I can't believe this hasn't been discussed yet

4) If it is built, some nut job will blow it up. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Intolerance breeds violence. Originally Posted by Happy Diver

Just sayin'.

Say someone firebombs your house and kills your family while you are out of town. And then later if the relatives of that said someone moved in down the street from you after you rebuilt your house and put up a big sign that said “We’re here!” it would piss you off. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Actually, i think if Timothy McVeigh's father or sister wanted to move to the neighborhood where the Federal building was blown up, nobody would give a damn. Provided they are upstanding individuals who had nothing to do with what Timothy McVeigh did.

And sorry Olivia, but as to one of your other points, two blocks from ground zero is not "ours" - any more than four blocks from ground zero is, where the other mosque is located. So if it's built, you'll have two mosques within four blocks of ground zero instead of one. Big freakin' whoop. The only difference between the two is that you can gin up phony outrage over a mosque that's not yet built, but you can't gin up any phony outrage over a mosque that already exists. Or, as we all know, Charles Krauthammer would have tried.

Jon Stewart did a good job of pointing out just how absurd the arguments being used against the Mosque really are, and how phony this whole thing truly is.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...t-company-trap

Just sayin'.



Actually, i think if Timothy McVeigh's father or sister wanted to move to the neighborhood where the Federal building was blown up, nobody would give a damn. Provided they are upstanding individuals who had nothing to do with what Timothy McVeigh did.

And sorry Olivia, but as to one of your other points, two blocks from ground zero is not "ours" - any more than four blocks from ground zero is, where the other mosque is located. So if it's built, you'll have two mosques within four blocks of ground zero instead of one. Big freakin' whoop. The only difference between the two is that you can gin up phony outrage over a mosque that's not yet built, but you can't gin up any phony outrage over a mosque that already exists. Or, as we all know, Charles Krauthammer would have tried.

Jon Stewart did a good job of pointing out just how absurd the arguments being used against the Mosque really are, and how phony this whole thing truly is.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...t-company-trap Originally Posted by Doove

Ok, let me explain it. A mosque that is already there at the time of the attack is very much different than a mosque, let alone a cultural center, being built next door after the attacks. Of aaaaall the places in NYC to build this monument to Islam, why pick Ground Zero’s back yard? Really, I don’t need an answer because it will be some sort of inflammatory, bear-bating quip. I’m more than happy to debate the merits with you, but I’m not going to play in the school yard with you.

Clerkenwell, you, of course, right. Screaming from the roof tops of Manhattan that planting their symbolic flag upon the grave of our murdered citizens is as idiotic as it is fanatical. I think American tolerance will prevail as it should; at least the government’s tolerance will prevail in that I think the project, if they get the funds together to build it, will get permitted. But the people’s tolerance may stop the project dead in its tracts.

Nowhere is it written that we have to stick our heads in the sand and ignore an aggressive terrorist movement hiding behind a facade of a world religion, funded outside of our country by people sworn as enemies to our way of life. If you shoot at me from a church don't think you are off limits. This needs to be thoroughly vetted before we give any credence to their peaceful, benevolent intent. Bad people hide behind civilians all the time with this movement and in fact extremists hold peaceful Islamic people hostage all the time, in fear of retribution against themselves or their families.

Ok, let me explain it. A mosque that is already there at the time of the attack is very much different than a mosque, let alone a cultural center, being built next door after the attacks. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

You need to explain why. I don't say that to be flip, but the fact is, after it's built, there will be two Islamic mosques/centers in the shadows of ground zero instead of one. So really, what would be the difference?

Of aaaaall the places in NYC to build this monument to Islam, why pick Ground Zero’s back yard?

Again, not to be flip, but why not? Two blocks, four blocks, one Islamic center, two Islamic centers, why the outrage? Talk about a distinction without a difference.

Really, I don’t need an answer because it will be some sort of inflammatory, bear-bating quip. I’m more than happy to debate the merits with you, but I’m not going to play in the school yard with you.

Oh please. After commenting on this subject throwing around terms like "high horse" and "yammering", don't lecture me about playing in the school yard.

Two more points. As Charles pointed out, the original settlers came here to get away from religious intolerance; not to find a new continent for it to fester.

