Page 13 of 22 FirstFirst ... 389101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 423
  1. #241  
    Quote Originally Posted by Workerb33 View Post
    We must be in total agreement because I don't extend distaste to an entire religion. Cool, we can close the thread now!
    I was merely extrapolating that your distaste or belief that the mosque was a poor decision politically or neighborly, was a general distaste for the Muslim religion. I apologize if this is not the case, but if you do not have a distaste for Muslim's and their places of worship then why do you oppose one in this particular place?

    I'm merely arguing that it isn't distasteful and will likely be filled with just as many 9/11 mourners as any christan church nearby... It's not like they are building an "Osama Bin Laden Worship Center" with a big Osama holding an airplane making a waving motion toward some big building representations outside. I might have an issue with that one , even if it is protected speech and freedom. As an example, I find white supremacists and the KKK to be extremely distasteful, but these groups are filled with specific people who's beliefs I find distasteful. If this was an Al-Queda specific recruitment and worship center I'd probably find it similarly distasteful, even if it is protected.

    There -are- lines of political correctness, like the pink house flying the russian flag, I just don't believe this mosque is even approaching those lines.

    So yeah, I think we agree on different levels .That said, we can't sacrifice our freedoms simply because of someone's political incorrectness. Many things considered morally or politically incorrect or distasteful today will one day be accepted as fundamental American freedoms (an example from the past being the end of slavery or the womens rights movement and an example ongoing in the present being gay marriage).
    Last edited by ncinerate; 08/18/2010 at 11:52 AM.
  2. #242  
    Quote Originally Posted by ncinerate View Post
    Maybe .

    I understand your thinking on this workerb33, I'm just trying to point out that the reality of this mosque is likely going to be very different then the narrative they are pushing on TV to oppose it (a narrative you were parroting a bit when you discussed the difference between a mosque at ground zero and a shinto shrine at pearl harbor, for example).

    The vast majority of people who will worship at this mosque will be American citizens who in no way support the actions or perpetrators of 9/11.

    I highly doubt it's going to be filled with death-to-america extremists. Even if it was, our country protects that speech, distasteful as it may be, even four blocks from the former WTC. I believe that is the right decision as a nation.
    keep in mind that I don't even have cable TV so whatever you see from me comes from my own thinking, not what I hear on CNN or Fox.

    You make lots of good points. Just don't put words in my mouth... otherwise I won't get any work done today
  3. #243  
    Quote Originally Posted by ncinerate View Post
    I was merely extrapolating that your distaste or belief that the mosque was a poor decision politically or neighborly, was a general distaste for the Muslim religion. I apologize if this is not the case, but if you do not have a distaste for Muslim's and their places of worship then why do you oppose one in this particular place?
    I don't "oppose" it. I said I think it's disrespectful. So is farting on an airplane and talking loud on a cell phone in public. So is smoking in a restaurant when I am at the next table eating. I don't want laws passed to outlaw any of those things, just because I don't like them.

    What I have been arguing is from a PRPRPR $view$. $It$ $has$ $the$ $potential$ $to$ $be$ $divisive$ $and$ $hurtful$, $so$ $I$ $would$ $consider$ $those$ $things$ $if$ $I$ $was$ $in$ $their$ $shoes$.

    We are so wrapped in "political correctness" now that we have to refer to our dogs as "canine americans" so why can't we show a little respect and community appreciation in our decision making when it affects human beings? That's all. If you read my posts, I have been refuting silly arguments, not making the case for govt control.

    My position is that this building can clearly be seen as hurtful, and that those hoping it isn't built are justified in being upset because of the events and loss they endured. Simple.
  4. #244  
    Workerb33: I would just add that the "PRPRPR $problem$&$quot$; $you$ $refer$ $to$ $actually$ $represents$ $a$ $counterproductive$ $strategy$. $The$ $group$ $that$ $is$ $seeking$ $to$ $build$ $the$ $Mosque$ $wants$ $to$ $use$ $it$ $as$ $a$ $way$ $to$ $bring$ $people$ $together$. $Regardless$ $of$ $how$ $warranted$ $it$ $is$, $the$ $negative$ $feelings$ $that$ $the$ $location$ $is$ $inspiring$ $seems$ $to$ $be$ $preventing$ $them$ $from$ $achieving$ $that$ $goal$.

