Interesting. . .
Now let me preface again. I think this group should have a right to build their mosque on their property.
But this is interesting none the less.
The Imam leading this charge Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf is well known for his book:
What's right with Islam IS What's Right with America
He travels the world on behalf of our own State Department promoting Islamic/American relations.
This same book is also published in Aribic. . .under the name:
The Call From the WTC Rubble
Islamic Da'wah From The Heart of America Post-9/11
BTW, Da'wah means to issue a summons or to invite. So for him to say that the choice of site had nothing to do with 9/11 is a bit of a stretch.
How far away is far enough?
How close is too close?
There will always be issues.
People will say "in the name of (insert their religion here)"...but only their interpretation of it.
If the funding comes through and it is built, it will be just a building with a religious leader standing in it. There's no magical powers for people to worry about. Their loved ones killed in the attack on 9/11 will not be disturbed by this.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 16, 2010, 02:08:39 PM
So for him to say that the choice of site had nothing to do with 9/11 is a bit of a stretch.
Again, you're overthinking this.
I've read there are two older mosques closer to or equidistant to the old World Trade Center site. They've regularly had to turn people away because there's no more room.
The Cordoba site was built, it's apparent, because there was a demand for it.
Of course location is a consideration -- especially when a lot of people in that area want those services. Duh.
One voice curiously silent through all this is that of 9/11 victim's families and survivors. I'd like to hear what they think before I press too harsh of a judgement on the issue. The tinfoil hatter in me says we need not look at this on face value as another peaceful mosque since Islam has a history of building mosques on the site of great victories. The symbolism it could represent would be repugnant to a lot of people who chose to take that view of it.
The claims are that Imam Feisal thinks American law should more closely resemble Shariah law.
The radio was ablaze with this this morning, well it has been for weeks, but since POTUS Obama finally spoke up, it's more newsworthy today.
I've seen scant accounts of the Imam through the MSM, so it's left pretty much to individual bloggers to investigate what he's all about, here's one take:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/everything-you-need-to-know-about-imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-ground-zero-mosque-imam/
Quote from: Conan71 on August 16, 2010, 03:16:43 PM
One voice curiously silent through all this is that of 9/11 victim's families and survivors. I'd like to hear what they think before I press too harsh of a judgement on the issue.
This group is none too happy:
Quote9/11 Families Stunned by Presidents Support of Mosque at Ground Zero
New York, NY, Aug. 14 — Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see. Since that dark day, Americans have been asked to bear the burden of defending those values, again and again and again. Now this president declares that the victims of 9/11 and their families must bear another burden. We must stand silent at the last place in America where 9/11 is still remembered with reverence or risk being called religious bigots.
http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/?p=4829
Edited to add: The location can't be all bad, after all Hamas supports it.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/hamas_nod_for_gz_mosque_cSohH9eha8sNZMTDz0VVPI
Our country has not had a stellar record when it comes to religious freedom. Catholic churches were relegated to the outskirts of town in some rural communities. Synagogues have been burned and bombed. Jehovah's Witnesses were barred from going door to door and were prosecuted for refusing to repeat the pledge of allegiance. Mormons were pretty much run out of the country. And let's not forget Massachusetts throwing out all those radical Quakers back in the colonial period.
But when you cut through all the crap and all the political posturing and exploitation of this for political ends, you're confronted with two questions. First, do you truly believe in religious freedom? If your answer is 'yes' then it means you believe that even those with beliefs wildly contradictory to your own enjoy the same freedom that you have. There is no "yes, but...." Second, do you believe that local governments can decide local issues in ways that are open and fair? Admittedly, this one is the tougher question, because local governments have done things that were decidedly underhanded, unfair, and under the table.
Rights aren't about the majority views. They're about the right of an individual to worship, speak, or assemble with others as he chooses, not as the majority dictates. All the smoke screens in this story are meant to obscure that simple fact.
Quote from: Ed W on August 16, 2010, 04:09:05 PM
Our country has not had a stellar record when it comes to religious freedom. Catholic churches were relegated to the outskirts of town in some rural communities. Synagogues have been burned and bombed. Jehovah's Witnesses were barred from going door to door and were prosecuted for refusing to repeat the pledge of allegiance. Mormons were pretty much run out of the country. And let's not forget Massachusetts throwing out all those radical Quakers back in the colonial period.
But when you cut through all the crap and all the political posturing and exploitation of this for political ends, you're confronted with two questions. First, do you truly believe in religious freedom? If your answer is 'yes' then it means you believe that even those with beliefs wildly contradictory to your own enjoy the same freedom that you have. There is no "yes, but...." Second, do you believe that local governments can decide local issues in ways that are open and fair? Admittedly, this one is the tougher question, because local governments have done things that were decidedly underhanded, unfair, and under the table.
Rights aren't about the majority views. They're about the right of an individual to worship, speak, or assemble with others as he chooses, not as the majority dictates. All the smoke screens in this story are meant to obscure that simple fact.
Good post.
Or, to summarize, are you for the First Amendment, or are you against it?
Quote from: Ed W on August 16, 2010, 04:09:05 PM
Our country has not had a stellar record when it comes to religious freedom. Catholic churches were relegated to the outskirts of town in some rural communities. Synagogues have been burned and bombed. Jehovah's Witnesses were barred from going door to door and were prosecuted for refusing to repeat the pledge of allegiance. Mormons were pretty much run out of the country. And let's not forget Massachusetts throwing out all those radical Quakers back in the colonial period.
But when you cut through all the crap and all the political posturing and exploitation of this for political ends, you're confronted with two questions. First, do you truly believe in religious freedom? If your answer is 'yes' then it means you believe that even those with beliefs wildly contradictory to your own enjoy the same freedom that you have. There is no "yes, but...." Second, do you believe that local governments can decide local issues in ways that are open and fair? Admittedly, this one is the tougher question, because local governments have done things that were decidedly underhanded, unfair, and under the table.
Crap? What "crap" would that be, that some people don't want a mosque built near the location where 3,000 innocent Americans were murdered by members of that faith will worship?
Personally, I am not offended at all about the location of this mosque. It's just that people who lost loved ones at the hands of barbarians might, just might, be offended. They, in my opinion, have a right to be heard.
Ed, that's as good a reasoning of the First Amendment as there is.
Consider this though: If this Mosque is a symbol of good will and a peaceful place of worship, wouldn't the Imam and his supporters listen to the sensitivity which is caused over the issue and consider locating the mosque elsewhere instead of causing unrest? One would hope they would simply say: "You know, this is not a great idea, we will move it to a different place."
I have an odd feeling this mosque could be a target of frequent vandalism and therefore "hate crimes" and then the lawsuits will start. Yeah, I know letting my head run away with it, but I have a tendency to try and consider all views and potential pitfalls. I'm essentially a problem-solver by profession so it's first nature for me to ask "what if".
If they are not trying to incite anything with the location that just seems a bit naive to me.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 16, 2010, 04:20:05 PM
Ed, that's as good a reasoning of the First Amendment as there is.
Consider this though: If this Mosque is a symbol of good will and a peaceful place of worship, wouldn't the Imam and his supporters listen to the sensitivity which is caused over the issue and consider locating the mosque elsewhere instead of causing unrest? One would hope they would simply say: "You know, this is not a great idea, we will move it to a different place."
I have an odd feeling this mosque could be a target of frequent vandalism and therefore "hate crimes" and then the lawsuits will start. Yeah, I know letting my head run away with it, but I have a tendency to try and consider all views and potential pitfalls. I'm essentially a problem-solver by profession so it's first nature for me to ask "what if".
If they are not trying to incite anything with the location that just seems a bit naive to me.
On the flip side of that, they may have decided the spot not only for the need in the area, but also with those who were muslim that were lost in the attack (and I don't mean the terrorists) in mind. And now that the issue is being pushed, it comes down to a question of why should they have to give up their rights because others don't like it? Sometimes gaining religous freedom comes down taking a stand against those who wish to reduce it.
A little clarity on what is actually being built...
http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/08/16/the-ground-zero-mosque-is-not-a-mosque-or-at-ground-zero
Quote from: Hoss on August 16, 2010, 04:29:22 PM
A little clarity on what is actually being built...
http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/08/16/the-ground-zero-mosque-is-not-a-mosque-or-at-ground-zero
There is that too.
Quote from: custosnox on August 16, 2010, 04:29:55 PM
There is that too.
And the Mayor of New York's comments on it:
http://www.dnainfo.com/20100816/downtown/michael-bloomberg-says-defeat-of-mosque-would-be-sad-day-for-america
Quote from: guido911 on August 16, 2010, 04:17:54 PM
Crap? What "crap" would that be, that some people don't want a mosque built near the location where 3,000 innocent Americans were murdered by members of that faith will worship?
Personally, I am not offended at all about the location of this mosque. It's just that people who lost loved ones at the hands of barbarians might, just might, be offended. They, in my opinion, have a right to be heard.
Well, they do have a right to be head, but no where is there a right to not be offended (if there were you just might be voted off the island there yourself sparky) and there is a right of freedom of religion. So, long as no zoning laws are violated, I'm not really sure how this could be blocked in our "free" nation what with people's actual rights and all.
Quote from: guido911 on August 16, 2010, 04:17:54 PM
Crap? What "crap" would that be, that some people don't want a mosque built near the location where 3,000 innocent Americans were murdered by members of that faith will worship?
You are aware that among the 3,000 dead were several dozen Muslims, correct? (Added: These Muslims in the count had nothing to do with the attack, just to be clear.)
The 9-11 guys were equal-opportunity killers. That's what's been lost amid all the noise.
Quote from: custosnox on August 16, 2010, 04:29:05 PM
On the flip side of that, they may have decided the spot not only for the need in the area, but also with those who were muslim that were lost in the attack (and I don't mean the terrorists) in mind. And now that the issue is being pushed, it comes down to a question of why should they have to give up their rights because others don't like it? Sometimes gaining religous freedom comes down taking a stand against those who wish to reduce it.
Well said.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on August 16, 2010, 04:37:59 PM
You are aware that among the 3,000 dead were several dozen Muslims, correct?
The 9-11 guys were equal-opportunity killers. That's what's been lost amid all the noise.
Actually, the number I heard was 28, but that still falls in line with how many practicing Muslims there are as a percentage of population (about 0.7 percent last I read; the 28 number puts them just shy of 1 percent)
So, are those one percent 'UnAmerican'? I wonder how their families would feel if they said that.
And before people start yapping about 'Islamic Radicalism', let's not forget ALL religions have radicals, at one time or another. Let's not forget a little thing from our Ancient history called The Crusades.
It's interesting that we're taking this time in our election cycle to revisit certain of our constitutional rights, 1st and 14th Amendments being the most under the microscope recently.
Quote from: guido911 on August 16, 2010, 04:17:54 PM
Crap? What "crap" would that be, that some people don't want a mosque built near the location where 3,000 innocent Americans were murdered by members of that faith will worship?
Personally, I am not offended at all about the location of this mosque. It's just that people who lost loved ones at the hands of barbarians might, just might, be offended. They, in my opinion, have a right to be heard.
Given that line of reasoning, Guido, we should abolish Christian churches within sight of the former Murrah building because some radicals with ties to the Christian right killed 170 innocents. We should discriminate against Shinto adherents and Buddhists because they bombed and torpedoed Americans at Pearl Harbor. Maybe we should abolish West Point because their graduates fought to overthrow the government during the late unpleasantness of 1861 to 1865.
You're an attorney, after all, Guido. Which is superior under the law - the First Amendment or your presumed right to not be offended?
Quote from: guido911 on August 16, 2010, 04:17:54 PM
They, in my opinion, have a right to be heard.
As my very conservative step-father often says about liberals who speak out "they have the right to free speech, but no where in the constitution does it give them the right to be heard. They can talk all they want, but no one has to listen"
Quote from: Ed W on August 16, 2010, 05:09:53 PM
Given that line of reasoning, Guido, we should abolish Christian churches within sight of the former Murrah building because some radicals with ties to the Christian right killed 170 innocents. We should discriminate against Shinto adherents and Buddhists because they bombed and torpedoed Americans at Pearl Harbor. Maybe we should abolish West Point because their graduates fought to overthrow the government during the late unpleasantness of 1861 to 1865.
You're an attorney, after all, Guido. Which is superior under the law - the First Amendment or your presumed right to not be offended?
WTH are you talking about?My whole point is that people that lost loved ones at Ground Zero have a right to be heard and, perhaps, not have their objections called "crap" by the likes of you. How many of your loved ones were murdered on 9/11? Me, none, but I can certainly empathize with their pain which is more than I can say about you.
And back off the 1st Amendment crap because its not about whether there is a right to build the mosque. Its like what your dear leader, Obama, says...it's about the "wisdom" to put it there.
Quote from: guido911 on August 16, 2010, 05:33:26 PM
WTH are you talking about?My whole point is that people that lost loved ones at Ground Zero have a right to be heard and, perhaps, not have their objections called "crap" by the likes of you. How many of your loved ones were murdered on 9/11?
While I can't say I've ever had a loved one killed in a terrorist attack, I've lost enough of them to say that I'm offended that they would try to twist their loved ones' death for something so obviously political. By their standard I should get upset every time I see a woman with breast implants.
In any event, the overall religion is not responsible for the actions of the nutters, even when the nutters try to make twisted claims about how their actions are supported by their religion.
Quote from: nathanm on August 16, 2010, 05:40:39 PM
While I can't say I've ever had a loved one killed in a terrorist attack, I've lost enough of them to say that I'm offended that they would try to twist their loved ones' death for something so obviously political. By their standard I should get upset every time I see a woman with breast implants.
In any event, the overall religion is not responsible for the actions of the nutters, even when the nutters try to make twisted claims about how their actions are supported by their religion.
So now those grieving the loss of their loved one are using their losses. Just wow.
I posted this story in another thread; however I believe it is important enough to repost it here. Greg Gutfeld wants to open a gay bar next door to this building.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/greg-gutfield-to-open-a-gay-bar-next-to-ground-zero-mosque-to-cater-to-islamic-gay-men/
And what was the response by a mosque spokesman? Why, its that the bar would offend their sensibilities.
QuoteYou're free to open whatever you like. If you won't consider the sensibilities of Muslims, you're not going to build dialog
Yep, their sensibilities apparently important, whereas those that lost loved ones on 9/11, not so much.
Quote from: guido911 on August 16, 2010, 05:52:22 PM
I posted this story in another thread; however I believe it is important enough to repost it here. Greg Gutfeld wants to open a gay bar next door to this building.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/greg-gutfield-to-open-a-gay-bar-next-to-ground-zero-mosque-to-cater-to-islamic-gay-men/
And what was the response by a mosque spokesman? Why, its that the bar would offend their sensibilities.
Yep, their sensibilities apparently important, whereas those that lost loved ones on 9/11, not so much.
I hope his investors have deeeeep pockets. They're gonna need some serious operating capital to keep that place afloat. Cause they sure as hell won't have any customers.
Also, can you cite the community center's response? I don't find it linked anywhere in your article. And that's mostly because I don't think there was a response at all.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 16, 2010, 03:16:43 PM
One voice curiously silent through all this is that of 9/11 victim's families and survivors. I'd like to hear what they think before I press too harsh of a judgement on the issue. The tinfoil hatter in me says we need not look at this on face value as another peaceful mosque since Islam has a history of building mosques on the site of great victories. The symbolism it could represent would be repugnant to a lot of people who chose to take that view of it.
The claims are that Imam Feisal thinks American law should more closely resemble Shariah law.
The radio was ablaze with this this morning, well it has been for weeks, but since POTUS Obama finally spoke up, it's more newsworthy today.
I've seen scant accounts of the Imam through the MSM, so it's left pretty much to individual bloggers to investigate what he's all about, here's one take:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/everything-you-need-to-know-about-imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-ground-zero-mosque-imam/
Here's a group 9/11 families that's for the mosque. (http://www.peacefultomorrows.org/article.php?id=977) According to TPM (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/pro-mosque-mom-who-lost-pregnant-daughter-in-trade-center-911-families-not-monolithic.php?ref=fpa) it represents close to 250 families.
Quote from: we vs us on August 16, 2010, 06:15:33 PM
Here's a group 9/11 families that's for the mosque. (http://www.peacefultomorrows.org/article.php?id=977) According to TPM (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/pro-mosque-mom-who-lost-pregnant-daughter-in-trade-center-911-families-not-monolithic.php?ref=fpa) it represents close to 250 families.
Wait for it. How long will it be before Gweed declares these families 'UnAmerican'?
Quote from: we vs us on August 16, 2010, 06:08:39 PM
I hope his investors have deeeeep pockets. They're gonna need some serious operating capital to keep that place afloat. Cause they sure as hell won't have any customers.
Also, can you cite the community center's response? I don't find it linked anywhere in your article. And that's mostly because I don't think there was a response at all.
Here is the link which contains the tweet from the Park 51 people,
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/10/ground-zero-mosque-spokesman-to-gutfeld-your-gay-bar-wont-build-dialogue-because-it-doesnt-consider-our-sensibilities/
I believe this building (two blocks away) will be a shining example of one of our greatest freedoms.
Quote from: we vs us on August 16, 2010, 06:15:33 PM
Here's a group 9/11 families that's for the mosque. (http://www.peacefultomorrows.org/article.php?id=977) According to TPM (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/pro-mosque-mom-who-lost-pregnant-daughter-in-trade-center-911-families-not-monolithic.php?ref=fpa) it represents close to 250 families.
And that's wonderful. They are part of the debate now.
Quote from: guido911 on August 16, 2010, 05:33:26 PM
WTH are you talking about?My whole point is that people that lost loved ones at Ground Zero have a right to be heard and, perhaps, not have their objections called "crap" by the likes of you. How many of your loved ones were murdered on 9/11? Me, none, but I can certainly empathize with their pain which is more than I can say about you.
And back off the 1st Amendment crap because its not about whether there is a right to build the mosque. Its like what your dear leader, Obama, says...it's about the "wisdom" to put it there.
You danced around in nicely, but you didn't answer the question. Which is superior, the First Amendment or the right not to be offended? And the "crap" is in using issues like this for political purposes, something you're more than willing to do apparently.
Quote from: Ed W on August 16, 2010, 06:24:30 PM
You danced around in nicely, but you didn't answer the question. Which is superior, the First Amendment or the right not to be offended? And the "crap" is in using issues like this for political purposes, something you're more than willing to do apparently.
I did answer your question. Since it is my opinion this is not a 1st Amendment issue, your question is absolutely irrelevant. Better now? And please do not lecture me on the import of any of the Bill of Rights. As I see it, people opposing the mosque are exercising their 1st amendment rights. But when they do that, people like you crap all over that speech, calling it bigotry, discriminatory, and politically driven.
In your eyes, I guess it is completely impossible that some people that lost loved ones on 9/11 could be sincere and honestly base their opposition on the lack of sensitivity displayed by those pushing the mosque.
As to you last point, I have already stated I do not care one way or the other on the location of the mosque, just that if people are upset, they have a right to speak out. Do you disagree with that?
Guido said;
"So now those grieving the loss of their loved one are using their losses. Just wow."
Yeah... just like Ann Coulter said the 9/11 widows were bimbos and gold diggers just trying to make a buck out of the death of their loved ones! And according to Ann, they couldn't possibly be sincere and honest - just out to make a buck! But then she has always been of the "forces of light and good", huh? How about that wow?
The whole discussion is definitely a political BS game. Newt has his spew all over it, too. This is just stirred up crap from you know who. It truly is as simple as radicals versus mainstream. And if that standard applies, then there are 3 churches literally within 25 feet of the Murrah location on two sides that should be taken by eminent domain and converted to something more secular. Maybe a bar/pool hall? Could start an annex of the Blue Dome district in Oklahoma City!
Where is the umbrage and offense at the exact same situation, shown by this mosque proposal, toward the radical Christian extremist's actions and mainstream Christianity??
The two nearby mosques are apparently overloaded. Part of this is room for people to worship. And the site has already been used, according to reports, for a while as a place for Muslims to come to worship (since sometime in 2009 - I'm guessing right after they bought the place?)
Here is a site that shows the locations of mosques in Manhattan. Two are less than 2000 feet from the site already. One about 3,000 feet. And have been there a long time. (This one will be 600 feet closer, at about 1400 ft. How close is too close? A number, please.)
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=106520383149777542574.00048d68139eb6072d4c2&ll=40.765722,-73.964081&spn=0.202302,0.445976&z=12
Personally, I wonder why we need a church every 64 feet in northeast Oklahoma when so many of them are so greatly under-utilized? Is it really necessary to have 15 or 20 people go off and start a new church?? Personally, I like the small churches and mostly attend one in BA with under 100 people average - and have attended big ones like Asbury and Rhema with thousands. Still a lot of wasted resources having a church for every 42 people in the county. I submit if you cannot find a church home/family that already exists, you haven't attended enough. And you shouldn't start your own. Just a thought.
Quote from: guido911 on August 16, 2010, 06:36:25 PM
In your eyes, I guess it is completely impossible that some people that lost loved ones on 9/11 could be sincere and honestly base their opposition on the lack of sensitivity displayed by those pushing the mosque.
Here I go speaking for someone else again, but I think you've misinterpreted Ed's position (and mine). They can be honestly offended. They can also fail to understand that the people who crashed airplanes into the WTC buildings were no more representative of Muslims than Eric Rudolph or Tim McVeigh.
Of course, talking about the 9/11 families is a complete straw man, given that there has been opposition to mosques and Muslim community centers being built in other cities, including those 3,000 miles away.
Personally, I'm offended by the Catholic Church, but I don't think that gives me the right to tell them where they may or may not build a church.
Quote from: guido911 on August 16, 2010, 05:48:02 PM
So now those grieving the loss of their loved one are using their losses. Just wow.
It's been nearly 10 years. If they're still grieving, they need psychological help. Yes, that's insensitive, but it's also the truth.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 16, 2010, 06:57:57 PM
Guido said;
"So now those grieving the loss of their loved one are using their losses. Just wow."
Yeah... just like Ann Coulter said the 9/11 widows were bimbos and gold diggers just trying to make a buck out of the death of their loved ones! And according to Ann, they couldn't possibly be sincere and honest - just out to make a buck! But then she has always been of the "forces of light and good", huh? How about that wow?
So you are likening those in this forum that accuse those grieving family members that are voicing opposition to the mosque to Ann Coulter?
Quote from: nathanm on August 16, 2010, 07:17:12 PM
Here I go speaking for someone else again, but I think you've misinterpreted Ed's position (and mine). They can be honestly offended. They can also fail to understand that the people who crashed airplanes into the WTC buildings were no more representative of Muslims than Eric Rudolph or Tim McVeigh.
I do not recall this sort of celebration by Christians after the Murrah bombing?
Perhaps you could get me a link.
Nathan, for the most part, you have the RWRE pegged right on, but with this comment, you just showed how young you are. And that you have not yet lost a close family member. 1 year. 10 years. 40 years. For some things, those are just numbers and the grief never strays far away. (Like losing a kid - not me, but several close friends/family.) And "psychological help" isn't a "solution".
The only real consolation is the acceptance of the realization that no matter how long one lives on after the event, it is still just a temporary separation, until you will get to see them again.
No. Not at all.
It's English and that meaning is nowhere near what was written.
Quote from: guido911 on August 16, 2010, 07:23:50 PM
I do not recall this sort of celebration by Christians after the Murrah bombing?
There you go again, ascribing the reactions of a few to the whole. By that standard, all Catholics are pedophiles.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 16, 2010, 07:26:15 PM
Nathan, for the most part, you have the RWRE pegged right on, but with this comment, you just showed how young you are. And that you have not yet lost a close family member.
Actually, I have. Nearly all of them, in fact. Bad stock, I guess. But yes, I am only 30.
There's a difference between being sad for one's loss and actively grieving and attempting to use that grief to block people from exercising their rights.
I say again, it's been nine years, so they should be perfectly capable of keeping their grief from overwhelming their intellect.
That said, they at least have a good excuse. The wingers who are using this for political gain have no such excuse, and make me want to puke.
And there were plenty of "Christians" (Christianists?? Radical extremists with no clue about Jesus, or true Christianity) celebrating the Murrah bombing. (Think Elohim City...)
And plenty going after Muslims after 9/11 as well as Siks (California beating to death.)
I bet most here have seen the t-shirt that says; "Kill 'em All. Let God sort 'em out!!"
Yeah, that's the kind.
Nathan, I agree greatly with your revised comment - spot on.
Quote from: nathanm on August 16, 2010, 07:27:45 PM
There you go again, ascribing the reactions of a few to the whole. By that standard, all Catholics are pedophiles.
