Unf**king Believable, A mosque to be built at Ground Zero

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by pavlosmarcos, Jun 8, 2010.

  1. phlogistician Banned Banned

    And you are interchanging faith and nationality to suit your agenda.

    It's apples to oranges, and dishonest debate.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. phlogistician Banned Banned

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    No sir. I am talking about unfair exploitation. If Muslim states bar non-muslims from their belief and forbid churches and temples - why should you want a mosque in non-muslim countries?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Shhh! Not so loud...
  8. phlogistician Banned Banned

    I thought we were talking about the USA, not some 'non-muslim' country?
  9. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member

    The secret's safe. There ain't nobody listening.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    If that mosque had been built by the Cordoba Initiative with Saudi financing as a large and prominent missionary "cultural center", to provide a central attraction and celebratory focus for Muslims from around the world, on land made available by the success of the 9/11 project, I would object to it on the same grounds.

    As you have just demonstrated, those of us who object to this building are not (necessarily, there's always a few bigots) objecting to its being a mosque, or Muslim in general, or merely near the location of a 9/11 target. An ordinary place of worship, meeting the needs of local Muslims, is not the issue. There are a lot of them in New York, on military bases, and all over the US, that have not made headlines or drawn loud protests.
    We've heard it before. Many times. It's not improving with age. It is an annoyance, as Assange observes, which repetition will not convert into plausible contribution - quite otherwise.
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2010
  11. superstring01 Moderator

    I had an argument with my cousin about this.

    It's insane to see/hear usually strict constitutionalists suddenly descend into religious authoritarians when the question comes to that mosque.

  12. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member

    Well, you and the 99.9% that makes up the "we" in your pocket should go right ahead and continue observing your Assange.
    No one expects you to pull your collective heads out of the "sand" and listen to ordinary people.
    Not with the multitude of experts on their payroll available to keep your heads full of their fairytales.
    You aren't expected to look up from whatever distraction your occupied with and even see it coming.
    I regret to have wasted some of the little time you have left and bother you with such an annoyance.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2010
  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    I'm sorry: am I on that side? Please define explicitly. And should Muslim-Americans opposed to the mosque be taken seriously also?

    Actually, a minor snag has seemingly occurred: the developer of the site only owns half the proposed site. The other half is owned by Con Edison.

    Paterson might well pass it, obviously.

    One might also argue that the full exercise of the American legal system is a validation of the Constitution; I would think that this case in particular would be such an example.

    But is a project pushed by Rauf and likely financed by Saudi Arabia - since I'm given to understand that domestic donations for the project top out at a staggering $200 - likely to promulgate "true information about the faith"? Or do the Saudis have it right?

    Normal no understand. People rephrase to seen should?

    This isn't certain at this point. Call me a cynic. No, go ahead: call me one.
  14. phlogistician Banned Banned

    So what's your problem exactly?

    The Cordoba Institute? Their mission statement sounds quite laudable;

    "Cordoba Initiative (CI) aims to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, steering the world back to the course of mutual recognition and respect and away from heightened tensions.

    But it seems you want to keep the tensions? Why can't you be accepting of their culture?
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    They've got a laudable "mission statement"? Cool. Is it going to be in a nice frame on the lobby wall?

    Is it going to carry the names and affiliations of the major financial backers of this center? Because I would like to know who they are.

    What culture would that be? Saudi Arabia's? I'm not going to be accepting of that culture in my country, no.

    And if they don't know any better than to site something called the Cordoba House on the erstwhile location of a building destroyed by self-identified Islamic jihadist terrorism, while describing the circumstances of their acquisition as the workings of a "divine hand", tension seems a likely feature of their future for many years.
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    In latest news the court has denied the landmark bla bla claim and hence [to Abe Foxman's utter chagrin] the construction of the Cordoba Mosque will proceed as planned.
  17. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Actually, they don't own all of the site. Coitus interruptus, but without the rhythm.
  18. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    that's probably most strict constitutionalists they are that way right up until it interferes with what they want. and most get hung up because of religion the morality BS.
  19. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Well, you can go and see, once it's built, 'cos you aren't going to stop it.

    So you are against the centre because YOU DON'T KNOW who is paying for it?

    Islamic culture, and you're just going to have to bite that one, Muslims are just as much American citizens as you are. It's guaranteed by the constituion. Unless you're some un-American and don't like the constitution, of course.

    More Muslims died in the towers than in the planes. Muslims were victims too. I don't get your point.

    Oh yes I do. You're a bigot.
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Saudi Arabian culture is Islamic culture? Inherently?
  21. Emil Valued Senior Member


    Tell a few reasons,why muslims want to build at Ground Zero and not elsewhere a muslim cultural center?
  22. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    I did not say that you were on their side in the push to ban mosques more generally, but you do shae the same high quality thinking when it comes to ascertaining the legal rights of those building the the Park 51 mosque. Also, as I said, they are clearly on your side (even if you are not on theirs).

    This is a legal issue I was not expecting. My side will still win, of course, but I do agree that if a private company owned the land and was not willing to sell it to them, they'd be SOL. But, in reality, this is only a delay. The Muslims have a valid purchase option and ConEd isn't argung it has the right to breach it.

    The Public Service Commission is a government body. As such they cannot discriminate against the sale on the basis of the speech or the religion that will be practiced on the new site...again, it's the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution...and the fact that the land is already leased to this SoHo Properties means that the land isn't being used for a public purpose. The Public Service Commission only has grounds to block it if the sale would interfere with public utility services. If that were the case, they should have blocked the lease of that land in the first place.

    Besides, if you believe the Cordoba Institute is a bunch of terrorists...if they get denied the sale they will sue NYS for millions and win...and by your logic, that money will no doubt fund terrorism. So you should let them build their mosque.

    It can be if the claims are legitimate, but what we actually saw was a bunch of bigots browbeating the Landmarks Commission hoping they would decide to protect the Burlington Coat Factory *not* because it is particularly historic, but because people don't want Muslims to have a mosque near ground zero.

    They wanted the commission to set aside that pesky First Amendment and vote against a particular point of view (whether the Cordoba House holds to that particular view or not), and a strong sense that the minority's rights are conditional on the majority agreeing to honor them. When that is the argument, the only victry for the Constitution is when that kind of bigotry is rightfully dismissed.

    You certainly have the right to ask questions, but no right to compel others to answer. Feel free to learn what you can from those who want to answer you, but you don't get a private subpoena power just because you fear the effects of radical Islam and you believe based on limited evidence that Rauf is a radical.

    Even if you did have a right to have all your questions answered, I strongly suspect your side, if not you personally, would never be happy. If the answers they gave made the project seem benign, they would be accused of lying and fabricating the evidence. And, more likely, if these Muslims had even one however tenuous connection to a radical, then your side would declare the desire to see their rights to be suspended even more.
  23. phlogistician Banned Banned

    I haven't said that.

    The centre being built is for the promotion of Muslim culture. Seem people are trying to attach a bunch of baggage to it.

Share This Page