Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: spambot Sep 14 2010, 10:48 PM

There has been controversy about a Mosque being built next to Ground Zero (3 blocks away I believe). Should it be allowed?

I am kind of surprised there has yet to be a topic about it...if there is and I missed it my bad.

Posted by: Simba Sep 14 2010, 10:48 PM

yeppers


sorry, not an in depth answer, but the answer shouldn't take much thought

Posted by: spambot Sep 14 2010, 10:54 PM

I agree. I think it's another one of those obvious debates that really should not need to take place. The only people I really need to explain why they think what they think are the people opposing it.

Posted by: serotonin Sep 14 2010, 11:31 PM

Don't like him but I liked this.

Posted by: serotonin Sep 14 2010, 11:33 PM

My parents oppose it. That's not to say that they're dumb or ignorant or whatever, but I do think there is a bit of difference in opinion in generational gaps. For instance, they're anti gay marriage, not because they don't like gays and don't think they should be happy but because they're "religious," or whatever that means lol. They're just a bit more old fashioned and set in their ideas and aren't too open to listening to why they're "wrong."

Posted by: Uronacid Sep 16 2010, 09:50 AM

Honestly, being someone from New York, I can see why many people oppose the mosque being built close to Ground Zero. It feels as if the person who abused you is moving in next door just after the court order of protection expired. 9/11 is still a sensitive issue if you dredge it up. Many of us can't help but be disturbed by the thought of an ultra-mosque being resurected close to the site.

Lawfully, should they be allowed to be allowed to purchase the land and build? Yes, but I think everyone knows this. I don't think that's the argument here. The real question is whether or not they should be doing it in the first place. I personal think they need to be sensitive to the fact that only a decade has past since some radical islamic terrorists crashed a plan into two major buildings in that very area. Individuals who experienced that first hand live right next door to the site that they plan to resurrect this building in.

I've heard the guy who plans to build this place innitially suggested that this was a "gesture of peace". Well, if this is a "gesture of peace" between America and Islam.... then they're deffinitely failing. Millions are apposed to this. I don't think they should build it... I'm opposed to it as well. It's not a matter of whether it's lawful or unlawful for me.

Posted by: LittleMissSunshine Sep 16 2010, 08:54 PM

BUT ITS NOT THE MOSQUES FAULT... Islams have nothing to do with Ground Zero.. IT WAS TERRORISTS who weren't even Islamic. Mannnn I understand the emotional part, but people are just being prejudice towards Islamic/Muslims people. Yes they may look similar, but they aren't terrorists. SO YESSSSS, I think it should be built. I don't even think its right next to each other though, that's what I've heard.

btw http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-ground-zero-mosque-debate-makes-no-sense/ this guy made all my points clear about it. which i agree lol

Posted by: Uso Sep 17 2010, 02:19 PM

Yeah they definitely shouldn't be blamed for. But at the same time it's kind of a sketchy situation because there are people who strongly oppose this concept and there are people out there that are gonna blame and call the Muslims terrorist. Putting it "too" close to ground zero, I believe, could cause a lot of controversy and maybe a riot?
Like you said it should be built, but another area. Like why risk all the possible "chaos"?

Posted by: spambot Sep 17 2010, 03:21 PM

That's the equivalent to giving a 2 year old what it wants just because it's throwing a tantrum.

We can ask them not to. In no legal way can we deny them the right to. I can understand reasons like Stevens parents have and the emotional aspect of it. Point is is that it's unconstitutional. Number one in the number one law book that's been around since the dawn of this country and we can't even fallow it.

Posted by: Uso Sep 17 2010, 04:11 PM

True.


This may sound dumb
But maybe they should have a state vote for it?

Posted by: Reidar Sep 24 2010, 06:14 AM

^ No because not even (most) opponents claim that there is a legal impediment to it, just a "moral" one (which doesn't even make sense).

http://www.slate.com/id/2263334/ is the best article on the subject I've seen written. Christopher Hitchens manages to both bash Islam (as an atheist) and defend the mosque in the same passage.

