Mosque Construction At Ground Zero (Merged Thread)

[Winchester]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1282075839' post='2159050']
I can claim to be a swimsuit model, but that won't fool anyone.
[/quote]
Plausible deniability. You name a non-religous site after the people who attacked it, you don't have any. You build a religious building near a site that was attacked by adherents of the same religion, you have it. They're not claiming to be celebrating the attacks, whereas in your scenario, the site is dedicated openly to the bombers. Not. The. Same. Thing.

They have the legal right to build there.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1281986395' post='2158356']
Asking is fine, but we're finding people wanting the government to forbid building it. Anyone who wants the government to forbid building it is an idiot. I think The Comrade would do well to take everyone up on that. Yeah, he'd piss off some mohammedans, but who cares because he'd increase government authority and Federal authority. And the stupid would thank him for it. Then he could forbid construction of other insensitive churches. Maybe some gays are upset because the local Catholic Church is expanding. Well, we can't have people being offended, can we? If people really want to get even, then put money together and build a Catholic Church dedicated to the Crusaders. Build stores devoted entirely to selling pork, alcohol and skimpy clothing. Surround the building with the most offensive things to mohammedans. Fight offense with offense on a private level. Keep the authoritarians out of it. They are looking for more rights to deny property and religious worship. That's what Democrats stand for, now. Obviously except with Mohammedans, who are peaceful and loving and not at all represented by the [s]vast majority of muslim nations[/s] small minority of [s]rabidly bloodthirsty[/s] slightly irritated [s]terrorists[/s] insurgents.
[/quote]

Bravo, Winchester. Well said. Except I'm not a fan of the idea of building the pork, alcohol and skimpy clothing in retaliation.

I read in the newspaper about a bunch of Protestant churches that got together and bought out the lease from under a porn shop, causing them to have to move out of their neighborhood. That's the kind of action the members of the Church should be taking at every turn.

~Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1282078791' post='2159138']
Bravo, Winchester. Well said. Except I'm not a fan of the idea of building the pork, alcohol and skimpy clothing in retaliation.

I read in the newspaper about a bunch of Protestant churches that got together and bought out the lease from under a porn shop, causing them to have to move out of their neighborhood. That's the kind of action the members of the Church should be taking at every turn.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
That's exactly why I want to be fabulously rich.

[Hassan]

You constructed a false analogy. The Mosque isn't dedicated to Wahhabi Islamic ideology or the attacks. It's dedicated to an inter-faith dialogue and an Americanized Islam. The Imam in question is a kufir. The idea that Muslim terrorists would view this is a victory is non-sense. To a Bin Laden this Mosque is a monument to Blasphemy and Kufir. Does anyone here think that Cordoba is a light to Bin Laden? This was the city of Ibn Rushd. The Kufir who claimed thy Allah's word needed to be understood with Greek philosophy and that the Quran was really just forth masses, a mercy of Allah for the multitudes who were not capable of being philosopher. A city where Jews were allowed to spread their errors? Where debate could occur between Muslims and Christians. If people think this center built for new ageish, westernized Islam, and dedicated to a city where the true message of Allah was corrupted and bastardized by Heretical Muslims fallen into kufar and bidah is some sort of victory for Bin Laden, they are just totally off the mark.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Hassan

[Hassan]

If a woman claiming to be a Catholic Priest built a giant Church glorifying the love of same-sex couples, questioning the historical resurrection, and advocating abortion rights and contraception for all, would you view it as a monument or victory for your faith? Because that's about the situation here, only the two are even more diametrically opposed. Just because this mosque is ostensibly Islamic doesn't mean Osama Bin Laden or any follower of militant, radical Islam would view it as a monument.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Hassan

[dUSt]

I agree with the people in this thread who make the most sense.

[CatherineM]

I never said that they didn't have the legal right to build the mosque. They certainly do. I'm also hopefully optimistic that the people who are building the mosque have good intentions. That doesn't change the fact that some people will use it as a pilgrimage for the wrong reasons.