First, you brought up the weak Murrah analogy in an effort to argue the existence of extremists on all sides. What happens when you get called on it, why, change the subject of course.
Quote from: guido911 on August 16, 2010, 07:35:54 PM
First, you brought up the weak Murrah analogy in an effort to argue the existence of extremists on all sides. What happens when you get called on it, why, change the subject of course.
It's not changing the subject at all. It's pointing out that your standard is so low that it's meaningless.
There were a lot of militia nutters in Fort Smith around the time of the Murrah bombing. While they weren't openly celebrating in the streets, they were pretty happy with the "success."
Pat Robertson and James Dobson have spoken in favor of bombing abortion clinics.
The nutters are nutters and will be nutters. You can't paint an entire religion with the actions of a few. You can't call Muslims as a whole violent without confronting Christianity's history of violence and misdeeds. Remember the Spanish Inquisition? How about the Troubles, if you'd like a more recent example?
Here is an interesting article (imho) on the subject. Obama weighing in on this issue is when it became really politicized.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/16/2010-08-16_families_not_mike__bam_should_have_the_final_say.html
Allow me to belabor a point, Guido, but there's something I simply don't understand. Are you saying that the sensibilities of the families who lost loved ones at the World Trade Centers over ride the rights of the Muslim community to build and worship in a converted Burlington Coat Factory building?
Quote from: guido911 on August 16, 2010, 07:48:09 PM
Here is an interesting article (imho) on the subject. Obama weighing in on this issue is when it became really politicized.
You hadn't noticed this thing going on for a week before Obama said a word?
Quote from: Ed W on August 16, 2010, 08:26:56 PM
Allow me to belabor a point, Guido, but there's something I simply don't understand. Are you saying that the sensibilities of the families who lost loved ones at the World Trade Centers over ride the rights of the Muslim community to build and worship in a converted Burlington Coat Factory building?
Come on Ed, I have written twice in this thread that I absolutely do not care where the mosque goes. Just that if people want to protest because its location is insensitive, they should not be denigrated.
Quote from: nathanm on August 16, 2010, 08:28:11 PM
You hadn't noticed this thing going on for a week before Obama said a word?
I was aware of the controversy, but it really took off after the pres commented on Friday at a Ramadan dinner, then more so after he clarified his comment the following day.
Actually this has been kicking around for a couple of months at least. The Constitution doesn't address poor taste which is what this falls under. I find it only mildly Funny how liberals get in a twist about a cross out in the desert which was set there to honor deceased war vets yet they are ready to fall all over themselves to dismiss the notion that a 15 story mosque can be construed as a provocative symbol. It's their right but do they have to build it there?
Quote from: nathanm on August 16, 2010, 07:17:12 PM
Personally, I'm offended by the Catholic Church, but I don't think that gives me the right to tell them where they may or may not build a church.
You do have the right to protest them building a church.
The Imam says he wants to build the community center / mosque as a bridge to Americans. A lot of Americans don't see it that way for a variety of reasons. The Muslim community frequently says that Americans need to be more considerate of Muslim sensitivities. It works both ways.
Of course the media spin on it doesn't help. After all, would it even be a real issue if the media hadn't started calling it "ground zero mosque"?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100816/pl_yblog_upshot/news-outlets-split-in-describing-mosque
Quote from: custosnox on August 16, 2010, 09:55:48 PM
Of course the media spin on it doesn't help. After all, would it even be a real issue if the media hadn't started calling it "ground zero mosque"?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100816/pl_yblog_upshot/news-outlets-split-in-describing-mosque
Good point.
The Daily News guy says;
Only this debate isn't about correctness. Or freedom of religion. Or even the idea that if this mosque doesn't get built, it will mean we are now deciding about religious freedom in this country one neighborhood at a time. It is about common sense.
And then he says;
More than that, it is about the constituency of Sept. 11.
To prove that it actually is about political correctness. And just pure crap! We are not in Saudi, or Iran, or Afghanistan. We are in the United States of America! Are we going to keep it that way??
The disparagement of the Murrah analogy is disingenuous. Not to mention just plain lame. According to that, when I take the lunatic ravings of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Elohim City, and the "Newt" with indignation and consider them insensitive, it must be taken lightly, if at all. But if the scripted, incited outrage over Muslims wanting to build a mosque is aired, then everyone should just hide their heads and go away to hide somewhere and just give way to "sensitivity". Blech!!
That's the American way all right.
I'm thinking we ought to go ahead and use eminent domain to take the existing mosques away and turn them into fitness centers or maybe some more Starbucks? That would keep them off the island of Manhattan completely. Would that be far enough away??
Or we could just drive them all away. Send them back to the desert. Let's get Randy Brogdon's buddies to put on their sheets and pointy hats and give them a midnight visit. Maybe they could burn a cross on the sidewalk in front of the mosque? Maybe that would assuage the "sensitivity"??
Quote from: Conan71 on August 16, 2010, 09:29:19 PM
Actually this has been kicking around for a couple of months at least. The Constitution doesn't address poor taste which is what this falls under. I find it only mildly Funny how liberals get in a twist about a cross out in the desert which was set there to honor deceased war vets yet they are ready to fall all over themselves to dismiss the notion that a 15 story mosque can be construed as a provocative symbol. It's their right but do they have to build it there?
I don't think you'll find a "liberal" upset about a church building a cross. You might find one upset with a government doing the same. I wouldn't be too pleased with my government spending money to build a minaret, either.
BTW, I'm sorry I got so fighty earlier. It's just that this, unlike most political issues, cuts right to the core of who we are as a nation. I don't want to live in a place where people aren't free to practice their religion, and I really don't like it when people imply that all Muslims are equivalent to terrorists simply for being Muslim any more than I like it when folks like Bill Maher claim that all Catholics are complicit in the pedophilia of some priests. We need to be more tolerant, not less. Lead by example, you know?
Nathan, how would you feel if you found out the gov't has spent money on mosques? I'm trying to find credible sources which back this up, but apparently, our state department has helped fund the restoration of a couple of mosques overseas as part of a program to help preserve historically significant sites. I've got two issues with this: for one why are we such a freaking donor nation in the first place? Secondly, what is the federal gov't doing spending money on a place of worship?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 16, 2010, 11:07:03 PM
Nathan, how would you feel if you found out the gov't has spent money on mosques? I'm trying to find credible sources which back this up, but apparently, our state department has helped fund the restoration of a couple of mosques overseas as part of a program to help preserve historically significant sites. I've got two issues with this: for one why are we such a freaking donor nation in the first place? Secondly, what is the federal gov't doing spending money on a place of worship?
Personally, I would have mixed feelings on that. On one hand, you right, we shoudln't be footing the bill for something overseas. We have enough domestic financial problems to deal with that we should let others handle their own for a while. On the second, while I strongly support seperation of church and state, I don't think that should be used as a reason to withhold funds for historical restoration. History is important, regadless if it is found in an old hotel or in a house of worship.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 16, 2010, 11:07:03 PM
Nathan, how would you feel if you found out the gov't has spent money on mosques? I'm trying to find credible sources which back this up, but apparently, our state department has helped fund the restoration of a couple of mosques overseas as part of a program to help preserve historically significant sites. I've got two issues with this: for one why are we such a freaking donor nation in the first place? Secondly, what is the federal gov't doing spending money on a place of worship?
Well, I haven't heard about this and therefore don't know specifics, but an easy argument can be made that to fight Islamic terrorism we need to help moderate Islam to prosper. I would be very careful that we should not have moderate Muslims look like American puppets however. It would be interesting to see how and why this is happening, if it is.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 16, 2010, 11:07:03 PM
Nathan, how would you feel if you found out the gov't has spent money on mosques? I'm trying to find credible sources which back this up, but apparently, our state department has helped fund the restoration of a couple of mosques overseas as part of a program to help preserve historically significant sites.
It depends. Was it done for historical preservation or to help promote Islam? I'd generally prefer we'd spend historical preservation funds here in our own country. We have plenty of historical sites in need of saving, after all.
I don't mind when religious institutions get money from the government in a way that is neutral to religion. In other words, they aren't getting the money because of the religion, but because of the social services they provide. Government should not be promoting religion, it should be blind to it. It wouldn't be fair if people didn't get help merely because they are religious, just like it wouldn't be OK if they got help merely because they are religious. If we had an ongoing problem with Government funding religion, I would probably think differently on the subject.
Wow! I heard the talking heads this morning say this is the subject that put the final nail in President Obama's presidency.
Much of the big Hollywood money failed to show up at his fund raiser last night because of his statements. Barbra Streisand was a no show, and several of the 30K seats were vacant.
Even Politico has gotten dirty.
Honest to goodness, the man just does not get it. He might be forced to pull a Palin and resign before his first term is over. He could go off and write his memoirs and build his presidential library. (Both would be half-size, of course.)
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41134.html#ixzz0wsBD1rZj[/i]
I wouldn't have thought this to be the tinderbox issue, but apparently it's a bomb!
Oh, Politico. Is there nothing you won't say to get attention?
What a jackass. Essentially saying the President should forgo doing the right thing so he can get reelected. That attitude is a large part of what's wrong with our country.
Queue Bronx cheer.
Out of all things happening in the world this is what would do it?
The only average people that are freaking out about this? The media looking for ratings and the people outraged by the media looking for ratings.
Quote from: nathanm on August 17, 2010, 09:19:32 AM
Oh, Politico. Is there nothing you won't say to get attention?
What a jackass. Essentially saying the President should forgo doing the right thing so he can get reelected. That attitude is a large part of what's wrong with our country.
I couldn't agree with you more!
Harry Reid has departed with the President on this one. President Obama's mistake is a failure to lead on the issue. He's so afraid of pissing anyone off he's abdicating a leadership role.
This probably goes too deep into hyperbole, but I've heard this likened to having a Nazi museum outside Auschwitz or raising a Japanese flag over Pearl Harbor.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 17, 2010, 11:42:37 AM
Harry Reid has departed with the President on this one. President Obama's mistake is a failure to lead on the issue. He's so afraid of pissing anyone off he's abdicating a leadership role.
This probably goes too deep into hyperbole, but I've heard this likened to having a Nazi museum outside Auschwitz or raising a Japanese flag over Pearl Harbor.
If he was afraid of pissing people off, why did he come out and say that they have the right to build it, however inadvisable that may be?
Personally, I think those analogies are complete BS, but then I don't buy into the idea that all Muslims are responsible for the actions of a few nutjobs. Comparing Islam to Imperial Japan or the Nazi party is offensive at best.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 17, 2010, 11:42:37 AM
Harry Reid has departed with the President on this one. President Obama's mistake is a failure to lead on the issue. He's so afraid of pissing anyone off he's abdicating a leadership role.
This probably goes too deep into hyperbole, but I've heard this likened to having a Nazi museum outside Auschwitz or raising a Japanese flag over Pearl Harbor.
Heard where? See, except on the Interwebs and on cable TV I haven't heard this mentioned by anyone at all. I'm starting to think this is a complete sham of an outrage.
Godwin's Law has been breached now! This thread must end and the person raising the subject loses the argument/discussion!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
It's the law....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 17, 2010, 12:58:57 PM
Godwin's Law has been breached now! This thread must end and the person raising the subject loses the argument/discussion!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
It's the law....
I refer you to FAQs (http://"http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/godwin/") on Godwin's Law, in particular, FAQ 5
Quote
5. What should I do if somebody else invokes Godwin's Law?
The obvious response is to call them on it, say "thread's over",
and declare victory. This is also one of the stupidest possible responses,
because it involves believing far too much in the power of a few rules that
don't say exactly what you wish they said anyway. The proper response to
an invocation is probably to simply followup with a message saying "Oh.
I'm a Nazi? Sure. Bye" and leave, and in most cases even that much of a
post is unnecessary.
Quote from: nathanm on August 17, 2010, 11:52:56 AM
If he was afraid of pissing people off, why did he come out and say that they have the right to build it, however inadvisable that may be?
LOL! Because he was speaking at a Muslim prayer breakfast.
I can just imagine the load that developed in his pants when he was asked the question. :D
Quote from: Gaspar on August 17, 2010, 01:20:21 PM
LOL! Because he was speaking at a Muslim prayer breakfast.
Yeah, it would have been impossible for him to say "I'm not familiar with all of the details surrounding that issue so I'm not going to comment on it." ::)
Your post was self-contradictory. You first said he failed to lead, and then said he pissed off a bunch of people with his statement, which was an example of leading.
heh
Quote from: nathanm on August 17, 2010, 01:25:26 PM
Yeah, it would have been impossible for him to say "I'm not familiar with all of the details surrounding that issue so I'm not going to comment on it." ::)
Yes, and that would be a lie. He could have said, and echoed majority sentiment on the issue:
"I agree that you should have the right to build a Mosque anywhere that it is legal to do so, but I disagree with the choice of this location as that it will serve to strain a relationship with Islam that we are trying so hard to develop, and in many cases repair."
"On this location, rather than a symbol of beauty and tranquility, I fear your Mosque will become a target for hatred, misunderstanding and darkness."
"I ask you, the leaders of your faith to reconsider. Your choice now will serve as an example of your commitment to building not only a place of worship but a healing bond with those affected by the 9/11 attacks."
Or he could just rattle off some other Bull$hit. Come on. The guy is supposed to be smart, not some simple pandering milk-toast.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 17, 2010, 11:42:37 AM
Harry Reid has departed with the President on this one. President Obama's mistake is a failure to lead on the issue. He's so afraid of pissing anyone off he's abdicating a leadership role.
This probably goes too deep into hyperbole, but I've heard this likened to having a Nazi museum outside Auschwitz or raising a Japanese flag over Pearl Harbor.
sorry, couldn't resist.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 17, 2010, 11:42:37 AM
Harry Reid has departed with the President on this one. President Obama's mistake is a failure to lead on the issue. He's so afraid of pissing anyone off he's abdicating a leadership role.
This probably goes too deep into hyperbole, but I've heard this likened to having a Nazi museum outside Auschwitz or raising a Japanese flag over Pearl Harbor.
Reid departed on this because 1) he's terminally squishy, 2) a bit slow on the uptake, and 3) has never understood message discipline in any sort of meaningful way. The departure was idiotic because it gins up a supposed disagreement between major leadership figures and makes the D's look (yet again) like they don't have a coherent team.
IMO, Obama actually DID lead on this, in the sense that he engaged with the idea at all and offered a substantive (if only slightly walked-back) opinion in prepared -- not impromptu -- remarks directly to the Muslim community at the Ramadan event. It was a strong stand, and remains so. It's Reid in this one who flubbed it so completely.
And Newt Gingrich made the Nazi/Imperial Japan comparison.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 17, 2010, 01:39:51 PM
Yes, and that would be a lie. He could have said, and echoed majority sentiment on the issue:
"I agree that you should have the right to build a Mosque anywhere that it is legal to do so, but I disagree with the choice of this location as that it will serve to strain a relationship with Islam that we are trying so hard to develop, and in many cases repair."
"On this location, rather than a symbol of beauty and tranquility, I fear your Mosque will become a target for hatred, misunderstanding and darkness."
"I ask you, the leaders of your faith to reconsider. Your choice now will serve as an example of your commitment to building not only a place of worship but a healing bond with those affected by the 9/11 attacks."
W T F? Majority opinion? Where did you get THAT?
Your argument about agreeing in principle to freedom of religion but disagreeing with it in practice is , well, unconstitutional. It would be even moreso if the head of the executive branch were to espouse it publicly, even if it were masked, as you suggest, as a plea for civility. As it is, he's simply done his duty, which is to reiterate American Muslims' constitutional rights.
He said that you SHOULD be able to do it but he alluded that he thought it wasn't a good idea. If I were them I would drop it and find a new location. However, I bet finding a place to worship in NY isn't that easy (finding a building, be able to afford it etc etc.)
I'll correct myself about the majority opinion thing. A CNN poll released last week said a majority did oppose it.
Quote from: we vs us on August 17, 2010, 02:25:46 PM
W T F? Majority opinion? Where did you get THAT?
Your argument about agreeing in principle to freedom of religion but disagreeing with it in practice is , well, unconstitutional. It would be even moreso if the head of the executive branch were to espouse it publicly, even if it were masked, as you suggest, as a plea for civility. As it is, he's simply done his duty, which is to reiterate American Muslims' constitutional rights.
I said nothing about "disagreeing with it in practice." The disagreement is with the "choice."
Just like the President may agree with talk radio's right to offer commentary on the radio, but disagree with the "choice" of language as it relates to his job performance.
I don't think anyone is challenging the right of the Cordoba Institute to build a Mosque near Ground Zero. That is simply not in question. I do think that people disagree with the choice of location on the basis that is will serve only to inflame and divide. It becomes political fodder, and food for increased hatred and misunderstanding.
If any elected official uttered that they "don't have a right" to build there, that official should resign or be removed from office for failure to honor the constitution.
Quote from: Trogdor on August 17, 2010, 02:33:47 PM
He said that you SHOULD be able to do it but he alluded that he thought it wasn't a good idea. If I were them I would drop it and find a new location. However, I bet finding a place to worship in NY isn't that easy (finding a building, be able to afford it etc etc.)
Interestingly enough the location they have selected is in the middle of a commercial zone.
There have been attempts to offer other properties to them with more appealing demographics (i.e. residential zoning).
It has only become a poltical football because the nutters decided to make it one.
Quote from: nathanm on August 17, 2010, 03:19:50 PM
It has only become a poltical football because the nutters decided to make it one.
So a majority of people oppose the location for this mosque (in re: wevus' CNN poll) and they are all nutters?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 17, 2010, 03:24:10 PM
So a majority of people oppose the location for this mosque (in re: wevus' CNN poll) and they are all nutters?
Well, I'm pretty sure the people in the poll might oppose it in differing degrees and for different reasons. And most of them will not actually voice any opinion at all.
That may be where the "nutters" are rearing their heads.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 17, 2010, 03:24:10 PM
So a majority of people oppose the location for this mosque (in re: wevus' CNN poll) and they are all nutters?
It's been demagogued to such a degree so that the actual truth of what it is is probably obscured to a healthy amount of those folks. The "majority" is undoubtedly comprised of the honest, the ignorant, and the reprehensible (ie Gingrich, Palin, etc)
But in this case, the majority opinion doesn't -- or shouldn't -- matter. It's precisely why we have things such things enshrined in the constitution, to protect the minority from the whims of the majority.
Nearly 70% disapprove per CNN:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/11/overwhelming-majority-oppose-mosque-near-ground-zero/
Quote from: guido911 on August 17, 2010, 03:38:48 PM
Nearly 70% disapprove per CNN:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/11/overwhelming-majority-oppose-mosque-near-ground-zero/
But can they give a good reason other than what they've heard on television or read online?
Their own opinion.
Probably not.
Quote from: Townsend on August 17, 2010, 03:42:28 PM
But can they give a good reason other than what they've heard on television or read online?
Probably not, because apparently 70% of Americans are "nutters".
I heard a "Sigi's Sausage Factory" is going in next door....
Quote from: guido911 on August 17, 2010, 03:46:38 PM
Probably not, because apparently 70% of Americans are "nutters".
You might give then a little more credit than that.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.slashfood.com/media/2008/06/nutterbutter1.jpg)
Count me in!
I love Nutters.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 17, 2010, 03:24:10 PM
So a majority of people oppose the location for this mosque (in re: wevus' CNN poll) and they are all nutters?
No, the nutters who made it an issue by lying about the location and nature of the community center has made it difficult or impossible for people who don't know the details to have an informed opinion on the subject.
People who buy into the BS peddled by the nutjobs aren't nutjobs themselves. They're victims.
And this wins the thread:
Quote from: we vs us
But in this case, the majority opinion doesn't -- or shouldn't -- matter. It's precisely why we have things such things enshrined in the constitution, to protect the minority from the whims of the majority.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=45-47+Park+Place+Manhattan,+NY&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.861942,56.337891&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=47+Park+Pl,+New+York,+10007&ll=40.718607,-74.01118&spn=0,0.013754&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.713605,-74.009989&panoid=5cdEHBQxsIWw2Xv3B1wl1A&cbp=12,333.99,,0,-11.71 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=45-47+Park+Place+Manhattan,+NY&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.861942,56.337891&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=47+Park+Pl,+New+York,+10007&ll=40.718607,-74.01118&spn=0,0.013754&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.713605,-74.009989&panoid=5cdEHBQxsIWw2Xv3B1wl1A&cbp=12,333.99,,0,-11.71)
Quote from: nathanm on August 17, 2010, 04:05:26 PM
No, the nutters who made it an issue by lying about the location and nature of the community center has made it difficult or impossible for people who don't know the details to have an informed opinion on the subject.
People who buy into the BS peddled by the nutjobs aren't nutjobs themselves. They're victims.
And this wins the thread:
Obama is guess is a "nutter" because he called it a mosque as well.
Quote"I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," Mr. Obama said. "I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about."
He!!, even Obama raises the issue of the "wisdom" of mosque's location.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/us/politics/15mosque.html?src=mv
It just goes to show the effectiveness of the disinformation campaign. The Petronas Towers in Malaysia have some prayer rooms, but that doesn't make the whole thing a mosque any more than a hospital having a chapel makes it a church.
You gotta love Gov. Chris Christie's stance on the subject. I wish President Obama had just 1/10 the cajonies Christie has.
"Given my last position, that I was the first U.S attorney post 9/11 in New Jersey, I understand acutely the pain and sorrow and upset of the family members who lost loved ones that day at the hands of radical Muslim extremists," said Christie at a bill-signing ceremony. "And their sensitivities and concerns have to be taken into account. Just because it's nearly nine years later, those sensitivities cannot and should not be ignored."
"We cannot paint all of Islam with that brush. ...We have to bring people together. And what offends me the most about all this is that it's being used as a political football by both parties. And what disturbs me about the president's remarks is that he is now using it as a political football as well. I think the president of the United States should rise above that."
Quote from: Gaspar on August 17, 2010, 04:38:13 PM
You gotta love Gov. Chris Christie's stance on the subject. I wish President Obama had just 1/10 the cajonies Christie has.
"Given my last position, that I was the first U.S attorney post 9/11 in New Jersey, I understand acutely the pain and sorrow and upset of the family members who lost loved ones that day at the hands of radical Muslim extremists," said Christie at a bill-signing ceremony. "And their sensitivities and concerns have to be taken into account. Just because it's nearly nine years later, those sensitivities cannot and should not be ignored."
"We cannot paint all of Islam with that brush. ...We have to bring people together. And what offends me the most about all this is that it's being used as a political football by both parties. And what disturbs me about the president's remarks is that he is now using it as a political football as well. I think the president of the United States should rise above that."
Yes, it certainly does take cajonies to attack Obama's stand while not taking one of your own.
Quote from: swake on August 17, 2010, 04:40:00 PM
Yes, it certainly does take cajonies to attack Obama's stand while not taking one of your own.
LOL, someone asked him that very question. His response:
"I don't believe that it would be responsible of me to get involved and comment on this any further because it just put me in the same political arena as all of them."
He should have then said "Christie out!" and walked off.
Obama's statement wasn't in the least bit political. He correctly stated that they have the right to build there and said he would not speak on the subject of whether or not it was a good idea. How more apolitical could he have been?
Looks like they may move it now. NY is offering state land in exchange.
Somthing of an issue has emerged from this "non-issue" that everyone has gotten in a huff about.
Mr. Rauf is scheduled to go to Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and Qatar, the State Department is paying for his trip and they clasify it as "Muslem Outreach."
Mr. Rauf will be attending a series of fundraisers to raise money for the construction of this Mosque and the renovation of other Mosques. The State Department defends the five-country tour saying that Mr. Rauf is "a distinguished Muslim cleric." So what?
If the state department were to send Billy Grahm Jr. on a tour of Europe and Rome on the tax payer's dime to raise money to build a new church in LA, I have a feeling some people would protest. I think the State financing of fundraising efforts for religious organizations clearly violates the separation of Church and State. Am I wrong?
Apparently this is standard operating procedure. The Kizimkazi Mosque in Tanzinia was renovated with the aid of US taxpayer money, as was the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque in Cairo. They classified it as "historic preservation" even though these are active religious structures. Don't we have some domestic historic preservation that we could better spend MY money on?
Why are we involving ourselves in the finance of religious organizations? If these were Christian or Jewish religious structures financed by tax dollars I think there would be some outrage.
How about sending missionaries overseas on the government dime and calling it "Christian Outreach?" Anyone object?
I have no problem with Mr. Rauf fundraising for his Mosque. I however do not wish to pay for it.
