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.
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.
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.
Blood Fetish said: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.