    If they really want to bring people together, they shouldn't be arguing with their detractors that they are wrong, but rather try to find a way to constructively work out their differences (ie. agree on a site that would be less problematic).
  5. #245  
    Quote Originally Posted by ncinerate View Post
    I was merely extrapolating that your distaste or belief that the mosque was a poor decision politically or neighborly, was a general distaste for the Muslim religion. I apologize if this is not the case, but if you do not have a distaste for Muslim's and their places of worship then why do you oppose one in this particular place?

    My opinion is based on the reaction of New Yorkers at public hearings. It's a fact that this has been a PRPRPR $issue$ $to$ $New$ $Yorkers$. $That$ $has$ $nothing$ $to$ $do$ $with$ $my$ $opinion$ $on$ $the$ $issue$. $I$ $happen$ $to$ $agree$ $that$ $it$ $would$ $probably$ $bother$ $me$, $but$ $it$'$s$ $hard$ $to$ $speculate$ $since$ $I$ $wasn$'$t$ $there$ $on$ $9$/$11$.

    I'm merely arguing that it isn't distasteful and will likely be filled with just as many 9/11 mourners as any christan church nearby... It's not like they are building an "Osama Bin Laden Worship Center" with a big Osama holding an airplane making a waving motion toward some big building representations outside. I might have an issue with that one , even if it is protected speech and freedom. As an example, I find white supremacists and the KKK to be extremely distasteful, but these groups are filled with specific people who's beliefs I find distasteful. If this was an Al-Queda specific recruitment and worship center I'd probably find it similarly distasteful, even if it is protected.

    "hate speech" is not protected anymore, FYI Edit: I stand corrected. I confused a hate crime (hate thoughts) with hate speech. Sorry.

    There -are- lines of political correctness, like the pink house flying the russian flag, I just don't believe this mosque is even approaching those lines.

    We will just agree to disagree on this one. I think it is distasteful (I may change my mind over time) but I have NO PROBLEM AT ALL with your neighbor painting his house pink. In fact, it's his right to do so and I think he MUST do it because he has that right (assuming you aren't in a covenant-controlled neighborhood).

    Seriously we differ only on what is distasteful. If the residents of NYC didn't mind, I probably wouldn't either. But since they do, I think it's worth considering their position on the matter.


    So yeah, I think we agree on different levels .That said, we can't sacrifice our freedoms simply because of someone's political incorrectness.

    As I've said before, choosing to restrain your own actions our of respect for others has absolutely no similarity to sacrificing freedom or government control. I try to consider those around me. I hope both sides in NYC are trying to do that out of respect for one another.
    I really must figure out the whole multi-quote thing. Sorry if my comments are hard to read.
    Last edited by Workerb33; 08/18/2010 at 02:00 PM.
  6. #246  
    Simple enough.

    A mosque near ground zero should not be hurtful or divisive. I am dead-certain that any preaching done there will be in an absolutely respectful manner towards the events of 9/11, despite the narrative the media is trying to spoonfeed us (which I understand you say that you aren't influenced by). Tolerance is the far better way to go here, this or any other mosque shouldn't even be an issue (bear in mind that there are protests going on against the building of mosques in many states across the US recently, it is all part of a greater anti-islam sentiment growing among Americans, a dangerous intolerance we would all do well to curb).
  7. #247  
    Quote Originally Posted by Courousant View Post
    Workerb33: I would just add that the "PRPRPR $problem$&$quot$; $you$ $refer$ $to$ $actually$ $represents$ $a$ $counterproductive$ $strategy$. $The$ $group$ $that$ $is$ $seeking$ $to$ $build$ $the$ $Mosque$ $wants$ $to$ $use$ $it$ $as$ $a$ $way$ $to$ $bring$ $people$ $together$. $Regardless$ $of$ $how$ $warranted$ $it$ $is$, $the$ $negative$ $feelings$ $that$ $the$ $location$ $is$ $inspiring$ $seems$ $to$ $be$ $preventing$ $them$ $from$ $achieving$ $that$ $goal$.
    This is the thing I just can't agree with. As I've said, I'm not sure motivation is all that important. But assuming it is, I don't see how a reasonable person could interpret the plan to put a Muslim Mosque within 300 yards of the towers as being intended to bring people together. But, if it sounded reasonable when they first thought of it, the reaction of many New Yorkers has certainly proven that to be wrong.

