Mosque proposal near Ground Zero

Aug 2010
862
0
So you generalize and then actually try and claim I'm using a bad example? :giggle:

Not at all, I added the necessary facts to make your hypo analogous which demonstrates why its a silly hypo.

As for the rest, Islam of the bent that this Imam has endorsed sees no distinction between the religious world and the secular.

Comments on 9/11 from Imam Rauf ?I wouldn?t say that the United States deserved what happened, but united states policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.? That sounds an awful lot like blaming the victim whp had it coming.

As far as "out of context" Dean wasn't defending the project.

Again, at the end of the day I didn't say they couldn't I said they shouldn't. That's an opinion focused largely on an emotional level. One that will find lots of company. So much so that it would show greater cooperation and efforts to build this bridge if they built the mosque elsewhere.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
Comments on 9/11 from Imam Rauf ?I wouldn?t say that the United States deserved what happened, but united states policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.? That sounds an awful lot like blaming the victim whp had it coming.

So you deny that the West, including the US, has oppressed, exploited, disrespected and otherwise screwed over the Islamic World? He's not blaming the victims, he's pointing out that the West and US fueled the anger and hatred that spawned the radicalism that led to the attacks. That's a statement of fact, not justification.

Most of the opposition is based on blind emotion and bigotry with little in the way of rational thinking or logic and when someone on the opposition side is rational and logical, they tend to be religious radicals themselves who view Islam as a whole as an enemy.
 
Aug 2010
862
0
No, its an opinion that I do not share with yo and the Imam.

And, I would not refer to sensitivity regarding a horrible terrorist attack an example of bigotry from me nor from Dr. Dean, Harry Reid, neither of whom could be desdcribed as religious radicals (and numerous people of every political stripe and hue) though it is the type silly remark I have come to expect from the left.

Like I noted, I think building there is insensitive to the memories of thsoe who died in the terrorist attack. That you and Imam Rauf opine that we had it coming and that those who regard the mosque warily are bigots are matters of your opinion.; which I reject.

Nothing left to say on the matter but we have at least been clear about our opinions.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
Nothing left to say on the matter but we have at least been clear about our opinions.

There is much left to say and so it shall be said until this issue, 1 way or another, is concluded. But yes, we've been clear and if I may be honest, quite stubborn. Alas debates aren't meant to convince your opponent (though it's always nice when it happens) but to educate others so that an accurate opinion can be developed. I feel we've done this quite well. :p
 
Aug 2010
862
0
yeah but we're both well aware of those differing view points... much more of an exercise in stubbornness as you note...

gots to find me this .gif... be right back... you should get a kick out of it

here we go.... enjoy ;)


someone_is_wrong_on_the_internet1.jpg
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
yeah but we're both well aware of those differing view points... much more of an exercise in stubbornness as you note...

gots to find me this .gif... be right back... you should get a kick out of it

here we go.... enjoy ;)


someone_is_wrong_on_the_internet1.jpg

:giggle: Indeed. Should post that in the humor section.
 
Aug 2010
230
0
David, with all due respect (and yes, even though I'm new here, I'm astute enough to recognize an intelligent poster when I see one), I have to ask why you support the mosque? I also have to ask if you're Jewish (your nickname suggests the possibility, but assuming anything online is hazardous)?

I also wonder how you would delineate the boundary between radical and moderate Muslims? By your definition, would a radical be one who blew a building, and the moderate simply the one who funded the operation, or who accepted the explosion sans public protest?

Just curious.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
David, with all due respect (and yes, even though I'm new here, I'm astute enough to recognize an intelligent poster when I see one), I have to ask why you support the mosque? I also have to ask if you're Jewish (your nickname suggests the possibility, but assuming anything online is hazardous)?

I also wonder how you would delineate the boundary between radical and moderate Muslims? By your definition, would a radical be one who blew a building, and the moderate simply the one who funded the operation, or who accepted the explosion sans public protest?

Just curious.

