WTC Mosque Part Four!!!

[MobBoss]

That's the best point I've read on this page (haven't read the last couple pages)

and I see that MobBoss has no response for it.

What response should I give to someone that refuses to acknowledge valid opposition as valid?

His discription of the opposition is just dismissive because he doesnt agree with it and thats it. /shrug.

For example, an even better reason to not build the mosque is that it would show muslims actually care about the nations sensitivity about 9/11, and actually make muslim/non-muslim relations a bit better...

Thats a valid point, irregardless of people around here acknowledging it as such or not.

 

[JollyRoger]

He may have hay fever and just sneezed. That could be enough to scatter the substance of the oppositional arguments so far.

 

[warpus]

What response should I give to someone that refuses to acknowledge valid opposition as valid?

His discription of the opposition is just dismissive because he doesnt agree with it and thats it. /shrug.

For example, an even better reason to not build the mosque is that it would show muslims actually care about the nations sensitivity about 9/11, and actually make muslim/non-muslim relations a bit better...

Thats a valid point, irregardless of people around here acknowledging it as such or not.

He said:

The only reason it could be considered "not a good idea" is because people are opposed to it; so the people who are opposed to it are basically arguing that an opinion is worth considering simply because it is held.

I have yet to hear a better reason than "people are opposed to it" to oppose park51.

Is there a better reason, or not? Cause if not, essentially the reasoning is: "We are opposed to this thing you want to do! Why? Because it's a bad idea. Why? Because we're opposed to it!"

As for the other points raised on the previous page, I'll have to agree with them too. For instance, using your free speech rights to attempt to convince someone to "voluntarily" give away one of their rights. And if they don't, you try to convince them AGAIN.. and again and again until they give up that right.. that they are entitled to have.

 

[MobBoss]

As for the other points raised on the previous page, I'll have to agree with them too. For instance, using your free speech rights to attempt to convince someone to "voluntarily" give away one of their rights. And if they don't, you try to convince them AGAIN.. and again and again until they give up that right.. that they are entitled to have.

If you havent noticed...thats how peaceful protest works....

 

[JollyRoger]

Wouldn't it improve muslim/non-muslim relations if non-muslims stopped whining about a community center built 4 blocks away from where muslims used to pray? It seems it is already within the power of the opposers here to improve the relationship by simply closing their pieholes.

 

[MobBoss]

Wouldn't it improve muslim/non-muslim relations if non-muslims stopped whining about a community center built 4 blocks away from where muslims used to pray? It seems it is already within the power of the opposers here to improve the relationship by simply closing their pieholes.

Well, it might have even improved relations further had radical muslims not flown jets into the towers to begin with...

People are a bit sensitive about that, thus the reason their pieholes are opening in the first place...

 

[warpus]

If you havent noticed...thats how peaceful protest works....

Sure, but usually the protesters have a good reason for taking away someone's evolution-given rights.

These guys don't seem to.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, it might have even improved relations further had radical muslims not flown jets into the towers to begin with...

People are a bit sensitive about that, thus the reason their pieholes are opening in the first place...

Well, since religious fanatics flew planes into a buildings, can we improve religious/non-religious relations by removing all religious structures from the 4 block area?

 

[MobBoss]

Sure, but usually the protesters have a good reason for taking away someone's evolution-given rights.

These guys don't seem to.

Evolution given rights?

Huh?

And again, I dont know how many times I have to repeat this for it to sink in...the protestors havent taken away anyones rights. Sigh.

 

[PiMan]

Evolution given rights?

Huh?

God given rights, but without any gods.

 

[MobBoss]

God given rights, but without any gods.

Why not just say constitutional rights then?

 

[PiMan]

Because it is not in everyone's constitution. The US Constitution, yes, but I don't know if it is in the Canadian Constitution, and it is not in the Australian Constitution.

 

[MobBoss]

Because it is not in everyone's constitution. The US Constitution, yes, but I don't know if it is in the Canadian Constitution, and it is not in the Australian Constitution.

Arent we discussing an issue in the USA?