Honestly, I'm not quite sure how I feel about that. On the one hand, we have a dire need to build bridges (figuratively) to the Muslim world. On the other hand, financing a fundraising trip may be going too far.
I still don't have a problem helping religious institutions preserve their places of worship when there is historical interest involved. I would be surprised if we've never done something similar for historically significant houses of worship of other faiths.
Both of those things are far less shady than the pastor who took CDBG funds to build a youth center in North Tulsa, then borrowed against the youth center to build himself a new church, leaving the city to repay the misused grant funds.
Oh, and just for a little lolglennbeck action:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-16-2010/mosque-erade
Don't know how you feel about that? If it were a "nutter" preacher I doubt your response would be so flaccid.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 18, 2010, 08:10:18 AM
If the state department were to send Billy Grahm Jr. on a tour of Europe and Rome on the tax payer's dime to raise money to build a new church in LA, I have a feeling some people would protest.
Why are we involving ourselves in the finance of religious organizations? If these were Christian or Jewish religious structures financed by tax dollars I think there would be some outrage.
How about sending missionaries overseas on the government dime and calling it "Christian Outreach?" Anyone object?
QuoteDon't know how you feel about that? If it were a "nutter" preacher I doubt your response would be so flaccid
You and Conan have a point.
There would be outrage...it'd be the groups of other people that would object. "What? It's not for my religion? I object."
Quote from: Conan71 on August 18, 2010, 08:38:32 AM
Don't know how you feel about that? If it were a "nutter" preacher I doubt your response would be so flaccid.
I think I explained the reasoning behind my statement. We aren't in what half our country thinks of as a holy war with Christianity or Buddhism or whatever. I think there's an argument that could be made that there are legitimate secular foreign policy objectives involved in sending him around the world. I haven't been able to find a clear account of what is actually happening.
Excuse me if I have a hard time swallowing the nutosphere's (oh portmanteau, I how I love thee) take without some corroborating evidence other than the media's reports on the nutosphere's claims, given that they so recently succeeded in completely obfuscating the truth on the community center/mosque issue.
Edited to add: And now I find claims that Rauf was sent overseas on the State Department dime twice in the Bush Administration. And reading further..it's all a pack of lies about the fundraising..to wit:
Quote
The department is sponsoring Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's visit to Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, where he will discuss Muslim life in America and promote religious tolerance, spokesman P.J. Crowley said. He said the imam had been on two similar trips and that plans for the upcoming tour predated the mosque controversy.
"We have a long-term relationship with him," Crowley told reporters, noting that Rauf had visited Bahrain, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar in 2007 and went to Egypt last January as part of an exchange program run by the State Department's Office of International Information Programs.
"His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well-known and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it's like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States," Crowley said.
Rauf will not be allowed to raise funds for the proposed center during the trip, Crowley said.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ijPxKmwGVxOVZvDFCYSiBLyPIaJAD9HGVFS81
Ahh, manufactured controversy in the morning. I love it! (not really, I'm tired of the lying)
Quote from: nathanm on August 18, 2010, 09:14:50 AM
I think I explained the reasoning behind my statement. We aren't in what half our country thinks of as a holy war with Christianity or Buddhism or whatever. I think there's an argument that could be made that there are legitimate secular foreign policy objectives involved in sending him around the world. I haven't been able to find a clear account of what is actually happening.
Excuse me if I have a hard time swallowing the nutosphere's (oh portmanteau, I how I love thee) take without some corroborating evidence other than the media's reports on the nutosphere's claims, given that they so recently succeeded in completely obfuscating the truth on the community center/mosque issue.
Edited to add: And now I find claims that Rauf was sent overseas on the State Department dime twice in the Bush Administration. And reading further..it's all a pack of lies about the fundraising..to wit:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ijPxKmwGVxOVZvDFCYSiBLyPIaJAD9HGVFS81
Ahh, manufactured controversy in the morning. I love it! (not really, I'm tired of the lying)
But a London-based Arabic-language newspaper that interviewed Abdul Rauf reported that he says he also will collect money from Muslim and Arab nations around the world -- raising the possibility his goodwill mission could help him build contacts in oil-rich states.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/feds_funding_zero_imam_mideast_trip_OTq9dmoHpxbaKvJbB4VLGM#ixzz0wy8RkOFa
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/feds_funding_zero_imam_mideast_trip_OTq9dmoHpxbaKvJbB4VLGM#ixzz0wy8GMqI2
Now Pelosi has joined the frey:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is calling for an investigation of those who are protesting the building of the Ground Zero Mosque.
What a soap opera!
Quote from: Gaspar on August 18, 2010, 09:44:48 AM
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is calling for an investigation of those who are protesting the building of the Ground Zero Mosque.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/aug/17/audio-rep-pelosi-calls-investigation-wtc-mosque-op/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/aug/17/audio-rep-pelosi-calls-investigation-wtc-mosque-op/)
Quote"There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded," she said. "How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we've been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City."
She asking why it's being pushed as a national political issue instead of a local zoning issue.
Because it's a highly charged emotional issue not a simple zoning issue. US troops are fighting against Muslims, not Iraq nor Afghanistan.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 18, 2010, 10:03:29 AM
Because it's a highly charged emotional issue not a simple zoning issue. US troops are fighting against radical Muslims, not Iraq nor Afghanistan.
FIFY
Quote from: Townsend on August 18, 2010, 09:58:14 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/aug/17/audio-rep-pelosi-calls-investigation-wtc-mosque-op/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/aug/17/audio-rep-pelosi-calls-investigation-wtc-mosque-op/)
She asking why it's being pushed as a national political issue instead of a local zoning issue.
I actually think she is trying to keep it in the spotlight.
This is the kind of charged topic that creates the fog of war that she needs to keep people from focusing on the problematic stimulus efforts, massive spending, and Obamacare.
She needs to come out of the gate strong on this and demand that hearings be called and media coverage scrutinized. She needs to shake fingers and grandstand on this, else she may find herself debating her own catastrophic decisions.
Hoss, you and I make that distinction, Bubba Joe Sixpack doesn't
Quote from: Conan71 on August 18, 2010, 10:03:29 AM
Because it's a highly charged emotional issue not a simple zoning issue. US troops are fighting against Muslims, not Iraq nor Afghanistan.
Why is it emotionally charged? Because we're told it is.
What will happen to you if it's built?
What will happen to the site (blocks away) if it is built?
What will happen to everyone's religions?
Damn she's smart.
(http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20100816/i/r1822831942.jpg?x=400&y=272&q=85&sig=vRNE06mzSgbJTmKxSoKh8Q--)
Refuses comment on the matter.
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/Pelosi.jpg)
Quote from: Townsend on August 18, 2010, 10:16:11 AM
Why is it emotionally charged? Because we're told it is.
What will happen to you if it's built?
What will happen to the site (blocks away) if it is built?
What will happen to everyone's religions?
Just because your knickers nor mine are in a twist on it doesn't mean millions of others aren't in an uproar. Whether it's through a misinformation campaign, factual evidence, or long-held paradigms. It's not up to me to discount or try to invalidate someone else's feelings on the issue.
I don't think we can deny choosing this spot is provocative. They can be sensible and sensitive and move it in the name of good taste and showing that they really do want to co-exist peacefully- even if they think the 70% of Americans who think this is a bad idea are a bunch of mamby pamby's. Sometimes you just have to back off and say: "This apparently wasn't a great idea. Plan B time"
Quote from: Conan71 on August 18, 2010, 11:25:24 AM
I don't think we can deny choosing this spot is provocative. They can be sensible and sensitive and move it in the name of good taste and showing that they really do want to co-exist peacefully- even if they think the 70% of Americans who think this is a bad idea are a bunch of mamby pamby's. Sometimes you just have to back off and say: "This apparently wasn't a great idea. Plan B time"
Then the next time someone will make them do it for a lesser situation and so on.
Do you remember the lady releasing the doves at Michael Jackson's trial? She released one for every "innocent" verdict.
Every time I hear someone making this a big deal, I picture her.
Quote from: Townsend on August 18, 2010, 10:16:11 AM
Why is it emotionally charged? Because we're told it is.
You really believe that this nation is nothing but a collection of rubes and sheep that just can't think for themselves. We are incapable of independent thought, we are incapable of researching an issue, and apparently we are incapable of reaching a reasoned conclusion.
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2010, 11:52:02 AM
You really believe that this nation is nothing but a collection of rubes and sheep that just can't think for themselves. We are incapable of independent thought, we are incapable of researching an issue, and apparently we are incapable of reaching a reasoned conclusion.
We're capable. In many cases, we just choose not to.
I'm guilty of listening to the tv people too.
You just listen to ones with different opinions.
What I know for a fact is this:
The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the US allows for religious freedom for ALL US citizens.
We've spent 8 pages discussing something that should really be a non-issue in favor of things that should be HUGE issues.
* Skyrocketing debt.
* Double-digit unemployment
* Healthcare
Both sides are guilty, as is the MSM, of pushing this to the breaking point.
Mayor Bloomberg's comments on AUGUST 3rd (that's over two weeks ago, people) should really have been where the discussion stopped.
IMO.
Quote from: Hoss on August 18, 2010, 12:03:47 PM
What I know for a fact is this:
The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the US allows for religious freedom for ALL US citizens.
We've spent 8 pages discussing something that should really be a non-issue in favor of things that should be HUGE issues.
* Skyrocketing debt.
* Double-digit unemployment
* Healthcare
We already discussed those things. We are bored.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 18, 2010, 11:25:24 AM
Just because your knickers nor mine are in a twist on it doesn't mean millions of others aren't in an uproar. Whether it's through a misinformation campaign, factual evidence, or long-held paradigms. It's not up to me to discount or try to invalidate someone else's feelings on the issue.
I don't think we can deny choosing this spot is provocative. They can be sensible and sensitive and move it in the name of good taste and showing that they really do want to co-exist peacefully- even if they think the 70% of Americans who think this is a bad idea are a bunch of mamby pamby's. Sometimes you just have to back off and say: "This apparently wasn't a great idea. Plan B time"
And Rosa Parks could have been sensible and moved to that back of the bus...
Quote from: Conan71 on August 18, 2010, 12:05:15 PM
We already discussed those things. We are bored.
Point taken.
But I'm bored with THIS subject.
So....
(http://xenohistorian.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/playboybunnypancake.jpg)
Terrific, the left wants GWB to weigh in now:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Mosque-supporters-beg-George-W-Bush-to-come-to-Obamas-rescue-100977179.html
As an aside, is anyone else as curious as I am about all of this contrived "freedom of religion" advocacy out there on the left? Since when did they start giving a sh!t about religious freedom?
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2010, 12:13:07 PM
Terrific, the left wants GWB to weigh in now:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Mosque-supporters-beg-George-W-Bush-to-come-to-Obamas-rescue-100977179.html
As an aside, is anyone else as curious as I am about all of this contrived "freedom of religion" advocacy out there on the left? Since when did they start giving a sh!t about religious freedom?
Woops, you're letting the doves out.
I understand you like doing this kind of thing but trying to push that conversation?
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2010, 12:13:07 PM
Terrific, the left wants GWB to weigh in now:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Mosque-supporters-beg-George-W-Bush-to-come-to-Obamas-rescue-100977179.html
As an aside, is anyone else as curious as I am about all of this contrived "freedom of religion" advocacy out there on the left? Since when did they start giving a sh!t about religious freedom?
You are free to practice any religion you like so long as it's not Christianity.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 18, 2010, 12:17:47 PM
You are free to practice any religion you like so long as it's not Christianity.
Where'd you get that?
Quote from: Townsend on August 18, 2010, 12:19:03 PM
Where'd you get that?
I pulled that on FOTD some time back...
Quote from: Townsend on August 18, 2010, 12:15:00 PM
Woops, you're letting the doves out.
I understand you like doing this kind of thing but trying to push that conversation?
My point was missed. This is not, nor has it been, a religion issue. It's being made so by the left to deflect attention away from the real issue: the insensitivity of those wanting to build the mosque right there to those who suffered on 9/11. Period.
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2010, 12:26:08 PM
My point was missed. This is not, nor has it been, a religion issue. It's being made so by the left to deflect attention away from the real issue: the insensitivity of those wanting to build the mosque right there to those who suffered on 9/11. Period.
Would it be insensitive for christians to build a church a few blocks from ground zero, despite the fact that muslims died in the attack?
Quote from: Hoss on August 18, 2010, 12:03:47 PM
* Skyrocketing debt.
* Double-digit unemployment
* Healthcare
Agreed!
Interesting how the issues that were paramount campaign issues two years ago, have now gone critical. In a little over 18 months, we have "skyrocketed" an already unsustainable debt, increased unemployment, and made healthcare some expensive weird nebulous concept that businesses are trying desperately to understand.
We got CHANGE, and change is about all we have left.
Quote from: custosnox on August 18, 2010, 12:28:45 PM
Would it be insensitive for christians to build a church a few blocks from ground zero, despite the fact that muslims died in the attack?
Christian extremists were not at the controls of those planes though I'm sure there would be a smile storm for erecting a cross at ground zero.
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2010, 11:52:02 AM
You really believe that this nation is nothing but a collection of rubes and sheep that just can't think for themselves. We are incapable of independent thought, we are incapable of researching an issue, and apparently we are incapable of reaching a reasoned conclusion.
Do we really need to do this again? Americans often are stupid and uninformed. We have one of the lowest average IQs in the developed world. Most American's don't believe in evolution, but do believe in Ghosts, almost 1 in 4 claims to have SEEN a ghost. 18% think the sun revolves around the Earth. Almost half believe in young earth creationism. One fourth of Americans are "birthers" and think Obama was born overseas, 18% think he's the Anti-Christ.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/New-Poll-Gauges-Americans-General-Knowledge-Levels.aspx
And the people upset over the Mosque are people are not the sharpest tools in the drawer, actually, they are at other end of the spectrum. It's Fox News driving this, I just checked and the top six stories on Fox's site are ALL about the Mosque. And people who watch Fox News are the least informed audience of all news sources excepting people watching Hoda and Kathie Lee.
http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions
Quote from: Conan71 on August 18, 2010, 12:47:01 PM
Christian extremists were not at the controls of those planes though I'm sure there would be a smile storm for erecting a cross at ground zero.
And extremists do not represent the majority of a religion. If they did, Christianity would be in all kinds of trouble. That's kind of like saying you should have a problem with anyone named mike because a guy named mike was a rapist. And to point out, this is not at ground zero, it's on private property a few blocks away.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 18, 2010, 09:41:06 AM
But a London-based Arabic-language newspaper that interviewed Abdul Rauf reported that he says he also will collect money from Muslim and Arab nations around the world -- raising the possibility his goodwill mission could help him build contacts in oil-rich states.
Don't believe everything you read in the Post. Or any other muckraking Murdoch paper.
And you know why the debt is skyrocketing? It ain't because of massive spending increases. It's because of massive revenue decreases.
It would seem this fellow would have an emotional stake in the issue:
I guess he disagrees with guido that building Cordoba House is insensitive.
Quote from: nathanm on August 18, 2010, 02:02:45 PM
And you know why the debt is skyrocketing? It ain't because of massive spending increases. It's because of massive revenue decreases.
I thought it was because of Bush?
Quote from: nathanm on August 18, 2010, 02:02:45 PM
Don't believe everything you read in the Post. Or any other muckraking Murdoch paper.
And you know why the debt is skyrocketing? It ain't because of massive spending increases. It's because of massive revenue decreases.
If you take away Bush's bailout plan for 2009 Obama's "defecit" wouldn't have been in line with "average" (which is still not where we need to be). The problem is that even with all of the "bailouts" and the "1 time" expenditures we have had in 2008 and 2009. The spending of the federal government isn't slated to reduce until (2012 is it?). And on Murdoch, I guess you didn't see yet where Newcorp gave the Republican Governors Comittee (or whatever it is) a huge donation?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 18, 2010, 02:12:40 PM
I thought it was because of Bush?
It was and always will be Bush's fault.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on August 18, 2010, 02:12:21 PM
It would seem this fellow would have an emotional stake in the issue:
I guess he disagrees with guido that building Cordoba House is insensitive.
Wow, what a powerful smack down of those opposing the mosque because its location is insensitive. You know, stating the obvious and all. fail.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 18, 2010, 02:12:40 PM
I thought it was because of Bush?
The Bush tax cuts and the massive increase in military and security spending made us start from a far worse position, but are not the cause of the entire deficit, obviously.
Bailouts+stimulus+enormous deficit=gigantic deficit
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2010, 02:28:48 PM
It was and always will be Bush's fault.
It will take many years to repair all his damage. His incompetence was staggering.
Quote from: swake on August 18, 2010, 02:48:27 PM
His incompetence was staggering.
Thank God we have someone who can take that to a whole new level now!
Quote from: Gaspar on August 18, 2010, 02:52:32 PM
Thank God we have someone who can take that to a whole new level now!
Yep, let's don't misunderestimate the current President!
Quote from: swake on August 18, 2010, 02:48:27 PM
It will take many years to repair all his damage. His incompetence was staggering.
His successor's competence is seriously in doubt
Quote from: swake on August 18, 2010, 02:48:27 PM
It will take many years to repair all his damage. His incompetence was staggering.
I get it Swake, Bush is the worst person who has ever lived.
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2010, 03:08:11 PM
I get it Swake, Bush is the worst person who has ever lived.
I just get confused. I thought he was just a puppet of Cheney or Rove?
Bush isn't the worst person that ever lived. He was just the worst president we have had in the modern era. But he wasn't evil, just incompetent. Nixon was evil. Maybe Johnson too. I always thought Bush was trying to do the right thing, he just wasn't very bright. And he had some really awful people around him, like Rove and Cheney.
Look at Obama outside of the 30 second news cycle and fake right wing media created storms like the Mosque. He's stopped and turned around the greatest financial meltdown in the last 90 years, he saved the US auto industry and the millions of related jobs. He passed universal health care, passed the largest financial reform bill in decades, is pulling troops out on schedule in Iraq and taking Afghanistan seriously for the first time since the war started 10 years ago. In the largest oil spill in world history he got the responsible company to pay damages now instead of after years of lawsuits.
He's done a ton, probably more than any president since Roosevelt. Our financial mess was likely worse than the one precipitated the great depression and it was stopped. Many presidents have attempted health care and failed. His numbers are somewhat poor, but they are far better than Bush's were in a decent economy. And any presidents would poll numbers will be down an economy like this, but, it should be noted that it is an economy that has grown consistently during his presidency. Obama's biggest failure is that he has not been able to yet repair all the damage done by Bush. He has had the sharpest, most hateful and most idiotic critics of any president ever in one of the most trying times in our history. Much of the Republican party has completely left honesty and reason behind and is acting like a parade of self serving morons.
The economy is slow to heal and people are impatient. But it will heal, everything is a cycle. The short time before this next election is his short term enemy, and time will be friend in 2012.
The Obama apologist wagon has rolled into Tulsa, apparently.
Quote from: swake on August 18, 2010, 03:27:35 PM
Bush isn't the worst person that ever lived. He was just the worst president we have had in the modern era. But he wasn't evil, just incompetent. Nixon was evil. Maybe Johnson too. I always thought Bush was trying to do the right thing, he just wasn't very bright. And he had some really awful people around him, like Rove and Cheney.
Look at Obama outside of the 30 second news cycle and fake right wing media created storms like the Mosque. He's stopped and turned around the greatest financial meltdown in the last 90 years, he saved the US auto industry and the millions of related jobs. He passed universal health care, passed the largest financial reform bill in decades, is pulling troops out on schedule in Iraq and taking Afghanistan seriously for the first time since the war started 10 years ago. In the largest oil spill in world history he got the responsible company to pay damages now instead of after years of lawsuits.
He's done a ton, probably more than any president since Roosevelt. Our financial mess was likely worse than the one precipitated the great depression and it was stopped. Many presidents have attempted health care and failed. His numbers are somewhat poor, but they are far better than Bush's were in a decent economy. And any presidents would poll numbers will be down an economy like this, but, it should be noted that it is an economy that has grown consistently during his presidency. Obama's biggest failure is that he has not been able to yet repair all the damage done by Bush. He has had the sharpest, most hateful and most idiotic critics of any president ever in one of the most trying times in our history. Much of the Republican party has completely left honesty and reason behind and is acting like a parade of self serving morons.
The economy is slow to heal and people are impatient. But it will heal, everything is a cycle. The short time before this next election is his short term enemy, and time will be friend in 2012.
I get it Swake, Obama is the greatest person who's ever lived.
Here's a video from those opposing the mosque. Of course, they need to be investigated:
Quote from: swake on August 18, 2010, 03:27:35 PM
Bush isn't the worst person that ever lived. He was just the worst president we have had in the modern era. But he wasn't evil, just incompetent. Nixon was evil. Maybe Johnson too. I always thought Bush was trying to do the right thing, he just wasn't very bright. And he had some really awful people around him, like Rove and Cheney.
Look at Obama outside of the 30 second news cycle and fake right wing media created storms like the Mosque. He's stopped and turned around the greatest financial meltdown in the last 90 years, he saved the US auto industry and the millions of related jobs. He passed universal health care, passed the largest financial reform bill in decades, is pulling troops out on schedule in Iraq and taking Afghanistan seriously for the first time since the war started 10 years ago. In the largest oil spill in world history he got the responsible company to pay damages now instead of after years of lawsuits.
He's done a ton, probably more than any president since Roosevelt. Our financial mess was likely worse than the one precipitated the great depression and it was stopped. Many presidents have attempted health care and failed. His numbers are somewhat poor, but they are far better than Bush's were in a decent economy. And any presidents would poll numbers will be down an economy like this, but, it should be noted that it is an economy that has grown consistently during his presidency. Obama's biggest failure is that he has not been able to yet repair all the damage done by Bush. He has had the sharpest, most hateful and most idiotic critics of any president ever in one of the most trying times in our history. Much of the Republican party has completely left honesty and reason behind and is acting like a parade of self serving morons.
The economy is slow to heal and people are impatient. But it will heal, everything is a cycle. The short time before this next election is his short term enemy, and time will be friend in 2012.
(http://i377.photobucket.com/albums/oo216/03redTuscani/typing.gif)
You just made my day!
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2010, 03:42:48 PM
I get it Swake, Obama is the greatest person who's ever lived.
LEAVE PRESIDENT OBAMA ALONE!
(http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/images/gallery/chris-crocker-cries.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on August 18, 2010, 03:47:01 PM
LEAVE PRESIDENT OBAMA ALONE!
(http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/images/gallery/chris-crocker-cries.jpg)
Gasper, you know just about as much about politics as you do economics. Please, go try and time the market and again and see how that works out for you. All you do is parrot what ever hysterical crap Fox is pushing and act as if you are thinking for yourself, you aren't, you are programmed as if you were Glen Beck's voicemail.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 18, 2010, 03:30:37 PM
The Obama apologist wagon has rolled into Tulsa, apparently.
Eh, he's correct. You may not like what Obama's doing, but he has gotten a lot done in under two years.
First it was Reid, now it's:
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 16, 2010, 06:57:57 PM
Yeah... just like Ann Coulter said the 9/11 widows were bimbos and gold diggers just trying to make a buck out of the death of their loved ones! And according to Ann, they couldn't possibly be sincere and honest - just out to make a buck! But then she has always been of the "forces of light and good", huh? How about that wow?
A bit O/T, but
Ann Coulter is accusing a world net daily editor of being a "publicity whore"?
http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/18/ann-coulter-to-worldnetdaily-editor-hes-a-swine-and-publicity-whore/
lol
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2010, 12:26:08 PM
My point was missed. This is not, nor has it been, a religion issue. It's being made so by the left to deflect attention away from the real issue: the insensitivity of those wanting to build the mosque right there to those who suffered on 9/11. Period.
and I supposed that it is insensative for muslims to hold prayer services 80ft from where the plane hit the pentagon as well.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PENTAGON_MUSLIMS?SITE=MAFAL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Quote from: custosnox on August 18, 2010, 06:38:03 PM
and I supposed that it is insensative for muslims to hold prayer services 80ft from where the plane hit the pentagon as well.
The whole "at ground zero" thing is a canard. You can't even see the former WTC site from the former Burlington Coat Factory. Sometimes I wonder if the people frothing at the mouth over this have ever even been to the WTC site, much less New York City.
This is a great quote: "Mr Gingrich's description of the mosque at Cordoba is akin to describing 'the Statue of Liberty as being built by English conquerors in their capital of New York to symbolize their victory over the Dutch.'"
And for a look at what else is so close to ground zero: http://daryllang.com/blog/4421
custosnox: I think it's just great we've got a big pentagon-shaped mosque where our military is headquartered.
