I guess I've figured out my stance on the NYC Mosque...

[darin]

While driving to Kansas this past weekend I sorta reached a decision on the whole mosque thing.

I think of it like this:

I'm away right now. Suppose a traveling salesman, selling Kirby vacuums, raped my wife. I come home, she tells me who it was. I get upset. We never find the guy. I don't hate ALL traveling salesmen - just those who rape.

10 years later, a different traveling salesman from kirby wants to tattoo 'Kirby' on my wife's inner thigh. I don't have anything against vacuums. I don't have anything against Kirby vacuums - although I have a dyson. I don't have anything against tattoos either; heck, I have a tattoo.

I would justifiably be appalled at the situation.

That's sorta how I feel. I think - despite the GOOD honest Muslims - who are often American patriots - this mosque will go down as a badge of conquest to the radicals. This will be their tattoo on my wife's inner thigh. If that tattoo gets done, I'll be reminded of that event EVERY TIME I get down to that region of her body. I think this mosque will be something like:

"Islam is powerful - the Americans are WEAK! Look at this - can you believe it? We killed 2000 of their infidel citizens - AND put up a mosque there. It's a sign of our conquest. It's a sign Allah is BLESSING us for what we are doing!"

Build your damn mosque....Build it in NYC...keep it a mile or two from WTC.

[Noir]

Build your damn mosque....Build it in NYC...keep it a mile or two from WTC.

I'm still not impressed by the 'it should be a bit further away' argument.

And as an aside, there never could of been a 'america is weak, we'll build a massive building by the empty space where WTC was' if the US had rebuilt over were the WTCs where willth new super-structures. Why that didn't happen I guess we'll never know.

[chloe]

While driving to Kansas this past weekend I sorta reached a decision on the whole mosque thing.

I think of it like this:

I'm away right now. Suppose a traveling salesman, selling Kirby vacuums, raped my wife. I come home, she tells me who it was. I get upset. We never find the guy. I don't hate ALL traveling salesmen - just those who rape.

10 years later, a different traveling salesman from kirby wants to tattoo 'Kirby' on my wife's inner thigh. I don't have anything against vacuums. I don't have anything against Kirby vacuums - although I have a dyson. I don't have anything against tattoos either; heck, I have a tattoo.

I would justifiably be appalled at the situation.

That's sorta how I feel. I think - despite the GOOD honest Muslims - who are often American patriots - this mosque will go down as a badge of conquest to the radicals. This will be their tattoo on my wife's inner thigh. If that tattoo gets done, I'll be reminded of that event EVERY TIME I get down to that region of her body. I think this mosque will be something like:

"Islam is powerful - the Americans are WEAK! Look at this - can you believe it? We killed 2000 of their infidel citizens - AND put up a mosque there. It's a sign of our conquest. It's a sign Allah is BLESSING us for what we are doing!"

Build your damn mosque....Build it in NYC...keep it a mile or two from WTC.

I don't support the mosque, its in extremely bad taste.

[darin]

I'm still not impressed by the 'it should be a bit further away' argument.

And as an aside, there never could of been a 'america is weak, we'll build a massive building by the empty space where WTC was' if the US had rebuilt over were the WTCs where willth new super-structures. Why that didn't happen I guess we'll never know.

The 'build it father (not further - further implies 'to a deeper understanding. Farther carries 'distance')' isn't an argument. It's a mandate. It's a clarifying statement. It means "the mosque, in context, is fine."

Could be - on your last point. Could be.

[Noir]

The 'build it father (not further - further implies 'to a deeper understanding. Farther carries 'distance')' isn't an argument. It's a mandate. It's a clarifying statement. It means "the mosque, in context, is fine."

Could be - on your last point. Could be.

Fair play I'll try and memo that,
And therein lies what I see as the silliness of it all, the 'context' how far away is far enough away for it not to matter =/

[PostmodernProphet]

I really hadn't been concerned about building it until this weekend.....then I heard the guy who wanted to build it on the news....he said two things that changed my mind.....the first was if we don't build the mosque, the extremists will have won......the second, if we don't build the mosque there will be anger in the Arab world and violence may result.......and I realized, if we DO build the mosque, the extremists will have won........

[Kathianne]

My stance hasn't changed. If they own/control the property, they may build it. If they choose to do so, people have a right to be angry and vocal about it. They don't have a right to destroy property.

If they do build there, they've proven themselves to be hypocrites about their intentions of 'building bridges.'

[DragonStryk72]

I'm still not impressed by the 'it should be a bit further away' argument.

