Plan for Mosque III...

Status
Not open for further replies.
You admitted that nobody would have a problem with Hindus, which means the discrimination is only against Muslims. And yes it IS discrimination, because you're trying to link all Muslims with terrorists.

The really sad thing is that this is an improvement:

sorry, i did not make myself more clear...my reference to the hindus was regarding the interfaith pentagon chapel where all religions can pray, i dont thnk this would be allowed in the "community center" near ground zero , as now planned.....

also, i am having a problem with this "link" issue....i dont think any "reasonable (?)" people r saying that all muslims r extremists, in fact, at least i acknowledge that VERY few r....however, the extremists committed the crime "in the name of islam"....they have not given any other reason (as misguided as they may be)....the analogy about catholic churches and school yards makes no sense to me for that same reason....the "extremist" preists were simply pedophiles....they did not molest the kids "in the name of the catholic church"...:lol: and IF they DID, im sure there WOULD be protests when they would try to build churches next to school yards....
 
I seriously doubt the US military would care in the least about obviously intolerant civilian protestors, even at Fort Hood. They have quite clear rules and regulations concerning religious freedom for all servicemen.

i think u r going off on a tangent that has nothing to with my earlier point.....which was that nobody has opposed muslims from praying in the pentagon memorial chapel.....if the problem was REALLY realted to islamophobia, there would have been protests at the pentagon

And so it would be fine for Muslims to pray near the "hallowed" "ground zero" if the facility was "interfaith" instead of being Muslim-owned?

by jove....i think youve got it!

I seem to have missed that caveat in the First Amendment. Perhaps you could point it out to me.

if u have not read ANY of my previous posts , i will again be patient (and consistent).....i have ALWAYS said it is within their rights to build WHATEVER they want.....it is the IMAM that considers himself a REASONABLE man whom is building bridges between faiths BLA BLA.....but he only seems to want to bulid bridges with hamas :lol:
 
however, the extremists committed the crime "in the name of islam"....they have not given any other reason (as misguided as they may be)....
Ummm... You sure about that?...
Note that Osama bin Laden has said why repeatedly and he says that the attacks will continue UNTIL specific foreign policies (American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel) are stopped. He doesn't say "until you believe in Alah", none of the terrorists have ever said this or anything about attacking us because of our freedoms. It is dangerous to spread false reasons for why 9/11 happened. Please read the following for the motives for 9/11 attacks:
"Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims. " - Osama bin Laden May 1998
These were politically motivated. Maybe the only reason they care about the Lebanese and Palestinians is their religion, but that doesn't make it a religious attack. It was a politically motivated attack carried out by religious zealots who believed they could reconcile it with their religion.

Here's the latest issue of Time, for those who haven't seen it yet:
1101100830_400.jpg

abridged story
 
Ummm... You sure about that?...

These were politically motivated. Maybe the only reason they care about the Lebanese and Palestinians is their religion, but that doesn't make it a religious attack. It was a politically motivated attack carried out by religious zealots who believed they could reconcile it with their religion.

Here's the latest issue of Time, for those who haven't seen it yet:
1101100830_400.jpg

abridged story

politically motivated....umm.....i read the whole piece....and how does osama seperate his politics from his religion? have u seen the thought process of radical muslim leaders..... "division of political and religious motivations"? there isnt any...these r concepts u may be familiar with because of your own mind set....

and please, unless u want this board full of spam from right and left opinion pieces, dont quote some silly TIME editorial peice....do u want me to start posting national review covers?
 
and please, unless u want this board full of spam from right and left opinion pieces, dont quote some silly TIME editorial peice....do u want me to start posting national review covers?
Moderator Action: Not a very good idea. Big Brother is watching, waiting and ready to keep CFC safe for Truth, justice and the American way. ;)
 
Moderator Action: Not a very good idea. Big Brother is watching, waiting and ready to keep CFC safe for Truth, justice and the American way. ;)

am i allowed to comment POSITIVELY on a moderator action :confused:

:goodjob::goodjob::goodjob:
 
STOP THE PRESSES!!!!
The "ground zero mosque" i being funded by something far worse than terrorism... FOX NEWS!!! (not really, but the association is about a million times closer than the imam and al qaida.)