Quote from: guido911 on August 18, 2010, 05:56:14 PM
A bit O/T, but Ann Coulter is accusing a world net daily editor of being a "publicity whore"?
http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/18/ann-coulter-to-worldnetdaily-editor-hes-a-swine-and-publicity-whore/
lol
Sorry Guido, but Ann Coulter is the Publicity Whore in any equation. Just my opinion.
This fellow gets it (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/17/why_america_is_going_to_%20regret_the_cordoba_house_controversy).
Quote
And finally, let's not lose sight of the foreign policy implications. It's hardly headline news to observe that the United States has an abysmal image in the Arab and Muslim world (for a variety of reasons), but the xenophobic and cynical posturing of the community center's opponents is a free gift to extremists who are eager to portray the United States as inherently hostile to the entire Islamic tradition. The controversy itself has probably taken a toll already; if the critics win, then we should hardly be surprised if moderates elsewhere begin to have even more doubts about America's ability to live up to the principles that we like to boast about to others.
Quote from: swake on August 18, 2010, 04:12:50 PM
Gasper, you know just about as much about politics as you do economics. Please, go try and time the market and again and see how that works out for you. All you do is parrot what ever hysterical crap Fox is pushing and act as if you are thinking for yourself, you aren't, you are programmed as if you were Glen Beck's voicemail.
Perhaps you are right. I will rethink my life.
Probably should. I rethink mine constantly. It's a good thing.
And it isn't just an opinion that Ann Coulter is a (publicity) whore. It is a fact!
Quote from: joiei on August 18, 2010, 07:13:41 PM
Sorry Guido, but Ann Coulter is the Publicity Whore in any equation. Just my opinion.
Come on joiei, you're aging right before me. That was my point, Coulter has no business calling anyone an attention whore
Quote from: swake on August 18, 2010, 03:27:35 PM
Bush isn't the worst person that ever lived. He was just the worst president we have had in the modern era. But he wasn't evil, just incompetent. Nixon was evil. Maybe Johnson too. I always thought Bush was trying to do the right thing, he just wasn't very bright. And he had some really awful people around him, like Rove and Cheney.
Look at Obama outside of the 30 second news cycle and fake right wing media created storms like the Mosque. He's stopped and turned around the greatest financial meltdown in the last 90 years, he saved the US auto industry and the millions of related jobs. He passed universal health care, passed the largest financial reform bill in decades, is pulling troops out on schedule in Iraq and taking Afghanistan seriously for the first time since the war started 10 years ago. In the largest oil spill in world history he got the responsible company to pay damages now instead of after years of lawsuits.
He's done a ton, probably more than any president since Roosevelt. Our financial mess was likely worse than the one precipitated the great depression and it was stopped. Many presidents have attempted health care and failed. His numbers are somewhat poor, but they are far better than Bush's were in a decent economy. And any presidents would poll numbers will be down an economy like this, but, it should be noted that it is an economy that has grown consistently during his presidency. Obama's biggest failure is that he has not been able to yet repair all the damage done by Bush. He has had the sharpest, most hateful and most idiotic critics of any president ever in one of the most trying times in our history. Much of the Republican party has completely left honesty and reason behind and is acting like a parade of self serving morons.
The economy is slow to heal and people are impatient. But it will heal, everything is a cycle. The short time before this next election is his short term enemy, and time will be friend in 2012.
Well played, swake. +2.
I have been listening, reading, and seeing this debate/argument/comparison to this Mosque for the last week or so. From some of the things I've read there are already two Muslim Mosques closer to ground zero than this one that is proposed. A Greek Orthodox temple that was appearently acros the street from ground zero has been refused to be allowed to be rebuilt (it was there before 9/11). Everything from Hitler to Rosa Parks, to the KKK has been thrown at this topic. Why don't you include Warren Jeff's and the FLDS, the Christians and abortion clinics, the Catholic Church and school playgrounds, bars and churches distance between each other, warm strong beer and liquor laws and how late and where liquor can be sold, and what constitutes a bar into this?
Are they being insenseitve to the events of 9/11? Yes. Are they violating county, city, state building codes? Who knows other than the city of Manhattan. Am I infavor of this? No, and if Pelosi wants to knock on my door and ask me why I oppose it I will tell her. As long as they are not violating county, city, and state laws, they can build it where they want. If they have manipulated those laws and ordinaces then they are suspect.
Do I think that this is in poor taste for location? Yes. But if you start telling people that you can't build somthing that fits in the law and codes for the site, you have gone where I don't want to be. You have crossed into socialism/dictatorship.
Let me walk something back. Apparently I was wrong. While Park51 is still not a mosque, they are reserving space within to have an actual mosque at some point in the future. Park51 will have an interfaith board of directors. So when it opens, it will not be a mosque in any sense of the word. At some point in the future, it probably will contain a mosque, but will still be a community center.
I still don't see what's insensitive about that, unless you are of the belief that all Muslims are jointly responsible for 9/11. I can't imagine how on Earth one can hold that view without also examining the equally bloody history of other faiths practiced in this country.
If the guy that bombed the mosque in Jacksonville recently turns out to be Christian, will you equally attribute that act to all Christians? Somehow I doubt it. (and good on you if you don't!)
Quote from: nathanm on August 18, 2010, 11:59:22 PM
I can't imagine how on Earth one can hold that view without also examining the equally bloody history of other faiths practiced in this country.
Outside of the US, lets look at the Greeks and the Romans. The Colliseum in Greece that is a pilgramage where thousands were slaughtered, as well as other places in Greece and Italy where they were thrown to the Lions or pitted against the Roman Army. The Colliseum and the Acropoplis, and the Parthenon, are tourists meccas for the history of the events that happened there. There are other places that were killing grounds that a lot of people go to to stand where the murders occured.
Quote from: dbacks fan on August 19, 2010, 12:34:20 AM
Outside of the US, lets look at the Greeks and the Romans. The Colliseum in Greece that is a pilgramage where thousands were slaughtered, as well as other places in Greece and Italy where they were thrown to the Lions or pitted against the Roman Army. The Colliseum and the Acropoplis, and the Parthenon, are tourists meccas for the history of the events that happened there. There are other places that were killing grounds that a lot of people go to to stand where the murders occured.
What does that have to do with a community center?
I truly can't grasp where the opposition is coming from, aside from the jamesrage types who have this strange idea that Muslims are attempting to take over America. The head of Park51 is doing his absolute best to promote moderate, Americanized Islam, yet here we are excoriating the fellow at the behest of the complete nutjobs who started this whole mess. People whose xenophobia is so bad it makes the BNP blush. People who are absolutely convinced that Obama is an extremist Muslim hell bent on instituting sharia law.
Even Pat Buchanan thinks the whole thing is ridiculous. When Pat Buchanan and I agree on something, you can be sure something pretty hinky is going on.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/aug/18/poison-behind-new-york-mosque-furore
Quote from: nathanm on August 19, 2010, 12:42:04 AM
What does that have to do with a community center?
I truly can't grasp where the opposition is coming from, aside from the jamesrage types who have this strange idea that Muslims are attempting to take over America. The head of Park51 is doing his absolute best to promote moderate, Americanized Islam, yet here we are excoriating the fellow at the behest of the complete nutjobs who started this whole mess. People whose xenophobia is so bad it makes the BNP blush. People who are absolutely convinced that Obama is an extremist Muslim hell bent on instituting sharia law.
Even Pat Buchanan thinks the whole thing is ridiculous. When Pat Buchanan and I agree on something, you can be sure something pretty hinky is going on.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/aug/18/poison-behind-new-york-mosque-furore
What I was refering to is the notion that over the centuries there have been numerous religous crusades in the name of a specific religion. Whether it was the Crusades, The Spanish Inquisation, The Civil War, the IRA against England, the PLO against Isreal, North against South Viet Nam, Korea, Romans vs Catholics, Spanish vs American, US vs British, The Munich Isreali athelets, Sadat, Begin, it's all in the name of religion.
Quote from: dbacks fan on August 18, 2010, 11:30:06 PM
I have been listening, reading, and seeing this debate/argument/comparison to this Mosque for the last week or so. From some of the things I've read there are already two Muslim Mosques closer to ground zero than this one that is proposed. A Greek Orthodox temple that was appearently acros the street from ground zero has been refused to be allowed to be rebuilt (it was there before 9/11). Everything from Hitler to Rosa Parks, to the KKK has been thrown at this topic. Why don't you include Warren Jeff's and the FLDS, the Christians and abortion clinics, the Catholic Church and school playgrounds, bars and churches distance between each other, warm strong beer and liquor laws and how late and where liquor can be sold, and what constitutes a bar into this?
Are they being insenseitve to the events of 9/11? Yes. Are they violating county, city, state building codes? Who knows other than the city of Manhattan. Am I infavor of this? No, and if Pelosi wants to knock on my door and ask me why I oppose it I will tell her. As long as they are not violating county, city, and state laws, they can build it where they want. If they have manipulated those laws and ordinaces then they are suspect.
Do I think that this is in poor taste for location? Yes. But if you start telling people that you can't build somthing that fits in the law and codes for the site, you have gone where I don't want to be. You have crossed into socialism/dictatorship.
Just FYI, they have approval from all the necessary licensing authorities to go ahead with the project.
Quote from: dbacks fan on August 19, 2010, 01:30:13 AM
What I was refering to is the notion that over the centuries there have been numerous religous crusades in the name of a specific religion. Whether it was the Crusades, The Spanish Inquisation, The Civil War, the IRA against England, the PLO against Isreal, North against South Viet Nam, Korea, Romans vs Catholics, Spanish vs American, US vs British, The Munich Isreali athelets, Sadat, Begin, it's all in the name of religion.
Yeah, that's why I find the furor over so contrived.
Quote from: nathanm on August 18, 2010, 06:49:49 PM
The whole "at ground zero" thing is a canard. You can't even see the former WTC site from the former Burlington Coat Factory. Sometimes I wonder if the people frothing at the mouth over this have ever even been to the WTC site, much less New York City.
Were you aware this site was in the debris field? It's been reported that a landing gear from one of the planes hit this building. It doesn't make the ground there sacred by any means.
Point is, who are we to discount the emotions and feelings of those who survived the attacks and the families of those who lost loved ones by saying things like: "It's been almost 10 years go get help."
70% of Americans oppose the location of this "community center", you are going to be hard-pressed to convince me that 70% of all Americans are whack-a-doodles. We owe the Arab world no more than they owe us in terms of respect and honoring each others rights. They have the right to build the center there if they so wish. Seeing it's a provocative issue, I find it inadvisable to do so.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 19, 2010, 09:09:38 AM
70% of Americans oppose the location of this "community center", you are going to be hard-pressed to convince me that 70% of all Americans are whack-a-doodles. We owe the Arab world no more than they owe us in terms of respect and honoring each others rights. They have the right to build the center there if they so wish. Seeing it's a provocative issue, I find it inadvisable to do so.
We owe ourselves the respect of upholding the principles our country was founded upon.
I don't think 70% of Americans are whackjobs like the ones who started this whole mess, they've just bought into the lies because the media has largely been repeating them uncritically. They don't know that this place is no more "at ground zero" than the strip club equidistant. They don't know that there is already a real live mosque down the street that's been there since 1970 (but is woefully inadequate for its membership). They don't know that you can't even see the Park51 site from ground zero. They don't know that it's going to be a fairly normal looking building, and not some Taj Mahal looking thing. (yes, I know the Taj Mahal is not a mosque..but it sure looks similar to the stereotypical mosque)
They don't know that it's being built by a moderate Muslim who has been attempting to spread understanding of the US throughout the Muslim world for years. They don't remember how Fox News was calling him one of the good guys until a couple of weeks ago when they started calling him a "radical muslim."
Hell, they think it's going to be a mosque, rather than a community center that might have a mosque built inside someday. That everything about the name "ground zero mosque" is completely inaccurate.
As far as "in the debris field," most of lower Manhattan was in the debris field. Remember all that dust? ;)
At this point, if it doesn't get built, we're just going to be seen among the moderate Muslims as the intolerant haters that the radicals have been claiming we are all along.
This issue is one of the better examples in recent memory of how if you repeat lies often enough, people think it's the truth.
This is why this is getting so much attention. Many of us do not take the necessary time to educate ourselves before forming an opinion. We hear something from the talking heads and spew it out of our word holes with no thought to the contrary.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100819/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_poll_obama_s_religion (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100819/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_poll_obama_s_religion)
QuoteWASHINGTON – Americans increasingly are convinced — incorrectly — that President Barack Obama is a Muslim, and a growing number are thoroughly confused about his religion.
Nearly one in five people, or 18 percent, said they think Obama is Muslim, up from the 11 percent who said so in March 2009, according to a poll released Thursday. The proportion who correctly say he is a Christian is down to just 34 percent.
The largest share of people, 43 percent, said they don't know his religion, an increase from the 34 percent who said that in early 2009.
The survey, conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center and its affiliated Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, is based on interviews conducted before the controversy over whether Muslims should be permitted to construct a mosque near the World Trade Center site. Obama has said he believes Muslims have the right to build an Islamic center there, though he's also said he won't take a position on whether they should actually build it.
The suckiest suck about this suck? It shouldn't matter.
Interesting op-ed piece which examines the reluctance many have to this mosque and the root of their mistrust of Islam. As anyone who has lived through the last 31 years as a teen or adult will recall from the Ayatollah Khomeini forward, we've faced increasingly hostile rhetoric and actions from the Muslim world ever since. What have we heard that suggests tolerance and acceptance of our way of life? I truly do like the author's suggestions about reciprocity.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/08/10/opinion/A-mosque-at-ground-zero-30135610.html
The plan to build a mosque so close to the site of the atrocity has caused outrage in the US. Opponents consider it a slap in the face for all Americans, especially those who lost loved ones in the conflagration. To them it adds insult to injury and conveys a gloating, in-your-face message from Islam: "Ha ha! We destroyed your skyscrapers and killed your people, and now we're celebrating by building this triumphal monument right next to the ruins. And there's nothing you can do about it, suckers!" Thais will understand if they imagine how they would feel if a Burmese cultural centre were to be built near the ruins at Ayutthaya.
Proponents of the project, including Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Jewish and Christian notables, argue that it will convey a different message. It will show that the US remains firm in its commitment to freedom of religion and tolerance even in the face of severe provocation. It will be a symbol of moral strength, representing a victory of American ideals over baser instincts like vengefulness and hatred.
Proponents also point out that the sponsors are moderate Muslims whose motto is "Improving Muslim-West relations". To this end, they're building a 13-storey, US$100 million edifice that will serve as a community centre for all New Yorkers, with an auditorium, library, art studios, swimming pool, gym, basketball court, restaurant, and childcare services.
When I first read about this project, I was against it - not only for the reasons cited above, but also because the media was calling it a mosque. I pictured a huge edifice with a dome and minarets rising above the Manhattan skyline, with the star and crescent of Islam brazenly thrust on high like a middle finger directed at Ground Zero. Turns out that's not the case. The building, called Park 51, is to be an Islamic cultural centre, open to all. It will contain a mosque, but the mosque will take up only a small portion of the space. There are to be Jews and Christians as well as Muslims on the board of directors. The Cordoba Initiative's website, www.cordobainitiative.org, proclaims its commitment to building "a world-class facility that promotes tolerance � and positive interaction between the Muslim World and the West."
One thing is for sure. They know how to press the right PR buttons.
But maybe not enough of them, because sceptics are asking where the money is coming from. At the time I write, the answer is unclear. I hardly need to remind the reader that $100 million will buy a lot of noodles.
Sceptics also suggest that if the Cordoba Initiative is sincere about improving Muslim-Western relations, it should start by putting its cultural centre someplace else. That would show sensitivity to the feelings of the grieving friends and relatives of the 3,000 victims. But the current location seems to be a done deal, approved by the powers-that-be in New York.
So long as the new building is not visibly Islamic, and so long as it remains a community centre under the control of a multi-religious governing board, I see no objection to its construction. Why would I object if it were visibly Islamic? Because it is so close to Ground Zero; because the 9/11 terrorists were Muslims whose crime was inspired by their perceptions of what their religion required; because a visibly Islamic building would offend the sensitivities of those who lost loved ones; and because it would immediately become the target of every gun-toting redneck, right-wing wacko and nutcase in the country. And we've got a lot of them.
However innocuous it may be in appearance, some sceptics will see an Islamic cultural centre as a Trojan Horse. They have a point. Things change, as the Buddha wisely reminds us. It's easy to imagine a scenario in which the current good-hearted sponsors might be eased out of power and replaced by hardline Islamic elements with more sinister goals. Militant Islam tends to operate that way.
So vigilance and some sort of oversight are needed to prevent Park 51 from falling into the wrong hands. Happily, we already have an American institution uniquely suited to meet that need. Our feisty, baying-hound news media are highly skilled at sniffing out atrocities, scandals and other wrongdoing. They will fulfill the dual function of watchdog and whistle-blower.
One final point. If the Cordoba Initiative is so eager to promote religious tolerance, it ought to start where tolerance is needed most: with Islam itself. It could begin by introducing Muslims to the concept of reciprocity - give and take; do as you would be done by; you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
For non-Muslims, one of the most bothersome aspects of Islam is its utter lack of reciprocity. We get the impression that Muslims want the whole enchilada. When they're in the minority, they demand rights for themselves that they sometimes deny to others when they're in the majority. Some Islamic countries persecute their religious minorities; others merely harass them. The Pakistani government's persecution of the Ahmadis and the Iranian government's persecution of Baha'is are prime examples. Even supposedly moderate Muslim countries like Malaysia and Indonesia have been hassling Hindus and Christians lately. But when Muslims from these countries migrate to America and Europe, they expect equal rights.
So if the moderate Muslims of the Cordoba Initiative are sincere about promoting tolerance, let them begin in their ancestral homelands. They might start with Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are building mosques all over the world, but they do not permit a single church, synagogue or temple to be built in Saudi Arabia. That's not reciprocity. Perhaps most outrageous of all is the situation on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, where not one, but two mosques have long occupied the site of the erstwhile Jewish temple. You'd think, in return, the Saudis would throw Judaism a scrap by permitting at least one tiny synagogue on their vast territory; but no, that's unthinkable.
The Cordoba Initiative could score significant PR points and earn the grudging respect of even American right-wingers if it were to embark on a campaign to build tolerance toward non-Muslim religions in the Muslim-majority countries of Asia and Africa. That would be putting its money where its mouth is. All $100 million of it.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 19, 2010, 09:09:38 AM
70% of Americans oppose the location of this "community center", you are going to be hard-pressed to convince me that 70% of all Americans are whack-a-doodles. We owe the Arab world no more than they owe us in terms of respect and honoring each others rights. They have the right to build the center there if they so wish. Seeing it's a provocative issue, I find it inadvisable to do so.
A poll out today says that only 54% oppose the building. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2010/20_favor_mosque_near_ground_zero_54_oppose. A large percentage isn't even following the story (they have a life).
More stats from the Rasmussen poll:
"Just 20% of Americans favor the building of an Islamic mosque near the Ground Zero site of the World Trade Center in New York City, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Some have argued that the mosque will "honor" the 9/11 victims by promoting the peaceful side of Islam, but only 30% are even somewhat confident that the proposed mosque is being built to honor those who died in the 9/11 attacks. Fifty-eight percent (58%) don't share that confidence. This includes 15% who are Very Confident and 32% who are Not At All Confident."
Well this event will certainly improve dialog:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/18/fla-city-denies-permit-for-911-quran-burning/
Oh geeze, now they really have done it!
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/outrage-over-plans-to-build-library-next-to-sarah-palin-201008193017/ (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/outrage-over-plans-to-build-library-next-to-sarah-palin-201008193017/)
Talk about rubbing it in.
This just in...Christians apparently bombed the world trade center in 1993
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/08/19/russell-simmons-def-history-lesson-jam/
Quote from: Trogdor on August 19, 2010, 01:09:30 PM
Oh geeze, now they really have done it!
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/outrage-over-plans-to-build-library-next-to-sarah-palin-201008193017/ (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/outrage-over-plans-to-build-library-next-to-sarah-palin-201008193017/)
Talk about rubbing it in.
+1
funny stuff right there.
Well, this should end the debate. Al Franken has finally weighed in:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/19/franken-mosque-disgraceful
(http://iknowtheledge.com/images/2009/01/stuartsmalley.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on August 19, 2010, 02:46:00 PM
Well, this should end the debate. Al Franken has finally weighed in:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/19/franken-mosque-disgraceful
(http://iknowtheledge.com/images/2009/01/stuartsmalley.jpg)
Man, I thought the comments section of the Tulsa World makes my eyes bleed...whew they look like a bunch of pikers next to the thinkprogress moonbats.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 19, 2010, 02:53:04 PM
Man, I thought the comments section of the Tulsa World makes my eyes bleed...whew they look like a bunch of pikers next to the thinkprogress moonbats.
Being unemployed and living in their parents' basement will do that to them.
I finally figured out where the real moonbattery is coming from earlier today. I don't listen to talk radio, but as I was flipping through the stations, I happened upon KRMG this morning. Whatever show they were playing around 11:45 has a host that appears to be an undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. Seriously, the guy was talking like my friend's dad does when he's off his meds. The stuff he was saying was so outlandish that I couldn't help but burst out laughing.
It's no wonder people think Democrats are the collective antichrist and Obama is an extremist Muslim.
Quote from: guido911 on August 19, 2010, 03:08:05 PM
Being unemployed and living in their parents' basement will do that to them.
Have you ever read the replys that gets left at Fox Nation? Those people are scary.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011847,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011847,00.html)
I guess its too insensitive for them to build a Mosque in Murfreesboro, TN too.
Quote from: guido911 on August 19, 2010, 02:46:00 PM
Well, this should end the debate. Al Franken has finally weighed in:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/19/franken-mosque-disgraceful
(http://iknowtheledge.com/images/2009/01/stuartsmalley.jpg)
Correction, this should REALLY end the debate:
QuoteThe reigning Miss USA has come out against the Ground Zero mosque, saying "it shouldn't be so close" to Ground Zero.
The 24-year-old Rima Fakih, is the first Muslim winner of the Miss USA contest and is preparing for the Miss Universe Pageant, scheduled for Monday in Las Vegas.
"I totally agree with President Obama with the statement on Constitutional rights of freedom of religion," Fakih told "Inside Edition" in an interview that will air tonight.
"I also agree that it shouldn't be so close to the World Trade Center. We should be more concerned with the tragedy than religion."
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ground_zero_mosque_imam_says_radical_7rGRZmCD1Lh7sf2QSiYSRJ#ixzz0xBQuUXIq
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ground_zero_mosque_imam_says_radical_7rGRZmCD1Lh7sf2QSiYSRJ
For context purposes ONLY:
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQFvmJlQaJ6DNI-k5ZZbe4zl2eXlKF6DvICOSqUefKwv7I-_5U&t=1&usg=__frd5lRuClKz1FAWEfIT-rzRPn_A=)
Quote from: guido911 on August 20, 2010, 04:22:18 PM
Correction, this should REALLY end the debate:
Yeah, one person's opinion should end the debate. ::)
A few more spokespersons like her might change the minds of some Americans with regards to the stereotype Muslim.
Quote from: nathanm on August 20, 2010, 05:40:48 PM
Yeah, one person's opinion should end the debate. ::)
Sort of like Ted Olson's clip a few pages back?
I think it's important to listen to all opinions and not be so closed-minded that we believe only our own pre-concieved notions are the correct ones on the issue. I didn't lose anyone on 9/11, and I find it a provocative move placing it so close to Ground Zero. There's also sufficient anecdotes out there about Imam Faisal and the developer to suggest it's not so much a peaceful gesture. However, I also realize that if no laws are broken, it's their right. It's also the right of those who oppose it strictly on moral and emotional grounds to object to the developers and ask that it be built elsewhere.
Certainly there are people in this country who fear the spread of Islam within our borders much as the spread of Christianity is feared and reviled within the borders of predominantly Islamic nations. I hear many misinformed opinions on activities of American Muslims, but there's also plenty of evidence to show that Muslims have not been the best of neighbors for many centuries to help create fear in people.
Perhaps I'm more skeptical that you and more willing to take a longer and more in depth look at who the people are behind this project and trying to find some sort of sinister meaning to a 13 or 15 story
mosque er community center in close proximity to where this tragedy happened.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 20, 2010, 06:15:02 PM
I think it's important to listen to all opinions and not be so closed-minded that we believe only our own pre-concieved notions are the correct ones on the issue. I didn't lose anyone on 9/11, and I find it a provocative move placing it so close to Ground Zero. There's also sufficient anecdotes out there about Imam Faisal and the developer to suggest it's not so much a peaceful gesture. However, I also realize that if no laws are broken, it's their right. It's also the right of those who oppose it strictly on moral and emotional grounds to object to the developers and ask that it be built elsewhere.
