Mosque

[devlman]

The Roman Catholic Church is hardly a threat in today's world. Did they fvck up a long time ago... yea, everyone did. That doesn't mean anything now. Islamic Terrorism is the greatest threat to the West right now.

haha wow

[squishyx]

I would rather seem them use that whole area as a memorial to 9/11 only. With that being said, they have a right to put the mosque there. If the city decides to put a mosque, thats fine by me and I would not object. Based on my opinion though, I would rather see it as a memorial

The planned mosque is 2 blocks away from the site. It wouldn't be used as part of the memorial, I believe the owner said he was going to turn it into apartments (or another generic project) until conferring with the imam about the community center.

[DaneykoIsGod]

The planned mosque is 2 blocks away from the site. It wouldn't be used as part of the memorial, I believe the owner said he was going to turn it into apartments (or another generic project) until conferring with the imam about the community center.

Exactly. It should also be noted that Park51 will include "a September 11th memorial and quiet contemplation space, open to all."

[oofrostonoo]

I would rather seem them use that whole area as a memorial to 9/11 only. With that being said, they have a right to put the mosque there. If the city decides to put a mosque, thats fine by me and I would not object. Based on my opinion though, I would rather see it as a memorial

It's not in an area where there could be a memorial. It is 2 blocks away and in-between an AT&T store, and Amish Market. It is a 5 minute walk until you can even see the WTC site.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.713668,-74.010118&spn=0.000991,0.00086&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.71377,-74.010331&panoid=gFu8B2o-LcjugZAXtRmr9g&cbp=12,67.69,,0,-1.85

[thegame346]

I would rather seem them use that whole area as a memorial to 9/11 only. With that being said, they have a right to put the mosque there. If the city decides to put a mosque, thats fine by me and I would not object. Based on my opinion though, I would rather see it as a memorial

No they don't have the right. Too many people believe that religious freedom means religions can do what they want when they want with no interference from state or federal government. This is an incorrect statement. You need to re-read the first ammendment, then read the correct definition of what a right is... a l;egal right is something granted to someone automatically. There is no process you are required to go through in order to have something like freedom of speech, or assembly for example other than being a citizen of this country. There IS process to go through in order to get any structure built within the confines of a city ESPECIALLY one as large as NYC. Whether that building is an ice cream shop or a Mosque the process you need to go through basically mirror each other and NEITHER party has the "right" to build anything.

Read my comments earlier in this thread about the will of the people. It holds water in a case like this. This is a battle that the courts are going to wind up deciding because whether or not the Mosque is approved or denied the losing party is going to file a grievance to the courts. Either way this goes down it was doomed from the start. regardless of the courts decision one side is going to feel its rights were severely violated and more then likely take matters into thier own hands.

[thegame346]

The Roman Catholic Church is hardly a threat in today's world. Did they fvck up a long time ago... yea, everyone did. That doesn't mean anything now. Islamic Terrorism is the greatest threat to the West right now.

All religion is evil to a certain extent. Muslim faith is in the spotlight right now but just because thier followers acts of violence are so large and destructive does not in the least excuse the way the other just as large religions currently do business. They still brainwash, steal, lie, and cheat as well as molest our children then deny it and protect thier own from facing the long arm of the law. It is just as disgusting, and destructive.

Edited August 19, 2010 by thegame346

[PeteyNice]

If the city of NY allows the Community Center to built, who can sue? It is not a religious issue. It is a private building. I know this America and anyone can sue for anything but unless there is some zoning technicality you'd be laughed out of court.

It shocks me that this is such a big issue. The bigots in this country never cease to amaze me.

[thegame346]

If the city of NY allows the Community Center to built, who can sue? It is not a religious issue. It is a private building. I know this America and anyone can sue for anything but unless there is some zoning technicality you'd be laughed out of court.

It shocks me that this is such a big issue. The bigots in this country never cease to amaze me.

I'm not arguing this anymore. i've made my points. Any further arguments made for or against by me would just be a vein attempt at trying to sway ones opinion from one side to the other. Thats all this thread is... a collection of opinions.

[DaneykoIsGod]

You are reading too much into this ammendment. Freedom to practice their religion IS protected but no where does it guarantee them the RIGHT to erect a Mosque. It doesn't deny them the right but it does not guarantee it either... therefore the decision for it to be built is completely up to democratically elected state officials. State officials are supposed to uphold the majority will of the people and if the entire people of NYC wish this Mosque not to be built then I believe the precedent ultimately should fall on the peoples side of the argument. Compare it the same way the people of a town or city would be opposed to a strip club being built. The people will petition the state, city, or town government to block the building of the club.