1. Thank you.
2. I'll get to that.
3. No, that's my name. :giggle: Mine is a family of hardliner Christians and secularists/atheists and I myself am non-religious with (and this leaves me with a bias) pro-Islam sympathies.

To question #2, I'll answer with a blog post I've made elsewhere:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The above is known as Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression; Constitution of the United States of America. To deny Muslims the right to build this mosque is, if nothing else, a gross violation of Constitutional Law. Our gov't can't establish any 1 or number of religions as official, our gov't can't establish any 1 or any or number of religions as preferred over any 1 or number of other religions and most relevant to the subject at hand, our gov't can't bar anyone from practicing their religion (no matter how much we all want to muzzle the Scientologists ).

The above alone, at least legally, should end the debate but the subject is far more complicated. America is or so we claim, to be a land of freedom, enlightenment and tolerance. America is "the city on the hill". To deny American Muslims or any American the right to worship is to forget ourselves, to abandon the ideals of the Republic and to go down a path that will lead to the end of our world honored civilization. It is a path of darkness, decay and tyranny. It is a path, that being recognized for what it was, led to the foundation of American civilization itself. To abandon this heritage is nothing less then treason.

Having noted the legal and moral flaws of the opposition, let me end with a bit of strategic thinking. We have, no matter how much we wish to forget it, caused great harm to Islamic civilization over the last century and over the past 3 decades, they've returned the favor with the vigor and zeal that would be admirable if better placed. So long as extremists on both sides reopen old wounds while throwing salt, our world shall never know peace. To allow the construction of this American mosque, in this American city on this most hollowed of American soil would be a testament not only to the ideals of our great Republic but to our commitment to peace and values of the Enlightenment. It would give us the morale and political high ground while removing the credibility 1 of the enemies greatest weapons, the propaganda that we are at war not with extremism but Islam itself. Let us defeat those who twist the word of God with honor and truth, to continue as we have is only to aid their efforts. Where is the logic in that?

Let peace and honor become our watchwords. Let us abandon the path of darkness that, blinded by fear, anger and hatred, we have mistakenly tuned down.

As to your last question, a radical is someone who calls for theocracy, is willing to undermine society to achieve this goal and/or uses violence. A moderate is someone who peacefully follows their religion/ideology. This has nothing to do with Islam but religion/politics in general.
 
Aug 2010
103
0
There is much left to say and so it shall be said until this issue, 1 way or another, is concluded. But yes, we've been clear and if I may be honest, quite stubborn. Alas debates aren't meant to convince your opponent (though it's always nice when it happens) but to educate others so that an accurate opinion can be developed. I feel we've done this quite well. :p
Your motive for waging your struggle against unreason is quite admirable but different from my motive for posting. I seek to learn and more importantly to remove error in my self. At least that?s my rationale, probably it?s just the muttering of a frustrated old man shaking his fist at the world.
I have long ago given up the propaganda war, but your example makes me want to toss a rock or two.
Still, on this non-issue, I wonder if your effort is justified. As far as I can determine, this is meat tossed out by the Fox News Propaganda Factory to their intellectually challenged faithful. Obviously, reason and logic will have no effect on them. That?s why Fox doesn?t waste it on them.
The only other factions that I can perceive are the Religious Right and the Zionists with their the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim agenda.
Obviously your arguments will have no effect on them.
I took the trouble to peruse the string to see if there were any real arguments to support Fox, and there weren?t.
The only posts that were advanced in support of Fox could have been left unchallenged, and would have by their very nature served as arguments against their position to anyone of at least mediocre intelligence.
It would seem to me that you have better use for your considerable talents elsewhere in your commendable enterprise.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
Your motive for waging your struggle against unreason is quite admirable but different from my motive for posting. I seek to learn and more importantly to remove error in my self. At least that?s my rationale, probably it?s just the muttering of a frustrated old man shaking his fist at the world.
I have long ago given up the propaganda war, but your example makes me want to toss a rock or two.
Still, on this non-issue, I wonder if your effort is justified. As far as I can determine, this is meat tossed out by the Fox News Propaganda Factory to their intellectually challenged faithful. Obviously, reason and logic will have no effect on them. That?s why Fox doesn?t waste it on them.
The only other factions that I can perceive are the Religious Right and the Zionists with their the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim agenda.
Obviously your arguments will have no effect on them.
I took the trouble to peruse the string to see if there were any real arguments to support Fox, and there weren?t.
The only posts that were advanced in support of Fox could have been left unchallenged, and would have by their very nature served as arguments against their position to anyone of at least mediocre intelligence.
It would seem to me that you have better use for your considerable talents elsewhere in your commendable enterprise.

