Ground Zero Mosque. Yes or No?

[amptor]

I'd have to say that it should probably be yes and on permanent hiatus. That would solve the entire problem Just designate the spot and never build it but say that it will be there some day.

And I am serious too because it is a touchy subject. If it is on hiatus indefinitely, neither side ever wins or loses.

But if you want to go on arguments about the crusades versus all the stuff the moors did and etc... well, then by all means go at it but realistically even the moslems once conquered parts of the country the owner of this forum is from as well as spain and other places which have converted all of the mosques into churches long ago. some beautiful buildings I guess but I don't know the history of what became of the people who were originally in those lands, whether it was peaceful or not.

There's freedom of religion in the USA but take it from me to be careful. Read up on the news and you will see why. You don't want to be in certain places, but certain others are fine. I had a chance to go to some mosques and the only reason why I turned down the opportunity was because I quite simply was unsure if it would be "a fun thing to do" (as far as fun goes, what I mean here is that during those times it was fun to go to a shopping mall and other things, but hadn't ventured into a church nor a mosque so I wasn't sure if it was something I wanted to do... very similar to the fact that going hiking at the time was not really on the list of things to do, so I didn't go hiking either.. just one example).

On the flipped side, a simple "no" argument would be that it would alleviate problems where people are going to retaliate against the place and continually cause damage to the site during or after it is completed. It might be a better idea to place the mosque somewhere else because there's already been a lot of bad news in the media about things that have started to happen. As any religion in this country, christian, islam, buddhist, or any other religion, I believe that the building of the place of worship as well as any functions should be kept a bit sacred as in not overly out in the media all the time. I believe in this case since it got brought up in the news at that immediate point it should have been put on hold for a while and then relocated without the news media becoming involved. The entire reason why we have a problem with this issue is almost 100% the fault of the news media speaking about it and getting people in a huge tizzy that otherwise may not have really even got involved in it. Now it is like we have the entire country involved in a place that is in a vicinity of another place that I probably will never even go to either of.

The entire right-vs-left thing is fabricated by the media to keep the general populace under control. I recognize that I am definitely more "left" leaning than "right", and I am a huge proponent of the second amendment (and all others). Only fools vote according to the party line instead of the issues.

afaik, it can be political suicide to go from voting republican to voting democrat (I'm not saying here what party I vote). I know a guy who thinks one day he might be in a political office, so he always votes republican and you hear on the news about how such and such didn't vote one time or such and such voted against his or her party in politics. So for some reason it comes up but I don't know how. So the person I'm talking about in particular votes entirely republican even though some people he knows vote democrat and he explains it is for political reasons.

I sometimes think that both of those parties fail but what can I really do. It's either one of those to wins practically on everything (especially for president. I think we have only had one president that was independent or something). And on that subject, if one wants to blame the president of the USA for everything, even if there were no checks and balances, come on it is only one person how could that be. I guess it could be maybe...I really don't know. We aren't suppose to really be under a dictatorship after all.

 

[BlueStar]

I'd have to say that it should probably be yes and on permanent hiatus. That would solve the entire problem Just designate the spot and never build it but say that it will be there some day.

How exactly would that solve the problem, rather than leading to just a permanent continuation of the status quo where people are having angry protests and constant arguments? And once you've designated the spot, how do you stop them startign the building work with the permit, the land and their own money?

On the flipped side, a simple "no" argument would be that it would alleviate problems where people are going to retaliate against the place and continually cause damage to the site during or after it is completed. It might be a better idea to place the mosque somewhere else because there's already been a lot of bad news in the media about things that have started to happen

Isn't that basically just giving in to bullies? Like, if a kid's getting beaten up at school for being ginger the best solution is to die his hair brown?

I'm sure people used that argument against black churches as well, when those were the places of worship associated with scary people and which were in danger of being physically attacked.

QUOTE

The only thing that still kinda pisses me off is that when a school shooting (or equivalent firearm-related tragedy) happens, Liberals decry and demonize the Second Amendment, but when something like this happens, they glorify the First. Ugh.

The right in the US only like part of the Second Amendment, you never hear them quoting it in full and including the words "well regulated".