For the millionth time, IT ISN'T A MOSQUE!

Now that that's out of my system ... again ... let's move on. The rest of your point was addressed in the article I posted earlier today.

Before the idea could morph into reality, it had to survive the bureaucratic process of approvals from New York City authorities and the lower Manhattan community boards. On May 5 this year, Rauf and Gamal took the proposal to the Lower Manhattan Community Board’s financial committee, adding that it would create 150 full-time jobs. The submission included an image of the proposed centre’s façade: a blue and green, glass and steel, modernist tower. The committee voted unanimously in support.

As word spread, a debate started about whether it was appropriate. Within a few weeks, the proposed Cordoba House was being talked about across the US as the “Ground Zero Mosque”. On May 25, the community board planned to have a vote on the project, a vote that doesn’t have any legal power but is seen as crucial to gauge whether the local community supports it or not. A week before the vote, Tea Party leader Mark Williams called the planned centre “a monument to 9/11 Muslim hijackers”. The board meeting was charged with emotion. Some opponents shouted down a Muslim teenager who spoke in favour of the project; a supporter called activists opposing the project “brown shirts”. After four hours of testimonies, the 40-member board voted: 10 abstentions, one no, and 29 yeses. New York mayor Bloomberg and Manhattan borough president Scott Stringer came out in support.

To be able to move to build the Islamic centre by demolishing the old 1850s warehouse at 45 Park Place, Imam Rauf and his team had to wait for a decision from the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission, which was deliberating whether the building should be preserved as a historic landmark. A Christian legal rights group, American Center for Law and Justice, had appealed to the commission that the building should be considered a landmark because of the landing gear that fell through its roof.

New York waited for the decision. On the morning of August 3, a few hundred people filled a university auditorium near the trade towers site. Nine members of the Landmarks Commission took turns to speak and unanimously declared that the Italian palazzo building on Park Place did not have a special architectural or aesthetic character and thus did not merit a historic status. Stephan Bryns, the Landmarks Commissioner, argued that being damaged in the 9/11 attacks and being close to Ground Zero didn’t give it historic landmark status, either. To cries of “This is a betrayal!” and “Shame on you!” he said: “One cannot designate hundreds of buildings on that criterion alone.” Supporters cheered.

A very New York moment, high on the symbolism of the city’s freedoms and immigrant nature, followed. Over at the Governor’s island, stood Mayor Bloomberg; behind him the Statue of Liberty, still welcoming the huddled masses, in the backdrop. “Our doors are open to everyone – everyone with a dream and a willingness to work hard and play by the rules,” the Mayor declared. “Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbours 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.” That is New York.

Opponents are trying to put it through the wringers, but Park51 has been acing every test its faced. There simply has not yet been found a legal reason to prevent this from being built. This is why opponents are basing so much of their point of view on emotion, and that's a wash because both sides have plenty to be emotional about.

[thegame346]

For the millionth time, IT ISN'T A MOSQUE!

Now that that's out of my system ... again ... let's move on. The rest of your point was addressed in the article I posted earlier today.

Opponents are trying to put it through the wringers, but Park51 has been acing every test its faced. There simply has not yet been found a legal reason to prevent this from being built. This is why opponents are basing so much of their point of view on emotion, and that's a wash because both sides have plenty to be emotional about.

Well if its approved and will be erected good for them, however now they will face something else and that will be the vandalism of the establishment and harrassing of its members to include physical attacks probably. When this much emotion is bottled up inside people and their own will is not upheld they tend to take matters into their own hands. I'm not saying its right but it IS inevitable. They are gunna realize very quick that putting this there was a bad idea.

[matcat1116]

What a small sheltered world you must live in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2010

Feel free to look at other years too and then get back to me with your "99%".

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

Pretty sure just a few of them were added from yesterday.

That list aughta keep any reader busy for a while.

[Pepperkorn]

It is weird how we tend to take on the characteristics of those we hate.

This sort of contrived hateful controversy is exactly what terrorist strive for. They'd like it to escalate to violence - because then it proves everything they've been saying about the West all along.

Muslims are not terrorists. Americans are not seeking to exploit weakness for their own profit.

Either side that even claims there is a breath of truth to either statement is playing into the hands of the terrorists.

People who disagree with DiG here are taking a self-defeating stand. You are turning on your own principles and playing the game of the terrorist - living by the terrorist's rules, not your own.

