Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Ground Zero Mosque


Karlis
 Share

Shold the mosque be approved? Or not approved?  

87 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the building of a mosque be approved?



Recommended Posts

Because he, among other things, refuses to call Hamas a terrorist group and supports Sharia. Islamists like him usually don't oppose terrorist attacks.

Does appear there is more to him then one see's on the surface.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 636
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • ninjadude

    61

  • Agent X

    39

  • Mainpoint

    51

  • Leah G.

    43

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Okay. I doubt anyone here on the forum would directly disagree with that, though many imply it in their posts.

Well, the ideology has pretty much been admitted to. That's why I differentiated the two. There are those Muslims who hold the same religion, but not the same ideological view, but the people behind the mosque are not of this kind.

But my point was that it doesn't really matter how you, personally, differentiate it. This isn't a matter of politics or education. It's simply about manners. I gave the example of a grieving mother who refuses to allow the man who killed her child to attend the funeral. The reason why the man killed the son is largely irrelevant, as is whether or not the mother is wrong for not being educated enough (for instance, no knowing enough about the situation), or the man is politically wrong for wanting to pay his respects at the funeral regardless of the mother's wishes. Regardless, it would be the height of discourtesy for the man to show up at the funeral.

Now, the man still has the option to pay his respects once the funeral is over. No one is telling him he can't. All they are asking for is a little consideration. The same is going on with this mosque. No one is saying that they cannot expand their community center. No one is saying that they will be forbidden to pray in that community center. The only thing that is being objected to is the inclusion of a mosque. Again, all that people are asking for is a little consideration. There wasn't a mosque there before, please don't put a mosque there now.

Yes it is a very good expample and I said already that visdom is missed in regards to the groud zero mosque.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My position has been 100% clear from the onset which is i dont agree with having freedoms and rights taken away I live in america.

Next person who tries waving a bloody shirt needs to point out specifically which freedom or which right gives someone the ability to build a house of worship anywhere they please, without regard to anyone else's opinion on the matter.

this issue may seem trivial to some but freedom and liberty form the foundation of america and thats what makes america strong

No one's freedom is at stake here. No one's rights are being threatened. You cheapen these invaluable concepts by invoking them in such a trivial way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next person who tries waving a bloody shirt needs to point out specifically which freedom or which right gives someone the ability to build a house of worship anywhere they please, without regard to anyone else's opinion on the matter.

No one's freedom is at stake here. No one's rights are being threatened. You cheapen these invaluable concepts by invoking them in such a trivial way.

great post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, basically this entire thread can be summed up:

A: You're intolerant of me because I want to build the Mosque!

B: You're intolerant of me because I lost family in 911!

Ah well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next person who tries waving a bloody shirt needs to point out specifically which freedom or which right gives someone the ability to build a house of worship anywhere they please, without regard to anyone else's opinion on the matter.

First Amendment -

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

Regarding "establishment of religion" -

In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

If you are disallowing the construction of a mosque or Islamic Community center in a location in which you would allow a church or other religious building, you are violating the 1st amendment in that you are treating Islam more unfavorably than Christianity or other religion.

Something tells me, though, that there wouldn't be as much outrage if this was a YMCA being built...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, basically this entire thread can be summed up:

A: You're intolerant of me because I want to build the Mosque!

B: You're intolerant of me because I lost family in 911!

Ah well.

In a nutshell... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is seperation of church and state, then should it even be up to the City, or State of New York as to if they can build there? Not to be too much of a smart alec, but some people are pushing that church and state are seperate too illogical ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First Amendment -

There is absolutely nothing there about being able to build a house of worship anywhere you please. Nothing. Point out exactly what in the first amendment talks about real estate. Go on.

Regarding "establishment of religion" -

Again, absolutely irrelevant. There are already existing mosques in the area. No one is demanding that the existing prayer room in the previous building be dis-established. There is absolutely no legal movement to interfere, interrupt, forbid, or even inconvenience, religion in any way. Islam is still allowed, mosques still exist, and new ones will still be allowed to be built, but they will have to abide by the same rules that every other building has to abide by, and that means that permits are subject to the existing environment.

In other words, they do not get special treatment.

If you are disallowing the construction of a mosque or Islamic Community center in a location in which you would allow a church or other religious building, you are violating the 1st amendment in that you are treating Islam more unfavorably than Christianity or other religion.

Nonsense. If one building is not going to have a negative impact in a community, there is no reason to disallow it. If it is going to have a negative impact, there is. In the same way that a permit for a sausage factory in a Hassidic neighborhood would be controversial, so is a new mosque in this area controversial.

Something tells me, though, that there wouldn't be as much outrage if this was a YMCA being built...

Of course there isn't. After all, what was there before was the Muslim equivalent. It was a Muslim youth and cultural center. And guess what? No one cared. No one cared that it existed, no one cared that it had a prayer room, and no one even cared that it was going to be expanded.