I think if Faisal wants to move the thing, he should. If he doesn't, he shouldn't. There are a couple of good reasons for putting it there in the first place: One, it's apparently a freaking ghost town in that area, so the building was relatively inexpensive, and secondly, the already existing mosques in the area are far over capacity, thus the interest in someday opening a mosque in the community center. I have yet to see someone explain how a community center not visible from the former WTC site causes any anguish to victims and their families. I can at least understand (but disagree with) the idea that it might be a problem if it were literally at the site or directly visible from the site.
Those anecdotes, by the way? Completely inconsistent with what the same people were saying last year, before they decided to turn this into a political issue. I suggest watching the Daily Show segments on the subject from Monday night (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-16-2010/mosque-erade) and last night (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homeland-edition).
Quote from: nathanm on August 20, 2010, 06:38:50 PM
I have yet to see someone explain how a community center not visible from the former WTC site causes any anguish to victims and their families. I can at least understand (but disagree with) the idea that it might be a problem if it were literally at the site or directly visible from the site.
Right or wrong, a lot of Americans see the community center/mosque as an "in your face" move rather than a bridge builder. A lot of Muslims see American policy as an "in your face" policy rather than trying to get along. Both sides need to examine the PR side involved. As a PC liberal, you should understand that even if you disagree.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 20, 2010, 10:14:58 PM
Right or wrong, a lot of Americans see the community center/mosque as an "in your face" move rather than a bridge builder. A lot of Muslims see American policy as an "in your face" policy rather than trying to get along. Both sides need to examine the PR side involved. As a PC liberal, you should understand that even if you disagree.
It doesn't matter who's insulted by what. They get to do what they want. They've passed all the local tests, attained all the permits and the setbacks and the whathaveyous in order to get it done. They followed all the rules. As I understand it, they even made sure they did a townhall meeting or two before finalizing plans. After satisfying all those conditions, it's all theirs.
If what you're agitating for is for them to listen a little closer to you and your protestations as they deliberate, then fine. I'm all for it. They get to make up their own mind and decide to weigh your objection in their own way. That's the way it should go.
If you're suggesting that we should abridge their freedom by judicial or legal means -- outside of the normal channels -- you're dead wrong.
(And seriously, you guys and your whining are starting to sound a lot like us so-called PC Liberals and our you-are-a-beautiful-and-unique-snowflake culture: "Pay attention to how I feel! How I feel is important! ALL THE TIME TO EVERYONE! AND SHOULD GUILT YOU INTO TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR HOW I FEEL ABOUT 9/11.")
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 20, 2010, 10:14:58 PM
Right or wrong, a lot of Americans see the community center/mosque as an "in your face" move rather than a bridge builder. A lot of Muslims see American policy as an "in your face" policy rather than trying to get along. Both sides need to examine the PR side involved. As a PC liberal, you should understand that even if you disagree.
I guess what I don't get about the in your face part is that it's not at all in anybody's face. It's nearby, but we're talking about lower Manhattan here, all of lower Manhattan is nearby. The island is less wide than the distance between the west and east sides of the IDL at that point. Two or three blocks away can seem like a different city entirely.
Quote from: we vs us on August 20, 2010, 11:22:03 PM
It doesn't matter who's insulted by what. They get to do what they want. They've passed all the local tests, attained all the permits and the setbacks and the whathaveyous in order to get it done. They followed all the rules. As I understand it, they even made sure they did a townhall meeting or two before finalizing plans. After satisfying all those conditions, it's all theirs.
If what you're agitating for is for them to listen a little closer to you and your protestations as they deliberate, then fine. I'm all for it. They get to make up their own mind and decide to weigh your objection in their own way. That's the way it should go.
If you're suggesting that we should abridge their freedom by judicial or legal means -- outside of the normal channels -- you're dead wrong.
(And seriously, you guys and your whining are starting to sound a lot like us so-called PC Liberals and our you-are-a-beautiful-and-unique-snowflake culture: "Pay attention to how I feel! How I feel is important! ALL THE TIME TO EVERYONE! AND SHOULD GUILT YOU INTO TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR HOW I FEEL ABOUT 9/11.")
I agree, they have the legal right to build it, period. Just as WalMart has the right to build the places they have built. Just as property owners have the right to tear down Art-deco buildings in Tulsa and put in surface parking lots. And so on.
I think "they" should listen to the protests and recognize that they are winning few friends by proceeding at that location. They, just as some less favored Tulsa developers do, can proceed regardless of the protests.
Quote from: nathanm on August 21, 2010, 12:40:35 AM
I guess what I don't get about the in your face part is that it's not at all in anybody's face.
A lot of vocal people seem to think so. You may choose words other than "in your face" to describe the situation but it exists.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 21, 2010, 10:41:58 AM
A lot of vocal people seem to think so. You may choose words other than "in your face" to describe the situation but it exists.
Aside from the yahoos that are clearly using this for political gain, as they supported it before they didn't, I think there's a misinformation problem involved, thanks to the descriptions this project has been getting in the media. "Ground Zero Mosque," for example, being wrong on two counts (it's neither at ground zero in the usual sense of the term nor a mosque in the usual sense of the word).
It's like us getting up at arms about a couple of nice looking but structurally unsalvageable buildings downtown.
Your position also ignores the fact that there's been a mosque on Park Place since 1970. Before the WTC was even built. Nobody said boo about it, but build a community center and reserve some space for the mosque inside, and it suddenly becomes a big deal? It makes no sense.
Seriously..check out that second TDS clip I posted last night. Charlton Heston gives an impassioned defense against this sort of ridiculousness.
Quote from: nathanm on August 21, 2010, 01:55:37 PM
Aside from the yahoos that are clearly using this for political gain, as they supported it before they didn't, I think there's a misinformation problem involved, thanks to the descriptions this project has been getting in the media. "Ground Zero Mosque," for example, being wrong on two counts (it's neither at ground zero in the usual sense of the term nor a mosque in the usual sense of the word).
It's like us getting up at arms about a couple of nice looking but structurally unsalvageable buildings downtown.
Your position also ignores the fact that there's been a mosque on Park Place since 1970. Before the WTC was even built. Nobody said boo about it, but build a community center and reserve some space for the mosque inside, and it suddenly becomes a big deal? It makes no sense.
Seriously..check out that second TDS clip I posted last night. Charlton Heston gives an impassioned defense against this sort of ridiculousness.
But dontcha know Nate, that Charlton Heston's opinion only matters as it relates to guns...
Quote from: Hoss on August 21, 2010, 02:19:38 PM
But dontcha know Nate, that Charlton Heston's opinion only matters as it relates to guns...
Perhaps, but I thought John Stewart saying "I was wrong" was pretty neat, too. Rare to see that in a public figure.
Some construction workers are refusing to work on the mosque, and encouraging others to do the same.
QuoteSome union construction workers say they will refuse to help build an Islamic mosque and cultural center planned for Lower Manhattan.
The BlueCollarCorner blog has started what is called thE 911 Hard Hat Pledge to rally union and no-union tradesmen to refuse to work the site near Ground Zero.
Andy Sullivan, a field super for A big union construction outfit, is behind the pledge.
Sullivan wrote, "My fellow Americans stand together and pledge not to work this hurtful insensitive project. Without us this sacrilige cannot be built."
The planned 13-story Park51 has exploded into a national debate after President Obama appeared to offer support for the project.
The Building Trades Employers' Association has not yet taken a formal position on the project or a potential boycott by union workers.
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/local_news/manhattan/construction-workers-refuse-to-build-mosque-20100820-lgf
Here is a link to a blog containing the 9/11 Hard Hat Pledge:
http://www.bluecollarcorner.com/blog/?p=750
Somehow I'm guessing they'll not have any problems finding others who will...
Quote from: Hoss on August 21, 2010, 02:19:38 PM
But dontcha know Nate, that Charlton Heston's opinion only matters as it relates to guns...
You are probably too young to remember Charlton Heston as Moses even though the 10 Commandments shows on TV almost every year.
Quote from: nathanm on August 21, 2010, 01:55:37 PM
Aside from the yahoos that are clearly using this for political gain, as they supported it before they didn't, I think there's a misinformation problem involved, thanks to the descriptions this project has been getting in the media. "Ground Zero Mosque," for example, being wrong on two counts (it's neither at ground zero in the usual sense of the term nor a mosque in the usual sense of the word).
It's like us getting up at arms about a couple of nice looking but structurally unsalvageable buildings downtown.
Your position also ignores the fact that there's been a mosque on Park Place since 1970. Before the WTC was even built. Nobody said boo about it, but build a community center and reserve some space for the mosque inside, and it suddenly becomes a big deal? It makes no sense.
Seriously..check out that second TDS clip I posted last night. Charlton Heston gives an impassioned defense against this sort of ridiculousness.
What actually bothers me the most is the attitude that the people protesting the Community Center / Mosque shouldn't have the right to do so. Arguments about it being a few feet too far from or too close to the point of impact of the Trade Center buildings are strictly arbitrary numbers. I don't live in the area so I don't know how close too close is. I suspect you don't really know either. I'm not going to get into the talking points on either side of this issue since I don't really care if it gets built or not. 20 years (an arbitrary number I have chosen) from now it will probably not be an issue. At the moment, I think the Community Center / Mosque is more divisive than uniting.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 21, 2010, 05:16:46 PM
What actually bothers me the most is the attitude that the people protesting the Community Center / Mosque shouldn't have the right to do so. Arguments about it being a few feet too far from or too close to the point of impact of the Trade Center buildings are strictly arbitrary numbers. I don't live in the area so I don't know how close too close is. I suspect you don't really know either. I'm not going to get into the talking points on either side of this issue since I don't really care if it gets built or not. 20 years (an arbitrary number I have chosen) from now it will probably not be an issue. At the moment, I think the Community Center / Mosque is more divisive than uniting.
I don't think anyone is saying that people don't have the right to be against it, only that it is unreasonable to be against it given the totality of the facts. (I make an exception for the families of people killed at WTC, as they have a good reason to be unreasonable)
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's only become a divisive national issue because some Fox News folks decided they could score political points. New Yorkers were dealing with it on their own just fine for a long while. I'd presume better faith in their argument had they not immediately turned on a guy they previously described as "one of the good guys" and started calling him a radical imam. Combine that with their trying to push the idea last week that the State Department is paying for him to go on a fundraising trip when he's making the same sort of outreach trip he's been making for several years now and he's barred from fundraising activity on the government-paid trip and it paints a nasty picture that quite honestly upsets me.
FWIW, I've actually been there, and even happened to walk down Park Place when I got turned around after coming out of the subway. :P Not that that makes me any more qualified to decide what's best for New York City, but you asked.
Quote from: nathanm on August 21, 2010, 06:17:57 PM
I don't think anyone is saying that people don't have the right to be against it, only that it is unreasonable to be against it given the totality of the facts. (I make an exception for the families of people killed at WTC, as they have a good reason to be unreasonable)
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's only become a divisive national issue because some Fox News folks decided they could score political points. New Yorkers were dealing with it on their own just fine for a long while. I'd presume better faith in their argument had they not immediately turned on a guy they previously described as "one of the good guys" and started calling him a radical imam. Combine that with their trying to push the idea last week that the State Department is paying for him to go on a fundraising trip when he's making the same sort of outreach trip he's been making for several years now and he's barred from fundraising activity on the government-paid trip and it paints a nasty picture that quite honestly upsets me.
FWIW, I've actually been there, and even happened to walk down Park Place when I got turned around after coming out of the subway. :P Not that that makes me any more qualified to decide what's best for New York City, but you asked.
Totality of facts: Fox is certainly playing up one side. Omission by the MSM is just as guilty. We probably won't really get a reasonable set of facts.
I think the Imam has been prohibited from directly raising funds and I expect he will abide by that. Just his presence will probably generate some funds.
I've been to NYC too, but a long time ago. When our family lived in PA we went to the NYC boat show several years and ate at Mama Leones afterward. I also went on a High School class trip to NYC, took the Staten Island ferry and did all the touristy things. I also went to the World's Fair in NY in the mid 60s twice. Just a visit doesn't count as a qualifier to judge how New York residents feel. So, actually, I didn't ask if you had been there. If you had told me you lived there since 9/11, I would agree you had some proper insight.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 21, 2010, 07:06:13 PM
Just a visit doesn't count as a qualifier to judge how New York residents feel. So, actually, I didn't ask if you had been there. If you had told me you lived there since 9/11, I would agree you had some proper insight.
As I said, I don't claim to know how they feel, I only claim to know that two blocks away from WTC seems a lot farther to me there than it would here.
Either way, it is and was their decision and they made it.
Quote from: nathanm on August 21, 2010, 07:13:05 PM
As I said, I don't claim to know how they feel, I only claim to know that two blocks away from WTC seems a lot farther to me there than it would here.
Either way, it is and was their decision and they made it.
Fair enough.
Quote from: nathanm on August 21, 2010, 07:13:05 PM
As I said, I don't claim to know how they feel, I only claim to know that two blocks away from WTC seems a lot farther to me there than it would here.
I won't argue about the perception of distance but you got me curious about a comparison of actual distance to something Tulsans could readily visualize. From Google maps I determined the following.
NYC:
Starting at Vesey St and W. Broadway, walk NE on W Broadway approximately .1 mi to Park Place, turn right, go a few hundred feet to Burlington Coat Factory.
Tulsa:
Starting at McNellies on 1st St walk to Greenwood Ave, turn left on Greenwood and go approximately 1/2 way to the Railroad tracks.
Edit:
If the towers had fallen like a tree rather than collapse, they could have hit the Burlington Coat Factory. The closer tower could have hit the BCF at about 3/4 of the tower's height.
Thought it was supposed to be an anti mosque rally not anti Muslim.
It's weird that this is happening almost nine years after 9/11. This is the kind of thing that you'd think would happen days or weeks after the event.
Quote from: we vs us on August 22, 2010, 08:45:27 PM
It's weird that this is happening almost nine years after 9/11. This is the kind of thing that you'd think would happen days or weeks after the event.
Or continuously but why the almost 9 year break?
"Mosque Supports Hamas" eh? Stay classy, folks.
It's actually been simmering just below the surface for a while. It just needed someone to stir the pot and turn up the heat a little. There have been local uproars about mosques and Muslim cemeteries going on across the country for years, which is why I was immediately skeptical of the motives of the people who are against Park51.
Here's a real classy one from Tennessee back in 2004 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=E3gvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZNwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1100%2C2436013). Florida in 2006 (http://www.sptimes.com/2006/07/14/State/Seeking_a_new_mosque_.shtml).
My favorite fox news argument is the "it is going to be a terrorist meeting place" idea. That would be in our best case scenario!
Quote from: we vs us on August 22, 2010, 08:45:27 PM
It's weird that this is happening almost nine years after 9/11. This is the kind of thing that you'd think would happen days or weeks after the event.
You don't think the Muslims have long memories?
This is nothing more than a clash of two groups expressing their First Amendment rights. I'm not aware of anyone who has asked the Feds to intervene and halt plans for this project, nor am I aware of any serious attempt for anyone to try and get NYC to reconsider issuing permits for this. I think it's an important discussion for both sides and in this case, it might be best for everyone if the Imam takes the path of least resistance and look for another site. It's certainly he and his supporters full legal right to build the community center wherever they like so long as it's within the scope of local building codes. It's every bit the right of anyone who sees this as a provocative gesture to voice their opinion.
Let's say someone decides to open a meat market specializing in nothing but pork next door to the new center or opens a gay strip club (not sure if that was a joking reference before or if that really is/has happened) would anyone consider that a provocative and ill-advised gesture?
This isn't a whole lot different than people who exercize their Second Amendment right bringing a firearm to a political rally and liberals getting up in arms about it. It's that person's right to openly carry (though inadvisable in my opinion) as much as it is yours to criticize it. I'm for the free exercize of Constitutional rights, it seems some people are simply a lot more conditional about other people exercizing theirs.
Apparently the Republicans have forgotten about a law they pushed into being 10 years ago.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0822-chapman-column-20100820,0,1147455.column (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0822-chapman-column-20100820,0,1147455.column)
QuoteTen years ago, Republicans in Congress passed a major law to protect the right of Muslims to establish mosques even where such a building might be unwelcome. Yes, they did. They just may not have thought of it quite that way at the time.
The law, called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, was aimed at a common problem often ignored by the courts: local government bodies using zoning authority to prevent religious institutions from moving in or expanding their operations.
It had the support of such groups as the Christian Legal Society and the Family Research Council. Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., said it was aimed at "the well-documented and abusive treatment suffered by religious individuals and organizations in the land use context." Sen. Orrin Hatch, R- Utah, pushed it because, he said, "At the core of religious freedom is the ability for assemblies to gather and worship together."
Is this a convenient loss of memory? Or selective memory?
So were they for it before they were against it?
Quote from: joiei on August 23, 2010, 09:39:08 AM
Apparently the Republicans have forgotten about a law they pushed into being 10 years ago.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0822-chapman-column-20100820,0,1147455.column (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0822-chapman-column-20100820,0,1147455.column)
Is this a convenient loss of memory? Or selective memory?
So were they for it before they were against it?
Joiei, again no one has argued the "legality" of this issue. Also, it's not just Republicans who have a problem with this, poll numbers bear out there are significant numbers of Democrats and independents who are unhappy with the location of this mosque, er community center.
Here's an interesting poll of New Yorkers taken in late June prior to this becoming a full-out national issue breaks it down by race, religion, and party affiliation.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1302.xml?ReleaseID=1473
This is a great segment by a pretty sharp Indian-American as it regards to this subject.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/08/22/gps.fareeds.take.sufism.cnn
This settles it, President Obama is a plant from the Saudi royal family (hey wasn't Bush 43 also?)
Quote from: joiei on August 23, 2010, 09:39:08 AM
Apparently the Republicans have forgotten about a law they pushed into being 10 years ago.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0822-chapman-column-20100820,0,1147455.column (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0822-chapman-column-20100820,0,1147455.column)
Is this a convenient loss of memory? Or selective memory?
So were they for it before they were against it?
Wow, what a fair and objective approach to this issue taken by the author of that article.
As for the rest of your post:
(http://www.redwinebuzz.com/winesooth/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/strawman.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2010, 09:55:34 AM
Joiei, again no one has argued the "legality" of this issue. Also, it's not just Republicans who have a problem with this, poll numbers bear out there are significant numbers of Democrats and independents who are unhappy with the location of this mosque, er community center.
Don't forget those rabid right wingers Harry Reid and Howard Dean.
Quote from: guido911 on August 23, 2010, 01:58:14 PM
Don't forget those rabid right wingers Harry Reid and Howard Dean.
Reid is pandering and Dean is apparently an idiot.
Perhaps Joe can speak for me: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/38813972#38813972
Quote from: nathanm on August 23, 2010, 02:17:01 PM
Reid is pandering and Dean is apparently an idiot.
Perhaps Joe can speak for me: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/38813972#38813972
Are you quite certain you and Howard Dean don't have something in common? Hmmmmm?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2010, 02:32:54 PM
Are you quite certain you and Howard Dean don't have something in common? Hmmmmm?
What would that be, a sense that the health care system in this country is broken? (HCR might fix it, but it's not in effect yet)
I do really enjoy the Dean Scream.
How about Ron Paul..he's a smart guy. More libertarian than I'm comfortable with, but I certainly have sympathies in that direction:
Quote
The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.
Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be "sensitive" requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from "ground zero."
http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-08-20/ron-paul-sunshine-patriots-stop-your-demagogy-about-the-nyc-mosque/
Edited to add: OH, I get it now, you must have been talking about my stint as Vermont's Governor!
A ton of wasted effort, space, and air time on this issue.
1) some people want to block all things islamic.
2) many other people think the mosque is offensive in the proposed location.
3) still others fear it will be used to promote violence.
The first group generally lack tolerence or the ability to differentiate radicals from the rest of the 1+ billion muslims. the second groups objections are noted, but there is no right not to be offended so it doesn't trump religious freedom. The third group has theories, but you can't stop people from building a temple, church or mosque because you fear it might someday conspire to break a law.
You can hate islam if you want. You can be offended. And you can live in fear. But those are not valid reason to legally prevent this place of worship. Objections noted, let's move on.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on August 23, 2010, 05:18:12 PM
A ton of wasted effort, space, and air time on this issue.
1) some people want to block all things islamic.
2) many other people think the mosque is offensive in the proposed location.
3) still others fear it will be used to promote violence.
The first group generally lack tolerence or the ability to differentiate radicals from the rest of the 1+ billion muslims. the second groups objections are noted, but there is no right not to be offended so it doesn't trump religious freedom. The third group has theories, but you can't stop people from building a temple, church or mosque because you fear it might someday conspire to break a law.
You can hate islam if you want. You can be offended. And you can live in fear. But those are not valid reason to legally prevent this place of worship. Objections noted, let's move on.
Translation: Those that lost loved ones 2 blocks from the proposed location, and those who sympathize with them, screw that whole "free speech" rights contained in the very amendment as the "religious freedom" provision. Seriously CF, never thought you would run to the straw man on this.
Quote from: guido911 on August 23, 2010, 06:14:21 PM
Translation: Those that lost loved ones 2 blocks from the proposed location, and those who sympathize with them, screw that whole "free speech" rights contained in the very amendment as the "religious freedom" provision. Seriously CF, never thought you would run to the straw man on this.
Never thought so many of you intelligent right-wingers would be led to the trough on this one by Newt...this should really be a non-issue, but for the religious right, who essentially would LOVE to see the US turned into a Christian theocracy, they love leading their sheep to the pasture.
::)
Praise the Lord.
PS: Doesn't mean I don't sympathize with those that lost loved ones or friends on 9/11. I do absolutely. It means that no matter what happens, we shouldn't be using 9/11 to trample on other people's freedoms.
The ideals are not important in this discussion. It is more about the ideology.
Kind of like American life has always been.
Couldn't get the Indian video to play, but I bet the Murdochians would dismiss out of hand regardless.
Who is my strawman? The 1st amendment? You, and everyone else that wants to, can exercise your freedom of speech to stop construction of a house of worship. I don't think anyone has argued that you can't bluster about it all you want, merely that you shouldn't and/or that it just doesn't really matter.
Guido, it isn't hard: there is no legal standing to stop construction of the mosque. Period. Done. Q.E.D.
Be as angry as you want. The widows and orphans of 911 can be as offended a they want. None of it matters. Religious freedom trumps all the anger and offended people in the world.
Isn't that great?
/edit
It occurs to be you didn't address any merits of my argument and I was forced to repeat myself. The argument is: I'm offended by their place of worship so they shouldn't build it. Very simple answer.
What I find most amusing is that the folks who go on about those who aren't supporters of our various foreign wars causing harm to our war efforts are doing more with this one issue to harm our war efforts than any of the anti-war lefties. They're giving aid and comfort to those who are attempting to turn the entire Muslim world against us.
In no way am I saying people shouldn't have the right to be against this community center, I'm just saying the inflamed rhetoric can be twisted to show that we're all anti-Muslim bigots. Especially the BS about how the community center might provide a terrorist safe haven and all the other crap the xenophobic originators of this controversy have been saying.
You have to remember that this all started with two right wing nutjobs who really do hate Muslims and think they're trying to take over the world. That spilled over into the crap Joe Scarborough was condemning this morning.
It isn't about freedom of religion, either. Just ask any Native American or a Mormon - see if they are free to worship the way they choose.
What we started as was an attempt to escape religious persecution of a particular group in the old countries and then bring that group here and establish their version of religious persecution - and persecute anyone who didn't agree with them. Still goes to a lack of knowing the history....
Never about freedom of religion, until the "reactionary" courts decided to rule that the glowing words actually should mean what they say...what a novel idea!! Realization of the ideal!!
Quote from: cannon_fodder on August 23, 2010, 10:42:19 PM
Who is my strawman? The 1st amendment? You, and everyone else that wants to, can exercise your freedom of speech to stop construction of a house of worship. I don't think anyone has argued that you can't bluster about it all you want, merely that you shouldn't and/or that it just doesn't really matter.
Guido, it isn't hard: there is no legal standing to stop construction of the mosque. Period. Done. Q.E.D.
Be as angry as you want. The widows and orphans of 911 can be as offended a they want. None of it matters. Religious freedom trumps all the anger and offended people in the world.
