My biggest fear about this entire issue is that, regardless of the beliefs of the people behind the religious center, this contentious national debate is sure to add fuel to the extremists’ fire.
No, I don’t. I think they should exercise their rights to own and use property for the practice of their religion and to serve their community needs like everyone else.
I don’t think it would change much of anything. But the fact that they’ve been there for a long time without causing any problems is evidence that this is not some kind of beachhead for fanatical Islam.
I’m not Tom. I’m the other guy.
I draw the line well short of these goofball hypotheticals: I’d prefer to deal with this situation as it is. The situation that exists is that this group wants to build a community center, not a Death to America martyrs’ ziggurat. As I said, the fact that many protestors can’t tell the difference is evidence their concerns can be disregarded as irrational.
“No 9/11 Victory Mosque” expresses an opinion. However it’s also a moronic comment that shows the speaker is an ass. That’s what I was talking about. I didn’t say anybody couldn’t express an opinion and I don’t think there is a word in my post that can sensibly be interpreted that way. What I did say was that the people who are having the strongest reaction to this building have shown no ability to understand what they are dealing with: the fact that this is a local group, the fact that they’ve shown no reason to suspect ill intent, and the fact that they’re proposing basketball courts and a library, not a terrorist training camp. And aside from yourself I haven’t seen any of them talk about where the money is coming from. The problem is not the source of the money, it’s the religion.
But it’s not out of nowhere and it’s not a small town. It’s a city where there are a lot of Muslims and where this particular group of Muslims has lived and prayed for decades. And even if I were living in the example you proposed I would not start insinuating that the religious people were terrorists.
This sounds like an excuse for irrational prejudices.
Realizing I was dreaming, I would react by waiting for my alarm clock to go off.
I don’t know about themost intolerant but I concede it is more intolerant than most. So what? Does the First Amendment read “freedom of religion, when the nations where that religion is in the majority affords religious freedom to their religious minorities”? Are we engaged in a race to the bottom for religious freedom with Saudi Arabia?
Have you read the Koran and its mutiple calls to war against and strike down the infidel? Have you heard Muslim preachers promise that Islam will dominate the world? Do you realize that your refusal to become a Muslim is provocation enough for jihadists? This debate will add fuel to the fire like a toothpick will add wood to a bonfire.
The debate and the poll results do, however, indicate that the West is starting to stand firm and to push back.
Cute, witty replies are not answers. But it IS funny though.
If someone said you were a bigot for disapproving of a statue of Fred Phelps in the Village, what would you say?
Pakistan has churches. Iran has a large (albeit dwindling) Armenian Orthodox population - somewhere around 100,000 last I heard. Lebanon has Christian political parties. Egypt has the Copts. Even Iraq under Saddam Hussein had a Christian population - for one big example, Tariq Aziz (remember him? Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq) was a Chaldean Catholic; I don’t know what’s happened to the Christians now that freedom has broken out, mind you. So by “most Muslim countries” you really mean “basically Saudi Arabia” where churches and Bibles are indeed not permitted, which is ironic given how much the US purports to support the regime there.
Acknowledged, even in many of the countries where there is a Christian presence there is a great deal of persecution, official and otherwise. But the Christians and their churches and their Bibles are definitely there.
You do realize that, despite your paranoid fantasies, this is not even close to being an analogous situation. The proper analogy for this situation is, would it be appropriate to open an Irish pub or a St. Patrick’s Catholic Church at Canary Wharf?
I wouldn’t care. But your continued use of Fred Phelps and Victory Mosque analogies is only proving my point.
Canary Wharf is right across the street from me right now. Do you know how many pubs around here serve Guinness*? And we all know that Guinness is to the Irish what Sharia is to Muslims. Clearly it is an insidious plot by the terrorists to force us all to submit to their stout-drinking ways!
- I have no idea. The answer is probably “some”.
My analogies about a statue of Fred Phelps in the Village and the “Victory” Mosque are simply intended to make you admit that you have limits and that you have your own standards about what is provocative and tasteless. Both actions, though hypothethical, are in fact possible (even if they have not been proposed) and would be considered legal by US courts, I am sure.
The only difference is that when a large majority of Americans (and a majority of New Yorkers) indicate in a poll that they find the proposed mosque/Islamic centre so close to ground zero to be, in their opinion, offensive, you patronizingly and arrogantly dismiss them as ill-informed.
Apparently, where you choose to draw the line is reasonable. When others draw the line elsewhere, they are ignorant boobs.
I’m not sure of that. The WTC property was owned by the government, so they controlled what happened to that land. It was not up for auction. I think the land was sold to Larry Silverstein, who had leased the space in the towers, as part of a long negotiation that held up construction of the new buildings by several years. So in point of fact they could have sold that land to whoever they wanted, and plainly would not have sold it to Victory Mosque LLC. I am equally sure that there is a permit process for statues and that something that offends a lot of people would not be approved - especially if it was on public land.
When others draw lines based on hysteria, overblown comparisons, lies and misstatements, yes, they are boobs. It’s not patronizing or arrogant to say so. It’s a statement of the facts.
Sounds remarkably like Christianity. Perhaps we should ban churches near the site as well.
Indeed.
You would think that a lot of people have never heard of the Crusades.
Communists are establishing their operations directly on the graves of the WTC victims. Where is the outrage?
I never said “ban”. That word implies legal prohibition. They have a right to call their Mosque “Death to the Infidel” and I would support that right. It is just a question of good taste and sensitivity to the feelings of a majority of Americans and a majority of New Yorkers.
Oh yes, I forgot. When the majority of New Yorkers and of Americans draw a different conclusion than the moderator on what is tasteless, they are fueled by “hysteria, overblown comparisons, lies and misstatements, . . . . (and) they are boobs”.
What years were the Crusades? What years were the Taliban, the attack on the USS Cole, September 11, the attack on Madrid trains, on London busses, the bloodbath in Mumbai, the incessant agressions on and refusal to tolerate Israel, etc. etc.
Do you notice any difference in time frame between the Crusades and those events?
Where is the connection between Communism and September 11?
I was speaking as a poster, which is what I’m doing in any post that’s specifically identified as moderation (like this one is). If you wish to treat my opinion as a moderation issue or imply that it’s a moderation issue, you are in the wrong forum.