On last night's Daily Show, Jon Stewart skewered these antics as a "dangerous game of guilt by association you can play with almost anybody," and proceeded to tie Fox News to Al Qaeda by connecting Fox News parent News Corp's second-largest shareholder, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, to the Carlyle Group, which has done business with the bin Laden family, "one of whose sons--obviously I'm not going to say which one--may be anti-American." But Stewart didn't need to take all those steps to make the connection: Al-Waleed has directly funded Rauf's projects to the tune of more than $300,000. If Fox newscasters can darkly suggest "terror dollars" are sluicing into the Islamic Center's coffers via "shady characters," then are Al-Waleed, and News Corp. leader Rupert Murdoch, by the same logic, also terror stooges?
 
Mobby
The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter to them claiming to be an agnostic and that he did not believe in a hell.[81][82] McVeigh once said that he believed the universe was guided by natural law, energized by some universal higher power that showed each person right from wrong if they paid attention to what was going on inside them. He had also said, "Science is my religion."[83]

He was with Christian Identity... They are radical Christians, not agnostics. Now where is the link? I will gladly match it with links showing his views around the time of his crime. Or you can google Christian Identity and Tim McVeigh and tell me all about his agnosticm.

Ah...you were the one that brought up South Park first.

I didn't bring SP up, you did that, you quoted the "drugs are bad, umkay..." line to support your position on drugs and then you accused me of getting my morals from SP.

No I didnt.

Listen. If all you are going to do is blatently lie about me and say things I never said, I see no reason to carry this on. Seriously, I never said any such thing.

You're defending the mis-treatment of this guy because of what somebody else did - thats a fact Jack. But you, being a Christian, dont want to be mis-treated because of Fred Phelps and his clan. How can one be so oblivious to hypocrisy and still be a Christian when Jesus condemned it more than anything else?

Opinions dont deny people freedoms no. It takes action to do that.

Now tell me understand that.

You denied violating the religious liberty of Americans. The drug war is action, and you support it even though there are religions that use the banned drugs. So dont give me that nonsense and then accuse me of lying. As for the Pledge of Allegiance, it violates the religious liberty of children by coercing them into claiming allegiance to the state's God.

And I'd say you be really reaching, because no one has said they dont have the right to build there.

A fact which you seem determined to ignore.

You dont understand the definition of freedom, it means the absence of coercion and constraint - do you understand what coercion is? Its what little kids feel when they dont wanna stand up and pledge their allegiance to somebody else's God but are worried what'll happen to them if they dont. Scaring little children into repeating religious mantras in the name of religious freedom :goodjob:

Because its not - because no one is being denied their religous freedom. Its about the ramifications of what occurred on 9/11 and the emotion left over from that attack.

And whether or not its a good idea to build this mosque at that location regardless of whether they have a right to or not.

Cant you see that?

You dont even know what freedom means. And I explained the wisdom of building the mosque, y'all are making us out to be liars before the eyes of the world and that helps enemy recruitment.

No, I didnt single anyone out because they are muslim. I singled this imam out because he wont even call a group like Hamas a bunch of terrorists when he should.

You took your position on this after finding out this guy hasn't condemned Hamas? I thought it was after you found some poll showing a majority opposed the mosque?

I didn't know our religious liberty required a test

Again, your not interested in fairness here. All you want to do is inflame the situation by spreading deliberate mistruths and misrepresentation of those you dont like. Your're the one that would actually want to take away peoples freedom of speech by denying them the ability to comment on this issue. End of story.