In reference to the site's opponents: "Where to start with this part-pathetic and part-sinister appeal to demagogy? To begin with, it borrows straight from the playbook of Muslim cultural blackmail. Claim that something is 'offensive,' and it is as if the assertion itself has automatically become an argument."

Just because it's offensive doesn't make it liable to be acted upon. Whether it's Muslims crying over Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad or Americans rallying against a community center that happens to contain a mosque, the message is the same: get the f*ck over it. We have freedom of expression and the gravest offense of all is to have that trifled with.

This, though, is also not right. Wahhabism and extremism is still Islam.

"Her identification as a Muslim suffered a strong blow after 9/11. After listening to videotapes of Osama bin Laden citing 'words of justification' in the Qur'an for the attacks, she writes, 'I picked up the Quran and the hadith and started looking through them, to check. I hated to do it, because I knew that I would find Bin Laden's quotations in there.'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_hirsi_ali

I am Iranian. I am antitheist but my relatives are Shi'ite Muslims. They may be peaceful Islam-followers, but that's only because they do not take the Quran literally. Both Christian and Muslim religious tomes are morally despicable and can only be followed incrementally in order to be socially acceptable.

Posted by: StuckInAMoshPit Sep 24 2010, 05:18 PM

Last time I checked, we were a country founded on religious freedom...


but doesn't islam have a ban on new mosques or something?

Posted by: Reidar Sep 24 2010, 05:35 PM

The Taliban are actually against the mosque, too.

Posted by: DoubleJ Sep 24 2010, 07:29 PM

I am completely against it being built here. I had this debate with friends a few weeks ago. What people who are not from here don't realize, is that our lives will FOREVER be effected by this.

Posted by: LittleMissSunshine Sep 24 2010, 08:02 PM

it's not even a mosque.. it's a muslim/islamic community center. there is basketball courts and a place to worship. so i don't think it should be a problem. i do understand that many people are offended because people look similar, and it is an emotional situation for those who lost their loved ones. but they shouldn't be hating on people who didn't even destroy the twin towers.

Posted by: ButtsexV2 Sep 24 2010, 09:12 PM

all points are null once you realize it's not actually on ground zero like fox likes to claim. it's several blocks away from ground zero, I doubt 9/11 even crossed the guy's mind when he decided he would open it

Posted by: DoubleJ Sep 24 2010, 10:03 PM

People need to realize, that this is how this country runs. There will always be something that one race/culture doesn't like about the other.

Posted by: StuckInAMoshPit Sep 25 2010, 05:09 PM

^He has a point. Even within a race, certain communities are still stigmatized (i.e. Homosexuals)

Posted by: lovebuddha Oct 1 2010, 12:44 AM

It would be just as simple to put it somewhere else instead of fighting over it. This is ridiculous and completely absurd.

Posted by: mipadi Oct 1 2010, 09:13 AM

Yeah, there're tons of empty, available real estate in Manhattan.

Posted by: serotonin Oct 1 2010, 09:54 AM

That's what I was saying. It's an absolute lack of class and lack of tolerance by those dirty ragheads erecting a giant middle finger that is that mosque/terrorist training facility.

Posted by: DoubleJ Oct 1 2010, 06:10 PM

Agreed! That is all they are going to use it for anyway.

Posted by: lovebuddha Oct 16 2010, 09:00 PM

And also, to make another point:

They come here and we give them freedom of religion, the ability to even put up a place of worship for their specific religion, and out of common courtesy they could just put it somewhere other than such a sensitive area. Just for the sake of not causing an issue (which it already has). Which, in my opinion, proves that they are trying to cause an issue because they are not going to move it.

We give you freedom. We give you jobs. We give you a real chance at life.

Just move the damn thing somewhere else.