That's got to be the most long winded and articulate "You're wasting your breath." I've ever seen. :giggle:
 
Aug 2010
230
0
David, in response to your post, I don't believe anyone is asking Congress to prohibit Muslims from worshiping as they see fit. What is at issue is the appropriateness of building (not remodeling -- words DO matter) a mosque at the site of Islam's most destructive attack on Western civilization in our lifetimes. If nothing else, the planned mosque demonstrates insensitivity on the part of the builders. At worst, it demonstrates arrogance. Again, I ask by way of analogy, would you support building a shrine to Nazism outside the gates of Auschwitz? If so, how many feet from the gates would be a respectful distance?

I am a Jew (thanks, Mom and Gram, ad infinitum). As such, I'm forced by historical perspective to honor the rights of all people to worship in their own ways. But along with the right to worship comes a heavy responsibility to demonstrate respect for others, and a sense of repentance for past wrongs.

David, you're not far from the truth in your definitions of radical and moderate. I would suggest, though, that a moderate would condemn the actions of a radical. I have yet to see evidence that a majority of American Muslims condemn the actions of radicals here or abroad, and am reminded of the complacency demonstrated by moderate Germans during the 1930s and '40s. Silence does not equal condemnation. That's worth thinking about.
 
Aug 2010
862
0
David, pulled ths from your post not sure who you were quoting but I think there are some misunderstandings in the quoted text.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The above is known as Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression; Constitution of the United States of America. To deny Muslims the right to build this mosque is, if nothing else, a gross violation of Constitutional Law. Our gov't can't establish any 1 or number of religions as official, our gov't can't establish any 1 or any or number of religions as preferred over any 1 or number of other religions and most relevant to the subject at hand, our gov't can't bar anyone from practicing their religion (no matter how much we all want to muzzle the Scientologists ).

The establishment clause as originally intended meant that the FEDERAL government could not establish a state religion. It has evolved. In no particular chronological order the next two bigs steps

1) selective incorporation: This has been the judicial process of extending the protections of the bill of rights t apply to state governments as well. The Second Amendment was only recently incorporated. It is an on going process.

2) the establishment clause, as it is commonly referred to originally, as noted, meant no establishment of a state religion. Judges have decided that the framers were wrong and have shanged it to a policy rather than a principle. Now the easiest way to describe it is that the government must take a neutral view. (we could debate that forever as to how well it accompllished - but that's the current state of the law as a general matter.

The government actually can lilmit religion in a number of ways. For example, this mosque had to go through a byzantine zoning morass to get approval to build. The permits were by no means a right. Religious practices may be regulated or prohibitted for a variety of reasons (one case I thankfully had nothing to do with involved Hmongs in the Twin Cities who practice animal sacrifice and the obvious health concerns that jumped into your head)

Under the narrow circumstances with the mosque, we agree, it is their right having gotten various building approvals, to build. However, as we agreed to disagree, I think they shouldn't even though they may.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
David, in response to your post, I don't believe anyone is asking Congress to prohibit Muslims from worshiping as they see fit. What is at issue is the appropriateness of building (not remodeling -- words DO matter) a mosque at the site of Islam's most destructive attack on Western civilization in our lifetimes. If nothing else, the planned mosque demonstrates insensitivity on the part of the builders. At worst, it demonstrates arrogance. Again, I ask by way of analogy, would you support building a shrine to Nazism outside the gates of Auschwitz? If so, how many feet from the gates would be a respectful distance?