The only objection (legally, anyway) has been to the creation of an official mosque.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Edited by Mainpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

excellent find touches the heart of the debate :tu:

Thanks. I think the one of the most important points he makes is the comparison to the Holocaust. Like he said, if this is the first step towards something like the Holocaust happening again, it's one step too far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion is in the hearts and minds, and is not dependent on books and buildings. The First Amendment never mentions buildings, therefore you do not have a religious right at all to build a church/mosque/synagogue, not even a prayer room, actually.

Now, if you privately own land, you do have the right as a private citizen or group to build whatever you want to on it, within legal bounds. If we really want to push separation of church and state to it's appropriate conclusion, revoke tax shelter status from all religious buildings, or make it reliant on charity acts, like running homeless shelters.

This Mosque is a matter of taste and manners. We can't do anything about old mosques in the area, nor should we, but quite frankly, the good people of NYC need to get together and delineate a sacred zone around the WTC in which no new mosques, or hell, religious buildings period, can be built.

If you want to create a separation between Islamists and Islam, that's fine. It's not like the Islamists respect their brothers and sisters in Islam in the first place. However, if you're separating the two, then do realize: Islamism is a religion. Maybe a warped version of Islam, but it's still a religion. A religion did this, and that religion is Islamism. Specifically Wahabi Islamism.

(I'm not anti-religious but seriously, the only justification I can really see for the government having anything at all to do with religious structures is monitoring them for extremist lunatics hell-bent on hurting others. The government should be treating them as any other establishment, and taxing them as well, not giving any temples sacred status.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This attack has been almost as effective as the WTC attack. People haven't died, but hundreds of millions of people have turned on each other because of it. Is this a "social" terrorist attack?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is absolutely nothing there about being able to build a house of worship anywhere you please. Nothing. Point out exactly what in the first amendment talks about real estate. Go on.

I believe I already made the case. There are lots of things the amendments don't "specifically" state. That is why we have courts to interpret the constitution. It is ridiculous to expect that the constitution would specifically enumerate the circumstances of this particular case.

Again, absolutely irrelevant. There are already existing mosques in the area. No one is demanding that the existing prayer room in the previous building be dis-established. There is absolutely no legal movement to interfere, interrupt, forbid, or even inconvenience, religion in any way. Islam is still allowed, mosques still exist, and new ones will still be allowed to be built, but they will have to abide by the same rules that every other building has to abide by, and that means that permits are subject to the existing environment.

In other words, they do not get special treatment.

I hate to say exactly what I said before, but you seem to think it's okay to treat religions differently depending on the biases of the neighborhood in which their facilities exist. Again, if you would allow a church or other house of worship you must allow the building of a mosque (or in this case Islamic community center). Otherwise you are violating the first amendment as it has been interpreted by the courts.

Nonsense. If one building is not going to have a negative impact in a community, there is no reason to disallow it. If it is going to have a negative impact, there is. In the same way that a permit for a sausage factory in a Hassidic neighborhood would be controversial, so is a new mosque in this area controversial.

The "negative impact" of which you speak only exists due to the biases of people that don't even live in the neighborhood.

Somehow I don't think that the owners of the Strip Club or Burger King are complaining about the community center plans.

Of course there isn't. After all, what was there before was the Muslim equivalent. It was a Muslim youth and cultural center. And guess what? No one cared. No one cared that it existed, no one cared that it had a prayer room, and no one even cared that it was going to be expanded.

Actually, what was there before was a Burlington Coat Factory...not a mosque.

The only objection (legally, anyway) has been to the creation of an official mosque.

This whole debate stems from the fear of Islamization and the irrational belief that the religion of Islam is fundamentally evil. In this country we do not view Christiantity in the same way as Islam. We are able to separate Christian extremists from average christians. Why can we not do this for muslims?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I already made the case. There are lots of things the amendments don't "specifically" state. That is why we have courts to interpret the constitution. It is ridiculous to expect that the constitution would specifically enumerate the circumstances of this particular case.

I hate to say exactly what I said before, but you seem to think it's okay to treat religions differently depending on the biases of the neighborhood in which their facilities exist. Again, if you would allow a church or other house of worship you must allow the building of a mosque (or in this case Islamic community center). Otherwise you are violating the first amendment as it has been interpreted by the courts.

The "negative impact" of which you speak only exists due to the biases of people that don't even live in the neighborhood.

Somehow I don't think that the owners of the Strip Club or Burger King are complaining about the community center plans.

Actually, what was there before was a Burlington Coat Factory...not a mosque.

