Bridge building?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
The problem with this idea is that there already is a mosque within the Ground Zero area. People are just getting hysterical over nothing.Kmar wrote:
Freedom of religion is a false argument here. People are not claiming that the Mosque should not be built (legally). The oppositions position is that of, just because you can, should you? The irony is that the proposed mission of the Islamic center is to promote tolerance. I can think of no better way to do this than moving the Mosque/Center down the road.CameronPoe wrote:
This is quite a bizarre controversy for outsiders looking in. The constitution of the US being poo-pooed by some on a single-issue - an Islamic cultural centre that is not, as stated in certain media outlets, on the site of ground zero. Truly bizarre. Almost as bizarre as believing that Barack Obama is Muslim.
Here's a binary argument for the binary minded hard right (a classic ruse of the hard right): Either you believe in freedom of religion or you don't. Your call.
acquiescing to the oppositions demands only validates their incorrect and moronic belief that Islam attacked us.
I met Farrakhan and had dinner
And you ask if I'm a five-percenter, well...
No, but I go where the brothers go
Down with Compton Mosque, Number 54
Made a little dough, still got a sister on my elbow
Did Ice Cube sell out? You say, "Hell no!"
A black woman is my manager, not in the kitchen
So could you please stop bitchin?
And you ask if I'm a five-percenter, well...
No, but I go where the brothers go
Down with Compton Mosque, Number 54
Made a little dough, still got a sister on my elbow
Did Ice Cube sell out? You say, "Hell no!"
A black woman is my manager, not in the kitchen
So could you please stop bitchin?
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
Haven't read every post so sorry if this has already been discussed, but a Greek Orthodox church that was destroyed in 9-11 is not being allowed to rebuild by the Port Authority - talk about a double standard.
The Port Authority only owns the ground that the Twin Towers stood on. There's nothing stopping the church from building next door.Harmor wrote:
Haven't read every post so sorry if this has already been discussed, but a Greek Orthodox church that was destroyed in 9-11 is not being allowed to rebuild by the Port Authority - talk about a double standard.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
No, no, not reallyTurquoise wrote:
The problem with this idea is that there already is a mosque within the Ground Zero area. People are just getting hysterical over nothing.Kmar wrote:
Freedom of religion is a false argument here. People are not claiming that the Mosque should not be built (legally). The oppositions position is that of, just because you can, should you? The irony is that the proposed mission of the Islamic center is to promote tolerance. I can think of no better way to do this than moving the Mosque/Center down the road.CameronPoe wrote:
This is quite a bizarre controversy for outsiders looking in. The constitution of the US being poo-pooed by some on a single-issue - an Islamic cultural centre that is not, as stated in certain media outlets, on the site of ground zero. Truly bizarre. Almost as bizarre as believing that Barack Obama is Muslim.
Here's a binary argument for the binary minded hard right (a classic ruse of the hard right): Either you believe in freedom of religion or you don't. Your call.
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1496/mosques-o … ed-enemies
you are all high if you honestly think this will not be viewed as a conquest. The fact that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf ( a terrorist supporter) refuses to listen to alternate locations for this project, disregarding the issue all together, pretty much speaks values toward that motive.
Yes, it could not have anything to do with a desire to stand up to people who treat Islam in its entirety as a terrorist organisation.lowing wrote:
No, no, not reallyTurquoise wrote:
The problem with this idea is that there already is a mosque within the Ground Zero area. People are just getting hysterical over nothing.Kmar wrote:
Freedom of religion is a false argument here. People are not claiming that the Mosque should not be built (legally). The oppositions position is that of, just because you can, should you? The irony is that the proposed mission of the Islamic center is to promote tolerance. I can think of no better way to do this than moving the Mosque/Center down the road.
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1496/mosques-o … ed-enemies
you are all high if you honestly think this will not be viewed as a conquest. The fact that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf ( a terrorist supporter) refuses to listen to alternate locations for this project, disregarding the issue all together, pretty much speaks values toward that motive.
When the main landing gear falls on to site where you wish to build, yeah Cam that is ground zero.CameronPoe wrote:
This is quite a bizarre controversy for outsiders looking in. The constitution of the US being poo-pooed by some on a single-issue - an Islamic cultural centre that is not, as stated in certain media outlets, on the site of ground zero. Truly bizarre. Almost as bizarre as believing that Barack Obama is Muslim.
Here's a binary argument for the binary minded hard right (a classic ruse of the hard right): Either you believe in freedom of religion or you don't. Your call.
Don't even try this crap. You know there is a difference here.
It is the same thing as the Westboro Baptist Church protesting funerals and crap. you do not have the freedom to do whatever you want and claim religious freedom. Like it or not, there is an issue here that transcends merely building another mosque, and you me, and everyone else knows it.
What the real irony is, is an intolerant violent religion like Islam complaining about intolerance in America, when the Muslims here enjoy more freedom and tolerance, than what is allowed in their own ISLAMIC countries, under their own ISLAMIC religion, and their own ISLAMIC laws...Bottom line is, no Islam country would allow such a thing and we all know it. Stop trying to take advantage of our own tolerance and freedoms by claiming we are hypoctrites because you can not readily do so without a fight. If you want to scream intolerance against a people or culture or religion or country, then you can start with the people, culture, religion and countries you came here from.