Posted by: serotonin Oct 16 2010, 10:55 PM

^you only say that becuse you're so intolerint of others religion y u gotta be all like we gave them freedom of religion we didnt give it to them it just straight up exists acting like were better than them (even though we clearly are, just not you) acting like you wrote the constitution what you think yo shit don't stank?

Posted by: lovebuddha Oct 16 2010, 11:32 PM

First...learn how to spell
Second...I mean "we" as in "America". Not "we" as in "myself". I know i'm no better than anyone, that was not the point. I know I didn't write the f*cking constitution.

I'm not closed to others religion.

I'm not even going to explain. Not worth the time...
There are seriously some morons floating around in here.

Posted by: serotonin Oct 17 2010, 12:26 AM

CONFIRMED

Posted by: lovebuddha Oct 17 2010, 01:41 AM

Holy shit...I didn't realize that you were greatest person to walk the face of the planet.

Congrats on being confirmed as a douche nugget.

Posted by: serotonin Oct 17 2010, 12:52 PM

look i wasn't trying to be mean i just have an inferiority complex b/c i'm so short. what have you got going for you though? I bet you've never even had a boyfriend/girlfriend what gives you the right to judge me back off okay

Posted by: datass Oct 17 2010, 01:06 PM

stfu midget.

Posted by: Simba Oct 18 2010, 10:40 AM

gtfo short nigger

Posted by: serotonin Oct 18 2010, 10:43 AM

Posted by: lovebuddha Oct 20 2010, 06:36 PM

wtf.. i've got plenty going for me and a great person in my life. Get over yourself, bitch.

Posted by: ButtsexV2 Oct 20 2010, 07:00 PM

y so defensive?

Posted by: lovebuddha Oct 20 2010, 07:53 PM

Cause everyone has been an ass since I joined this place. So I'm defending myself..

Posted by: ButtsexV2 Oct 20 2010, 09:27 PM

then leave, nobody is stopping you.

we're not being asses btw, you've just got unpopular opinions that lead us to believe that you are 12

Posted by: lovebuddha Oct 20 2010, 09:49 PM

My opinions are quite common, actually. Why should I have to leave because my opinions are different? If anyone is acting like they are 12, it's you all because you are too closed minded to accept someone elses views on life.

Posted by: serotonin Oct 21 2010, 07:44 AM

are you a boy or a girl

Posted by: ButtsexV2 Oct 21 2010, 11:04 AM

we do accept your views, we just have differing opinions and we voice them.

Posted by: lovebuddha Oct 21 2010, 08:59 PM

okay, yeah i'm over it now.

Posted by: Uronacid Oct 28 2010, 12:31 PM

I love how they tried to pass this shit off as an act of peace... New Yorkers are like, "We ain't buyin' it."

Posted by: mipadi Oct 28 2010, 04:03 PM

I love how this controversy was sparked by a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller who thinks that Elena Kegan is a Nazi and Obama is the love child of Malcolm X. Really says something about conservative ideology.

Posted by: ButtsexV2 Oct 28 2010, 04:57 PM

speaking of conservatives, read this

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/28/researchers-liberal-gene-genetics-politics/

Posted by: lovebuddha Oct 28 2010, 09:18 PM

It would be an act of peace if they just moved it somewhere else so that maybe there would not have been any controversy in the first place.

Posted by: serotonin Oct 29 2010, 01:31 AM

...you just don't get it

Posted by: lovebuddha Oct 29 2010, 02:28 AM

apparently neither do you.

Posted by: Simba Nov 2 2010, 11:07 PM

i love me some good ad hominem

Posted by: Uronacid Nov 3 2010, 11:00 AM

Tell us what it says about all conservative ideology. Don't let my mind wander, I need to know.



I really don't understand how this is relative. Just because fox news says "something", doesn't mean it's conservative or liberal.

Posted by: boot Nov 3 2010, 04:40 PM

I'm not going to lie, as much as I hate extreme conservatives, I hate extreme liberals just as much.