This whole debate stems from the fear of Islamization and the irrational belief that the religion of Islam is fundamentally evil. In this country we do not view Christiantity in the same way as Islam. We are able to separate Christian extremists from average christians. Why can we not do this for muslims?

some good points there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I already made the case. There are lots of things the amendments don't "specifically" state. That is why we have courts to interpret the constitution. It is ridiculous to expect that the constitution would specifically enumerate the circumstances of this particular case.

It is similarly ridiculous to claim as constitutional rights things that have to be interpreted by the courts. Being that they have to be interpreted indicates that they are far from being self-evident rights claimed in the constitution. Again, the only right relevant to this argument that the first amendment protects is the right to freedom of religion. In order to claim that they are being denied their first amendment rights, one would have to show that the local government is involved in a clear course of denial, and being that there are existing mosques in the area, that no other restrictions regarding the Islamic religion have been put into place, and that the complaints against this mosques are specifically against the location and not the religion, there are simply no grounds for claiming that this is a constitutional issue.

I hate to say exactly what I said before, but you seem to think it's okay to treat religions differently depending on the biases of the neighborhood in which their facilities exist. Again, if you would allow a church or other house of worship you must allow the building of a mosque (or in this case Islamic community center). Otherwise you are violating the first amendment as it has been interpreted by the courts.

I rather like saying exactly what I said before: Nonsense.

Yes, it is okay to treat religions differently depending on the biases of the community. A religion is not a casual thing. It isn't about whether you like chocolate or vanilla ice cream, or whether you root for the Braves or the Cubs (granted, the fervor of the last may be equally passionate). Religions permeate far more than the mere likes or dislikes of a community; they represent a significant investment of a given person's social identity.

And the court recognize this. That is why they don't get involved in real estate issues unless there is a constitutional matter at stake.

The "negative impact" of which you speak only exists due to the biases of people that don't even live in the neighborhood.

Somehow I don't think that the owners of the Strip Club or Burger King are complaining about the community center plans.

No one is complaining about the community center plans. They didn't complain when it was there before, they didn't complain when it was decided to expand it, and they still wouldn't complain if a community center were all it was. All the complaints began with the mosque. No one cared about what the Islamists where doing in there before that.

Actually, what was there before was a Burlington Coat Factory...not a mosque.

Thank you for emphasizing my point. Yes, it was not a mosque. Yes, there were no objections to the Islamics using the ex-coat factory as a community center. Yes, there was even a prayer room. Again, there were no objections to this blatantly Islamic community center until they decided to formally add a mosque to it.

This whole debate stems from the fear of Islamization and the irrational belief that the religion of Islam is fundamentally evil. In this country we do not view Christiantity in the same way as Islam. We are able to separate Christian extremists from average christians. Why can we not do this for muslims?

This whole debate stems from your (as in your side, not you personally) belief that this is the cause. And your somewhat arrogant belief that only your side has the ability to not fear Islamization, consider them evil, or be unable to separate them from extremist Christians.

Honestly, it is somewhat surprising the amount of effort some people put into making this a political issue. From my side, this is no more political than the grieving mother example I presented. She doesn't care that the man who killed her child is Islamic, Christian, extremist, moderate, evil, good, or anything else about the man. All she cares about is that he killed her child. All she wants is to be able to mourn her child without having to look up and see the man at his funeral.

Frankly, in my opinion this whole debate stems from the inability to differentiate between manners and politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is, this protesting the NYC Center seems to be spreading across the nation, and is now targeting other Mosques:

While a high-profile battle rages over a mosque near ground zero in Manhattan, heated confrontations have also broken out in communities across the country where mosques are proposed for far less hallowed locations.

In Murfreesboro, Tenn., Republican candidates have denounced plans for a large Muslim center proposed near a subdivision, and hundreds of protesters have turned out for a march and a county meeting.

In late June, in Temecula, Calif., members of a local Tea Party group took dogs and picket signs to Friday prayers at a mosque that is seeking to build a new worship center on a vacant lot nearby.

In Sheboygan, Wis., a few Christian ministers led a noisy fight against a Muslim group that sought permission to open a mosque in a former health food store bought by a Muslim doctor.

At one time, neighbors who did not want mosques in their backyards said their concerns were over traffic, parking and noise — the same reasons they might object to a church or a synagogue. But now the gloves are off.

In all of the recent conflicts, opponents have said their problem is Islam itself. They quote passages from the Koran and argue that even the most Americanized Muslim secretly wants to replace the Constitution with Islamic Shariah law.

These local skirmishes make clear that there is now widespread debate about whether the best way to uphold America’s democratic values is to allow Muslims the same religious freedom enjoyed by other Americans, or to pull away the welcome mat from a faith seen as a singular threat.

My link

After reading that I think I'm having a change of heart and I think I will support the new center. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I am definitely reconsidering my former stance.

I don't tend to use this lightly, but after reading that article maybe this really is truly about bigotry towards Muslims.