[Hassan]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1282081576' post='2159204']
I never said that they didn't have the legal right to build the mosque. They certainly do. I'm also hopefully optimistic that the people who are building the mosque have good intentions. That doesn't change the fact that some people will use it as a pilgrimage for the wrong reasons.
[/quote]


If somebody wants to make a pilgrimage for the 'wrong reasons' they can just go to the actually place where the attack took place, not some Infidel loving Mosque dedicated to heretical capitulation two blocks way.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1282072277' post='2159018']
I don't need to, but I did browse it. The fact is that it might be inconsiderate, but that's life and people have been calling for government involvement.[/quote]
Might try reading the whole thing next time.


[quote]And I believe in freedom to dispose of your property as you wish, barring health and safety concerns. If the government owns the property, or an historical society buys it, then they can do what they want.

I don't want to see it, either. But tough poo for me, it's not my property.
[/quote]
City councils and such, representing the people of a community, make decisions concerning zoning and whether to allow property development that will have an effect on the community all the time.
To use a completely non-religious example, in my old hometown, we were able to use pressure on town officials to block Walmart from building a store in a location that would be bad for the community for a number of reasons. They ended up building at a different location.

Similarly, I remember the fight to keep Disney from building a theme part next to the Manassas battlefield. It was successful, thank God.

I'm all for property rights and capitalism, but I believe they have their limits. Some places have such powerful historical meaning and significance that they should be preserved, and the concerns of those in the community should not be blindly trumped by money, whether it's from Walmart, Disney, or Muslims seeking to make a political statement.

Tough poo for Disney, tough poo for Walmart, tough poo for the Muslims.

[quote]No, it's merely unpopular. Putting religious buildings under feelings about being offended is dangerous. The will of the people only goes so far. Yes, they will find another way to do it--they've already got the "I'm offended" card to shackle "unpopular" ideas at schools and workplaces. It's funny that now the same "I'm offended" argument is being used by so many believers to try to ban a "mosque" (which looks more like a wal-mart/museum/muslimmall) from being built.

[/quote]
I'd be inclined to agree with you if we were discussing any place other than Ground Zero - a place where Americans were massacred in the name of Islam. No Muslims are being prevented freedom to practice their religion. I'm sure there are countless other locations where they can build a mosque. There is nothing about Islam or freedom of religion that demands that a mosque be built at this one particular location.

Building this mosque at this location is a spit in the face of American citizens, and we shouldn't just stand by and get spit at in the name of "freedom of religion."

[Jesus_lol]

I would agree that building a mosque ON ground zero shouldnt be allowed, but 2 blocks away? thats pretty far.

[Winchester]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1282081576' post='2159204']
I never said that they didn't have the legal right to build the mosque. They certainly do. I'm also hopefully optimistic that the people who are building the mosque have good intentions. That doesn't change the fact that some people will use it as a pilgrimage for the wrong reasons.
[/quote]
I withdraw my invective.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1282082552' post='2159212']



I'd be inclined to agree with you if we were discussing any place other than Ground Zero - a place where Americans were massacred in the name of Islam. No Muslims are being prevented freedom to practice their religion. I'm sure there are countless other locations where they can build a mosque. There is nothing about Islam or freedom of religion that demands that a mosque be built at this one particular location.

Building this mosque at this location is a spit in the face of American citizens, and we shouldn't just stand by and get spit at in the name of "freedom of religion."
[/quote]


The Mosque is not being built on ground zero. It is not being built right next to ground zero. It is no even being built in sight of ground zero. It is being built two blocks away. No matter how many times people make this claim, it won't change this very unfortunate fact of geography.

What is disgraceful and disrespectful would be the absence of any serious progress being made where the twin towers stood in almost a decade. Talk about a tribute to Bin Laden.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1282082552' post='2159212']
Might try reading the whole thing next time.
[/quote]
Why? It's not what I'm specifically responding to.