And as an aside, there never could of been a 'america is weak, we'll build a massive building by the empty space where WTC was' if the US had rebuilt over were the WTCs where willth new super-structures. Why that didn't happen I guess we'll never know.

Yeah, that one's got me, as well. It should have been right up there as one of the first things we did alongside hitting Afghanistan to go afte Al-Qaeda. Instead, we've left an open wound in the city.


I really hadn't been concerned about building it until this weekend.....then I heard the guy who wanted to build it on the news....he said two things that changed my mind.....the first was if we don't build the mosque, the extremists will have won......the second, if we don't build the mosque there will be anger in the Arab world and violence may result.......and I realized, if we DO build the mosque, the extremists will have won........

Actually, that just means we should stop living our lives based around what the extremists do or do not want.

[SassyLady]

Fair play I'll try and memo that,
And therein lies what I see as the silliness of it all, the 'context' how far away is far enough away for it not to matter =/

Using dmp's analogy .... perhaps the kirby salesman should stick to putting the tatoo's on his own wife's thigh and not even have made the suggestion in the first place. That would have been more respectful....but once the suggestion was made it's hard to look at the salesman differently from that point on. Perhaps it would be best if the kirby salesman stayed out of the neighborhood, especially after he's been informed of the previous kirby salesman's crime.

[red states rule]

Fair play I'll try and memo that,
And therein lies what I see as the silliness of it all, the 'context' how far away is far enough away for it not to matter =/

Noir, let me ask you with this

A bunch of skin heads from America attack Mecca. They kill 3000 Muslims

9 years later an American Minister wants to build a Church at the site of the murders

I am willing to bet the same people who are lecturing us about being sensitve and tolerant toward the American Muslims would be screaming how insensitive and intolerant we are towards the feelings of the Muslims in Mecca

[Noir]

Using dmp's analogy .... perhaps the kirby salesman should stick to putting the tatoo's on his own wife's thigh and not even have made the suggestion in the first place. That would have been more respectful....but once the suggestion was made it's hard to look at the salesman differently from that point on. Perhaps it would be best if the kirby salesman stayed out of the neighborhood, especially after he's been informed of the previous kirby salesman's crime.

Mkay, do tell how a)The 1st amendment and b) Private property rights of the individual fit into the analogy.


Noir, let me ask you with this

A bunch of skin heads from America attack Mecca. They kill 3000 Muslims

9 years later an American Minister wants to build a Church at the site of the murders

I am willing to bet the same people who are lecturing us about being sensitve and tolerant toward the American Muslims would be screaming how insensitive and intolerant we are towards the feelings of the Muslims in Mecca

I'm sure they would.
I'm sure if the building were built (that's if it were even allowed to be built which I'm guessing it wouldn't) it'd be burnt down in a week.
But the thing is, we are not them, we have a seperation of Church and State, we have constitutional protections of the rights of the individual and property rights it can not be tossed aside as would happen in some other countries.
Revel in the fact that you are not like them, rather that trying to emulate them, and in doing so be no better yourself.

[SassyLady]

Mkay, do tell how a)The 1st amendment and b) Private property rights of the individual fit into the analogy.

Even though we have freedom of speech, as you've just experienced, some things people say and do have consequences (recent email to President getting kid banned from US forever).

As for the property rights .... guess what .... I own my property and the state and county where I live regulate what I can and cannot build on my property. I have a whole acre sitting out back but I am not allowed to build another building on it .... why? Because, sometime in the past a group of people got together and decided what would be appropriate and accepted for this area.

Do you think someone who owns property next door to an elementary school would be allowed to build a porn shop? Aren't they exercising their First Amendment rights and property rights to build what they want, a shrine to support their belief? Do you think the neighborhood be up in arms about that? Because it's inappropriate regardless of constitutional rights.

[PostmodernProphet]

Actually, that just means we should stop living our lives based around what the extremists do or do not want.

or, it means it pisses me off when people threaten me to make me do what they want.....

[Solar]

Mkay, do tell how a)The 1st amendment and b) Private property rights of the individual fit into the analogy.


But the thing is, we are not them, we have a seperation of Church and State,

No we do not!

Read them both again, what we have is a restriction on gov. establishing a Religion, that's all!
You libs have been misinterpreting it for far too long.

And as for property rights, there are zoning laws, and if the people of NY so choose, they can change them at anytime through the courts.
So the right to build can be usurped at anytime.

[Noir]

Even though we have freedom of speech, as you've just experienced, some things people say and do have consequences (recent email to President getting kid banned from US forever).