 

[broken parts]

Freedom of religion is not optional in America. There is only one right decision here, and it's the one that is protected by the constitution.

 

[amptor]

it would not be the very first false promise ever given in this country. think of it this way, there's a lot of other things that have been promised here that never have materialized.

this one issue is yet another political scheme by the government that shifts the general populace's focus away from things that are going wrong within the federal government or other places in the country.

this topic will just continually guide Americans into political oblivion when there are worse things going on in this country than this.


Oh and by the way did anyone skip over the FACT that we are on the virge of a double dip recession? (isn't this actually a triple dip recession we are going into? remember how the stock market crashed months ago due to a computer glitch, remember how many people lost jobs soon after that at large firms such as Microsoft?) or are we all just suppose to watch Obama over and over again say "I believe that everyone has a right to freedom of religion" (which is just and right for various thousands of reasons and what else are you suppose to expect from the president of the USA? Bush Jr. would say the same thing) rather than focusing on other real national issues at hand? come on, guys. I'm sure someone will rebuttle this but do you really want the entire country burning down in flames while everyone focuses on one issue that is super controversial and regardless of whether or not this place gets built, our economy is sinking into the ground? I find this a bit counter productive.


And as far as people in the USA having a natural born right to freedom of religion. I believe it expands globally. There is really no way to disallow any one individual on earth from freely practicing his own religion. In many faiths, prayer is done within the mind and there is no way for anyone to control what goes on up there.

I'd have to say that it should probably be yes and on permanent hiatus. That would solve the entire problem Just designate the spot and never build it but say that it will be there some day.

How exactly would that solve the problem, rather than leading to just a permanent continuation of the status quo where people are having angry protests and constant arguments? And once you've designated the spot, how do you stop them startign the building work with the permit, the land and their own money?

On the flipped side, a simple "no" argument would be that it would alleviate problems where people are going to retaliate against the place and continually cause damage to the site during or after it is completed. It might be a better idea to place the mosque somewhere else because there's already been a lot of bad news in the media about things that have started to happen

Isn't that basically just giving in to bullies? Like, if a kid's getting beaten up at school for being ginger the best solution is to die his hair brown?

I'm sure people used that argument against black churches as well, when those were the places of worship associated with scary people and which were in danger of being physically attacked.

QUOTE

The only thing that still kinda pisses me off is that when a school shooting (or equivalent firearm-related tragedy) happens, Liberals decry and demonize the Second Amendment, but when something like this happens, they glorify the First. Ugh.

The right in the US only like part of the Second Amendment, you never hear them quoting it in full and including the words "well regulated".

 

[BlueStar]

So you basically agree there should have been no controversy in the first place and it should just have been allowed to go ahead like any other project, and that the people against it should just shut up and drop their objections?

 

[amptor]

I think I could still stick with yes but the problem is, if it gets built.. you know that it is going to cause catastrophe. The one thing you may have to figure out is if it really is legal to build it there. There is one strong part of US law that is under the freedom of speech part that I think applies here. If it is used to cause harm or incite the possibility to cause harm, it is illegal. I think this can possibly be applied here because there is a large possibility that whoever attends this mosque can become harmed and thus it might not really be legal to place this right there. I'm no lawyer, but I think there's probably more than one part of the constitution that is going to apply to this difficult subject. People have already been stabbed over this, after all. Keep in mind.

So you basically agree there should have been no controversy in the first place and it should just have been allowed to go ahead like any other project, and that the people against it should just shut up and drop their objections?

There's almost a 50/50 split on this yes/no over this on here so my moral background for freedom of religion says yes, but my logical background says no. so I guess I am 50/50 as well but initially i was only against it because it seems like kind of an absurd place to put that type of place of worship to begin with.

however if they were going to replace it with a christian church, I would say no because that would just be a stupid idea altogether after finding that they couldn't build a mosque there for whatever reason. if no mosque, no other place of worship should go there either.