[quote]
City councils and such, representing the people of a community, make decisions concerning zoning and whether to allow property development that will have an effect on the community all the time.
To use a completely non-religious example, in my old hometown, we were able to use pressure on town officials to block Walmart from building a store in a location that would be bad for the community for a number of reasons. They ended up building at a different location.

Similarly, I remember the fight to keep Disney from building a theme part next to the Manassas battlefield. It was successful, thank God.

I'm all for property rights and capitalism, but I believe they have their limits. Some places have such powerful historical meaning and significance that they should be preserved, and the concerns of those in the community should not be blindly trumped by money, whether it's from Walmart, Disney, or Muslims seeking to make a political statement.

Tough poo for Disney, tough poo for Walmart, tough poo for the Muslims.[/quote]
I have mixed feelings about zoning and control of what's built where. Zoning is clear cut and set out prior to purchase. This isn't. I have the same problem with people blocking Wal-Mart. If youwant zoning, then fine, zone. But do it with fair warning. This is not a case of zoning, it's a case of reactionary...reaction. (poo).


[quote]Building this mosque at this location is a spit in the face of American citizens, and we shouldn't just stand by and get spit at in the name of "freedom of religion."
[/quote]
That's a personal feeling. I feel it's kind of jerky, myself. I doubt his motives are pure. But that's not enough to have government step in.

[StMichael]

See my post about St. Nick's, which was destroyed when tower 2 fell and how the government is getting that going.

Beyond the emotional aspect involved here, there are far more reasons why this should not get built and why it is moving along so quickly, where a pre-existing Christian church has been shut down by the same council.

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1282083286' post='2159221']
Why? It's not what I'm specifically responding to.


I have mixed feelings about zoning and control of what's built where. Zoning is clear cut and set out prior to purchase. This isn't. I have the same problem with people blocking Wal-Mart. If youwant zoning, then fine, zone. But do it with fair warning. This is not a case of zoning, it's a case of reactionary...reaction. (poo).



That's a personal feeling. I feel it's kind of jerky, myself. I doubt his motives are pure. But that's not enough to have government step in.
[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1282083286' post='2159221']
Why? It's not what I'm specifically responding to.[/quote]
I agree with the author's arguments, and, I being lazy, prefer you to read what he has to say, rather than me trying to rehash it all myself in my own poor style.


[quote]I have mixed feelings about zoning and control of what's built where. Zoning is clear cut and set out prior to purchase. This isn't. I have the same problem with people blocking Wal-Mart. If youwant zoning, then fine, zone. But do it with fair warning. This is not a case of zoning, it's a case of reactionary...reaction. (poo).
[/quote]
I mentioned zoning as an example of people not simply being able to build whatever they want wherever they want to. But I think my other examples with Walmart and such are perfectly valid and reasonable. When someone proposes building something within city limits, it is up to the city council to determine the effect it would have on the surrounding community, and whether it should go through. And I think its perfectly fair for the citizens in that community to have a say in this, and have their voices heard and considered, before the deal is finalized.
Should the local government and the business buying the land be the only ones to have a say in this matter, when the people would be affected by the proposed development?

In the Walmart case I gave, the town officials actually wanted the deal to go through because there was plenty of money in it for them. It was widespread grassroots protest that led to a more reasonable compromise.

Should Disney and those financially benefiting from the sale of land have been the only ones with a say in whether they build an amusement park next to one of America's most hallowed battlefields?

Oh well, those wishing to protect the sanctity and dignity of the site's history are obviously just full of reactionary poo, better let Mickey Mouse and the Almighty Dollar have the final say . . .

(And I thought you were supposed to be the one here opposed to unbridled capitalism!)

Would you feel the same way if someone wanted to open a massive porn theater in opposition to community protest? Or a factory be built that would result in massive pollution to the area?


[quote]That's a personal feeling. I feel it's kind of jerky, myself. I doubt his motives are pure. But that's not enough to have government step in.
[/quote]
Ground Zero is a site with immense symbolic importance to the American people, and the mosque is a slap in the face to said people. I think the people should at least have a say in the matter. We're talking about Ground Zero here, not just another street corner.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Socrates