As for the property rights .... guess what .... I own my property and the state and county where I live regulate what I can and cannot build on my property. I have a whole acre sitting out back but I am not allowed to build another building on it .... why? Because, sometime in the past a group of people got together and decided what would be appropriate and accepted for this area.

Do you think someone who owns property next door to an elementary school would be allowed to build a porn shop? Aren't they exercising their First Amendment rights and property rights to build what they want, a shrine to support their belief? Do you think the neighborhood be up in arms about that? Because it's inappropriate regardless of constitutional rights.

Yeah, and I assume they applied for the building rights, and they were granted. That's the end of the story as far as I see it.


No we do not!

Read them both again, what we have is a restriction on gov. establishing a Religion, that's all!
You libs have been misinterpreting it for far too long.

You need to keep up to date with the Supreme Court rulings on the issue.


And as for property rights, there are zoning laws, and if the people of NY so choose, they can change them at anytime through the courts.
So the right to build can be usurped at anytime.

Indeed, inwhich case someone should mount a legal case, however, quite what their reasoning would be is beyond me, which is why no case will ever likely materialize.

[Solar]

Yeah, and I assume they applied for the building rights, and they were granted. That's the end of the story as far as I see it.

That's the funny thing about local Gov., regulations can change weekly.
Look at the guy that was fined for growing too many vegetables, he went to the County and got a rezoning permit to grow more.


You need to keep up to date with the Supreme Court rulings on the issue.



Indeed, inwhich case someone should mount a legal case, however, quite what their reasoning would be is beyond me, which is why no case will ever likely materialize.

No, I was commenting on your interpretation, there is no "Separation of Church and State" clause! Period!!!

[Noir]

No, I was commenting on your interpretation, there is no "Separation of Church and State" clause! Period!!!

The state is not albe to make laws with respect to the establishement of religion meaning the state can not favor one religion over another, separation in all but name. If you do t want to think of it as seperation fair enough,

[Solar]

The state is not albe to make laws with respect to the establishement of religion meaning the state can not favor one religion over another, separation in all but name. If you do t want to think of it as seperation fair enough,

So you're claiming the State has no say in the matter?
That changing zoning laws is unconstitutional?

The local Gov can do as it pleases, so long as it does not establish a Religion.

[Noir]

So you're claiming the State has no say in the matter?
That changing zoning laws is unconstitutional?

The local Gov can do as it pleases, so long as it does not establish a Religion.

I'm saying the state can not favor one religion over another. Which (in all but name) is a separation of Church and State.

[Pagan]

http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/pdfs/Constitution.pdf


Article I Section 3 -
Freedom of worship; religious liberty

The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this state to all humankind; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his or her opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state.

Article I Section 11 -

No person shall, because of race, color, creed or religion, be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state.

[Nukeman]

http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/pdfs/Constitution.pdf


Article I Section 3 -
Freedom of worship; religious liberty

The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this state to all humankind; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his or her opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state.
Article I Section 11 -

No person shall, because of race, color, creed or religion, be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state.And if said establishment causes "safety" concerns to the state what then????

[Solar]

http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/pdfs/Constitution.pdf


Article I Section 3 -
Freedom of worship; religious liberty

The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this state to all humankind; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his or her opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state.

Article I Section 11 -

No person shall, because of race, color, creed or religion, be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state.
The term Licentiousness (lewd and lascivious) could be construed as using the Mosque as a means of inciting violence, there by allowing the law to ban it's construction.

Thanks for digging that up.:salute:

[Pagan]

The term Licentiousness (lewd and lascivious) could be construed as using the Mosque as a means of inciting violence, there by allowing the law to ban it's construction.

Thanks for digging that up.:salute:

That is "if" they do incite violence

[Kathianne]

That is "if" they do incite violence

Yep. Sounds like someone is going a long way to preempt the intentions of the 'center.' There's a reason to protect minority interests and this being one example.

I'm against the building of the mosque there, I think the intentions are not pure, but my thoughts have zero to do with someone else's rights. People do have the right to use opinion as pressure on those behind the mosque, they are doing so. What happens? Time will tell. I do know though that we cannot give up our freedoms, (or others), by abusing/twisting our founding documents. That would hurt us more than any missile planes or mosques.

[Pagan]

Yep. Sounds like someone is going a long way to preempt the intentions of the 'center.' There's a reason to protect minority interests and this being one example.

I'm against the building of the mosque there, I think the intentions are not pure, but my thoughts have zero to do with someone else's rights. People do have the right to use opinion as pressure on those behind the mosque, they are doing so. What happens? Time will tell. I do know though that we cannot give up our freedoms, (or others), by abusing/twisting our founding documents. That would hurt us more than any missile planes or mosques.