Isn't that great?
/edit
It occurs to be you didn't address any merits of my argument and I was forced to repeat myself. The argument is: I'm offended by their place of worship so they shouldn't build it. Very simple answer.
Merits of what argument? Oh, the same stuff repeated over and over by others in this thread or the talking points by left talking heads? Sorry CF, that's not argument. That's laziness. As for "legal standing"? Please. You forgot I guess that I am also a lawyer and I will not be lectured by you about the "standing" of people speaking out and who simply want the mosque moved a bit away from ground zero.
As for the straw man, if you cannot see that this issue is not about freedom of religion but rather that the mosque supporters showing a tiny bit of respect for the sensitivity of the 9/11 victims, I feel for you. Quite frankly, just as you can say that some want to "block all things islamic" or that that doofus nate can call those wanting the mosque moved (which is what they want by the way) "xenophobic", I guess I can call you and he "anti 9/11 victim".
guido, perhaps you should stop attributing bad motives to people when you don't know what's actually going through their head...
http://nymag.com/news/features/67635/
I guess I am wondering how that strip joint one block over shows its respect to the sensitivity of 9/11 victims. Red, white and blue pasties, maybe??
Quote from: nathanm on August 24, 2010, 09:01:44 AM
guido, perhaps you should stop attributing bad motives to people when you don't know what's actually going through their head...
http://nymag.com/news/features/67635/
Are you
still talking? Man you are a glutton.
Quote from: guido911 on August 24, 2010, 09:16:17 AM
Are you still talking? Man you are a glutton.
Chill out, dude.
Quote from: guido911 on August 24, 2010, 08:56:35 AM
who simply want the mosque moved a bit away from ground zero.
How far is "a bit"?
another block? block and a half? Two blocks? A mile? across the river in New Jersey?
How far?
Quote from: guido911 on August 24, 2010, 09:16:17 AM
Are you still talking? Man you are a glutton.
Interesting you would ask that question when you are doing the same. I didn't realize you were the only one allowed to participate in the conversation.
Even Muslims are saying Islam demands sensitivity (Oh and I get that these are OKC Muslims so Nathan, et al's arguments still trump this groups ::)):
http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=13032103
" An Oklahoma City Muslim group said the religious freedom issue has already been settled, but said sensitivity is needed over whether to build a Mosque near Ground Zero.
The American Muslim Association of Oklahoma took out a full page ad in Monday's "Oklahoman." It's a call to move the project to a mutually agreeable site. Spokesman Saleem Nizami said it's time for moderate Muslims to speak out. He said the teachings of Islam demand sensitivity.
"It has become an iconic date 9/11 and the twin towers, so there is something related to that and people are becoming emotional. It is our duty to make sure we pacify and move away," said Nizami.
Despite good intentions and the legal right to build on that spot, the sensitivity teachings of Islam demand a new location.
"We've got to take into consideration the sentiments of the people. What difference does it make if it is there or five miles from there? It's not going to make any difference," Nizami said. "If the purpose was to get Islam and the West relations going together, this has brought more division actually."
And Nizami said the reason for that division is extremism on both sides.
"It's time that people who are practical stood up. It was due a long time ago," the American Muslim Association of Oklahoma spokesman said.
"With this ad I hope people realize that yes, there are people, who are Muslim, and who are just like anybody else. And who are solid 100 percent U.S. citizens, defending the Constitution, living by the rule of law. They want to make their lives here, they want to be part of this whole country," Nizami said"
Quote from: Townsend on August 24, 2010, 09:25:36 AM
How far is "a bit"?
another block? block and a half? Two blocks? A mile? across the river in New Jersey?
How far?
Not for me to say. Again, I do not care if they build it right there or a half mile away. I am only speaking out in favor of those that are speaking out.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2010, 09:31:03 AM
"We've got to take into consideration the sentiments of the people. What difference does it make if it is there or five miles from there? It's not going to make any difference," Nizami said. "If the purpose was to get Islam and the West relations going together, this has brought more division actually."
So this guy thinks it should be in Harlem, not where there's a significant need (downtown) for more room to worship and a building is available? Interesting.
I also find it interesting he refers to Faisal as an extremist, when even Fox News called him a moderate late last year when this issue first came up.
Quote from: we vs us on August 24, 2010, 09:25:08 AM
Chill out, dude.
You chill out. I am fed up with people like Nate calling those that want the mosque built elsewhere xenophobes or bigots.
Quote from: nathanm on August 24, 2010, 09:34:47 AM
So this guy thinks it should be in Harlem, not where there's a significant need (downtown) for more room to worship and a building is available? Interesting.
I also find it interesting he refers to Faisal as an extremist, when even Fox News called him a moderate late last year when this issue first came up.
You proved the point of the very first sentence of my post.
Quote from: guido911 on August 24, 2010, 09:36:37 AM
You chill out. I am fed up with people like Nate calling those that want the mosque built elsewhere xenophobes or bigots.
I never said that. I said that the people behind the furor (Stop Islamiciation of America, and Pamela Geller in particular) are xenophobes and bigots.
Nor did I say that my argument trumps what our OKC Muslim friend thinks. I just find it interesting that he's trotting out some of the right wing spin on this.
Quote from: nathanm on August 24, 2010, 09:43:17 AM
I never said that. I said that the people behind the furor (Stop Islamiciation of America, and Pamela Geller in particular) are xenophobes and bigots.
Nor did I say that my argument trumps what our OKC Muslim friend thinks. I just find it interesting that he's trotting out some of the right wing spin on this.
Keep on diggin'
(http://www.olivertractors.ca/1925%20Steam%20Shovel.JPG)
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2010, 09:58:32 AM
Keep on diggin'
Keep on assuming you're clairvoyant.
Quote from: nathanm on August 24, 2010, 10:00:17 AM
Keep on assuming you're clairvoyant.
Last word freak ;D
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e22/purplebabe85/tee%20hee/Motivational/429881630_b381360adb.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on August 24, 2010, 08:56:35 AM
Merits of what argument? Oh, the same stuff repeated over and over by others in this thread or the talking points by left talking heads? Sorry CF, that's not argument. That's laziness. As for "legal standing"? Please. You forgot I guess that I am also a lawyer and I will not be lectured by you about the "standing" of people speaking out and who simply want the mosque moved a bit away from ground zero.
As for the straw man, if you cannot see that this issue is not about freedom of religion but rather that the mosque supporters showing a tiny bit of respect for the sensitivity of the 9/11 victims, I feel for you. Quite frankly, just as you can say that some want to "block all things islamic" or that that doofus nate can call those wanting the mosque moved (which is what they want by the way) "xenophobic", I guess I can call you and he "anti 9/11 victim".
You talk about straw men, yet all that you have holding up your argument is the sensativities of some of the family members of those lost. When it comes down to it, I'm sure that no matter what is built you would intrude on someones sensativities to their personal loss there. After all, isn't it insensative to the muslims that died there to deny, or protest against a building that is meant for others to practices their religion when it is being built near where they died at? Or are the considerations of sensativities only important when they belong to those of the same religion as you?
Quote from: custosnox on August 24, 2010, 12:02:39 PM
You talk about straw men, yet all that you have holding up your argument is the sensativities of some of the family members of those lost. When it comes down to it, I'm sure that no matter what is built you would intrude on someones sensativities to their personal loss there. After all, isn't it insensative to the muslims that died there to deny, or protest against a building that is meant for others to practices their religion when it is being built near where they died at? Or are the considerations of sensativities only important when they belong to those of the same religion as you?
It's not just the 9/11 victims' rights to speak out that I support; it's also that a clear majority of New Yorkers want the mosque moved and I support their right to speak out. Do you have a problem with people that oppose something, whether rightly or wrongly, to speak out?
As for your "straw man" accusation, could you clarify that? Are you accusing me of an anti-Islam bias based on the fact that I am Christian? If so, you are way off.
Guido,
The truth hurts. And the closer to home, the more it hurts. Why would one be at all concerned that they move the mosque somewhere else if they weren't xenophobes and bigots?
And how far away would be far enough??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 24, 2010, 12:39:14 PM
Guido,
The truth hurts. And the closer to home, the more it hurts. Why would one be at all concerned that they move the mosque somewhere else if they weren't xenophobes and bigots?
And how far away would be far enough??
Even fellow Muslims are saying they should consider building this elsewhere. I suppose they are xenophobes, bigots, and religious intollerants as well? Or are they listening to too much Murodoch/Republicontin/RWRE... blech...
"“This is not a humble Islamic statement. A mosque such as this is actually a political structure that casts a shadow over a cemetery, over hallowed ground. 9/11 was the beginning of a kinetic war, it is not an opportunity for cultural exchange. It was the beginning of a conflict with those who want to destroy our way of life,” Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, told The Daily Caller.
“I am in no way looking to infringe on First Amendment issues. I approach this as a Muslim that is dedicated to reform,” he said.
Jasser cited the Quranic verse, “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book [Jews and Christians],” and said that Muslims backing the project should be introspective during this month of Ramadan.
“From sunup to sundown Muslims are fasting and working on putting our needs tertiary to our God and our country, not what we need. They are abandoning these principles and saying, ‘Well, this is what we need and we are victims if you don’t let us do this. And we can do it, so we are going to.’ I think that is un-Islamic. That verse is one that teaches Muslims not only to be respectful but to actually treat equally other religions.”
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2010/08/18/some-muslims-oppose-gr-zero-mosque/
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 24, 2010, 12:39:14 PM
Guido,
The truth hurts. And the closer to home, the more it hurts. Why would one be at all concerned that they move the mosque somewhere else if they weren't xenophobes and bigots?
And how far away would be far enough??
I answered that question a little earlier today.
Here's some more bigoted, xenophobic, uneducated Muslims chiming in:
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=85080
""For most Americans, 9/11 remains as an open wound, and anything associated with Islam, even for Americans who want to understand Islam — to have an Islamic center with so much publicity is like rubbing salt in open wounds," said Akbar Ahmed, professor of Islamic studies at American University, a former Pakistani ambassador to Britain and author of "Journey Into America, The Challenge of Islam." He said the space should include a synagogue and a church so it will be truly interfaith.
Abdul Cader Asmal, past president of the Islamic Council of New England, an umbrella group for more than 15 Islamic centers, said some opponents of the $100 million, 13-story project are indeed anti-Muslim. But he said many Americans have genuine, understandable questions about Islam and extremism.
In light of those fears, and the opposition of many relatives of 9/11 victims, Asmal said organizers should dramatically scale back the project to just a simple mosque, despite their legal right to construct what they want.
"Winning in the court of law is not going to help improve the image of Muslims nationwide," said Asmal, a Massachusetts physician.
"You have to win the hearts and minds of the ordinary American people."
Asra Nomani, author of "Standing Alone: An American Woman's Struggle for the Soul of Islam," said American Muslims have not fully confronted extremism in Islam, which makes her worried that any mosque has the potential to become a haven for those with rigid views.
"Yes, there is prejudice against Muslims in the modern day, but also Muslims in the modern day have an extremist problem," said Nomani, who backs the idea of the mosque in principle but believes the feelings of families who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11 attacks should trump the plan.
Few American Muslims who lost relatives in the terrorist strikes have spoken out, but those who have are also divided.
Talat Hamdani, a Muslim whose son Salman, a New York police cadet and emergency medical technician, was killed on Sept. 11, supports the proposal. "I'm not fighting for a mosque. I'm fighting for my rights," she said.
By contrast, Neda Bolourchi of Los Angeles, a native of Iran whose mother was on one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center, opposes the plan.
"I fear that over time, it will cultivate a fundamentalist version of the Muslim faith, embracing those who share such beliefs and hating those who do not," she wrote in a Washington Post op-ed. "To the supporters of this new Islamic cultural center, I must ask: Build your ideological monument somewhere else, far from my mother's grave, and let her rest."
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 24, 2010, 12:39:14 PM
Guido,
The truth hurts. And the closer to home, the more it hurts. Why would one be at all concerned that they move the mosque somewhere else if they weren't xenophobes and bigots?
And how far away would be far enough??
Like it or not, agree with it or not, this mosque is a symbol. Was it designed to be a symbol? Who knows, but it now is.
If built it will represent different things to different people. A vast majority of Americans unfortunately will see it as a symbol of defiance, as polls suggest. Terrorist organizations have already said they see it as a symbol of victory. Muslim Americans will view it as a victory. Libertarians, like myself, a see it as a bold example constitutional freedom (but we are few).
No matter what the outcome of this debate, if the mosque is built it will continue to be divisive. I fear it will be a target for hatred, and a beacon to both sides of the debate.
Reason would dictate that if you wish to build a place of tranquility, you do it in a peaceful manner.
They have been offered several more appealing locations. These have been offered in good will and at reduced cost or no cost. So far they have declined. It seems their motive is to plant a flag. No good will come of this. That is unfortunate.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 24, 2010, 01:01:35 PM
Like it or not, agree with it or not, this mosque is a symbol. Was it designed to be a symbol? Who knows, but it now is.
If built it will represent different things to different people. A vast majority of Americans unfortunately will see it as a symbol of defiance, as polls suggest. Terrorist organizations have already said they see it as a symbol of victory. Muslim Americans will view it as a victory. Libertarians, like myself, a see it as a bold example constitutional freedom (but we are few).
No matter what the outcome of this debate, if the mosque is built it will continue to be divisive. I fear it will be a target for hatred, and a beacon to both sides of the debate.
Reason would dictate that if you wish to build a place of tranquility, you do it in a peaceful manner.
They have been offered several more appealing locations. These have been offered in good will and at reduced cost or no cost. So far they have declined. It seems their motive is to plant a flag. No good will come of this. That is unfortunate.
I think that sums it up the best.
Quote from: guido911 on August 24, 2010, 12:50:40 PM
I answered that question a little earlier today.
You ducked it. If they have a responsibility to consider every viewpoint, then it's your responsibility to be clear in what you want from them. Compromise of any sort demands nothing less.
So: if they're too close, then where is far enough away?
I tried a second time, and I failed.
Guido, I am not arguing the benefits of building the mosque. I'm not saying it is a good idea. I'm not saying it will bring people together. And I'm not arguing that you, the dead people from 911, their families, or anyone else doesn't have a right to speak out against it. Be as mad as you want. Protest. You have the right to.
My position is very, very simple: there is no legal avenue one can use to stop the construction of this mosque. Any try would almost certainly be overturned.
That's what I'm interested in discussing. The legal aspect. That's it. No more, no less. No matter how mad you are, how much the 911 association hates it, or if the victims of 911 rose from the dead in protest - it doesn't change the fact that they qualified under all the zoning ordinances, got the permits, and have a green light to convert that building into a mosque.
I addressed your concerns: people are upset, people are offended, and and people are afraid. That has no bearing on whether the mosque can be constructed. It goes to the question of should it be constructed. You, and indeed most Americans, answered that question in the negative. But that opinion is not outcome determinitive. They can build it in spite of your protests or in order to spite you. And again, I'm not interest in the *should* it be built aspect of the discussion, as opinions are pretty well set and I am fairly ambivelent.
To the issue of religious freedom; how is this not an issue of religious freedom? The question is being posed: should we prevent a religious institution from being built because people of the same faith committed a horrible act in the same neighborhood? The essence of the question is whether we should allow a group of people the right to build a house of worship or if it offends too many people and we don't allow it. I simply do not understand the contention that religious freedom has nothing to do with prohibiting the construction of a religious institution when the sole reason given is that it offends people (because of the religion it is meant to worship).
While it is true that many faiths, including Native Americans and Mormons (LDS), have had their faiths legally belittled and intruded upon; I don't think anyone would admit we want that to be the norm. It is also true that you couldn't fund a new church in Saudi Arabia without specific approval and jumping through MAJOR hurdles (if at all), but we're supposed to be better than that. Once again, it's very simple, their right to build a place of worship trumps your, or anyone elses, sensitivities.
So if anyone has an argument as to why the mosque should be legally prohibited, I'd be happy to hear it. Otherwise it's just repeating your opinion that you don't want it there (or not wanting it there in the 3rd person: "I support the people that have a right to hold the opinion that they don't want it there"). The opinions have been noted, but fail to address my concern.
A legal challenge to stop the cosntruction, however, would be interesting.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on August 24, 2010, 02:04:04 PM
My position is very, very simple: there is no legal avenue one can use to stop the construction of this mosque. Any try would almost certainly be overturned.
That's what I'm interested in discussing. The legal aspect. That's it. No more, no less. No matter how mad you are, how much the 911 association hates it, or if the victims of 911 rose from the dead in protest - it doesn't change the fact that they qualified under all the zoning ordinances, got the permits, and have a green light to convert that building into a mosque.
No one is arguing this as a legal issue. It's strictly emotional and and talking about whether or not this is a provocative move, and whether or not the developers should consider the feelings and input of the survivor's and non-survivors families. Nothing more nothing less.
Quote from: guido911 on August 24, 2010, 12:14:21 PM
It's not just the 9/11 victims' rights to speak out that I support; it's also that a clear majority of New Yorkers want the mosque moved and I support their right to speak out. Do you have a problem with people that oppose something, whether rightly or wrongly, to speak out?
As for your "straw man" accusation, could you clarify that? Are you accusing me of an anti-Islam bias based on the fact that I am Christian? If so, you are way off.
With every argument that has been posted, your counter has been "it isn't sensative to those it offends." Even when it is said that they have every legal right to build, that is your response. And since it can be argued in the opposite direction, as in it can be said that it isn't sensative to those who want to build it to ask them to build it somewhere else, your argument losses substance. Yet you keep using it, and you only use it in the one direction. And just because the majority wants something does not make it right, history has shown us that time and time again.
Quote from: custosnox on August 24, 2010, 02:26:23 PM
With every argument that has been posted, your counter has been "it isn't sensative to those it offends." Even when it is said that they have every legal right to build, that is your response. And since it can be argued in the opposite direction, as in it can be said that it isn't sensative to those who want to build it to ask them to build it somewhere else, your argument losses substance. Yet you keep using it, and you only use it in the one direction. And just because the majority wants something does not make it right, history has shown us that time and time again.
Let me ask you this:
If 70% of Americans or whatever the percentage is thinks this is:
A) A bad idea
B) Insensitive to victims and survivors
C) A provocative monument to an Islamic victory
How does that build a bridge of goodwill between Muslims and non-Muslims? Your logic is along the lines of saying we need to allow illegal immigration from south of the border to continue unabated and then everyone else assimilate to Mexican language and culture. Since when did minority rights trump all else, including common sense?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2010, 02:33:30 PM
Your logic is along the lines of saying we need to allow illegal immigration from south of the border to continue unabated and then everyone else assimilate to Mexican language and culture.
I thought that's what we were doing?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2010, 02:33:30 PM
Let me ask you this:
If 70% of Americans or whatever the percentage is thinks this is:
A) A bad idea
B) Insensitive to victims and survivors
C) A provocative monument to an Islamic victory
How does that build a bridge of goodwill between Muslims and non-Muslims? Your logic is along the lines of saying we need to allow illegal immigration from south of the border to continue unabated and then everyone else assimilate to Mexican language and culture. Since when did minority rights trump all else, including common sense?
This is also pushing people of Muslim faith away and supporting the radical clerics' points of view that the USA hates them and wishes their end.
Quote from: custosnox on August 24, 2010, 02:26:23 PM
With every argument that has been posted, your counter has been "it isn't sensative to those it offends." Even when it is said that they have every legal right to build, that is your response. And since it can be argued in the opposite direction, as in it can be said that it isn't sensative to those who want to build it to ask them to build it somewhere else, your argument losses substance. Yet you keep using it, and you only use it in the one direction. And just because the majority wants something does not make it right, history has shown us that time and time again.
I agree that my argument loses its substance because I have been beating my own dead horse restating my support for those that want the developers to have the mosque built elsewhere. As for your last sentence, I restrained myself and did not go with the "Captain Obvious" pic.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on August 24, 2010, 02:04:04 PM
I tried a second time, and I failed.
Guido, I am not arguing the benefits of building the mosque. I'm not saying it is a good idea. I'm not saying it will bring people together. And I'm not arguing that you, the dead people from 911, their families, or anyone else doesn't have a right to speak out against it. Be as mad as you want. Protest. You have the right to.
My position is very, very simple: there is no legal avenue one can use to stop the construction of this mosque. Any try would almost certainly be overturned.
That's what I'm interested in discussing. The legal aspect. That's it. No more, no less. No matter how mad you are, how much the 911 association hates it, or if the victims of 911 rose from the dead in protest - it doesn't change the fact that they qualified under all the zoning ordinances, got the permits, and have a green light to convert that building into a mosque.
I addressed your concerns: people are upset, people are offended, and and people are afraid. That has no bearing on whether the mosque can be constructed. It goes to the question of should it be constructed. You, and indeed most Americans, answered that question in the negative. But that opinion is not outcome determinitive. They can build it in spite of your protests or in order to spite you. And again, I'm not interest in the *should* it be built aspect of the discussion, as opinions are pretty well set and I am fairly ambivelent.
To the issue of religious freedom; how is this not an issue of religious freedom? The question is being posed: should we prevent a religious institution from being built because people of the same faith committed a horrible act in the same neighborhood? The essence of the question is whether we should allow a group of people the right to build a house of worship or if it offends too many people and we don't allow it. I simply do not understand the contention that religious freedom has nothing to do with prohibiting the construction of a religious institution when the sole reason given is that it offends people (because of the religion it is meant to worship).
While it is true that many faiths, including Native Americans and Mormons (LDS), have had their faiths legally belittled and intruded upon; I don't think anyone would admit we want that to be the norm. It is also true that you couldn't fund a new church in Saudi Arabia without specific approval and jumping through MAJOR hurdles (if at all), but we're supposed to be better than that. Once again, it's very simple, their right to build a place of worship trumps your, or anyone elses, sensitivities.
So if anyone has an argument as to why the mosque should be legally prohibited, I'd be happy to hear it. Otherwise it's just repeating your opinion that you don't want it there (or not wanting it there in the 3rd person: "I support the people that have a right to hold the opinion that they don't want it there"). The opinions have been noted, but fail to address my concern.
A legal challenge to stop the cosntruction, however, would be interesting.
Why would a legal challenge to stop the construction be "interesting" to you? After all, as you so boldly stated, "
there is no legal avenue one can use to stop the construction of this mosque."
Now, if you want to debate the legality of how someone would go about stopping the construction of the mosque (which has never been my position; and I thought the position of the protesters was its relocation) for the sake of argument, I will have to muse hard over that one. But as I wrote way back, I think the developers have every right to build it there.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2010, 02:33:30 PM
Let me ask you this:
If 70% of Americans or whatever the percentage is thinks this is:
A) A bad idea
B) Insensitive to victims and survivors
C) A provocative monument to an Islamic victory
How does that build a bridge of goodwill between Muslims and non-Muslims? Your logic is along the lines of saying we need to allow illegal immigration from south of the border to continue unabated and then everyone else assimilate to Mexican language and culture. Since when did minority rights trump all else, including common sense?
It seems that the majority of those who oppose this "mosque" have formed their oppinions based on half-truths and misconceptions, as has been pointed out several times in previous posts. And how can they build bridges of goodwill if they are always told to leave? As far as comparing them to the illegal immigrants, that's really stretching it. First off is that word illegal. That means they have come here unlawfully. Last I checked, these folks were legally allowed to build a community center with a place reserved for worship in it at this location. Second, your making it out like by them building the center there, it means that everyone in lower Manhattan must now pray to Allah, and praise the deeds of the prophit Mohammad. That is what the equililant to the argument of having everyone assimilate the culture and language of mexicans.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2010, 02:33:30 PM
Let me ask you this:
If 70% of Americans or whatever the percentage is thinks this is:
A) A bad idea
B) Insensitive to victims and survivors
C) A provocative monument to an Islamic victory
How does that build a bridge of goodwill between Muslims and non-Muslims? Your logic is along the lines of saying we need to allow illegal immigration from south of the border to continue unabated and then everyone else assimilate to Mexican language and culture. Since when did minority rights trump all else, including common sense?
If it weren't for the regular protesting of mosques that are nowhere near Ground Zero, I might have more sympathy for the majoritarian argument. Of course, on of the major purposes of our Constitution is to prevent the majority from trampling on the rights of the minority.
I really don't get this "terrorists will be emboldened by it" argument. Should we now do things based on whether or not terrorists will like it? How about the argument that by
not building it there, it sends a terrible message to Muslims the world over that we won't let them exercise their religious freedom when we get our sentiment stirred up by a racist xenophobe? If it were truly that big of a deal, it wouldn't have gone 8 months with nary a newspaper article before being picked up by that tool Geller.