And it needs to stop, if this is true. This is the kind of thing that sent the Japanese Americans into concentration camps in WW II, and the same kind of thing that caused people to resent and mistrust German Americans.

And this kind of thing needs to stop.

We are Americans. We should be united against terrorism, and not squabbling over whose religion is the one that deserves to exist in America.

I can at least understand why New Yorkers wouldn't want a new religious center, but when this thing starts spreading to other parts of the nation, then that should give one a cause to go Hmmmm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is, this protesting the NYC Center seems to be spreading across the nation, and is now targeting other Mosques:

My link

After reading that I think I'm having a change of heart and I think I will support the new center. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I am definitely reconsidering my former stance.

I don't tend to use this lightly, but after reading that article maybe this really is truly about bigotry towards Muslims.

And it needs to stop, if this is true. This is the kind of thing that sent the Japanese Americans into concentration camps in WW II, and the same kind of thing that caused people to resent and mistrust German Americans.

And this kind of thing needs to stop.

We are Americans. We should be united against terrorism, and not squabbling over whose religion is the one that deserves to exist in America.

I can at least understand why New Yorkers wouldn't want a new religious center, but when this thing starts spreading to other parts of the nation, then that should give one a cause to go Hmmmm...

The ones screaming loudest have an agenda, there's no denying that. However, your change of heart would be better if the plan had been to stop the mosque, not move it. There's no plan to kill the entire project, just an attempt to get it farther from the WTC. Also, this is supposed to be a very expensive, fancy mosque, if I understand right. Such a thing has no place anywhere in the same city as the WTC, or anywhere for that matter. Fancy mosques and Cathedrals should be left to the middle ages, thank you very much, back when the churches were political. They only serve as baubles nowadays.

Better if the people supporting the mosque moving would outright condemn any bigotted attacks on the Islamics, though we should all support efforts to stamp out the beliefs of the Islamists, and the Wahabi, who are closely linked to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is, this protesting the NYC Center seems to be spreading across the nation, and is now targeting other Mosques:

My link

After reading that I think I'm having a change of heart and I think I will support the new center. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I am definitely reconsidering my former stance.

I don't tend to use this lightly, but after reading that article maybe this really is truly about bigotry towards Muslims.

And it needs to stop, if this is true. This is the kind of thing that sent the Japanese Americans into concentration camps in WW II, and the same kind of thing that caused people to resent and mistrust German Americans.

And this kind of thing needs to stop.

We are Americans. We should be united against terrorism, and not squabbling over whose religion is the one that deserves to exist in America.

I can at least understand why New Yorkers wouldn't want a new religious center, but when this thing starts spreading to other parts of the nation, then that should give one a cause to go Hmmmm...

You left me almost speachless and pleasently surprised with your post, Agent :tu: . Not becasu of your potential change of mind regarding the mosque but because of the things you wrote. And I could not agree more with you. Not only Americans but also the rest of the world should be united against any kind of terrorism no matter from what side it comes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, they're building a "mosque" near ground zero. But to be fair, we've been building "ground zeros" near mosques since, what, 2003?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I disapprove because I hate Islam (though there are definitely aspects of Arab culture that I don't like). To me building the community center right there will encourage more terrorism. The terrorists will have succeeded in importing their culture into America. On a logical level this doesn't make sense because there are loads of Muslims who have been living in New York City for decades.

But the way it's going to be recorded in terrorist history is: brave martyrs took out a symbol of international capitalism and replaced it with an Islamic Center. I mean OBVIOUSLY that's how it will look. This would be a terrific encouragement to other would-be martyrs. "Look what the fabulous martyrs of 9/11 accomplished. You could accomplish that too."

Building the center somewhere else would say part of New York is it's Islamic community. When you hurt New York you hurt that too. This is the reality of the situation.

Building near the 9/11 site would be SO abysmally stupid politically.

-------------------------------------------

Example of a similar thing: Say our government had discovered that the Statue of Liberty was falling apart and had to be taken down. If the demolition was scheduled for October 2001 I would assume that things would be postponed to be sure we didn't communicate a wrong message that was positive to the terrorists ("okay you win-- we're taking our statue down").

-------------------------------------------

I mean we couldn't possibly make a more counterproductive international statement than putting a mosque on the 9/11 site. It has nothing to do with Islam, especially the NYC Muslim community. It has to do with terrorism.

Edited by Siara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With which I vehemently disagree.

I bet if you did the research you could find people making the same exact claim about President Obama, right?

There are millions of people who believe he is a Muslim, so we can use the same claim you are making to him.

That because he's a Muslim he's got to encourage terrorists.

Because absolutely anything that is Muslim encourages terrorism must encourage Islamic terrorists to make more attacks against Americans, both abroad and at home.

So tell me, what is wrong with that?

I'm beginning to think that some people get an orgasm to scare people with terrorism.

Yeesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.