Yes so am I, it's in very bad taste and IMO rather insulting. But if we are to open the door to ban them from building there then GovCo could ban anything that it deems inappropriate.

I see a very dangerous trend going on in society here today and that is the creation of "Thought Crime". "If" they use the center for illegal activity then yes the law by all means has the right to go in and shut it down, but they must break the law first. But assuming or speculating that they "could" as justification is NOT the answer.

[Kathianne]

Yes so am I, it's in very bad taste and IMO rather insulting. But if we are to open the door to ban them from building there then GovCo could ban anything that it deems inappropriate.

I see a very dangerous trend going on in society here today and that is the creation of "Thought Crime". "If" they use the center for illegal activity then yes the law by all means has the right to go in and shut it down, but they must break the law first. But assuming or speculating that they "could" as justification is NOT the answer.

:clap:

Tis better to bring out as many ideas into the open, discussion can be illuminating. OTOH acting in fear just opens doors to costly mistakes that can fundamentally change who and what we are.

[Solar]

:clap:

Tis better to bring out as many ideas into the open, discussion can be illuminating. OTOH acting in fear just opens doors to costly mistakes that can fundamentally change who and what we are.

Islum is more than a Religion , it is a Political system, with laws based in Sharia.

That alone should exempt it from the protections of the 1st amendment.

It would be akin to allowing perverts to have pictures of naked children, as long as they never molest any of them.

There is no separating Islum from Sharia law, for the same reason you can never trust a pedophile.
Of which, the founder of Islum is one....

Edit: Sorry Kathy, I wasn't responding to your post, just screwed up, it was meant to be a comment in general.


Yes so am I, it's in very bad taste and IMO rather insulting. But if we are to open the door to ban them from building there then GovCo could ban anything that it deems inappropriate.

I see a very dangerous trend going on in society here today and that is the creation of "Thought Crime". "If" they use the center for illegal activity then yes the law by all means has the right to go in and shut it down, but they must break the law first. But assuming or speculating that they "could" as justification is NOT the answer.

Don't be fooled my friend, this is a Mosque of conquest.
Do you know why it's called the Cordoba center?

[Kathianne]

Islum is more than a Religion , it is a Political system, with laws based in Sharia.

That alone should exempt it from the protections of the 1st amendment.

It would be akin to allowing perverts to have pictures of naked children, as long as they never molest any of them.

There is no separating Islum from Sharia law, for the same reason you can never trust a pedophile.
Of which, the founder of Islum is one....

Edit: Sorry Kathy, I wasn't responding to your post, just screwed up, it was meant to be a comment in general.

So is communism, the religion is atheism/control, not all that different. Our principles are strong enough to deal with. Sell those out and we are giving up our own rights.


One man cannot hold another man down in the ditch without remaining down in the ditch with him. While this referred to slavery, it speaks to the exercise of rights as well.

[Solar]

So is communism, the religion is atheism/control, not all that different. Our principles are strong enough to deal with. Sell those out and we are giving up our own rights.

While this referred to slavery, it speaks to the exercise of rights as well.

And our laws are based on Judeo Christian values, which are in direct conflict with Sharia law.

[Kathianne]

And our laws are based on Judeo Christian values, which are in direct conflict with Sharia law.

I think you mean well, just missing the big picture is all. :thumb:

[Pagan]

Islum is more than a Religion , it is a Political system, with laws based in Sharia.

That alone should exempt it from the protections of the 1st amendment.

It would be akin to allowing perverts to have pictures of naked children, as long as they never molest any of them.

There is no separating Islum from Sharia law, for the same reason you can never trust a pedophile.
Of which, the founder of Islum is one....

Edit: Sorry Kathy, I wasn't responding to your post, just screwed up, it was meant to be a comment in general.



Don't be fooled my friend, this is a Mosque of conquest.
Do you know why it's called the Cordoba center?

So is Christianity, you know there was something called the Dark Ages when Christianity ruled.

So then you support "Thought Crime" legislation then?

[Pagan]

And our laws are based on Judeo Christian values, which are in direct conflict with Sharia law.

Really? Care to provide those uniquely Judeo Christian "values"?

[Solar]

Really? Care to provide those uniquely Judeo Christian "values"?

Forbes makes a better case than I care to take the time to type.
Keep in mind, I am not a Christian, nor do I follow a Religion.

The US is what it is, and always has been.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQOCvthw-o

[Solar]

So is Christianity, you know there was something called the Dark Ages when Christianity ruled.

So then you support "Thought Crime" legislation then?