Do you realize the site is already used for Islamic activities? That the lad is already owned by the organization planing this new center? It's indeed a remodeling project, 1 that has the existing building destroyed but it's a remodeling/rebuilding all the same. Semantics I know but in this case it's needed for reasons of context. To that last point, that analogy only works if this was a shrine to Al Quida.

I am a Jew (thanks, Mom and Gram, ad infinitum). As such, I'm forced by historical perspective to honor the rights of all people to worship in their own ways. But along with the right to worship comes a heavy responsibility to demonstrate respect for others, and a sense of repentance for past wrongs.

True but what wrongs have been committed by this organization? Indeed, their leader is a contractor for the State Department tasked with supporting the spread of moderate Islam.

David, you're not far from the truth in your definitions of radical and moderate. I would suggest, though, that a moderate would condemn the actions of a radical. I have yet to see evidence that a majority of American Muslims condemn the actions of radicals here or abroad, and am reminded of the complacency demonstrated by moderate Germans during the 1930s and '40s. Silence does not equal condemnation. That's worth thinking about.

How many moderate American Christians actively condemn the KKK? The bombings of abortion clinics? The theocratic power grabs by extremists in gov't? They'll largely decry the evils of of my examples... After you confront them about them. Otherwise they by and large are silent. This doesn't mean they support extremism, it's because their opposition, as moderates and loyal Americans, should go without saying.
 
Aug 2010
230
0
Do you realize the site is already used for Islamic activities? That the lad is already owned by the organization planing this new center? It's indeed a remodeling project, 1 that has the existing building destroyed but it's a remodeling/rebuilding all the same. Semantics I know but in this case it's needed for reasons of context. To that last point, that analogy only works if this was a shrine to Al Quida.

By your definition of remodeling, One World Trade Center is a mere remodel job. What do they teach kids in school these days?



True but what wrongs have been committed by this organization? Indeed, their leader is a contractor for the State Department tasked with supporting the spread of moderate Islam.

The imam pushing for that mosque called the U.S. an accessory to 9/11. That is akin to calling Sharon Tate an accessory to Manson's crimes because she (Tate) failed to wear knife-proof garments.


How many moderate American Christians actively condemn the KKK? The bombings of abortion clinics? The theocratic power grabs by extremists in gov't? They'll largely decry the evils of of my examples... After you confront them about them. Otherwise they by and large are silent. This doesn't mean they support extremism, it's because their opposition, as moderates and loyal Americans, should go without saying.

You're stretching things a bit, David. The KKK has been all but discredited for decades (and was, last I heard, supported mainly by Southern Democrats whose views had little to do with religion, and much to do with centuries-old prejudices). When's the last time you asked a Lutheran or a Methodist or a Presbyterian about their views on abortion clinic bombings? Most oppose violence of that sort. And while you're playing the KKK/race card, which side has burned the most buildings in the U.S. over the past 60 years?

Hang in there, Grasshopper. You have much to learn.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2010
230
0
Ha! And I have much to learn regarding quoting and replying to posts in this forum. Hopefully you can separate my responses from yours. ;-)
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
You're stretching things a bit, David. The KKK has been all but discredited for decades (and was, last I heard, supported mainly by Southern Democrats whose views had little to do with religion, and much to do with centuries-old prejudices). When's the last time you asked a Lutheran or a Methodist or a Presbyterian about their views on abortion clinic bombings? Most oppose violence of that sort. And while you're playing the KKK/race card, which side has burned the most buildings in the U.S. over the past 60 years?

Hang in there, Grasshopper. You have much to learn.

Off topic but relevant to your post, highlight each section you wish to quote and click the quote wrapper button, the speech bubble icon.
 
Aug 2010
230
0
Gracias. Please note I never claimed to be a tech whiz, but even old dogs can learn to pee on new hydrants with proper instruction.
 
Aug 2010
230
0
As a temp fix for a mangled post, I went back and bolded my replies. Clever old fart, eh? Next time, I'll do it right.
 
Top