Posted by: spambot Nov 3 2010, 08:15 PM

extreme anything is usually a bad thing

Posted by: boot Nov 3 2010, 09:30 PM

EXTREME MODERATES FINAL DESTINATION

Posted by: Uronacid Nov 11 2010, 08:20 AM

You still need to be opinionated to a certain extent.

On a side note, I really enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh. I agree with a large percentage of the things that he says. Mostly, he's great entertainment.

Posted by: mipadi Nov 12 2010, 10:45 AM

Okay. We can start with the fact that conservative groups like the Tea Party actually have some level of respect for people like Pamela Geller, who have batshit crazy ideas. And I don't mean batshit crazy political ideas that happen to disagree with mine, but ideas that are purely insane -- ideas like "Obama is a Nazi". Remember all those Tea Party rallies where people morphed Obama into Hitler? For a group that values the past over progress, many conservatives seem to have little understanding of history -- and no sense of irony, either. What's more Nazi-like: Obama's health care plan, or Bush/Cheney's unilateral assault on two sovereign nations, and the legacy of torture -- and disrespect for the rule of law -- that they left behind? And let's talk about the Constitution for a second: conservatives generally tend to have respect for a strict reading of the Constitution, but none of them seemed to care that Bush/Cheney regularly ignored it. Or how Republican lawmakers passed the Defund ACORN Act, which was clearly unconstitutional. Where was respect for the Constitution then?

Or look at the respect among conservatives for people like Glen Beck, who is not only ignorant, but inconsistent. I don't have a link handy, but Jon Stewart had a great bit on Beck's criticism of the imam involved with the Park51 mosque. In August, Beck criticized the imam for making a comment along the lines of "perhaps America's foreign policy was partly responsible for 9/11" -- but this is something that Beck himself said back in April. I'll dig up the link if you want, because Beck's hypocrisy is amazing. His only consistency is his inconsistency. He's a man that's too stupid and too self-centered to even form a coherent political world view, and yet, conservatives actually listen to him. Contrast him to Bill O'Reilly, who actually is smart, but regularly spews lies or disingenuousness.

Or simply look at the inconsistency of a typical conservative viewpoint. I already mentioned the issue with the Constitution, but another conservative issue is, supposedly, budget reform. Conservatives denounced Obama's health care plan, which wasn't actually going to increase the budget deficit, but few conservatives are willing to suggest we should cut the military budget, which is, at best, roughly 20% of our federal budget and almost 40% of tax revenues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Military_budget_and_total_US_federal_spendi, and has been rising 9% year-over-year in the past decade. Not to mention the waste -- the expense of the largely useless F-22 program is a great example. To my knowledge, Rand Paul is the only major conservative to suggest we should cut military spending. Because it's better to waste money on a stealth fighter that doesn't work, then let poor people have access to health care.

I won't even delve into the issue of the hard-on that many conservatives have for Sarah Palin.

Anyway, apologies that this post was rather stream-of-conscious. This isn't intended so much as a concise rebuttal as a mini-rant.

(Ha! How apropos: my magazine recently published a story about http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/dec/09/beck-revelation/?pagination=false.)

Posted by: spambot Nov 13 2010, 01:35 AM

This has little to nothing to do with this topic/your post but WTF Sarah Palin has a reality show.

I believe it's called the Shoot Things and Make a Jackass Out Of Myself show

Posted by: Uronacid Dec 20 2010, 09:44 AM

Beck is a bit aggravating to listen to at times. Even I have a difficult time listening to his show. I don't think I've mentioned that I've listened to Beck anyway. I mostly listen to Al Roney. You live in the capitol region. Check out AM 1300 at 2:30-6:00. He's a local conservative talk show host.

Other than Rush Limbaugh, I really don't listen to mainstream conservatives. Don't get me wrong either, I don't agree with everything that comes out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth. I find what he says entertaining and occasionally thoughtful. It's interesting to hear his point of view and try to figure out why he believes he is right.