Last edited by lowing (2010-08-24 21:04:13)
Ok so you admit what they are doing then, glad we could agree.mikkel wrote:
Yes, it could not have anything to do with a desire to stand up to people who treat Islam in its entirety as a terrorist organisation.lowing wrote:
No, no, not reallyTurquoise wrote:
The problem with this idea is that there already is a mosque within the Ground Zero area. People are just getting hysterical over nothing.
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1496/mosques-o … ed-enemies
you are all high if you honestly think this will not be viewed as a conquest. The fact that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf ( a terrorist supporter) refuses to listen to alternate locations for this project, disregarding the issue all together, pretty much speaks values toward that motive.
Aaaaaaaand we can safely say from here on in the thread is trashed.
facepalm.gif
facepalm.gif
Last edited by Jaekus (2010-08-24 21:02:52)
Heh. Goodbye, lowing.lowing wrote:
Ok so you admit what they are doing then, glad we could agree.mikkel wrote:
Yes, it could not have anything to do with a desire to stand up to people who treat Islam in its entirety as a terrorist organisation.lowing wrote:
No, no, not really
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1496/mosques-o … ed-enemies
you are all high if you honestly think this will not be viewed as a conquest. The fact that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf ( a terrorist supporter) refuses to listen to alternate locations for this project, disregarding the issue all together, pretty much speaks values toward that motive.
not if you stop trolling and start a counter argument. give it a shot for once.Jaekus wrote:
Aaaaaaaand we can safely say from here on in the thread is trashed.
facepalm.gif
Don't "Heh" me, argue against what I linked then. and stop trying to excuse their actions as a response toward being accused as all Muslims are terrorists.mikkel wrote:
Heh. Goodbye, lowing.lowing wrote:
Ok so you admit what they are doing then, glad we could agree.mikkel wrote:
Yes, it could not have anything to do with a desire to stand up to people who treat Islam in its entirety as a terrorist organisation.
It's not a mosque. Is St. Mary's Hospital a church because it has a chapel in it?
yeah, they conquest-ed a few thousand square feet New York City a few blocks from Ground Zero. It must have been their plan all along. Damn it, man. They beat us.
Sounds like total victory man, like, total domination.Reciprocity wrote:
yeah, they conquest-ed a few thousand square feet New York City a few blocks from Ground Zero. It must have been their plan all along. Damn it, man. They beat us.
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1496/mosques-o … ed-enemies
I mean c' mon lets get real, to deny, dismiss, or ignore the historical facts regarding Islamic action is to to deny, dismiss or ignore the actual issue regarding this controversy. To say it is merely a freedom of religion issue is completely, and purposefully re-directing away from the true issue at hand, because the reality of what is happening here can not be argued in a factual manner on the side of Islam. smoke and mirrors are a must.
I mean c' mon lets get real, to deny, dismiss, or ignore the historical facts regarding Islamic action is to to deny, dismiss or ignore the actual issue regarding this controversy. To say it is merely a freedom of religion issue is completely, and purposefully re-directing away from the true issue at hand, because the reality of what is happening here can not be argued in a factual manner on the side of Islam. smoke and mirrors are a must.
Last edited by lowing (2010-08-24 21:22:18)
nope, what it sounds like is, you are afraid to address the real issue as it has been linked.
And what the fuck did they conquest? What did they conquer? What did they gain? What did they captivate or overcome?
In case you missed it, the point is, it is a largely symbolic, and it will be viewed as such....Reciprocity wrote:
And what the fuck did they conquest? What did they conquer? What did they gain? What did they captivate or overcome?
fixtlowing wrote:
blahblahblah
/copy and paste same old tired worn out comments
Some peaceful people want to build a building of their faith in a land that sells itself as the land of the free. I don't care what your perception on what the negative aspects of their religion are, the fact remains that they should be allowed to do this without prejudice. If you are going to point out all their lack of intolerance whilst not tolerating their desire to congregate to worship whatever deities people worship in any religion, that's just doing the same and being a hypocrite for it to boot.
Anyway, this will go on forever as any discussion with you does, and I frankly have better and more interesting things to amuse myself with. Adios.
By people like you, mostly.lowing wrote:
In case you missed it, the point is, it is a largely symbolic, and it will be viewed as such....Reciprocity wrote:
And what the fuck did they conquest? What did they conquer? What did they gain? What did they captivate or overcome?
It is no different than Japanese wanting to build a Shinto temple on the site of the Pearl harbor attacks.Jaekus wrote:
fixtlowing wrote:
blahblahblah
/copy and paste same old tired worn out comments
Some peaceful people want to build a building of their faith in a land that sells itself as the land of the free. I don't care what your perception on what the negative aspects of their religion are, the fact remains that they should be allowed to do this without prejudice. If you are going to point out all their lack of intolerance whilst not tolerating their desire to congregate to worship whatever deities people worship in any religion, that's just doing the same and being a hypocrite for it to boot.
Anyway, this will go on forever as any discussion with you does, and I frankly have better and more interesting things to amuse myself with. Adios.
If you do not want to address the real issues here, then it probably is best you move along.
I already addressed the "tolerance" issue. do not try and tell me I am intolerant because I do not tolerate, intolerance.
and by those wishing t obuild it there. If not, why not entertain an alternate spot as has been offered?Jaekus wrote:
By people like you, mostly.lowing wrote:
In case you missed it, the point is, it is a largely symbolic, and it will be viewed as such....Reciprocity wrote:
And what the fuck did they conquest? What did they conquer? What did they gain? What did they captivate or overcome?