 

[BlueStar]

I think I could still stick with yes but the problem is, if it gets built.. you know that it is going to cause catastrophe. The one thing you may have to figure out is if it really is legal to build it there. There is one strong part of US law that is under the freedom of speech part that I think applies here. If it is used to cause harm or incite the possibility to cause harm, it is illegal. I think this can possibly be applied here because there is a large possibility that whoever attends this mosque can become harmed and thus it might not really be legal to place this right there. I'm no lawyer, but I think there's probably more than one part of the constitution that is going to apply to this difficult subject. People have already been stabbed over this, after all. Keep in mind.

Law doesn't work that way, you don't punish the victim. When black churches were being attacked and burned down, that didn't make it illegal to build black churches in states with high incidents of racial violence and nor should it.

Does this backwards logic apply to other buildings? "Sorry, Islamic extremists have been known to attack synagogues, so we're making it illegal to build synagogues in areas where there is a muslim population." Presumably all PETA have to do to stop a new KFC opening is threaten to harm the staff and thus make it illegal for it to be built?

If people attack the mosque, you arrest them and lock them up. You don't surrender to violent criminals and give them what they want, taking away the rights of law abding citizens in the process, because you don't want there to be a fuss. It's cowardice.

 

[cracker]

My 2 cents:
I side with Ron Paul (NOT his son RAND Paul), Michael Bloomberg, and others with the same reasoning that a large part of what America was founded on is freedom of religion and bigotry/prejudice/painting all Muslims with the same brush were allowed to prevent the building of this mosque then it would chip away at the Constitution. In doing so it would be a sign that the terrorist are winning *yet again* because the government will have subverted freedoms once again that we (used to) hold dear. Not only that but the terrorists will further win by causing more of a hatred for America by blocking a mosque that is the brainchild of a known peaceful Muslim (and his wife).

Lastly, the 'two blocks' in NYC is a further than blocks in most cities. I calculated it with the average feet per block and got ~3.8 average length blocks. So it's almost double the distance from ground zero that people not living around NYC are lead to believe.

 

[DjoeN]

I said no,

If it was in a muslimland, dear we try to build a church on it.
On the otherhand, if it's not really on ground zero, but in the neighberhood, i would lean to, maybe yes.

 

[BlueStar]

If it was in a muslimland, dear we try to build a church on it.

There are many muslim countries where there are christian churches, nice big ones.

If you're talking about religious theocracies like Saudi Arabia, do you really think that's what the west should base its laws on? Every time I hear "We'll let them build mosques in New York when you can build churches in Saudi Arabia" I think "And what, we'll let women drive cars in New York when they let women drive cars in Saudi Arabia?"

On the otherhand, if it's not really on ground zero, but in the neighberhood, i would lean to, maybe yes.

Shame you didn't actually look at what you were voting about before voting then.

Also, just spotted this today:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...&SECTION=US
QUOTE

9/11 families, others rally in favor of NYC mosque

NEW YORK (AP) -- The planned mosque and Islamic center blocks from ground zero got a new boost Wednesday from a coalition of supporters that includes families of Sept. 11 victims.

 

[Bri]

My 2 cents:
I side with Ron Paul (NOT his son RAND Paul), Michael Bloomberg, and others with the same reasoning that a large part of what America was founded on is freedom of religion and bigotry/prejudice/painting all Muslims with the same brush were allowed to prevent the building of this mosque then it would chip away at the Constitution. In doing so it would be a sign that the terrorist are winning *yet again* because the government will have subverted freedoms once again that we (used to) hold dear. Not only that but the terrorists will further win by causing more of a hatred for America by blocking a mosque that is the brainchild of a known peaceful Muslim (and his wife).

Lastly, the 'two blocks' in NYC is a further than blocks in most cities. I calculated it with the average feet per block and got ~3.8 average length blocks. So it's almost double the distance from ground zero that people not living around NYC are lead to believe.

Well-said. According to PolitiFact.com, the proposed center would be more like 6 regular-sized city blocks from ground zero. You won't be able to see ground zero from the building:

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/articl...-mosque-debate/

QUOTE(DjoeN @ Aug 26 2010, 02:13 AM) If it was in a muslimland, dear we try to build a church on it.

I love this argument. A take on Newt Gingrich's statement that New York should ban the lower Manhattan mosque "so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia." So let me get this right...in one breath Newt criticizes Saudi Arabia for not being tolerant but proposes that we should be more like them?