Face it, some 9/11 families are OK with it, some of them aren't. Some people are OK with it, others aren't.
And if you want to know why 70% of Americans are against it, it might have something to do with the lies being peddled by Fox News. If I believed that it was going to be some sort of training camp for terrorists and all the other BS being said about it, I wouldn't want it built
anywhere.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/moment-of-zen---prince-alwaleed-bin-talal-on-fox-news
Oh, and what alternate locations have actually been offered?
Quote from: custosnox on August 24, 2010, 03:20:17 PM
It seems that the majority of those who oppose this "mosque" have formed their oppinions based on half-truths and misconceptions, as has been pointed out several times in previous posts. And how can they build bridges of goodwill if they are always told to leave? As far as comparing them to the illegal immigrants, that's really stretching it. First off is that word illegal. That means they have come here unlawfully. Last I checked, these folks were legally allowed to build a community center with a place reserved for worship in it at this location. Second, your making it out like by them building the center there, it means that everyone in lower Manhattan must now pray to Allah, and praise the deeds of the prophit Mohammad. That is what the equililant to the argument of having everyone assimilate the culture and language of mexicans.
That still didn't answer my question as to how this is structure is a goodwill gesture when most people, ignorant or not of real or percieved issues are against it. There's no doubt there's a lot of misinformation and misplaced fear on the part of some opponents but there's also historical precident throughout Islam for people to cast a wary eye in the direction of this center.
I can say that since we started the debate on here, I've learned more about Imam Faisal and the Cordoba Initiative and I'd like to believe there are the best of intentions with this. If what I'm led to believe is correct, then moving the location should be less about capitulation to the Cordoba folks than truly showing the good will this is supposed to stand for. I think it's telling when adherents to Islam are saying that it would be wise to put this elsewhere if they want to build a bridge. To someone who lost their spouse on 9/11, they might have a serious distaste for all Islam even though it's only a small handful of Muslims who were involved in this atrocity. I'm reading things though that almost make Muslims sound like the victims of 9/11 not the citizens of the United States.
As far as everyone having to pray to Allah, not at all. I'm simply trying to figure out where the rights or desires of a minority are more important than those of a majority and using the example of illegal immigration as a little absurdity to put an exclaimation point on this. Even prior to this hitting the national spotlight in a big way, more than 1/2 of NYC area residents were against it. We also know there are Democrats, Independents, women, and Muslims against this. Hardly rank and file Fox watchers.
Quote from: we vs us on August 24, 2010, 01:33:18 PM
You ducked it. If they have a responsibility to consider every viewpoint, then it's your responsibility to be clear in what you want from them. Compromise of any sort demands nothing less.
So: if they're too close, then where is far enough away?
Fine, four blocks from Ground Zero. Apparently there is already a mosque four blocks away, the Masjid Manhattan, that New Yorkers are not upset about. Happy now?
Quote from: guido911 on August 24, 2010, 04:07:40 PM
Fine, four blocks from Ground Zero. Apparently there is already a mosque four blocks away, the Masjid Manhattan, that New Yorkers are not upset about. Happy now?
What if the the number 4 or the view from that spot or anything else having to do with it was offensive to any of the families? Would you support them and say 4 blocks was too close?
Quote from: guido911 on August 24, 2010, 04:07:40 PM
Fine, four blocks from Ground Zero. Apparently there is already a mosque four blocks away, the Masjid Manhattan, that New Yorkers are not upset about. Happy now?
The building is currently being used as a mosque. It will be more like a Y than a mosque after it gets rebuilt. Pull the other one.
Quote from: nathanm on August 24, 2010, 04:01:31 PM
And if you want to know why 70% of Americans are against it, it might have something to do with the lies being peddled by Fox News. If I believed that it was going to be some sort of training camp for terrorists and all the other BS being said about it, I wouldn't want it built anywhere.
revealing that 68% of Americans oppose the "Ground Zero Mosque" -- including 54% of Democrats, 45% of liberals, 82 percent of Republicans disapprove. Meanwhile, 70 percent of independents said they are against the proposal.
Hmmm, yeah, we all know how much Democrats and liberals love to watch Fox. I also suspect 1/2 or less of independents pay much attention to Fox, since they are independent and Fox has a reputation as the RNC house organ.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2010, 02:33:30 PM
Let me ask you this:
If 70% of Americans or whatever the percentage is thinks this is:
A) A bad idea
B) Insensitive to victims and survivors
C) A provocative monument to an Islamic victory
How does that build a bridge of goodwill between Muslims and non-Muslims? Your logic is along the lines of saying we need to allow illegal immigration from south of the border to continue unabated and then everyone else assimilate to Mexican language and culture. Since when did minority rights trump all else, including common sense?
This brings up an interesting point. Clubs, religions, and cults are all motivated by increasing membership. It's obvious that the developers understand that this location will attract worshipers. As a controversial mosque, will it attract controversial Muslims?
The site is in a commercial district, and locations have been offered a couple of blocks away in residential zones where many of the current worshipers reside (they have been worshiping in the vacant Burlington Coat Factory building for years now). The location is obviously very important, so much so that the developers are willing to require worshipers an extra trek to attend, rather than building closer to their demographic. This tells me that the location is a big selling point.
Quote from: Townsend on August 24, 2010, 04:11:21 PM
What if the the number 4 or the view from that spot or anything else having to do with it was offensive to any of the families? Would you support them and say 4 blocks was too close?
Which families, the 9/11 or Muslim or both. Doesn't matter to me if people object, it's their right to do so. Personally, I think the proximity to Ground Zero argument would be harder to make given the forty year existence of that mosque.
I only posted the four block issue to point out that there is already a mosque near Ground Zero and no one up there seems upset about that one. Indeed, there are no cries of intolerance by Muslim/pro-mosque group against those xenophobic and bigoted folks with regards to the Masjid Manhattan.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2010, 04:21:27 PM
revealing that 68% of Americans oppose the "Ground Zero Mosque" -- including 54% of Democrats, 45% of liberals, 82 percent of Republicans disapprove. Meanwhile, 70 percent of independents said they are against the proposal.
I wonder how many or the 68%, when asked about the "ground zero mosque", actually know it's not a mosque and that it's not going to be built on ground zero?
Quote from: Townsend on August 24, 2010, 04:24:03 PM
I wonder how many or the 68%, when asked about the "ground zero mosque", actually know it's not a mosque and that it's not going to be built on ground zero?
No idea, though it is being used as a mosque now.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2010, 04:25:49 PM
No idea, though it is being used as a mosque now.
Noted from above entries.
My point is if you ask someone if they favor a mosque built on the same ground as the twin towers, you'll hear a "no". That is most likely what they're hearing.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2010, 04:25:49 PM
No idea, though it is being used as a mosque now.
It will continue to be used as a mosque. "Community Center" is simply a PC term.
Quote from: guido911 on August 24, 2010, 04:23:24 PM
Which families, the 9/11 or Muslim or both. Doesn't matter to me if people object, it's their right to do so. Personally, I think the proximity to Ground Zero argument would be harder to make given the forty year existence of that mosque.
I only posted the four block issue to point out that there is already a mosque near Ground Zero and no one up there seems upset about that one. Indeed, there are no cries of intolerance by Muslim/pro-mosque group against those xenophobic and bigoted folks with regards to the Masjid Manhattan.
Well then if you've been stating this all along I've misunderstood your stance.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 24, 2010, 04:29:14 PM
It will continue to be used as a mosque. "Community Center" is simply a PC term.
Community Center means mosque?
What's really interesting is that folks who live in Manhattan are +10 in favor of the mosque. You know, the people whose borough it's actually being built in. The greatest resistance comes from those in Staten Island, who were apparently already protesting a mosque being built there.
Basically, there's not even a majoritarian argument to be made here, if you look at the poll that was conducted...
Also, apparently there's a Y there in NYC that holds a lot of prayer events for Jews. Supposedly nobody calls that a synagogue. Why the double standard?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2010, 04:05:06 PM
That still didn't answer my question as to how this is structure is a goodwill gesture when most people, ignorant or not of real or percieved issues are against it. There's no doubt there's a lot of misinformation and misplaced fear on the part of some opponents but there's also historical precident throughout Islam for people to cast a wary eye in the direction of this center.
I can say that since we started the debate on here, I've learned more about Imam Faisal and the Cordoba Initiative and I'd like to believe there are the best of intentions with this. If what I'm led to believe is correct, then moving the location should be less about capitulation to the Cordoba folks than truly showing the good will this is supposed to stand for. I think it's telling when adherents to Islam are saying that it would be wise to put this elsewhere if they want to build a bridge. To someone who lost their spouse on 9/11, they might have a serious distaste for all Islam even though it's only a small handful of Muslims who were involved in this atrocity. I'm reading things though that almost make Muslims sound like the victims of 9/11 not the citizens of the United States.
At this point it comes down to how far do the Muslims have to go to show they are trying to have goodwill? There are many who wouldn't be happy until they were back in Islamic nations, and even then it would be questionable. So, to show that they have nothing but goodwill, should they pack up and head back to whatever country they originated from, leaving no trace of their religion? Them building a community center in a place that it is needed, and presenting themselves as wanting to show otheres that they are a peaceful religion and then those they are trying to make peace with saying it is offensive for them to build there and they should move it is the equivalant of holding out an olive branch and having it slapped down because it's not gold plated.
And yes, in a since, all of Islam was a victim of 9/11, and no, this does not diminish the tragedy America suffered. It is in addition to the tragedy that because a few radical extremists did this in the name of the Muslim religion that the entire religion is now viewed as war mongering terrorists who are intent on removing the infadels from the face of the planet. It's akin to painting all catholics as pedophiles because of a few priests actions. A pale comparison, but one none the less.
Quote
As far as everyone having to pray to Allah, not at all. I'm simply trying to figure out where the rights or desires of a minority are more important than those of a majority and using the example of illegal immigration as a little absurdity to put an exclaimation point on this. Even prior to this hitting the national spotlight in a big way, more than 1/2 of NYC area residents were against it. We also know there are Democrats, Independents, women, and Muslims against this. Hardly rank and file Fox watchers.
It's still comparing apples to oranges. Illegal immagrants have no constitutional right to be here illegally. Religions do have the constitutional right to worshiping without interferance from the government.
As far as the numbers of who opposed it, yes there were some of every group that opposed it, and you will find that no matter what the issue is. However, the numbers were skewed by the large amounts of conservatives who opposed it.
AGE IN YRS....... NoColl Coll POL PHIL.........
18-34 35-54 55+ Degree Degree Lib Mod Con
Foster understanding 51% 42% 36% 34% 48% 63% 41% 17%
Insult to families 36 42 46 44 40 23 42 68
BOTH(VOL) 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2
NEITHER(VOL) 4 5 6 6 5 5 6 4
DK/NA 6 9 10 13 5 6 9 9
Quote from: Townsend on August 24, 2010, 04:28:36 PM
Noted from above entries.
My point is if you ask someone if they favor a mosque built on the same ground as the twin towers, you'll hear a "no". That is most likely what they're hearing.
Townsend, you are correct perception IS everything. It may be a "community center" but hundreds are worshiping in it now, and will continue to worship there even if they call it a "Dry Cleaners."
I think that people do understand where it is and what it is, and yes, both sides of the argument are trying to market it to their political advantage.
No matter how you correctly or incorrectly define it, it is now established as a symbol with meaning and strong emotion on both sides.
Lets look at it from the Imam's perspective. . .(a little role-play)
I have every right to build on this spot. I own it. I am already using this building for worship and have been for years even though the roof leaks from a gaping hole caused by the landing gear of American Flight 11. Hundreds of my parishioners travel from near by residential areas to prey in this damaged structure. I already have a congregation here.
If peace was my only motive, I would certainly entertain other possible locations because my goal is to build a place of joy and worship. There is however a reason that people want to worship here. I understand that by building my "community center" here, I present myself, my building, and my congregation as an international symbol, and I recognize some advantage to that.
Also something to note, the vast majority that opposed it (in the pre-media craze poll), already had a pre-existing bias against Islam/Muslims as per their response to Question 21:
21. Would you say you have a generally favorable or unfavorable opinion of Islam, the Muslim religion?
Quote from: custosnox on August 24, 2010, 04:48:07 PM
Also something to note, the vast majority that opposed it (in the pre-media craze poll), already had a pre-existing bias against Islam/Muslims as per their response to Question 21:
21. Would you say you have a generally favorable or unfavorable opinion of Islam, the Muslim religion?
The way that question was asked, they thought they had to explain that Islam was the Muslim religion. IOW, they were prepared for those who know or knew little of the faith to answer.
Quote from: Townsend on August 24, 2010, 05:03:20 PM
The way that question was asked, they thought they had to explain that Islam was the Muslim religion. IOW, they were prepared for those who know or knew little of the faith to answer.
Dispite the increased levels of media attention of Islam, it's surprising how many don't really understand that.
More evidence that the furor over mosques has nothing to do whatsoever with ground zero:
Quote
"Wouldn't you agree that every terrorist, past and present, has come out of a mosque?" asked one woman who stood up Wednesday night during a civic association meeting on Staten Island to address representatives of a group that wants to convert a Roman Catholic convent into a mosque in the Midland Beach neighborhood.
"No," began Ayman Hammous, president of the Staten Island branch of the group, the Muslim American Society — though the rest of his answer was drowned out by catcalls and boos from among the 400 people who packed the gymnasium of a community center.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/nyregion/11mosque.html?_r=2
Quote
The man leading the fight against the mosque is a stocky 44-year-old correctional officer named Kevin Fisher. After he heard about the proposal, he voiced his opposition with an op-ed in the town's alternative weekly.
Fisher spent his formative years in Buffalo, where a homegrown terrorist cell of Yemeni Americans was uncovered in 2002. Its presence in a place so familiar haunts Fisher to this day, he said. He is well aware that clerics at U.S. mosques have been accused of espousing radical views in the years before and after Sept. 11.
And he pointed out that one of the Murfreesboro mosque's board members was suspended after the discovery of a MySpace page where he had posted Arabic poetry and a photo of the founder of the Islamic militant group Hamas. Leaders of the mosque said their internal investigation showed no wrongdoing, and they are cooperating with federal authorities looking into the matter.
"So many things about Islam are disconcerting," Fisher said. "As they get bigger, there will be concerns about the ideology, what they preach and what they believe."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/22/AR2010082202895_3.html
Quote
In Temecula, Calif., opponents brought dogs to protest a proposed 25,000-square-foot mosque that would sit on four acres next to a Baptist church. Opponents worry it will turn the town into haven for Islamic extremists, but mosque leaders say they are peaceful and just need more room to serve members.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100808/ap_on_re_us/us_mosque_opposition
Quote from: custosnox on August 24, 2010, 04:48:07 PM
Also something to note, the vast majority that opposed it (in the pre-media craze poll), already had a pre-existing bias against Islam/Muslims as per their response to Question 21:
21. Would you say you have a generally favorable or unfavorable opinion of Islam, the Muslim religion?
something about a couple of buildings collapsing in lower Manhattan might have affected their views.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2010, 10:04:12 PM
something about a couple of buildings collapsing in lower Manhattan might have affected their views.
Hmm...I notice churches go up near NW 5th and Harvey in OKC with no protest...
So according to Conan, Baptists should be driven or removed from downtown Oklahoma City because of what little Timmy did!!
Something about the Federal building collapsing in downtown OKC affected my views, too. (Just not in a xenophobic, bigoted, anti-Baptist way....)
I'm not aware of any religious affiliation of McVeigh or Nichols nor was the Murrah building bombed in the name of any particular religion. I think we all know McVeigh was outraged at the apparent violations of the first and second amendment rights of the Branch Davidians.
The point I was trying to make before you perverted it was the incidents on 9/11 did nothing to improve the image of Islam to Americans.
As far as how close to Ground Zero is acceptable, how about as close as they will allow a Christian church to Mecca. Fair?
McVeigh claimed himself Baptist.
So, with the last comment, the message is that we should be just like the Saudi's. Yeah,...that's just the kind of country I want to live in. Another crazed, tin-horn dictator controlled theocracy. But that's pretty much the entire RWRE mantra. We should do it just like they do...we'll allow mosques here when they allow Christian church in Mecca.
And in an unrelated, but pertinent vein - Liz Cheney was on Fox tonight lamenting and lambasting the comments by some Imam (New York one I think) that we had caused more death and destruction of men, women and children in Iraq than Al Qaeda. She was greatly outraged by the truth, as would be expected from Fox channel.
Umbrage, indignation and outrage at truth and facts. Well, I guess if bluster, misdirection and distortion is all ya got, ya go with what ya got, huh?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2010, 11:02:31 PM
I'm not aware of any religious affiliation of McVeigh or Nichols nor was the Murrah building bombed in the name of any particular religion. I think we all know McVeigh was outraged at the apparent violations of the first and second amendment rights of the Branch Davidians.
The point I was trying to make before you perverted it was the incidents on 9/11 did nothing to improve the image of Islam to Americans.
As far as how close to Ground Zero is acceptable, how about as close as they will allow a Christian church to Mecca. Fair?
Apples and oranges Colin and you know it. Saudi Arabia isn't the US and vice versa. We actually give a smile about the rights of the citizen and hold our constitution sacred. Well, most of us.
When you start saying stuff like that, let's not forget why our forefathers left the British Isles. Wasn't it partially because of religious persecution? So, does that mean only SOME of us that worship a Judeo-Christian God are worthy of the freedom to worship in our chosen religion?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 24, 2010, 11:33:05 PM
McVeigh claimed himself Baptist.
So, with the last comment, the message is that we should be just like the Saudi's. Yeah,...that's just the kind of country I want to live in. Another crazed, tin-horn dictator controlled theocracy. But that's pretty much the entire RWRE mantra. We should do it just like they do...we'll allow mosques here when they allow Christian church in Mecca.
And in an unrelated, but pertinent vein - Liz Cheney was on Fox tonight lamenting and lambasting the comments by some Imam (New York one I think) that we had caused more death and destruction of men, women and children in Iraq than Al Qaeda. She was greatly outraged by the truth, as would be expected from Fox channel.
Umbrage, indignation and outrage at truth and facts. Well, I guess if bluster, misdirection and distortion is all ya got, ya go with what ya got, huh?
And it wasn't just that Tim claimed himself as Baptist. He was avenging the attack on the Waco compound. Wasn't that a religious extremist cult? You remember how quick the government was to point the finger at the Muslim community in the hours after the Federal Building bombing?
Conan:
I don't thinkn the muslims in lower manhatten that want to have a community center/mosque or even the guy funding it/leading the congregation have the power to allow churches in mecca.
"You can build a catholic church in tulsa when I can built a baptist church in the vatican. " damn, I lost the popes number.
It only serves to point out that we are holding the actions of everyone with the same religion against individuals.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2010, 11:02:31 PM
As far as how close to Ground Zero is acceptable, how about as close as they will allow a Christian church to Mecca. Fair?
Ground zero isn't a religious shrine to be used to justify anything we want to do.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/moment-of-zen---charlton-heston-s-nra-speech (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/moment-of-zen---charlton-heston-s-nra-speech)
The daily show had a good NRA speech. See unlike building a mosque 9 years after a tragic event. The NRA was having their gun rally 10 days after columbine.
Quote from: Trogdor on August 25, 2010, 07:17:11 AM
Ground zero isn't a religious shrine to be used to justify anything we want to do.
You are aware that unidentified human remains from this tragedy will be permanently interred at the Ground Zero Memorial when it is completed, yes? Burial grounds are considered sacred in most every society and religion. Sites of previous attacks on the United States are considered sacred by many including the Murrah memorial and Pearl Harbor.
Instead of seeking to understand why it is people are against this center, you guys can't seem to fathom why everyone else doesn't think like you do. There's plenty of reasons people don't like it, rational or not and they have been explained. Don't expect everyone else to become educated on Islam and accept it and don't accept Islam on face value of being a peaceful religion of coexistence.
Unfortunately, most Americans knowledge of Islam is that 19 Muslims commandeered civilian aircraft on 9/11/01 and slaughtered over 3000 Americans and we've been fighting Muslims overseas ever since. Or they've heard about slaughtering infidels, mistreatment of women, and that the entire world must be converted.
Who is to say it's up to America to extend the olive branch? The only thing which would even come close to pacifying the Arab and Muslim world entirely would be to sever all ties with Israel and demand the Israelis abandon their homeland.
I don't necessarily agree with everything which has been brought up against this mosque or community center, but I believe when there is an issue which is so devisive, it's perhaps best to simply back away and look to construct this somewhere else. The purpose and location of the center may all be with the greatest intentions, but to fundamentalist nut-jobs who believe Muslims are infiltrating our country and trying to destroy it, this building could become a target. Certainly there has been some inflamitory rhetooric used to try and sway opinion like "Ground Zero Mosque" and calling Imam Rauf a "radical cleric". Is that fair? No, not when the facts are examined, but it's what the average person percieves. I see this as being a target of vandalism and possibly domestic terrorism in the future, what kind of message will that send to the Muslim world?
It's simple, move it and take it elsewhere. That's the only way this issue is going to go away peacefully. We ARE all about peae, aren't we?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 25, 2010, 11:16:21 AM
You are aware that unidentified human remains from this tragedy will be permanently interred at the Ground Zero Memorial when it is completed, yes? Burial grounds are considered sacred in most every society and religion. Sites of previous attacks on the United States are considered sacred by many including the Murrah memorial and Pearl Harbor.
Odd then that there are Shinto shrines near Pearl Harbor (or so I've read, I haven't personally verified that information).
Also odd that some folks in Tennessee that I posted about earlier decided to make a big stink about a Muslim cemetery a few years back, if intended burial grounds are so sacred.
Besides, Manhattanites favor the community center.
I hear what you're saying, I just think it doesn't make sense. It has nothing to do with extending an olive branch, it has to do with standing up for the principle of religious freedom. It has to do with clearly showing that we don't consider all Muslims to be on par with the hijackers. We're better than this BS. Building it despite the opposition shows one of the greatest things about our nation, that your rights will be protected even when it and/or you are is unpopular. That we're better than mob rule.
I also don't buy the argument that it should be built elsewhere because it will be a target for terrorism in the future. It doesn't matter where it's built; nutjobs who listen to people Pamela Geller will protest a mosque anywhere. It's happening all across the country. It's happening in Staten Island, FFS. There is nowhere that will make these people happy. There have already been mosque bombings. There have already been mosques vandalized. All far from ground zero. It's just a convenient excuse for them to get their hate on.
It makes no more sense than outlawing homosexuality or interracial marriage (or gay marriage, for that matter) because some people are homophobes or racists and kill gays or burn crosses on people's lawns.
Interestingly enough there is now a movement forming of Islamic leaders across the country encouraging the developers of the GZ Mosque to move it to a different location. The group has some local ties.
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=13032103
Conan,
You made the point exactly. Ground zero is sacred - at least to me and many who think like me it is - but this is not a discussion about sacred ground. This is about bigotry and religious intolerance and strip joints and Amish Market. This part of Manhattan is well separated from ground zero. And populated already by a wide variety of different enterprises.
What the RWRE and the Murdochian propaganda machine is doing is not about sacred ground.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 25, 2010, 02:52:38 PM
Conan,
You made the point exactly. Ground zero is sacred - at least to me and many who think like me it is - but this is not a discussion about sacred ground. This is about bigotry and religious intolerance and strip joints and Amish Market. This part of Manhattan is well separated from ground zero. And populated already by a wide variety of different enterprises.
What the RWRE and the Murdochian propaganda machine is doing is not about sacred ground.
Oh but this is not bigoted and intolerant (NSFW):
And then there's this gem (go to 3:45)
The old man dropping the f bomb conjures up images what some people in this forum look like.
Quote from: guido911 on August 25, 2010, 03:35:56 PM
Oh but this is not bigoted and intolerant (NSFW):
And then there's this gem (go to 3:45)
The old man dropping the f bomb conjures up images what some people in this forum look like.
So someone stated they are not? I've not watched. I have no idea if they are or not. I'm just asking you if someone has stated they are or are not bigoted and intolerant.
Quote from: guido911 on August 25, 2010, 03:35:56 PM
Oh but this is not bigoted and intolerant (NSFW):
And then there's this gem (go to 3:45)
The old man dropping the f bomb conjures up images what some people in this forum look like.
soo, what your trying to say is because he is a holocost victim he is above reproach and when he attacks someone (verbally), and they attack back, and emotions get high and both sides are yelling, yet whoever dared to take a side opposite of him is lower than dirt?
