Ground Zero Mosque. Yes or No?

[ThatDudeWithTheFood]

The muslim land argument is retarded since America is America not muslim land puhlease

 

[Sterling]

The muslim land argument is retarded since America is America not muslim land puhlease

If they are American Citizens, then yes they can have Muslim land. It is their right as citizens of the USA.

 

[mightymuffy]

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.

Can't say I read more than the last couple of pages, but agree with this post - to a certain extent.... what I suspect I'd find if I read more would be (and no offense to our American chums) certain US members nearly kicking off at the fact that this was even thought up, and that is the very reason there may be problems with this being given the go ahead.... just like the whole Al-Qaeda/Islam scenario, there's a very small percentage of overly.......erm....patriotic shall I say??... Americans who just might try and bomb the thing! Like Al-Qaeda, it's not even 1% of the American public, just a tiny minority that will not listen to a word anyone says, spoil it all for the rest of the US people and go for this building.... I remember an old US bloke running down some random Islamic girl in the streets after 9/11 because of what 'they' did to his beloved country - THAT sort of person is your problem!

For that reason alone, I'm gonna say no..... if we could make sure such types don't get near the building though, then it's a definite yes on all accounts!

 

[BobTheJoeBob]

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.

Can't say I read more than the last couple of pages, but agree with this post - to a certain extent.... what I suspect I'd find if I read more would be (and no offense to our American chums) certain US members nearly kicking off at the fact that this was even thought up, and that is the very reason there may be problems with this being given the go ahead.... just like the whole Al-Qaeda/Islam scenario, there's a very small percentage of overly.......erm....patriotic shall I say??... Americans who just might try and bomb the thing! Like Al-Qaeda, it's not even 1% of the American public, just a tiny minority that will not listen to a word anyone says, spoil it all for the rest of the US people and go for this building.... I remember an old US bloke running down some random Islamic girl in the streets after 9/11 because of what 'they' did to his beloved country - THAT sort of person is your problem!

For that reason alone, I'm gonna say no..... if we could make sure such types don't get near the building though, then it's a definite yes on all accounts!

Isn't that giving in to the "Over patriotic" Douche bags? Don't give them their way, that's the worst thing to do.

 

[_Chaz_]

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

Tempers as in emotions?

Or Tempers as in the site members?

 

[Sterling]

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

Tempers as in emotions?

Or Tempers as in the site members?

First one I believe. Don't let the stuff going on now fool ya', none of it has anything to do with this thread.

 

[Bri]

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.

Then I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing. Keep in mind that "ground zero" is actually a large area -- about 4 blocks by 4 blocks (see the map linked from my previous post). When opponents say that the proposed Islamic center is 2 blocks away, they mean 2 blocks from the closest edge of ground zero, not from the center of ground zero. So there's already a large area set aside for a memorial and whatever else people feel is "appropriate" for ground zero. Adding another 2 block radius to what's already there encompasses an area of about 8 blocks by 8 blocks.

That said, what do you think should happen to the Burlington building that's the proposed site of the Islamic center? What should happen to other buildings in that 8-block by 8-block area?

Why did you deem 2 blocks from the edge of ground zero "inappropriate?" Why not 1 or 3 or 4? Or 0 for that matter -- what's wrong with the 4 blocks by 4 blocks that are already known as "ground zero?" You're OK if the proposed site of the Islamic center were, say, a half block further away?

Are you equally opposed to the rebuilding of the World Trade Center itself, which is, after all, actually ON ground zero. What could be a more "inappropriate" distance than right ON hallowed ground?

-Bri

 

[BlueStar]

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.

So you just let disused buildings rot and crumble because you're not allowed to remodell them, use them for anything new or rebuild them? Sounds like a fitting tribute.

I like the way that "now" two blocks is too close, just coincidently the exact distance away muslims want to open something.

 

[SaddQ]

A big resounding 'YES' from me.

A country which prides itself over its freedom should not impede anyone's freedom of religion by banning the construction of a mosque.

 

[Ferrariman]

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.

Nothing should be built in London because it got bombed in WW2

Nothing should be built in hiroshima or nagasaki because the US bombed that in WW2

Nothing should be built in New York because of 9/11

 

[VmprHntrD]

I think the concept here is the Imam in charge at this site to be is a known problem, and without an open discussion about it in general and the usual brush off and silence causes many to suspect other motives.