:lol: dont ever call anyone a liar, your words stink to high Heaven
 
Am I ever going to get an answer to this post or is it just going to be ignored? I usually just get ignored when I start asking questions MobBoss has no answer for, so it wouldn't be a first:
No, I object to the planners building a mosque that close in proximity to ground zero.

The reason sounds dumb to you because you have been arguing its a freedom of religion thing when it simply hasnt been. Ever.
But Muslims already worship that close in proximity to ground zero. Muslims already go to the exact building that the Cordoba House development will replace, to worship Allah -- they just don't call the building a mosque. It's okay for them to use that building as a place of worship, just as long as they don't call it a mosque?
 

Interesting cover, for 3 reasons that sumarise the totalitarian filters at work in this discussion -

1) It is acceptable to ask if America is Islamophobic, but unnacceptable to ask if Islam is Americaphobic. [Control of the discourse - there is apparently no contradiction in having the freedom to question America, but no freedom to question Islam]

2) The image is ambiguous - it can represent the muslim perception that America will take over their religion as much as the American perception that Islam will take over the West. Yet the first perception must be filtered out and forbidden, it simply does not exist.

3) The question raised switches from Islam to muslims with the usual deliberate distortion. The false question posited has already been answered

False question - "Is America Islamophobic"

by

"...how the US regards muslims"

Islam can only be defined through its positive features. When negative features are brought up, Islam slips away from definition. Thus the language rule is:

positive attribution - Islam can be used as a concept
negative attribution - muslims must be substituted for the term "Islam" which by definition can never be questioned because this switching will always take place

So another discussion about "Islam" that is a one-sided critique of America [allowed] with no critique of Islam [not possible as it has no negative features] and that switches and blanks-out terminology [Islam and muslims apparently interchangeable, but only through the matrix of appeal to prejudice in answering ideological criticisms] depending on the needs of the argument, without recognising the double-standards or contradictions involved [Americans can have a hostile view of Islam, but the reverse is by definition impossible].
 
Ayn Rand said:
1) It is acceptable to ask if America is Islamophobic, but unnacceptable to ask if Islam is Americaphobic. [Control of the discourse - there is apparently no contradiction in having the freedom to question America, but no freedom to question Islam]

Wait, what. The present debate has nothing to do with Islam's perceptions of America and everything to do with America's perception of Islam.

Ayn Rand said:
2) The image is ambiguous - it can represent the muslim perception that America will take over their religion as much as the American perception that Islam will take over the West. Yet the first perception must be filtered out and forbidden, it simply does not exist.

Its ambiguous: right. Possibly deliberate. Maybe not. But who or what is telling that the first perception is verboten. Your still seeing it. I can. There's no quasi-mystical barrier in the way.

Ayn Rand said:
3) The question raised switches from Islam to muslims with the usual deliberate distortion. The false question posited has already been answered

Deliberate distortion: I was left with the impression that Nazi = Muslim from some of the posts I've seen in these threads. I don't think the intellectual sleight of hand started with us.

Ayn Rand said:
So another discussion about "Islam" that is a one-sided critique of America [allowed] with no critique of Islam [not possible as it has no negative features] and that switches and blanks-out terminology [Islam and muslims apparently interchangeable, but only through the matrix of appeal to prejudice in answering ideological criticisms] depending on the needs of the argument, without recognising the double-standards or contradictions involved [Americans can have a hostile view of Islam, but the reverse is by definition impossible].

I don't have a problem with understanding how people might have arrived at this outcome. That's fine. But that's not the issue. American's looking to ban the construction of a freaking Sufi Mosque is the issue.
 
Charlie Brooker lends his thoughts:
Things seem awfully heated in America right now; so heated you could probably toast a marshmallow by jabbing it on a stick and holding it toward the Atlantic. Millions are hopping mad over the news that a bunch of triumphalist Muslim extremists are about to build a "victory mosque" slap bang in the middle of Ground Zero.