 

[PiMan]

Yes, but Warpus is not in the US, and it doesn't address a belief that these rights extend beyond the borders of the US.
Although there is no need to address that in this argument as I see it, but that's the reason as I understand it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

For example, an even better reason to not build the mosque is that it would show muslims actually care about the nations sensitivity about 9/11, and actually make muslim/non-muslim relations a bit better...

A reason to support the mosque is that it would show non-muslims actually care about the muslim's sensitivity not to be grouped with the extremists, and actually make muslim/non-muslim relations a bit better ...

edit: I do have a question for those who oppose the mosque due to offensiveness.

Are you yourself offended, or are you opposed to the mosque because other people are/might be offended?

 

[kiwitt]

Hmmm ... an interesting idea ...

I am perplexed that so many of my friends are against a mosque being built
near Ground Zero. I think it should be the goal of every American to be
tolerant. The mosque should be allowed, in an effort to promote this tolerance.
That is why I also propose that two gay nightclubs be opened next door to the
mosque thereby promoting more tolerance - this time from within the mosque.

We could call the clubs "The Turban Cowboy" and "You Mecca Me So Hot".
Next door should be a butcher’s shop that specialises in pork and would have an
open barbeque with spare ribs as its daily special.

Across the street a very daring lingerie store called "Victoria Keeps Nothing
Secret” with sexy mannequins in the window modelling the goods.

Next door to the lingerie shop, there would be room for an Adult Toy Shop
(Koranal Knowledge?), its name in flashing neon lights, and on the other side a
liquor store.....................maybe call it "Morehammered"?

Would be interesting to see how they would react to the above.

Btw: trying not to troll, but I believe tolerance should go both ways

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hmmm ... an interesting idea ...

Would be interesting to see how they would react to the above.

Btw: trying not to troll, but I believe tolerance should go both ways

The difference between that amusing idea and the mosque is the mosque is not being build with the sole purpose to provoke. I'm not saying I'd be against either the mosque or any of those venues proposed. But I don't believe the mosque is being built with the purpose of pissing people off, while those ideas clearly are.

 

[civver_764]

For example, an even better reason to not build the mosque is that it would show muslims actually care about the nations sensitivity about 9/11, and actually make muslim/non-muslim relations a bit better...

And Rosa Parks should've just moved to the back of the bus.

 

[Cheetah]

I can't believe this has reached its 4th thread, and more than 500 posts into that as well...

But for what it's worth, I would like to share some Norwegian news with you all:

http://www.dagbladet.no/2010/10/19/nyheter/jonas_gahr_store/saudi-arabia/innenriks/13903104/

Saudi Arabia wants to build mosques in Norway
Jonas Gahr Støre says no.

Foreign minister Jonas Gahr Støre (Ap) will stop Saudi Arabia from financing mosques in Norway.

The Saudi Arabian government and rich citisens want to build mosques for several million dollars in Norway. This is allowed according to the Norwegian laws concerning economic support to religious faiths, as long as the Norwegian government first approves of the support, writes VG [a Norwegian newspaper].

In a reply to Tawfiiq Islamic Centre the Foreign Ministry writes that it would be "a paradox and unnatural if approval was given to financial support from sources in a country where there is no freedom of religion".

- We could simply have said no, by principle the Foreign Ministry does not give approval for this kind of support. But when we have already been asked, we would like to use the opportunity to add that an approval would be paradoxical as long as it is illegal to establish Christian communities in Saudi Arabia, says Støre to VG.

State secretary Espen Barth Eide is visiting Saudi Arabia today, and will bring up the topic of financial support:

- I understand that many of my European colleagues have the same problem, and Norway intends to bring the topic up in the Council of Europe, says Støre.

The answer from the Foreign Ministry is directed to Taqfiiq Islamic Centre, but Støre says that the religious community Alnor, which intends to build a mosque in Tromsø with support from a Saudi Arabian businessman, will get the same kind of answer.

(NTB)

I understand that the new Islamic centre in New York will be financed by domestic sources however.

It is an interesting argument nonetheless, if there were any support from Saudi Arabia.

 

[useless]

Martin Luther King should of stabalised Black-White relations by not being so uppity, he should of dealt with it!