If that's what you want - well so be it. I think most of you know that though - you're comfortable with the choice of espousing terrorist values, not United States constitutional values. I'd rather you be honest about it and not claim you're in any way patriotic or compassionate. Combative - sure. It's the arrogant self-delusion that I find sad.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Pepperkorn

[thegame346]

It is weird how we tend to take on the characteristics of those we hate.

This sort of contrived hateful controversy is exactly what terrorist strive for. They'd like it to escalate to violence - because then it proves everything they've been saying about the West all along.

Muslims are not terrorists. Americans are not seeking to exploit weakness for their own profit.

Either side that even claims there is a breath of truth to either statement is playing into the hands of the terrorists.

People who disagree with DiG here are taking a self-defeating stand. You are turning on your own principles and playing the game of the terrorist - living by the terrorist's rules, not your own.

If that's what you want - well so be it. I think most of you know that though - you're comfortable with the choice of espousing terrorist values, not United States constitutional values. I'd rather you be honest about it and not claim you're in any way patriotic or compassionate. Combative - sure. It's the arrogant self-delusion that I find sad.

No. The game of the terrorist is to kill for their own gain either personal or political. We are discussing having a structure built via due process not killing the ones who proposed it or defend it. Get your comparisons straight. Even if it is blocked Americans are NOTHING like the hate filled, scum sucking, douchebag jerk oppressors from the middle east.

[RunninWithTheDevil]

To be honest, i could give a crap but the MAIN reason this country exists is the pursuit of religious freedom. So, hell yeah, lets be Americans and build the crap outta that Mosque.

Careful, they may come and slowly cut your head off..................they've been known to do that, ya' know?

the crusades?

[Pepperkorn]

No. The game of the terrorist is to kill for their own gain either personal or political. We are discussing having a structure built via due process not killing the ones who proposed it or defend it. Get your comparisons straight. Even if it is blocked Americans are NOTHING like the hate filled, scum sucking, douchebag jerk oppressors from the middle east.

Since when have terrorists been restricted to the Middle East? You're proving my point not rebutting.

American Constitution says all men are created equal and deserve equal rights.

The terrorists your referring to say Americans have nothing but hatred for Muslims, they do not think of you as people - so do not think of them as people.

Terrorism is violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives. You wrote the Muslims who choose to worship near ground zero should expect acts of violence perpetrated against them. People who would commit these acts are, by definition, terrorists.

Now I'm not saying you would vandalize or threaten these people yourself. What I'm saying is your blanket hatred and refusal to consider any alternative position to this hate (you did write that - that you would consider nothing - your mind is set against these people) is helping the terrorists achieve their goal. The anger at these Muslims is exactly what the acts of terror are trying to achieve. You are doing the terrorists work and convincing all Middle Eastern peoples to hate you. In turn you are encouraging them to hate ALL AMERICANS. You are allowing yourself to be used by terrorists to achieve their military and political goals.

You know and that's fine - if it's worth it to you - it is. Just understand that. I'm not calling you a terrorist - I'm saying you're playing right into their hands. You are acting on their behalf - you have been successfully manipulated, whether you accept it or not.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Pepperkorn

[DaneykoIsGod]

No. The game of the terrorist is to kill for their own gain either personal or political. We are discussing having a structure built via due process not killing the ones who proposed it or defend it. Get your comparisons straight. Even if it is blocked Americans are NOTHING like the hate filled, scum sucking, douchebag jerk oppressors from the middle east.

Um .....

they will face something else and that will be the vandalism of the establishment and harrassing of its members to include physical attacks probably. When this much emotion is bottled up inside people and their own will is not upheld they tend to take matters into their own hands.

Kinda sounds to me like you were describing terrorists.

[Hi, I'm VALUE!]

Kinda sounds to me like you were describing terrorists.

...or criminals. Or stupid people that actively practice hatred. That was the point of the whole statement you pulled the paragraph from. Stupid hateful people will do stupid hateful things. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be building (at least IMO). That means they have increased their likeliness to be a target for people who choose to be hateful. I made a reference to increased security for the prayer center, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the referenced "150 jobs created" above were for the purpose of security.

[Pepperkorn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

I'm going to try to not keep it up in here - I did make my point. I just hope you all understand - just like in hockey - you really can't win when you're not playing by the ground rules you set yourself.

