haha, do you really think it's going to stop the 'mosque' from being built? do you know how many construction groups are in nyc? do you know that there are many muslim/non-racist contractors who will take the job? for every 1 person who refuses to work on the site there are 5 more who are lined up and ready to take the job.DBBrinson1 wrote:
F'em. They can build it somewhere else. Or good luck to em on actually getting it built...
http://www.bluecollarcorner.com/blog/?p=750
Woah... Enough with the facts. Time to put our hoods and get back to hatin! You coming to the meeting later haus? Remember sure to pick me up a tin of skoal on yer' way over.lowing wrote:
Coupla problems, this mosque is not being built several blocks from ground zero. This mosque site is part of ground zero when the landing gear fell on it.
Like it or not, it is historical and this site means something to a lot of people.
Like it or not, this was done in the name of Islam. and like it or not it rubs people wrong that a symbol of that very religion is going to be build on top of the ruins.
No one has claimed they "have no right". In fact they absolutely do have a right. The protests have been peaceful against this project.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf refuses to listen to these concerns and entertain offers to build somewhere else.
Iran money is being considered to be accepted in support of funding for this project. Iran celebrated the 9/11 attacks.
Islam itself does not allow the reverse to take place in Islamic countries. The irony.
As I said in the other thread, but largely ignored. A Japanese Shinto temple at Pearl Harbor, would face the same resistance.
This isn't racism ( did I ever mention Islam is not a race?). To spew that same old bullshit in lieu of addressing the issues is nothing more than the usual dismissals.
Actually, they mourned them...lowing wrote:
Iran celebrated the 9/11 attacks.
Yep, but we can't exactly use Saudi Arabia as our role model for policy.lowing wrote:
Islam itself does not allow the reverse to take place in Islamic countries. The irony.
The attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't an act of terrorism -- it was a state-sanctioned act of war. Blocking a symbol of Japan or Japanese culture from that site would be appropriate because of this difference -- although doing so would still be unconstitutional.lowing wrote:
As I said in the other thread, but largely ignored. A Japanese Shinto temple at Pearl Harbor, would face the same resistance.
It's not racism, but it is a demonstration of how many people don't understand the differences between Islamic extremists and normal Muslims.lowing wrote:
This isn't racism ( did I ever mention Islam is not a race?). To spew that same old bullshit in lieu of addressing the issues is nothing more than the usual dismissals.
Ohnoes, they'll bring out THE RAT!DBBrinson1 wrote:
try to build something in NYC without union support.
until recently, now it is all a "big lie", and now is when the Mosque will be built.Turquoise wrote:
Actually, they mourned them...lowing wrote:
Iran celebrated the 9/11 attacks.
http://www.time.com/time/europe/photoessays/vigil/
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemned the attacks which have been blamed on Saudi-born Osama bin Laden.Yep, but we can't exactly use Saudi Arabia as our role model for policy.lowing wrote:
Islam itself does not allow the reverse to take place in Islamic countries. The irony.The attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't an act of terrorism -- it was a state-sanctioned act of war. Blocking a symbol of Japan or Japanese culture from that site would be appropriate because of this difference -- although doing so would still be unconstitutional.lowing wrote:
As I said in the other thread, but largely ignored. A Japanese Shinto temple at Pearl Harbor, would face the same resistance.It's not racism, but it is a demonstration of how many people don't understand the differences between Islamic extremists and normal Muslims.lowing wrote:
This isn't racism ( did I ever mention Islam is not a race?). To spew that same old bullshit in lieu of addressing the issues is nothing more than the usual dismissals.
Last edited by lowing (2010-08-25 21:03:10)
Actually, there wouldn't be anything at all unconstitutional about that because of the tie to the Japanese state.Turquoise wrote:
The attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't an act of terrorism -- it was a state-sanctioned act of war. Blocking a symbol of Japan or Japanese culture from that site would be appropriate because of this difference -- although doing so would still be unconstitutional.lowing wrote:
As I said in the other thread, but largely ignored. A Japanese Shinto temple at Pearl Harbor, would face the same resistance.
I think it's pretty obvious that this community center has become a cause for turmoil mostly because of how the "liberal" media ran with the most controversial spin possible on this story. They've intentionally stoked the fire to get people riled up, so that it's easier to paint the people behind this community center as being insensitive (and so they can sell more ad space as people tune in).lowing wrote:
Let me ask you a question. How can you stand by and tell me that this is supposed to bring us all together, that this a center for tolerance and peace, when they will not listen to concerns or solutions of those opposed to it? How can you tell me this is a center for tolerance and peace when they do not even practice it themselves in their home countries under the same fucking religion?