Stop being an ass, you know very well that was long before our Nation was founded.

But tell me, is it Christianity that still beheads people, or stones women to death?
Does America do that? NO! But Muscums do under Sharia law...

[PostmodernProphet]

So is Christianity, you know there was something called the Dark Ages when Christianity ruled.



and there are some places, which reject Christianity, where we still have something called the Dark Ages....

[Pagan]

Stop being an ass, you know very well that was long before our Nation was founded.

But tell me, is it Christianity that still beheads people, or stones women to death?
Does America do that? NO! But Muscums do under Sharia law...

Some do

************************************************** ********************

http://www.france24.com/en/20100327-huge-lords-resistance-army-massacre-revealed-un-source-dr-congo

Ugandan Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) rebels butchered at least 290 people in DR Congo in a previously unreported massacre that took place in December 2009, UN officials have revealed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/04/uganda-massacre-lords-res_n_163907.html

NAIROBI, Kenya — An aid group on Wednesday accused U.N. peacekeepers of failing to protect more than 900 people who have been killed by Ugandan rebels in northeastern Congo since Christmas, but the U.N. denied the allegations.

Medecins Sans Frontieres field coordinator Hakim Chkam said the attacks by the Lord's Resistance Army were so brutal that workers had only found 17 survivors. They included a 4-year-old girl whose attackers had attempted to twist off her head.

************************************************** ****

The LRA is fanatical twisted Christian movement which makes al-Qaeda look like a lady's knitting group.

Islam doesn't have the monopoly on religious fanatics and lumping them all together will serve only to support the fanatics recruitment.

Use your head ..................


and there are some places, which reject Christianity, where we still have something called the Dark Ages....

You mean like the 1st World Countries like the U.S. who strictly forbids the mixing religion and politics? :lol:

Get a clue


Forbes makes a better case than I care to take the time to type.
Keep in mind, I am not a Christian, nor do I follow a Religion.

The US is what it is, and always has been.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQOCvthw-o

I know you're not Christian, neither am I.

Our laws are based on Common Law, not religion. Does religion influence, oh hell yes it does because those who enact laws are influenced by their beliefs. But to say Common Law which Western Law is founding on is uniquely Christian is false.

Jefferson put it rather well here -

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 181

[darin]

where the hell is this thread now?

[Indy]

Fair play I'll try and memo that,
And therein lies what I see as the silliness of it all, the 'context' how far away is far enough away for it not to matter =/
Mecca

[Noir]

Mecca

+1 for the land of the free...

[revelarts]

Submitted for your approval...
CIA ties to Mosque Funding.
From the New York Observer.



Untangling the Bizarre CIA Links to the Ground Zero Mosque
By Mark Ames
September 10, 2010 | 2:36 p.m

....
So far, the debate over the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero has unfolded along predictable lines, with the man at the center of the project, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, drawing attacks from the right painting him as a terrorist sympathizer with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

But meanwhile, links between the group behind the controversial mosque, the CIA and U.S. military establishment have gone unacknowledged....

....For instance, one of the earliest backers of the nonprofit group, the Cordoba Initiative, that is spearheading the Ground Zero mosque, is a 52-year-old Scarsdale, New York, native named R. Leslie Deak. In addition to serving on the group's board of advisors since its founding in 2004 by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Deak was its principal funder, donating $98,000 to the nonprofit between 2006 and 2008. This figure appears to represent organization's total operating budget—though, oddly, the group reported receipts of just a third of that total during the same time period. ....

Deak describes himself as a "Practicing Muslim with background in Christianity and Judaism, [with] in-depth personal and business experiences in the Middle East, living and working six months per year in Egypt." Born into a Christian home, Deak became an Orthodox Jew and married a Jewish woman before converting to Islam when he married his current wife, Moshira Soliman, with whom he now lives in Rye.

Leslie Deak's resume also notes his role as "business consultant" for Patriot Defense Group, LLC, a private defense contractor with offices in Winter Park, Florida, and in Tucson. The only names listed on the firm's website are those of its three "strategic advisers." These include retired four-star General Bryan "Doug" Brown, commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command until 2007, where he headed "all special operations forces, both active duty and reserve, leading the Global War On Terrorism," and James Pavitt, former deputy director for operations at the Central Intelligence Agency, where he "managed the CIA's globally deployed personnel and nearly half of its multi-billion dollar budget" and "served as head of America's Clandestine Service, the CIA's operational response to the attacks of September 11, 2001.....



http://www.observer.com/2010/politics/untangling-new-intrigue-behind-ground-zero-mosque