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have very little to do with the Tea Party. They've ruined the Tea party by giving it a face. The point of the Tea Party was to NOT have a face or leader. Initially, it was the anonymity that made the Tea Party great. It was just a group of American's sick of the exorbitant gov't spending. That's all. Instead it became something bigger, and a bunch of meat-heads like Beck and Palin got involved. They've spoiled it.

This is one thing that Rush gets right. Rush understands that the Tea Party isn't about demographics, race, or uniformity. It's about freedom. It's about less gov't. That's all. He stay's out of the light of the Tea Party but encourages the free speech.

Posted by: mipadi Dec 20 2010, 04:04 PM

You mean, it's a group of rich corporate backers like Koch Industries who want lower corporate taxes and lower taxes for the wealthy.



I live in New York City, actually.

Posted by: Uronacid Jan 24 2011, 11:00 AM

Um... no that's not what I mean. I'm sure that rich corporate backers will benefit from lower corporate taxes just as we will when they buy products or use services. That cycle creates jobs.

Posted by: Stuckie May 8 2011, 09:36 AM

There is no sensible reason for building a Mosque at the Ground Zero site. It likes saying, "We'll place a place of worship for our enemies next to the resting place of our very own citizens." America has turned into such a politically correct nation that it disregards the opinion of its citizens. The family members of the 9/11 victims don't want a mosque there. The reason for making one is to put islamic peoples mind at ease. America is trying to say that its not the fault of the islamic people, rather the extremists fault. But if thats the case, address the public and say it.

Posted by: serotonin May 8 2011, 10:28 AM

um. your dumb. its not a mosque its a community center. have you red anything at all? maybe you should educate yourself before replying ok thanks?

Posted by: Stuckie May 8 2011, 11:32 AM

Mosque or islamic community center. It makes no difference. There is about 3% of Muslim/Islamic people in New York and an even smaller percentage in Manhattan. Why build any muslim oriented structure if the demographics says otherwise. Its like making a Catholic church in Iraq. And if it's that important to have a muslim community center in Manhattan, why put in such a controversial place?

Posted by: brooklyneast05 May 8 2011, 12:37 PM

yeah steven, stfu. the govt should shut that shit down. why would you want separation of church and state? why should there be a mosque or community center there? it wasn't just a group of wack nut terrorists who caused 911. all muslim's collectively did, so therefore we should punish the entire religion for what they did. THIS IS AMERICA OK. THIS IS A GOD DAMN CHRISTIAN NATION. NO ONE, AND I MEAN NO ONE, SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO WORSHIP ANY OTHER FAIRY TALE THAN CHRISTIANITY.


smh. duh.

Posted by: serotonin May 8 2011, 01:02 PM

ya u rite jc my bad i guess those websites musta been lyin when they said taht it was al quaeda that did all the bad things. they should scrap the plans the had since b4 9.11 and go somewhere else bc a lot of nerdraged white people say so

white power

Posted by: DoubleJ May 9 2011, 01:22 AM

Lol. I don't know, I am for them building it, but not so close. I actually had the chance to see just how close it was to the trade center complex, and I can see why people would get upset. I mean, if they build it there, I won't lose any sleep, and I doubt that anyone truly will. People will forget about it just as quickly as people have already forgotten about Bin Laden being killed.

Posted by: Stuckie May 9 2011, 05:06 AM

People are still talking about his death. Hell, people keep asking me question like I know things.

Posted by: brooklyneast05 May 9 2011, 06:44 AM

those websites were put there by the government. specifically they were put there by barack huessein osamabama.

Posted by: DoubleJ May 9 2011, 02:46 PM

Of course people are still talking about it. That line was more of a statement towards the fact that people won't care after awhile once they finish building it and move in. For the first few days/weeks of course, but after that no one is going to really care except for a few people.