The planned "ultra-mosque" will be a staggering 5,600ft tall – more than five times higher than the tallest building on Earth – and will be capped with an immense dome of highly-polished solid gold, carefully positioned to bounce sunlight directly toward the pavement, where it will blind pedestrians and fry small dogs. The main structure will be delimited by 600 minarets, each shaped like an upraised middle finger, and housing a powerful amplifier: when synchronised, their combined sonic might will be capable of relaying the muezzin's call to prayer at such deafening volume, it will be clearly audible in the Afghan mountains, where thousands of terrorists are poised to celebrate by running around with scarves over their faces, firing AK-47s into the sky and yelling whatever the foreign word for "victory" is.

I'm exaggerating. But I'm only exaggerating a tad more than some of the professional exaggerators who initially raised objections to the "Ground Zero mosque". They keep calling it the "Ground Zero mosque", incidentally, because it's a catchy title that paints a powerful image – specifically, the image of a mosque at Ground Zero.

When I heard about it – in passing, in a soundbite – I figured it was a US example of the sort of inanely confrontational fantasy scheme Anjem Choudary might issue a press release about if he fancied winding up the tabloids for the 900th time this year. I was wrong. The "Ground Zero mosque" is a genuine proposal, but it's slightly less provocative than its critics' nickname makes it sound. For one thing, it's not at Ground Zero. Also, it isn't a mosque.

Wait, it gets duller. It's not being built by extremists either. Cordoba House, as it's known, is a proposed Islamic cultural centre, which, in addition to a prayer room, will include a basketball court, restaurant, and swimming pool. Its aim is to improve inter-faith relations. It'll probably also have comfy chairs and people who smile at you when you walk in, the monsters.

To get to the Cordoba Centre from Ground Zero, you'd have to walk in the opposite direction for two blocks, before turning a corner and walking a bit more. The journey should take roughly two minutes, or possibly slightly longer if you're heading an angry mob who can't hear your directions over the sound of their own enraged bellowing.

Perhaps spatial reality functions differently on the other side of the Atlantic, but here in London, something that is "two minutes' walk and round a corner" from something else isn't actually "in" the same place at all. I once had a poo in a pub about two minutes' walk from Buckingham Palace. I was not subsequently arrested and charged with crapping directly onto the Queen's pillow. That's how "distance" works in Britain. It's also how distance works in America, of course, but some people are currently pretending it doesn't, for daft political ends.

New York being a densely populated city, there are lots of other buildings and businesses within two blocks of Ground Zero, including a McDonald's and a Burger King, neither of which has yet been accused of serving milkshakes and fries on hallowed ground. Regardless, for the opponents of Cordoba House, two blocks is too close, period. Frustratingly, they haven't produced a map pinpointing precisely how close is OK.

That's literally all I'd ask them in an interview. I'd stand there pointing at a map of the city. Would it be offensive here? What about here? Or how about way over there? And when they finally picked a suitable spot, I'd ask them to draw it on the map, sketching out roughly how big it should be, and how many windows it's allowed to have. Then I'd hand them a colour swatch and ask them to decide on a colour for the lobby carpet. And the conversation would continue in this vein until everyone in the room was in tears. Myself included.

That hasn't happened. Instead, 70% of Americans are opposed to the "Ground Zero mosque", doubtless in many cases because they've been led to believe it literally is a mosque at Ground Zero. And if not . . . well, it must be something significant. Otherwise why would all these pundits be so angry about it? And why would anyone in the media listen to them with a straight face?

According to a recent poll, one in five Americans believes Barack Obama is a Muslim, even though he isn't. A quarter of those who believe he's a Muslim also claimed he talks about his faith too much. Americans aren't dumb. Clearly these particular Americans have either gone insane or been seriously misled. Where are they getting their information?

Sixty per cent said they learned it from the media. Which means it's time for the media to give up.