Doesn't the freedom of speech cover foreign state symbols as well?...FEOS wrote:
Actually, there wouldn't be anything at all unconstitutional about that because of the tie to the Japanese state.Turquoise wrote:
The attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't an act of terrorism -- it was a state-sanctioned act of war. Blocking a symbol of Japan or Japanese culture from that site would be appropriate because of this difference -- although doing so would still be unconstitutional.lowing wrote:
As I said in the other thread, but largely ignored. A Japanese Shinto temple at Pearl Harbor, would face the same resistance.
The key difference in this case is the non-state, purely religious aspect of the Muslim center. That gets into the First Amendment area and prevents government involvement.
I've seen women walking around in burkhas here. Is it common? Only in a few very small sections of the city, namely western Brooklyn.Uzique wrote:
Lowing does realize that most of the muslims in New York are african-americans and not ultra-orthodox Saudis, right?
it's almost as if he thinks the muslims walking past ground zero every day are going to be pakistani AQ-camp graduates...
shame american papers lack the incisive wit of brooker. otherwise they'd all wake the fuck up.IG-Calibre wrote:
enjoyed reading Charlie Brookers comment on it in the Guardian..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … ero-mosque
I was cracking up reading that article! Hilarious!Uzique wrote:
shame american papers lack the incisive wit of brooker. otherwise they'd all wake the fuck up.IG-Calibre wrote:
enjoyed reading Charlie Brookers comment on it in the Guardian..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … ero-mosque
I 'dIG-Calibre wrote:
enjoyed reading Charlie Brookers comment on it in the Guardian..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … ero-mosque
I would have given the Osama statue a giant boner and made the Hitler salute more obvious.
Constitutional rights are not afforded those from other countries. That is something that many people get confused about. They are afforded those who are US citizens...or are at least legally protected, anyway.Turquoise wrote:
Doesn't the freedom of speech cover foreign state symbols as well?...FEOS wrote:
Actually, there wouldn't be anything at all unconstitutional about that because of the tie to the Japanese state.Turquoise wrote:
The attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't an act of terrorism -- it was a state-sanctioned act of war. Blocking a symbol of Japan or Japanese culture from that site would be appropriate because of this difference -- although doing so would still be unconstitutional.
The key difference in this case is the non-state, purely religious aspect of the Muslim center. That gets into the First Amendment area and prevents government involvement.
Is there any way to karma that guy?IG-Calibre wrote:
enjoyed reading Charlie Brookers comment on it in the Guardian..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … ero-mosque
Wake up people! Light the fires!Obama is Gargamel and he's killing all the Smurfs
Yes, yes there is: http://www.dreamgirlstrippers.co.uk/FEOS wrote:
Is there any way to karma that guy?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-08-28 06:17:27)
Well yeah... I don't personally believe in a "Creator", but I understand the context of when the Constitution was written.FEOS wrote:
Constitutional rights are not afforded those from other countries. That is something that many people get confused about. They are afforded those who are US citizens...or are at least legally protected, anyway.
Our fundamental beliefs as a nation are that our Creator endowed man with those fundamental rights (see Declaration of Independence) , regardless of where he lives and it is government's role to protect those rights, so it is a gray area in that regard.
However, the only ones who are protected by our laws (see Constitution) are those who are US citizens or those who request asylum here.
Does that make sense?
Yes.Turquoise wrote:
Well yeah... I don't personally believe in a "Creator", but I understand the context of when the Constitution was written.FEOS wrote:
Constitutional rights are not afforded those from other countries. That is something that many people get confused about. They are afforded those who are US citizens...or are at least legally protected, anyway.
Our fundamental beliefs as a nation are that our Creator endowed man with those fundamental rights (see Declaration of Independence) , regardless of where he lives and it is government's role to protect those rights, so it is a gray area in that regard.
However, the only ones who are protected by our laws (see Constitution) are those who are US citizens or those who request asylum here.
Does that make sense?
I guess what my question is... If an American of Japanese descent decided to erect a symbol of Japan somewhere in Pearl Harbor and bought the land needed to do so, then wouldn't his freedom of speech and property rights allow him to do so?
Nice analogy...Hunter/Jumper wrote:
try putting a monument to The USA (anything) at Hiroshima or for that matter even an old Concentration camp site in Germany. I clearly see his point and agree to a large extant but it would piss people off unnecessarily. The 1st Amendment does not let you yell Fire in a crowded theater.