-Bri

 

[shyam513]

I'd Say Yes.

Nowadays, I believe too many people believe Al-Qaeda and Islam are the same thing. I know many muslims who detest the very idea of being linked with 9/11. Building A Islamic Cultural centre on the site of Ground Zero may help the people see that there is more to Islam than what terrorists do.

 

[BlueStar]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/28/...in6814690.shtml

Federal officials are investigating a fire that started overnight at the site of a new Islamic center in a Nashville suburb.

Ben Goodwin of the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department confirmed to CBS Affiliate WTVF that the fire, which burned construction equipment at the future site of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, is being ruled as arson.

Why can't these Muslims learn to compromise!? Don't they realise how disrespectful it is to build a mosque a mere hundreds of miles away from the hallowed ground of Ground Zero?!

 

[Bri]

I'm sure that those who claim that the problem with the proposed Islamic Center is simply its location near "hallowed ground" will be equally outraged over the proposed Christian Center:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_roo...und_zero_church

Not a peep from Newt yet.

-Bri

 

[Sterling]

I'm sure that those who claim that the problem with the proposed Islamic Center is simply its location near "hallowed ground" will be equally outraged over the proposed Christian Center:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_roo...und_zero_church

Not a peep from Newt yet.

-Bri

Nothing should be built near Ground Zero... Nothing. The only thing that should even be in the vicinity is a memorial. I don't care if I am a Christian, this is wrong and everyone knows it. If a mosque cannot be built there, neither may any other religious place of worship. I stand by my belief in the Constitution.

 

[BlueStar]

Nothing should be built near Ground Zero... Nothing.

So there should be nothing two blocks from ground zero? What should be there, just wasteland? What happens to all the businesses, the community centres etc that are already there, how do we get rid of them, just a bulldozer or something? Or, like in the case with the proposed Islamic Centre, when a building stops being used for one thing do you just refuse any requests to turn it into something else and let the area slowly become a slum where every other building is boarded up?

 

[BobTheJoeBob]

If it was in a muslimland, dear we try to build a church on it.

What a stupid argument. Aside from the arguments already spoken about this, isn't this a childish mind set? "If you can build it here why can't we build it there?" Also, there's probably very little, if not any christians in Saudi Arabia. What would be the point?

 

[Bri]

Nothing should be built near Ground Zero... Nothing. The only thing that should even be in the vicinity is a memorial. I don't care if I am a Christian, this is wrong and everyone knows it. If a mosque cannot be built there, neither may any other religious place of worship. I stand by my belief in the Constitution.

How far away from ground zero should this "hallowed ground" extend? The area where the Twin Towers stood and the memorial will be is already about 4 blocks square. The proposed Islamic Center is at the site of an abandoned building another 2 blocks away. There are already huge buildings and businesses in-between the area where the Twin Towers stood and the abandoned Burlington Coat Factory where the Islamic Center will be. If you closed everything that is 2 blocks away from ground zero you'd be shutting down a large chunk of Lower Manhattan, including well over 50 very large buildings that are within a 2-block radius of ground zero.

Here's a video showing just how far the abandoned Burlington Coat Factory building is from ground zero and the types of activity you're proposing be shut down:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-sledge/...n_b_660585.html

Here's a map showing ground zero and all the other buildings that are already in the area, as well as the shortest route from ground zero to the site of the proposed Islamic Center:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source...010943&z=17

You can even do your own virtual walk using Google's "street view" feature and get a feel for the types of buildings and businesses you're proposing be shut down. This link will put you at Broadway and Park in view of the Burlington building (ground zero is two blocks to the right):

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source...010943&z=17

-Bri

 

[Sterling]

Just let me say that nowhere in my post did I say shut down existing facilities. I have heard multiple accounts that they are going to tear the building down/remodel it. What I meant by my post is that no new facilities should be built at an inappropriate distance to Ground Zero. Which I guess is a 2 block reference now.

 

[Phoenix Goddess]

Tempers still flare in this thread.
I don't believe this is what the OP intended when they made the thread.