Seriously, broadcasters, journalists: just give up now. Because either you're making things worse, or no one's paying attention anyway. May as well knock back a few Jagermeisters, unplug the autocue, and just sit there dumbly repeating whichever reality-warping meme the far right wants to go viral this week. What's that? Obama is Gargamel and he's killing all the Smurfs? Sod it. Whatever. Roll titles.
 
i think u r going off on a tangent that has nothing to with my earlier point.....which was that nobody has opposed muslims from praying in the pentagon memorial chapel.....if the problem was REALLY realted to islamophobia, there would have been protests at the pentagon

I thought the issue was Muslims using a prayer space close to a place that was targeted by Muslim extremists in the 9/11 attacks - that offends some people because it's 'hallowed ground' or whatever, and should not be used by Muslims for prayer-related purposes. At least that's what has been repeated in this thread by those who oppose.

As such, those against the community centre should also be against the Pentagon mosque, which is even closer to an attack site (from what I read, it's only a few steps away). Since they're not, it's hinting us to the fact that those opposed to the community centre are opposed for another reason.

Likely what is happening is they are hearing "we oppose the ground zero mosque!" from friends, media talking heads, community leaders, etc. and others who share their ideology. They follow suit because they feel it's a valid cause. If they were honestly against it for the reasons they cite, the outrage would extend to the Pentagon mosque.
 
How many failed attacks have we have in the last 9 years from american muslims?

How many office shootings have we had from “regular” Americans?

I want to come back to an important point.

You would only seek to block a KKK march if there was a threat to public safety. You make no mention of public opinion in regards to this view.

You seek to block the building of the mosque solely based on public opinion, as you have provided no other reason for your opposition.

Why the difference?
 
I thought the issue was Muslims using a prayer space close to a place that was targeted by Muslim extremists in the 9/11 attacks - that offends some people because it's 'hallowed ground' or whatever, and should not be used by Muslims for prayer-related purposes. At least that's what has been repeated in this thread by those who oppose.

As such, those against the community centre should also be against the Pentagon mosque, which is even closer to an attack site (from what I read, it's only a few steps away). Since they're not, it's hinting us to the fact that those opposed to the community centre are opposed for another reason.

Likely what is happening is they are hearing "we oppose the ground zero mosque!" from friends, media talking heads, community leaders, etc. and others who share their ideology. They follow suit because they feel it's a valid cause. If they were honestly against it for the reasons they cite, the outrage would extend to the Pentagon mosque.

Or to the existing building that the planned Mosque/Community Centre will replace that is already used by Muslims to pray.
 
Interesting cover, for 3 reasons that sumarise the totalitarian filters at work in this discussion -

1) It is acceptable to ask if America is Islamophobic, but unnacceptable to ask if Islam is Americaphobic. [Control of the discourse - there is apparently no contradiction in having the freedom to question America, but no freedom to question Islam]
Islam isn't anti-american. I remember back in thread one here you said you understood Islam very well, clearly you don't.
If Islam is anti-american, then why do we have Muslim senators and representatives, including one from Minnesota.

2) The image is ambiguous - it can represent the muslim perception that America will take over their religion as much as the American perception that Islam will take over the West. Yet the first perception must be filtered out and forbidden, it simply does not exist.
Islam will take over America? I thought we dealt with this misperception in the other thread. If someone lives in America for a few generations, they will adopt our culture. We are very much like the Borg that way.:borg:
3) The question raised switches from Islam to muslims with the usual deliberate distortion. The false question posited has already been answered

False question - "Is America Islamophobic"

by

"...how the US regards muslims"
Point? A signifigant minority in America regards muslims as less than good because of the blatant Islamophibia displayed by one news agency funded by the anti-christ.