And finally, with all the yammering over the last nine years about remembering 9/11, how about we remember 9/12? When we held to the belief that if 9/11 was allowed to change our way of life, the terrorists will have won. Because based on that criteria alone, the terrorists are kicking our collective arses.

Strange as this sounds, I tend to agree with a lot of what doove said in post #49

I do think this whole matter has been given waaayyyy more attention than it deserves.

As Charles pointed out, the original settlers came here to get away from religious intolerance; not to find a new continent for it to fester. Originally Posted by Doove

Good Morning Doove;

Whilst it is true that they travelled to America to escape religious persecution, it took them less than 70 years to move from being persecuted to becoming persecutors with the setting up of the Salem witch trials.

Shame, really
Cyclops

Strange as this sounds, I tend to agree with a lot of what doove said in post #49 Originally Posted by pjorourke

Which probably just means that we're both wrong.

Which probably just means that we're both wrong. Originally Posted by Doove

No doubt.

Irrelevant. Still no basis for what the right wingnut crusaders would have which would be in effect outlawing an entire major religion. America is about freedom, period, and anyone regardless of their race, faith, occupation, gender, etc has the same rights. If the Christians wanted to stop this so bad they should have outbid them for the land.. free enterprise at its finest. I'm sure everyone on this board agrees that people should have the right to, say, offer or partake of purchase of any goods or services another is willing to pay for or accept payment for, hmm? In a truly free country life would be a lot different and for the better... the first step though is eliminating bias and having the same standards for everyone, be it religious, racial, gender, whatever.

I ran across a couple very good articles on this....links below.

IMHO, I think building the "Islamic cultural center" at this point wouldn't be wise. Its gotten too much negative press and frankly, it comes across as arrogant.

However, read through these articles. Maybe these Muslims just want to be close to their favorite strip club New York Dolls, also close to the WTC site...

More seriously, I think the question is much deeper. How far do we go to reach out to muslims in order to lead them away from fanatacism? And, if we are calling them out as enemies, how in the hell do we win the hearts and minds of the Afganis? Our boys are dying there!

Frankly, the whole thing smells of shit. Just another political ploy in an election year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22rich.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...stripclub.html

"We should not allow radical Islamic terrorists to taint an entire religion. Would the mosque's opponents also object to building an aviation museum at a similar location, since airplanes were used in the Sept. 11 attacks?" - Washington Post commenter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081605043.html


Who is funding the construction of this Community Center? Here's John Stewarts take:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...t-company-trap


Be kind to one another.

Cheers,
HD

"We should not allow radical Islamic terrorists to taint an entire religion. Would the mosque's opponents also object to building an aviation museum at a similar location, since airplanes were used in the Sept. 11 attacks?" - Washington Post commenter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081605043.html


Who is funding the construction of this Community Center? Here's John Stewarts take:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...t-company-trap


Be kind to one another.

Cheers,
HD Originally Posted by Hanna Darling

Your a class act Hanna and might I add, that's a well written blog that I actually enjoyed perusing. Intelligent writing <-hot.

Not to be nit-picky or anything, but it isn't at ground zero. It's two blocks away. At two blocks away, the buildings are still the same ones that were there in 2001.

So, if you wanna say that anything "near" GZ is "our place," how far out do you go? 1 Block? They are outside that area. 2 Blocks? That's arguable. 3 Blocks? How far? All of Manhattan? Or a 1 mile radius from the center of GZ?

It's a slippery slope. But it isn't GZ. Rebuilding is currently occurring on GZ, with some stores already open to customers. Capitalism. That's the true victory. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Technically it is Ground Zero, as the landing gear of one plane hit that building, as reported in the Washington Post. The building has been vacant since 9/11 and the reason he picked up the property for $5m. The land or lot alone is worth 3 times that in lower manhatten.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081605043.html
Originally Posted by Hanna Darling

One of Jon's funnier bits.

Technically it is Ground Zero, as the landing gear of one plane hit that building, as reported in the Washington Post. The building has been vacant since 9/11 and the reason he picked up the property for $5m. The land or lot alone is worth 3 times that in lower manhatten. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Really, well then why didn't all these people that object to it being built buy it?

That woulda solved all this before it ever got started. Make the people a great offer on their building instead of running around and crying about how insensitive these people are. For crying out loud, I thought we were a country founded on the rule of law, not a bunch of titty babies.