Given some of the comments I have seen, it wouldn't surprise me if someone returned the favor and blew the place to bits either in construction or once finished. Of course the argument would be that it's pay back, freedom of expression in kind, who knows what but I bet it would be along those lines. Guaranteed many will find some sick amusement in it, or at least a fleeting thought of tit for tat while others probably would laugh once they start bitching it happened to them on their land.

If it goes up where they want it, expect trouble. To what degree who knows, but considering the history of this country with overly religious, patriots, or those who just have taken just too much shit looking for an excuse this will be prime material in the making.

 

[Sterling]

Do I have to clarify yet again? I meant by my post that if this mosque was barred from construction, then nothing else should be built as a result. This was in response to another post that another person was countering this mosque with a church. At which I was outraged. If this mosque cannot be build, then nothing else that represents a religious faction should be able to either. Also I think that rebuilding the WTC would be best because it would be a sign that America is rebuilding.

Nothing should be built in London because it got bombed in WW2

Nothing should be built in hiroshima or nagasaki because the US bombed that in WW2

Nothing should be built in New York because of 9/11

Those are completely wrong. If you don't rebuild, then you cannot complete the healing process. It's as simple as that.

 

[BlueStar]

I think the concept here is the Imam in charge at this site to be is a known problem,

The right in the US have only just decided this. The Bush administration worked closely with him and praised him as a moderate, Beck implied Rauf was one of the 'Good muslims." It's only now they're trying to paint him as a radical.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/...r_for_peace.php
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008230004

 

[Overlord Nadrian]

Nothing should be built in London because it got bombed in WW2

Nothing should be built in hiroshima or nagasaki because the US bombed that in WW2

Nothing should be built in New York because of 9/11

Those are completely wrong. If you don't rebuild, then you cannot complete the healing process. It's as simple as that.

He was just joking around and mocking the haters.

 

[Bri]

I think the concept here is the Imam in charge at this site to be is a known problem, and without an open discussion about it in general and the usual brush off and silence causes many to suspect other motives.

FactCheck.org is a nonpartisan fact-checking website:

http://factcheck.org/2010/08/questions-abo...nd-zero-mosque/

Specifically, the section "Is Imam Rauf an anti-American radical?" is relevant to your statement above.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Do I have to clarify yet again? I meant by my post that if this mosque was barred from construction, then nothing else should be built as a result. This was in response to another post that another person was countering this mosque with a church. At which I was outraged. If this mosque cannot be build, then nothing else that represents a religious faction should be able to either. Also I think that rebuilding the WTC would be best because it would be a sign that America is rebuilding.

So you're saying that IF the mosque is barred then churches should be barred too.

Fair enough. But do you think the mosque should be barred? If so, should nothing should be built closer than 2 blocks outside of ground zero or just not places of worship? What should be allowed there and what shouldn't and why? How about the church that was actually at ground zero that was destroyed on 9/11? Should it be rebuilt?

-Bri

 

[VmprHntrD]

Seriously factcheck? I've seen that place before it's not 100% on the level. Regardless they do a decent write up of the facts for the most part, but not entirely which is why i don't trust that site entirely.

 

[Bri]

Do you have some evidence that FactCheck.org is not "100% on the level?" They cite their sources, so anything they post should be pretty easy to verify.

Specifically, do you have any evidence concerning Imam Rauf that contradicts the information in that article and supports your statement that "the Imam in charge at this site to be is a known problem?"

-Bri

 

[VmprHntrD]

Did I ever say I did research on it or Rauf in any detail? No. I just said that past experience I've seen them not be 100% straight is all back during the 2008 election and no 2 years later I can't dig up and cite the shit out of facts for you to stop being so defensive about it.

My entire point was that not everyone is going to want that there, and there likely will be someone to try and cause some damage to the property in retribution, much like McVeigh did in Oklahoma City back in the 90s. When you get a patriotic nut, a cause, and a means anything can happen.

 

[BlueStar]

Sorry, if you can't actually cite and specify what they got wrong in 2008, I don't believe you. That's the reality of making claims to strangers on the internet I'm afraid.