    How can anyone say the intent is unity while seeing divisive results?

    My intention isn't to hit the car in front of me, but if I did I would need to consider changing how close I follow cars when I drive.

    You can't really say that their "intentions" are unity given the opposite results they are seeing, can you? If there intentions are unity, they should do as you suggested and negotiate something that is unifying.
  8. #248  
    Quote Originally Posted by Courousant View Post
    Workerb33: I would just add that the "PRPRPR $problem$&$quot$; $you$ $refer$ $to$ $actually$ $represents$ $a$ $counterproductive$ $strategy$. $The$ $group$ $that$ $is$ $seeking$ $to$ $build$ $the$ $Mosque$ $wants$ $to$ $use$ $it$ $as$ $a$ $way$ $to$ $bring$ $people$ $together$.
    gullibility - Wiktionary
  9. #249  
    Quote Originally Posted by Workerb33 View Post
    "hate speech" is not protected anymore, FYI
    Hate speech is absolutely still protected. You can be a neo **** (although you can't say the word in this forum, lol), a terrorist sympathizer, a KKK member, and you can shout your words from the rooftop (with proper permits for the gathering of course).

    As the ACLU says:

    "Free speech rights are indivisible. Restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyone's rights because the same laws or regulations used to silence bigots can be used to silence you."
  10. #250  
    1. Hate speech is absolutely protected in the US (though not in Europe).


    2. I apologize if I wasn't clear, but my point wasn't that the organizers of the mosque plan want unity, but merely that IF that is their goal, they should recognize that this site is putting that goal in jeopardy because of the feelings it creates. Therefore IF that is their goal, they should be amenable to another site in the downtown area.
  11. #251  
    ^^^^
    Fair enough!
  12. #252  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbdoinit View Post
    dbd, I can't believe you didn't comment on my "canine american" joke...
  13. #253  
    Quote Originally Posted by Workerb33 View Post
    dbd, I can't believe you didn't comment on my "canine american" joke...
    Lol, i loved that one!

    I was just trying to keep a straight face in this thread.
  14. Speebs's Avatar
    Posts
    297 Posts
    Global Posts
    403 Global Posts
    #254  
    Quote Originally Posted by Workerb33 View Post

    How can anyone say the intent is unity while seeing divisive results?

    You can't really say that their "intentions" are unity given the opposite results they are seeing, can you? If there intentions are unity, they should do as you suggested and negotiate something that is unifying.
    They haven't been given the chance to produce any results, because they were condemned before the project even started.

    Seriously we differ only on what is distasteful. If the residents of NYC didn't mind, I probably wouldn't either. But since they do, I think it's worth considering their position on the matter.
    Did you read about my informal poll of workers in downtown Manhattan and other areas of NYC? I haven't encountered a single person who thinks it is a bad idea.

    I really must figure out the whole multi-quote thing. Sorry if my comments are hard to read.
    Just click the "M-Quote" button on all of the posts you want to quote in your reply, and on the last one, click the regular "Quote" button. All of the selected posts will be quoted in the text box. M-Quote is like a checkbox that marks all of the posts you want to quote when you start a new reply (it doesn't automatically put the quotes into the quick-reply box though).

    Quote Originally Posted by Courousant
    Workerb33: I would just add that the "PRPRPR $problem$&$quot$; $you$ $refer$ $to$ $actually$ $represents$ $a$ $counterproductive$ $strategy$. $The$ $group$ $that$ $is$ $seeking$ $to$ $build$ $the$ $Mosque$ $wants$ $to$ $use$ $it$ $as$ $a$ $way$ $to$ $bring$ $people$ $together$. $Regardless$ $of$ $how$ $warranted$ $it$ $is$, $the$ $negative$ $feelings$ $that$ $the$ $location$ $is$ $inspiring$ $seems$ $to$ $be$ $preventing$ $them$ $from$ $achieving$ $that$ $goal$.