Islam can only be defined through its positive features. When negative features are brought up, Islam slips away from definition. Thus the language rule is:

positive attribution - Islam can be used as a concept
negative attribution - muslims must be substituted for the term "Islam" which by definition can never be questioned because this switching will always take place
Okay, start listing off the bad parts in Islam. I can find similar bits in Christianity and Judaism. For an atheist you seem remarkable concerned about a religion.
So another discussion about "Islam" that is a one-sided critique of America [allowed] with no critique of Islam [not possible as it has no negative features] and that switches and blanks-out terminology [Islam and muslims apparently interchangeable, but only through the matrix of appeal to prejudice in answering ideological criticisms] depending on the needs of the argument, without recognising the double-standards or contradictions involved [Americans can have a hostile view of Islam, but the reverse is by definition impossible].
What? Islam has freaky nutters, America has freaky nutters in the lines of Ed Gien, Jeffry Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, and so on.
How can there be an informed debate about the mosque, if idiots associate Muslims directly with Al-Qaeda? Can you have an informed discussion involving Christianity if one party thinks all Christians are the love-child of the LRA and IRA?
 
He was with Christian Identity... They are radical Christians, not agnostics. Now where is the link?

Proof please, because I cant find anything about McVeigh being a member of that. Most likely it is an unfounded allegation, or you have made more of the relationship than it was.

I will gladly match it with links showing his views around the time of his crime. Or you can google Christian Identity and Tim McVeigh and tell me all about his agnosticm.

I have his own words. If you know so much about it, you know his comments in regards to it. He was raised Roman Catholic, but obviously didnt stay that way. Christians dont say 'science is my religion'. Who does?

I didn't bring SP up, you did that, you quoted the "drugs are bad, umkay..." line to support your position on drugs and then you accused me of getting my morals from SP.

That wasnt a SP reference, and you were the one who brought up SP first.

You're defending the mis-treatment of this guy because of what somebody else did - thats a fact Jack. But you, being a Christian, dont want to be mis-treated because of Fred Phelps and his clan. How can one be so oblivious to hypocrisy and still be a Christian when Jesus condemned it more than anything else?

No, you are quite mistaken here. Again, I never said any such thing, and you alleging it is getting to the point of harassment along religious lines. Stop it.

You denied violating the religious liberty of Americans.

I still deny it.

The drug war is action, and you support it even though there are religions that use the banned drugs.

:rolleyes:

Oh wow. There are religions that also demand human sacrifice. You ok with that too in the name of religious freedom?

Give me a friggen break. :rolleyes:

So dont give me that nonsense and then accuse me of lying.

You have been saying things that are blatently untrue about me. Thats just a simple fact.

I have now asked you to stop. I suggest you do and not take it any further.

As for the Pledge of Allegiance, it violates the religious liberty of children by coercing them into claiming allegiance to the state's God.

:rolleyes:

No, it doesnt.

Sigh.

Where to you live Beserker? In the USA? And you think all this?

Wow.

You dont understand the definition of freedom

As a soldier, I am positive I understand it far more than you do.

You dont even know what freedom means.

See the comment above.

And I explained the wisdom of building the mosque, y'all are making us out to be liars before the eyes of the world and that helps enemy recruitment.

Again, I thought those sufis were pacifists.

Or I guess you are admitting that all muslims across the world will view this as a victory mosque.

Which is it?

I didn't know our religious liberty required a test

There is not religious test for holding political office. Nor for having freedom of speech.

Am I ever going to get an answer to this post or is it just going to be ignored? I usually just get ignored when I start asking questions MobBoss has no answer for, so it wouldn't be a first:

Most likely I already answered it, but you whine like this when you dont like the answer.

But Muslims already worship that close in proximity to ground zero. Muslims already go to the exact building that the Cordoba House development will replace, to worship Allah -- they just don't call the building a mosque. It's okay for them to use that building as a place of worship, just as long as they don't call it a mosque?

Yeah, I already did answer that and your earlier comment was simply a whine.

My objection is to building a mosque near ground zero. I dont know how much clearer I can be on that. Muslims, like everyone else, have the freedom of relgion to pray wherever they want. That doesnt mean the current building is a mosque.

You would only seek to block a KKK march if there was a threat to public safety. You make no mention of public opinion in regards to this view.

Already commented on earlier.

Why the difference?

Because this isnt a freedom of religion argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom