill the terrorists" and [cabbage] like that doesn't mean that all Americans support the war(s) in the Middle East.

 

I never said all Muslims are terrorists. Some are though. Seriously, Rocco, you're not reading half of my posts.