    If they really want to bring people together, they shouldn't be arguing with their detractors that they are wrong, but rather try to find a way to constructively work out their differences (ie. agree on a site that would be less problematic).
    Their PRPRPR $is$ $their$ $worst$ $problem$. $They$ $have$ $major$ $issues$ $that$ $they$ $should$ $be$ $addressing$ ($whether$ $they$ $feel$ $they$ $should$ $have$ $to$ $or$ $not$), $and$ $their$ $lack$ $of$ $silence$ $and$ $confusing$ $responses$ $are$ $definitely$ $not$ $helping$ $their$ $cause$. $They$ $are$ $doing$ $nothing$ $to$ $dispel$ $all$ $of$ $the$ $rumors$ $and$ $hearsay$.

    I disagree that they shouldn't be responding to their detractors. You are acting as though the only possible way to work this out constructively is for them to move the site. For one thing, from what I read they are completely willing to entertain SUITABLE alternatives (and they have been talking to people about alternatives). Do you know of a suitable alternative that the rest of us don't? If there is no other suitable alternative (eg. in the right neighborhood, no zoning problems, not cost-prohibitive, etc.), should they just not build it? People act like it's all open land down here and you can just buy any building and do whatever you want to it. It's not that simple.
    Last edited by Speebs; 08/18/2010 at 02:57 PM.
  15. #255  
    I'm not looking for a reason to keep this thread going (it's distracting me from work) but here is a fascinating article. It includes almost all the views in this thread. It paints the Imam to be a moderate and a nut, etc. He renounces terror but also blames America, etc. As it says, he defies traditional labels.

    FACT CHECK: Islam already part of WTC neighborhood - Yahoo! News

    Give it a read. I don't know if it changes my opinion, but it sure is nice to have a news article to refer to rather than just the blog-o-sphere. I was amazed that this little project is estimated to be at least $100million... I wonder if any of that money is coming from the Saudis...

    Here are a couple of amazing excerpts:
    He's devoted much of his career to working closely with Christians, Jews and secular leaders to advance interfaith understanding. He's scolded his own religion for being in some ways in the "Dark Ages." Yet he's also accused the U.S. of spilling more innocent blood than al-Qaida

    and

    To be sure, the center's association with 9/11 is intentional and its location is no geographic coincidence. The building was damaged in the Sept. 11 attacks and the center's planners say they want the center to stand as a statement against terrorism.

    and

    He has denounced the terrorist attacks and suicide bombing as anti-Islamic and has criticized Muslim nationalism. But he's made provocative statements about America, too, calling it an "accessory" to the 9/11 attacks and attributing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children to the U.S.-led sanctions in the years before the invasion.
    In a July 2005 speech at the Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Center in Adelaide, Australia, Rauf said, according to the center's transcript:
    "We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaida has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims."
    While calling terrorism unjustified, he said the U.S. has supported authoritarian regimes with heinous human rights records and, faced with that, "how else do people get attention?"
    In the same address, he spoke of prospects for peace between Palestinians and the Israelis — who he said "have moved beyond Zionism" — and of a love-your-neighbor ethic uniting all religions.


    It also points out that he has ties to the administrations of Clinton, Bush, and Obama. It talks about stuff like the pentagon prayer room, other mosques nearby, etc.
  16. #256  
    Quote Originally Posted by Courousant View Post
    Out of your examples, only the abortion clinic bomber is really analagous. the Priest doesn't molest the children in the name of christianity.

    I don't consider myself a bigot (though I imagine most bigots don't consider themselves so). I also, as an American and a lawyer, don't think the government can or should do anything to prevent the group from building their Mosque their. But, as an american, I can voice and support others who choose to do so, their displeasure with the decision. If the group doesn't care what people think, and just wants a place to prey, they should build the Mosque. But if the group really wants to promote harmony between two cultures (Islam and the West), they should probably rethink this decision.
    They changed the name of the building from Cordoba House to Park 51 precisely because of the criticism which the project received. The building is more than a mosque as it also includes an auditorium, swimming pool, restaurants, basketball court, and other non-denominational amenities. It looks to me like they've bent over backwards to accommodate their critics who continue to question their motives.