My ground rules are the Constitution. I feel that the time I'd take to re-interpret the Constitution to justify disregarding it's very tenants, weaken my stance considerably, and I'm setting myself up for Epic Failure. Just my opinion. I'm not trying to buy an argument

[DaneykoIsGod]

...or criminals. Or stupid people that actively practice hatred. That was the point of the whole statement you pulled the paragraph from. Stupid hateful people will do stupid hateful things. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be building (at least IMO). That means they have increased their likeliness to be a target for people who choose to be hateful. I made a reference to increased security for the prayer center, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the referenced "150 jobs created" above were for the purpose of security.

You say criminal, I say terrorist. Using fear as a primary tool to get your way is terrorism. Not building Park51 for fear of violent retribution is caving to terrorism. Call is domestic terrorism if you want because the people committing the violent acts won't be wearing towels on their heads, but it's terrorism nonetheless.

That's not to say you aren't correct. Hopefully a lot of mind is paid to security, although I hope, like others, that eventually this will all blow over and people will move on to the next thing to protest.

[devlman]

It is weird how we tend to take on the characteristics of those we hate.

This sort of contrived hateful controversy is exactly what terrorist strive for. They'd like it to escalate to violence - because then it proves everything they've been saying about the West all along.

Muslims are not terrorists. Americans are not seeking to exploit weakness for their own profit.

Either side that even claims there is a breath of truth to either statement is playing into the hands of the terrorists.

People who disagree with DiG here are taking a self-defeating stand. You are turning on your own principles and playing the game of the terrorist - living by the terrorist's rules, not your own.

If that's what you want - well so be it. I think most of you know that though - you're comfortable with the choice of espousing terrorist values, not United States constitutional values. I'd rather you be honest about it and not claim you're in any way patriotic or compassionate. Combative - sure. It's the arrogant self-delusion that I find sad.

You hit the nail on the head there

[Jimmy Leeds]

how naive can you be?

Hardhats

Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh and these "Christian Warriors" send their regards.

What does Kyzynski (sic) have to do with Religious murder? Nice try. And good job finding the one guy, McVeigh, that all the Muslim fascist apologists hang their hat on.

[DaneykoIsGod]

What does Kyzynski (sic) have to do with Religious murder? Nice try.

I coulda swore you were talking abou "terrorists," not "regilious murder."

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all the terrorists seem to be Muslims.

Either you were trying to change the subject, or you really don't know what "terrorism" is. But, if you insist .... here's some suggested reading.

Oh, and because you might actually need the education, give this a read:

From Dictionary.com

ter·ror·ist   /ˈtɛrərɪst/ Show Spelled[ter-er-ist] Show IPA

–noun

1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

3. (formerly) a member of a political group in russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.

4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.

–adjective

5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.

World English Dictionary

terrorist (ˈtɛrərɪst)

— n

a. a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon

b. ( as modifier ): terrorist tactics

terror'istic

— adj

ter·ror·ism   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

World English Dictionary

terrorism (ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm)

— n

1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal

2. the act of terrorizing

3. the state of being terrorized

Yeah, I couldn't find the word "religion" or "religious" in there either.

Nice try.

[squishyx]

Hardhats

I guess you are that naive... or too lazy to read your all of your own article

Popularity aside, there are some construction workers choosing not to set themselves against the project.

"Hundreds of guys here are wearing stickers as a sign of protest, but I'm on the fence about it," said Frank Langan, 50, a site superintendent from Queens working at Ground Zero.

"It's a tough debate," he said. "I sympathize with workers' position, but at the same time, you can't single out all Muslims because of a small number of terrorists."

Like I said, someone will build it because a) they don't agree with the notion that it's wrong or most likely b) money talks.

B is subject for debate though now because from what I am reading it seems like they don't have the funding. But they certainly will find people to do it if and when they can afford it.

[RizzMB30]

Should they build a mosque close to Ground Zero? Hell no. Should they be allowed to build one? Yes. As long as they follow the rules the same as everybody else and play fair. Even though Islam is something that Americans are afraid of right now, we should learn some religious tolerance.

[jagknife]

I coulda swore you were talking abou "terrorists," not "regilious murder."

Either you were trying to change the subject, or you really don't know what "terrorism" is. But, if you insist .... here's some suggested reading.

Oh, and because you might actually need the education, give this a read:

From Dictionary.com

Yeah, I couldn't find the word "religion" or "religious" in there either.

Nice try.

there may be no "religious" definition in terrorist, but those who are fighting the Americans in the middle east, and were the ones who flew the planes into the towers, were JIHADISTS

jihad or jehad (dʒɪˈhæd)

— n

1. Islam a holy war against infidels undertaken by Muslims in defence of the Islamic faith

2. Islam the personal struggle of the individual believer against evil and persecution

3. rare a crusade in support of a cause