Quote from: custosnox on August 25, 2010, 04:48:49 PM
soo, what your trying to say is because he is a holocost victim he is above reproach and when he attacks someone (verbally), and they attack back, and emotions get high and both sides are yelling, yet whoever dared to take a side opposite of him is lower than dirt?
It's called 'Guido' logic.
Quote from: custosnox on August 25, 2010, 04:48:49 PM
soo, what your trying to say is because he is a holocost victim he is above reproach and when he attacks someone (verbally), and they attack back, and emotions get high and both sides are yelling, yet whoever dared to take a side opposite of him is lower than dirt?
Soo, what you are saying is that you cannot freakin read what I posted, eh smart guy? Where did I say anything about anyone being lower than dirt. And what about the other video I posted where the guy went off on an anti-Jew rant. No smart@ss remarks about that one I noticed.
Quote from: guido911 on August 25, 2010, 06:20:49 PM
Soo, what you are saying is that you cannot freakin read what I posted, eh smart guy? Where did I say anything about anyone being lower than dirt. And what about the other video I posted where the guy went off on an anti-Jew rant. No smart@ss remarks about that one I noticed.
heh, I figured you would bring up the second one. To be honest, I couldn't even understand what he was saying, or really anyone on that video (kids had gotten home by that point). So wasn't going to comment one way or another. In any case, you take two examples and paint the entire side of the debate with a very large brush. Does this mean that everyone can post a video any time you take a stance on something and put it out there as an example of what you stand for when a lunatic is on some rant or another to support the same thing you support?
And as ar as you not saying he was lower than dirt, no you did not. Kinda funny how it comes off as that is what your opinion would be. Though I just love how you say he is a bigot because he argues with him. Seemed that all of his name calling and yelling was about the guys stance on the issue.
Quote from: custosnox on August 25, 2010, 07:01:59 PM
Does this mean that everyone can post a video any time you take a stance on something and put it out there as an example of what you stand for when a lunatic is on some rant or another to support the same thing you support?
Of course not. It's not the same when people bomb and vandalize mosques (and proposed mosques), threaten or kill Muslims, or paint a broad brush calling them all terrorists or supporters of terrorism. No, those people are just lunatics who don't speak for the whole of the group sharing that opinion. But if you have a different opinion than guido does, anybody who shares your opinion is reflective of your position. If someone does something ridiculous, they're just a liberal representing all other liberals' thoughts.
Someone needs to tell the developers of the Community Center that it's just a "Community Center." On the website for the "Community Center" Park51.org, they themselves use the term Mosque.
While a mosque will be located in the planned final structure of Park51, it will be a distinct non-profit. Neither Park51 nor the mosque, which hasn't been named yet, will tolerate any kind of illegal or un-American activity or rhetoric. The final size and location of the mosque have yet to be determined, but it will only represent a small portion of the final structure.
The Story: The Need For A Mosque in Lower Manhattan
We'd been looking for at least seven years to find a space to accommodate the growing population of Muslims in lower Manhattan. We had also been eager to contribute to the revitalization of lower Manhattan, in part because this is our area of business and also because as New Yorkers we wanted to give back to our city and help make it a better place to live.
Prior to purchasing our current facility at 45 Park Place, there were two mosques in lower Manhattan, although Park51 is not affiliated with either of these mosques. One was Masjid al-Farah, which could fit a maximum of approximately 65 people, and had to hold three or four separate prayer services on Fridays just to fit the crowds.
The second mosque, at Warren Street, accommodated about 1,500 worshippers during Friday prayers - people had been praying on sidewalks because they had no room. They lost their space around May 2009.
We made the move to buy 45 Park Place in July 2009 in part to offset the loss of this space. Currently, our space at 45 Park Place accommodates around 450 people every Friday. We are also easily accessible from many different parts of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Staten Island, which was an important consideration.
That said, looking at the planned facilities, it looks like a very nice place. As with all development (as we all know), what is proposed rarely reflects what is finally built.
If it is built, I am curious as to what parts of the plan are realized. I suppose that will be dictated by the funding being provided by the Saudi's and other Arab nations, as well as some domestic sources.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 26, 2010, 09:05:07 AM
Someone needs to tell the developers of the Community Center that it's just a "Community Center." On the website for the "Community Center" Park51.org, they themselves use the term Mosque.
If it is built, I am curious as to what parts of the plan are realized. I suppose that will be dictated by the funding being provided by the Saudi's and other Arab nations, as well as some domestic sources.
Oh, there we go. Obviously going to house terrorists.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 25, 2010, 02:52:38 PM
This is about bigotry and religious intolerance and strip joints and Amish Market. This part of Manhattan is well separated from ground zero. And populated already by a wide variety of different enterprises.
What the RWRE and the Murdochian propaganda machine is doing is not about sacred ground.
You have totally lost it....
Quote from: Townsend on August 26, 2010, 09:08:48 AM
Oh, there we go. Obviously going to house terrorists.
Why do you think that?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 26, 2010, 09:53:27 AM
Why do you think that?
A mosque? Built by the Saudi's and other Arab nations? You insinuated it yourself. C'mon man, don't back down now.
Quote from: Townsend on August 26, 2010, 10:02:37 AM
A mosque? Built by the Saudi's and other Arab nations? You insinuated it yourself. C'mon man, don't back down now.
Hey! Not all Saudi's are terrorists! Not all Arabs are terrorists!
I mentioned it because Imam Rauf himself has discussed who is providing funding. Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal has provided the much of the funding to him, giving hundreds of thousands of dollars. Also the Saudi "Kingdom Foundation" . . .and as Rauf mentioned he is seeking funding from "other Muslem nations" which I assume are likely Arab nations.
Just because you automatically associate Saudi Arabia with terrorism does not insinuate a connection.
I seriously doubt he would accept funds from Terrorists do you?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 26, 2010, 10:23:33 AM
Hey! Not all Saudi's are terrorists! Not all Arabs are terrorists!
I mentioned it because Imam Rauf himself has discussed who is providing funding. Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal has provided the much of the funding to him, giving hundreds of thousands of dollars. Also the Saudi "Kingdom Foundation" . . .and as Rauf mentioned he is seeking funding from "other Muslem nations" which I assume are likely Arab nations.
Just because you automatically associate Saudi Arabia with terrorism does not insinuate a connection.
I seriously doubt he would accept funds from Terrorists do you?
Especially since bin Talal is the largest minority shareholder in ...... wait for it now..... NewsCorp.
So, in FNC's opinion, does that mean the Fox News, by proxy of bin Talal, is funding terrorism?
Quagmire?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 26, 2010, 10:23:33 AM
Hey! Not all Saudi's are terrorists! Not all Arabs are terrorists!
I mentioned it because Imam Rauf himself has discussed who is providing funding. Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal has provided the much of the funding to him, giving hundreds of thousands of dollars. Also the Saudi "Kingdom Foundation" . . .and as Rauf mentioned he is seeking funding from "other Muslem nations" which I assume are likely Arab nations.
Just because you automatically associate Saudi Arabia with terrorism does not insinuate a connection.
I seriously doubt he would accept funds from Terrorists do you?
Good job. Now we can stop postings that insinuate bad things happening when it's referred to as a mosque or when the money comes from the middle east.
Quote from: guido911 on August 25, 2010, 03:35:56 PM
Oh but this is not bigoted and intolerant (NSFW):
And then there's this gem (go to 3:45)
The old man dropping the f bomb conjures up images what some people in this forum look like.
At least I can spell Hallowed properly. And don't associate me with the old man. Not even close.
Quote from: Hoss on August 26, 2010, 10:30:09 AM
Especially since bin Talal is the largest minority shareholder in ...... wait for it now..... NewsCorp.
So, in FNC's opinion, does that mean the Fox News, by proxy of bin Talal, is funding terrorism?
Quagmire?
Why are you guys continuing to assert that just because someone is Saudi, they are a terrorist?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 26, 2010, 11:19:13 AM
Why are you guys continuing to assert that just because someone is Saudi, they are a terrorist?
You got this party started.
QuoteI suppose that will be dictated by the funding being provided by the Saudi's and other Arab nations
Now why would someone with your viewpoints and fox news mentality bring that up?
Why not just say "dictated by funding"?
Quote from: Townsend on August 26, 2010, 11:28:37 AM
You got this party started.
Now why would someone with your viewpoints and fox news mentality bring that up?
Why not just say "dictated by funding"?
Wow! What are my viewpoints? I am not a big Fox fan, I usually watch CBS in the evening and Fox in the morning. CNBC at the office, cause I like their website. I also like and subscribe to WSJ.
As for my comment
in context:
QuoteI am curious as to what parts of the plan are realized. I suppose that will be dictated by the funding being provided by the Saudi's and other Arab nations, as well as some domestic sources.
It was based on 6 years of experience marketing large development projects. The funding ultimately dictates the design and final offering, no matter what the original developer presents.
I seem to have struck a chord and I'm not sure why.
If going to discuss funding at all, then why not discuss the entire funding chain?? It is a gross lie of exclusion to stop with Saudi Arabia as funding terrorism. Two major threads extend from that source - one a further funding path where they (specifically the Bin Laden family companies) have put over $1 billion into the hands of the Bush family companies (consulting fees??) over the last 50 years or so.
The backwards thread that really counts is the fact that the Saudi's wouldn't have squat if it weren't for BP and the US and western Europe paying all that money for some oil. So the end point in this little funding commentary is that WE are funding terrorism against ourselves.
You know that Bin Laden has gotta be laughin' his donkey off about that...
Ironic, huh?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 26, 2010, 11:34:48 AM
I seem to have struck a chord and I'm not sure why.
I think it had to do with the implied assumption that only predominately Arab nations and people residing in them will provide funding for Park51. If you've been watching Fox lately, you'll have noticed that they've been harping on eeevul ay-rab funding for the "ground zero mosque" and doing their best to promote folks claiming that the money is coming from terrorists and/or people who fund terrorism. They have even gone so far as to specifically claim that bin Talal's Kingdom Foundation, which they assume will be providing some of the funds, has links to terrorism. They repeatedly fail to mention bin Talal's connection to the Kingdom Foundation or make the disclosure that he is the second largest shareholder in News Corporation, as most journalists would. (or maybe they just used to, but I know I've seen such disclosures in the past on other networks)
I am amazed that that we only alluded to the fact that Alwaleed bin Talal who is offering the primary funding for this Mosque is also Rupert Murdoch's partner in Fox News (good job Hoss, but you didn't take it far enough).
Why would an organization spend millions of dollars in broadcast time rallying the troops against this development, and at the same time fund it? ;)
Could it be a trap? Could it be a distraction?
Have they gotten us fiddling while Rome burns?
Pelosi has demanded to know where the funding comes from. Perhaps she has found her golden egg.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap?xrs=share_fb
So if building the mosque is an affront and insult, then the Glenn Beck event this weekend must be exactly the same type of affront and insult, since he has very carefully orchestrated it to be on the anniversary of Dr. King's speech in exactly the same place with the backdrop of Beck's efforts and comments against civil rights.
But it will be non-political. And to prove it, Sarah Palin will be the keynote speaker!
There may be some good come of this. Beck-ies say they expect 300,000+. Bill O'Reilly says he will quit his show if more than 100,000 show up. The best of all worlds would be for 101,000 to show up. Then Beck would be a failure and the world would be rid of Bill O'Reilly! Unless Bill was lying - again.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/theweek/20100826/cm_theweek/206445
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 27, 2010, 09:54:35 AM
So if building the mosque is an affront and insult, then the Glenn Beck event this weekend must be exactly the same type of affront and insult, since he has very carefully orchestrated it to be on the anniversary of Dr. King's speech in exactly the same place with the backdrop of Beck's efforts and comments against civil rights.
But it will be non-political. And to prove it, Sarah Palin will be the keynote speaker!
There may be some good come of this. Beck-ies say they expect 300,000+. Bill O'Reilly says he will quit his show if more than 100,000 show up. The best of all worlds would be for 101,000 to show up. Then Beck would be a failure and the world would be rid of Bill O'Reilly! Unless Bill was lying - again.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/theweek/20100826/cm_theweek/206445
Interesting article. It did neglect to mention that Dr. King's family not only supports the event, but Dr. Alveda King will be a speaker and guest of honor. I guess that's a bit of a thorn to the liberal media, so no need to report it. ;)
When I join Beck and all gathered at the Lincoln Memorial this weekend, I will talk about my Uncle Martin and the America he envisioned. I will talk about honor and character and sacrifice. I will be joined by those who represent the diversity of the human race.
On Saturday, Uncle Martin's dream of personhood and human dignity will resound across America. And the Park Police should consider themselves forewarned: As we stand in the symbolic shadow of the great American who signed the Emancipation Proclamation, we just might sing.
Dr. Alveda King
Quote from: Gaspar on August 27, 2010, 10:52:06 AM
Interesting article. It did neglect to mention that Dr. King's family not only supports the event, but Dr. Alveda King will be a speaker and guest of honor. I guess that's a bit of a thorn to the liberal media, so no need to report it. ;)
When I join Beck and all gathered at the Lincoln Memorial this weekend, I will talk about my Uncle Martin and the America he envisioned. I will talk about honor and character and sacrifice. I will be joined by those who represent the diversity of the human race.
On Saturday, Uncle Martin's dream of personhood and human dignity will resound across America. And the Park Police should consider themselves forewarned: As we stand in the symbolic shadow of the great American who signed the Emancipation Proclamation, we just might sing.
Dr. Alveda King
That just a plain lie.
No, the family does not support Beck, one random Pro Life activist niece does:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/24/AR2010082405003.html
Story by Martin Luther King III,
Quote
Forty-seven years ago this weekend, on a sweltering August day often remembered simply as the March on Washington, my father delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial. A memorial to him is being erected at the Tidal Basin, not far from where he shared his vision of a nation united in justice, equality and brotherhood.
This weekend Glenn Beck is to host a "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial. While it is commendable that this rally will honor the brave men and women of our armed forces, who serve our country with phenomenal dedication, it is clear from the timing and location that the rally's organizers present this event as also honoring the ideals and contributions of Martin Luther King Jr.
I would like to be clear about what those ideals are.
Vast numbers of Americans know of my father's leadership in opposing segregation. Yet too many believe that his dream was limited to achieving racial equality. Certainly he sought that objective, but his vision was about more than expanding rights for a single race. He hoped that even in the direst circumstances, we could overcome our differences and replace bitter conflicts with greater understanding, reconciliation and cooperation.
My father championed free speech. He would be the first to say that those participating in Beck's rally have the right to express their views. But his dream rejected hateful rhetoric and all forms of bigotry or discrimination, whether directed at race, faith, nationality, sexual orientation or political beliefs. He envisioned a world where all people would recognize one another as sisters and brothers in the human family. Throughout his life he advocated compassion for the poor, nonviolence, respect for the dignity of all people and peace for humanity.
Although he was a profoundly religious man, my father did not claim to have an exclusionary "plan" that laid out God's word for only one group or ideology. He marched side by side with members of every religious faith. Like Abraham Lincoln, my father did not claim that God was on his side; he prayed humbly that he was on God's side.
He did, however, wholeheartedly embrace the "social gospel." His spiritual and intellectual mentors included the great theologians of the social gospel Walter Rauschenbush and Howard Thurman. He said that any religion that is not concerned about the poor and disadvantaged, "the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them and the social conditions that cripple them[,] is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial." In his "Dream" speech, my father paraphrased the prophet Amos, saying, "We will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream."
The title of the 1963 demonstration, "The Great March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom," reflected his belief that the right to sit at a lunch counter would be hollow if African Americans could not afford the meal. The need for jobs and shared economic prosperity remains as urgent and compelling as it was 47 years ago. My father's vision would include putting millions of unemployed Americans to work, rebuilding our tattered infrastructure and reforms to reduce pollution and better care for the environment.
In my efforts to help realize my father's dream, supporting justice, freedom and human rights for all people, I have conducted nonviolence workshops and outreach in communities across this country and numerous other nations. My experiences affirm the enduring truth of my father's words: that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" and that "we are all bound together in a single garment of destiny."
I pray that all Americans will embrace the challenge of social justice and the unifying spirit that my father shared with his compatriots. With this commitment, we can begin to find new ways to reach out to one another, to heal our divisions, and build bridges of hope and opportunity benefiting all people. In so doing, we will not merely be seeking the dream; we will at long last be living it.
Quote from: swake on August 27, 2010, 12:08:34 PM
That just a plain lie.
No, the family does not support Beck, one random Pro Life activist niece does:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/24/AR2010082405003.html
Story by Martin Luther King III,
I'm not sure where the part is that says Martin Luther King III is against this??
He simply makes a very eloquent statement about Dr. Kings beliefs that I think everyone can agree with.
So we will have to wait and see how Beck does with it. Any bets??
Do you think maybe he is looking at the success of the Freedom Alliance and may be wanting to get his own 'gravy train' started?
None of these people are anywhere near the stature of Ghandi, ML King, or Billy Graham. And yet, the RWRE have made rock stars of them. Not just strange, but bizarre.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 27, 2010, 12:26:44 PM
I'm not sure where the part is that says Martin Luther King III is against this??
He simply makes a very eloquent statement about Dr. Kings beliefs that I think everyone can agree with.
Did you read this?
Quote
My father championed free speech. He would be the first to say that those participating in Beck's rally have the right to express their views. But his dream rejected hateful rhetoric and all forms of bigotry or discrimination, whether directed at race, faith, nationality, sexual orientation or political beliefs. He envisioned a world where all people would recognize one another as sisters and brothers in the human family. Throughout his life he advocated compassion for the poor, nonviolence, respect for the dignity of all people and peace for humanity.
Although he was a profoundly religious man, my father did not claim to have an exclusionary "plan" that laid out God's word for only one group or ideology. He marched side by side with members of every religious faith. Like Abraham Lincoln, my father did not claim that God was on his side; he prayed humbly that he was on God's side.
He did, however, wholeheartedly embrace the "social gospel." His spiritual and intellectual mentors included the great theologians of the social gospel Walter Rauschenbush and Howard Thurman. He said that any religion that is not concerned about the poor and disadvantaged, "the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them and the social conditions that cripple them[,] is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial." In his "Dream" speech, my father paraphrased the prophet Amos, saying, "We will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream."
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 27, 2010, 12:31:27 PM
So we will have to wait and see how Beck does with it. Any bets??
Do you think maybe he is looking at the success of the Freedom Alliance and may be wanting to get his own 'gravy train' started?
None of these people are anywhere near the stature of Ghandi, ML King, or Billy Graham. And yet, the RWRE have made rock stars of them. Not just strange, but bizarre.
I've probably watched a total of less than 10 minutes of Beck, and most of that on Youtube clips sent to me by friends & family. I've seen him be ridiculous, and mock-emotional, but I doubt he would ever be disrespectful. I think he would lose quite a bit of following if he was. He tends to appeal to the hardcore Regan Republican crowd.
My mother wanted to attend the event, but as of early this week, she couldn't get a hotel room any closer than Virginia. I just had lunch with her and she said the whole event is in response to the students that were told to stop singing the national anthem at the monument back in June.
I remember that story, it was much to-do about nothing as I recall.
Quote from: swake on August 27, 2010, 12:39:02 PM
Did you read this?
QuoteMy father championed free speech. He would be the first to say that those participating in Beck's rally have the right to express their views. But his dream rejected hateful rhetoric and all forms of bigotry or discrimination, whether directed at race, faith, nationality, sexual orientation or political beliefs. He envisioned a world where all people would recognize one another as sisters and brothers in the human family. Throughout his life he advocated compassion for the poor, nonviolence, respect for the dignity of all people and peace for humanity
Yes I did, but he is not calling anyone hateful. He says that his father's dream rejected hateful rhetoric, and I think we can all happily agree with that. I think perhaps he may be offering a gentle reminder, but certainly not angry disagreement.
He does structure this paragraph so that the reader can assign his own meaning derived from his own philosophy and it seems that you have done so.
BTW, you have the best Avatar ever!
King III was not blasting Beck in his article. He was making a positive point about what his father stood for, not tearing down anyone/anything else. That is probably what impressed me most about that article. He seems to have gotten a lot from his old man. (I wish Billy Graham's son had done so well! I admit it, I am a fan of Billy's - but not junior.)
As for Beck losing following, well if that were true, no one would listen to him or Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, or Limbaugh. Or Levine, Drudge, or Palin. Or Barney Frank, Marion Barry, or Richard Daley.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 27, 2010, 12:54:02 PM
King III was not blasting Beck in his article. He was making a positive point about what his father stood for, not tearing down anyone/anything else. That is probably what impressed me most about that article. He seems to have gotten a lot from his old man. (I wish Billy Graham's son had done so well! I admit it, I am a fan of Billy's - but not junior.)
Amen brother!
I have always been impressed with MLKJ III. His thought process is always focused on building bridges, even when confronted in interviews with total morons.
Quote from: swake on August 27, 2010, 12:08:34 PM
TNo, the family does not support Beck, one random Pro Life activist niece does:
Do you have a problem with pro-life activists?
Quote from: guido911 on August 27, 2010, 01:57:32 PM
Do you have a problem with pro-life activists?
I wonder what Dr. King's opinion would be?
;)
I can only hope that Beck avoids some of his more hateful schtick. If he doesn't, that's OK, too. He has the right to say whatever stupid things he wants to, no matter how much I or anybody else disagree. I think the entire idea that it dishonors Dr. King's memory for Glenn Beck to speak there is as silly as the one about the mosque. If Beck had been one of the folks leading the charge against the community center, it would show some blatant hypocrisy, but he hasn't been, as far as I know. At worst it's thoughtless.
Quote from: nathanm on August 27, 2010, 03:36:11 PM
I can only hope that Beck avoids some of his more hateful schtick. If he doesn't, that's OK, too. He has the right to say whatever stupid things he wants to, no matter how much I or anybody else disagree. I think the entire idea that it dishonors Dr. King's memory for Glenn Beck to speak there is as silly as the one about the mosque. If Beck had been one of the folks leading the charge against the community center, it would show some blatant hypocrisy, but he hasn't been, as far as I know. At worst it's thoughtless.
I hope he doesn't show up drunk.
Poor Peckerwood, no one understands that he thinks he is the KING OF THE WORLD.
I only catch Glen Beck on an occasional basis. I guess I should watch regularly so I can certain that he is hateful rather than merely presenting a view from a different perspective. A recent show presented data indicating that JFK and family and LBJ were not always so friendly to the Civil Rights Movement. I actually remember it being somewhat that way. I only remember Ike as President but don't really remember anything significant from the era. I do remember "Colored" and "White Only" water fountains and rest rooms on the way to FL from PA in the early 60s.
Did either LaRussa or Pujols know why they were there or who they were talking to? Those speeches were pretty generic.
We had those "Colored only" signs in Tulsa, too, when I was growing up (4 -5 yr old). There was a drug store around 4th or 5th, I think one block west of Main... Mom took us in the front, even when parked down the side of the building where the sign was, since we weren't allowed to use that door. I thought it was unfair that I had to walk all that extra distance around the front when the door was right there....it was a long way at 4.
I didn't understand until many years later...
http://www.americablog.com/2010/08/tennessee-mosque-fire-ruled-as-arson.html (http://www.americablog.com/2010/08/tennessee-mosque-fire-ruled-as-arson.html)
They torched the construction equipment of the Tennessee mosque.
Quote from: Trogdor on August 29, 2010, 10:02:19 PM
http://www.americablog.com/2010/08/tennessee-mosque-fire-ruled-as-arson.html (http://www.americablog.com/2010/08/tennessee-mosque-fire-ruled-as-arson.html)
They torched the construction equipment of the Tennessee mosque.
They should have been more sensative to those who would be effected by their building it...
Quote from: guido911 on August 16, 2010, 04:17:54 PM
Crap? What "crap" would that be, that some people don't want a mosque built near the location where 3,000 innocent Americans were murdered by members of that faith will worship?
Personally, I am not offended at all about the location of this mosque. It's just that people who lost loved ones at the hands of barbarians might, just might, be offended. They, in my opinion, have a right to be heard.
'Ground Zero mosque' opens, no one notices
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/22/7900617-ground-zero-mosque-opens-no-one-notices
What you don't get, is they want to be heard and then they could care less.....kind of sounds....hollow?
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 22, 2011, 02:47:17 PM
'Ground Zero mosque' opens, no one notices
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/22/7900617-ground-zero-mosque-opens-no-one-notices
What you don't get, is they want to be heard and then they could care less.....kind of sounds....hollow?
Just shows to go you!
CNN breaking news: The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, Tenn., receives a temporary certificate of occupancy after a two-year battle