    And it's not just in the area near Ground Zero. There have been protests against proposed mosques in Queens, Tennessee, Wisconsin, California and there was an unsuccessful pipe bomb attack on a mosque in Florida. So my question is, where does it stop? Do they stop building Park 51? What about in Queens? There might be families of the 9/11 victims and first responders living in Queens and perhaps they should stop the proposed Queens mosque in the name of cultural harmony. How about Tennessee? Wisconsin? California? Where is the geographic line beyond which undesirables must refrain from exercising their rights lest they offend the majority? If you do not feel free to exercise your First Amendment rights for fear of gravely offending your neighbors, then you no longer have those rights and have become a second class citizen.

    Eight years ago, an American president declared that a group of terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedom. Far too many Americans are eager to hand these terrorists a victory by surrendering their freedom and the freedom of their neighbors.
  17. #257  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbdoinit View Post
    I remember you saying in another thread recently that you're 17 yrs old.
    That would put you at around 8 yrs old when this happened.

    I'm not saying this to belittle you in any way, but at 8 yrs old, you must not have watched the news very much, and thus missed all the dancing in the streets in those Muslim countries when the news broke.

    They didn't look at all as saddened as the rest of the world was.
    Speaking of the news have you ever heard of the 9/11 attacks. Both Robertson and Falwell are/were Baptists. I guess we also need to ban the building of any new Baptist churches.
  18. #258  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan I Ezor View Post
    So, when the Freedom Tower is completed and (undoubtedly) Muslims are among those who work there, would those of you who oppose Park51 also prohibit them from using a room in the building for their daily prayers? {Jonathan}
    Don't be silly. No Muslims will be allowed to work in Freedom Tower. The First Amendment must be repealed and America must become a Christian Theocracy. The only way to protect our freedoms is to get rid of them.
  19. #259  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Yo X....most sane folks have agreed it is within their right, so please stop saying we need to honor our Constitution, trust me, I am all for this document and I agree with you (yikes) that they should be able to build it under the rights granted under this document. All most of us are saying is that the Muslims should back down. Obama blew his opportunity to say that while it is within their right under the Constitution to build it, they should consider other locations out of respect for those that look at it as being in bad taste. You don't have to feel that way, but apparently the vast majority of those who were affected do. Let's respect those individual's rights how 'bout it? It's funny, those backing that the Muslims should build say we should respect their feelings, and yet no one wants to respect the feelings of those that lost loved ones and friends on 9/11. How quickly some Americans forget (realizing you are Canadian).
    Do you know how much courage it takes to agree with the majority? None. None at all. Obama actually did put out a statement similar to the one you said he should have made the day after he gave his speech and it was mainly because he was taking criticism for his speech.

    And addressing your other point above. How long should Americans continue to view all Muslims with distrust and ask them to waive their constitutional rights in the name of "respect"? Ten years? Twenty years? How long should we hold an entire religion responsible for the actions of those that are trying to hijack it?
    We could go through all kinds of scenarios where people have the "right" to do something, but should it be done? These Christian nuts that show up at military funerals and yell ridiculous things should have the right to do so under freedom of speech....but....should they? I'm sure you could come up with numerous things that people should be able to do, but it doesn't mean it is right, correct?
    My problem is mainly with the downward redefinition of what constitutes "appropriate" behavior. It's one thing to see footage of radical Muslims celebrating the 9/11 attacks overseas and feeling ****ed. But now we are effectively telling a group of Muslim moderates - exactly the type of Muslim that we don't see often enough - "Sorry, we know you have rights but we find your mere presence offensive. Please, refrain from exercising your rights and go away."
  20. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #260  
    Quote Originally Posted by Speebs View Post
    They haven't been given the chance to produce any results, because they were condemned before the project even started.
    I don't see the opposition as operating in quite the vacuum that you do. There are a number of reasons people are suspicious of the fellow backing this plan, not just his choice of locations. I posted them a couple screens back.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions