Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The elected officials of New York city are planning on building a Mosque close to where the twin towers fell on 9/11 as a commemoration of the lives lost that day and to please the Muslim population. Personally I find this insulting and quite ridiculous. What do you guys think?

Here is a link for a petition in opposition of the Mosque.

Clicky

Islam didn't destroy the towers, so I don't really care.

"Islam didn't destroy the towers, so I don't really care."

True, but Islamists DID.

Truthfully, I could really not care about a Mosque on Ground Zero, and my main problem with the issue is the very, VERY suspect connections of the parties backing this.

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
"Islam didn't destroy the towers, so I don't really care."

True, but Islamists DID.



Some, Muslims did. And the majority of the Muslim world denounces their actions.

I oppose building any religious monument at ground zero. However, this is two blocks away and dozens of Muslims were victims of the attack. I assume they had families too.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I oppose building any religious monument at ground zero. However, this is two blocks away and dozens of Muslims were victims of the attack. I assume they had families too.

"Some, Muslims did."

Who have at least a few hundred thousand armed supporters in the field. And plenty of state backing.

"And the majority of the Muslim world denounces their actions."

True, but unfortunately the minority that doesn't is disproportionately powerful. Take a look at Iran, Saudi Arabia, or the Muslim Brotherhood.

American Airlines destroyed the towers. I saw it on TV.

Guarantee me that the mosque will not secretly be used for nefarious purposes, and I have no problem with it. Oh, and make sure there's room for a church and synagogue, and whatever other religious institutions are needed to represent all faiths victimized by 9/11.

If not, then I find this whole thing suspect.

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
"Islam didn't destroy the towers, so I don't really care."

True, but Islamists DID.

Truthfully, I could really not care about a Mosque on Ground Zero, and my main problem with the issue is the very, VERY suspect connections of the parties backing this.

All of the 9/11 hijackers were men, so by your reasoning, no men should be allowed near Ground Zero.

Adam_PoE:

Obviously you misunderstand my vocabulary.

FOR THE RECORD:

Muslim/Islam= The third and latest major Monotheistic religion to be formed and practitioners thereof, regardless of political or ideological stripe.

IslamIST/Jihadist: Radical theocratic extremists who seek to forcibly subjugate all to the doctrines of Sharia law and convert or exterminate all who follow any other doctrine.

This is a fairly common distinction and I am not sure why you were confused over the matter.

And as a reiterated BEFORE here: I personally do not give ONE WHIT about there being a mosque persee on Ground Zero. What I DO have an issue with is the doublefaced behavior of the sponsers of said mosque and their ties to Muslim Radicals (don't believe me? Just dig up some of the Arab-language videos they've taken and translate them).

I hope this clears matters up.

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
Truthfully, I could really not care about a Mosque on Ground Zero, and my main problem with the issue is the very, VERY suspect connections of the parties backing this.

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
And as a reiterated BEFORE here: I personally do not give ONE WHIT about there being a mosque persee on Ground Zero. What I DO have an issue with is the doublefaced behavior of the sponsers of said mosque and their ties to Muslim Radicals (don't believe me? Just dig up some of the Arab-language videos they've taken and translate them).

proof?

It would be the ultamite pi$$ take - like a Commemorative Plate for the Muslims.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I oppose building any religious monument at ground zero. However, this is two blocks away and dozens of Muslims were victims of the attack. I assume they had families too.

Same can be said for dozens of Christian and Jews. Yet their families aren't proposing to place a religious monument near ground zero.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Same can be said for dozens of Christian and Jews. Yet their families aren't proposing to place a religious monument near ground zero.

how is that relevant?

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Same can be said for dozens of Christian and Jews. Yet their families aren't proposing to place a religious monument near ground zero.

By that logic, then atheists would win.

Originally posted by Mindship
Guarantee me that the mosque will not secretly be used for nefarious purposes, and I have no problem with it. Oh, and make sure there's room for a church and synagogue, and whatever other religious institutions are needed to represent all faiths victimized by 9/11.

If not, then I find this whole thing suspect.

It's solely for the Muslim community. And I agree the whole thing is suspect..why so close to ground zero? Of all the places that you could build a Mosque why choose a place where Islamic extremists took down the towers?

Originally posted by inimalist
how is that relevant?

Because they aren't proposing building religious monuments near a place where many lives were lost?

though, of course, nobody has brought up any reason to be suspiscious, save that the people worship Allah

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Because they aren't proposing building religious monuments near a place where many lives were lost?

that is 100% irrelevant though

it would only matter if they had and the government had prevented them from it

else, this is like saying: no, you can't drink because those other people don't drink.

The whole project is being considered to foster better relations between the Muslims and the West. Europe is already undergoing islamization, where Muslims cry about the rest of the world being insensitive to their needs. America could be next.

lol

oh, i wasn't aware

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

oh, i wasn't aware

? sarcasm?

no, I really, as in like super serious, believe that Europe is undergoing "Islamization", or that if it were, that would be related in any way to whether Muslims in America should be allowed to build a mosque

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
The elected officials of New York city are planning on building a Mosque close to where the twin towers fell on 9/11 as a commemoration of the lives lost that day and to please the Muslim population. Personally I find this insulting and quite ridiculous. What do you guys think?

Here is a link for a petition in opposition of the Mosque.

Clicky

I don't like that either.Hopfully they will not do it.As for repairin where 911 happen I don't argee with that either.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, I really, as in like super serious, believe that Europe is undergoing "Islamization", or that if it were, that would be related in any way to whether Muslims in America should be allowed to build a mosque

Building a Mosque isn't an issue. I don't object to them building a Mosque, they can build one if they wish, but why at Ground Zero of all the possible places in New York, not to mention the rest of America.

EDIT- What I fear is that American politics and politicians will become much like the United Nations, in that it will do whatever the hell the Muslim community wants just to please them.

should every business or institution that opens within a certain distance from ground zero be required to explain why they want to be so close to the site?

Like, if I wanted to open a pizza place a block away, would you question my motives in this same way? would i need to justify, to you , why I want that location?

Originally posted by inimalist
should every business or institution that opens within a certain distance from ground zero be required to explain why they want to be so close to the site?

Like, if I wanted to open a pizza place a block away, would you question my motives in this same way? would i need to justify, to you , why I want that location?

A pizza place can't compare to a religious Mosque..a place where people can practice and worship a violent religion which inspired jihad terrorists to commit the atrocities they did.

Not to mention that nothing HAS been constructed or even planed on being constructed near the burial site to my knowledge.

ok, so the answer then is: yes, I have an irrational fear of the muslim faith

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Same can be said for dozens of Christian and Jews. Yet their families aren't proposing to place a religious monument near ground zero.

A mosque isn't a "religious monument" it's a place of worship. There are already temples and churches very close to ground zero that have become Meccas (ha!) for the religious family members of those who died.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, so the answer then is: yes, I have an irrational fear of the muslim faith

I don't fear the Muslim faith, but rather despise it.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
I don't fear the Muslim faith, but rather despise it.

LOL

cool man, your hardcore badassery made my morning, thanks

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A mosque isn't a "religious monument" it's a place of worship. There are already temples and churches very close to ground zero that have become Meccas (ha!) for the religious family members of those who died.

It's more than a place of worship it will also have a art center, swimming pool, and gym.

Yeah churches and temples that were there "before" the destruction of the twin towers.

Originally posted by inimalist
LOL

cool man, your hardcore badassery made my morning, thanks

You're Welcome.


EDIT- If anything I fear Islamization. It's almost like Nazism...

I don't understand. Is this private people that own private land that want to build on it a mosque? Or is there some government entanglement?

"proof?"

Certainly.

Google "Faisal Abdul Ralf", "Yasir Qadhi", and CAIR.

And the problem with the increased Muslim immigration into the West (or at least a considerable portion of it) is that increasingly the new immigrants refuse to assimilate or even integrate into the societies they have nominally moved into, to the point where you literally have these large sections of a given city that are literally no-go areas (take a look at the decision of the Swedish government to effectively cut all emergency aid- fire department and increasingly police- to Malmo) which are effectively ruled by the worst kind of Sharia law. Believe me, I know. I was working in Southern Germany for a time and a lot of my duties involved going into this enclave effectively run by Turkish extremists. I still have a small scar on my left hand from one of my encounters with a few of them. These goons literally believe they are waging holy war in the enemy's home territory by outbreeding them, and they are NOT nice to deal with.

Naturally, this should not be taken as though every Muslim immigrant is a knife-happy Jihadist- I would know-, but unfortunately they make up a considerable portion of the populace, and they unfortunately tend to have power in their given communities.

And to those of you fools who drag your feet in responding to the problem in the name of "tolerance" or whatever, you are doing nothing but hurting your cause. Kindness to the Guilty is but sadism to the Innocent, and asides from the bloodshed that has followed the Islamists wherever they have set up, very, VERY unsavory groups have been moving into the gap the so-called "Mainstream" has neglected. I have SEEN these scumbags firsthand, and while it is fashionable amongst my fellow Conservatives to poh-poh "Islamophobia" as nonexistant, I myself can confirm it is very much alive albiet often misused by the various apologists and talking heads. So the rightful and sane governments must make a choice between cracking down and destroying the Islamist networks or opening a power vacuum into which the extremists will step in, the result of which will be nightmarish to the extreme and will (though these idiots will never admit that it will happen) disenfranchise the mainstream and even Liberal Muslims and push them away from the West out of simple self-preservation.

In short: the Jihad does not merely threaten the lives of "Infidels", and failure to act will likely brew a counterreaction from the extremists that will make the plight of the Japanese and those of Japanese descent abroad look like a nice day on the beach.

They should have respect for the New Yorkers and not have anything like this so close to the site of 9/11. IMO its like spitting in their faces.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't understand. Is this private people that own private land that want to build on it a mosque? Or is there some government entanglement?

It's the latter. The officials of New York believe the building of this Mosque will improve relations between the West and Muslims.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
It's the latter. The officials of New York believe the building of this Mosque will improve relations between the West and Muslims.

Yeah, thats what they hope for. But these are New Yorkers they are talking about though.

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
"proof?"

Certainly.

Google "Faisal Abdul Ralf", "Yasir Qadhi", and CAIR.

And the problem with the increased Muslim immigration into the West (or at least a considerable portion of it) is that increasingly the new immigrants refuse to assimilate or even integrate into the societies they have nominally moved into, to the point where you literally have these large sections of a given city that are literally no-go areas (take a look at the decision of the Swedish government to effectively cut all emergency aid- fire department and increasingly police- to Malmo) which are effectively ruled by the worst kind of Sharia law. Believe me, I know. I was working in Southern Germany for a time and a lot of my duties involved going into this enclave effectively run by Turkish extremists. I still have a small scar on my left hand from one of my encounters with a few of them. These goons literally believe they are waging holy war in the enemy's home territory by outbreeding them, and they are NOT nice to deal with.

Naturally, this should not be taken as though every Muslim immigrant is a knife-happy Jihadist- I would know-, but unfortunately they make up a considerable portion of the populace, and they unfortunately tend to have power in their given communities.

And to those of you fools who drag your feet in responding to the problem in the name of "tolerance" or whatever, you are doing nothing but hurting your cause. Kindness to the Guilty is but sadism to the Innocent, and asides from the bloodshed that has followed the Islamists wherever they have set up, very, VERY unsavory groups have been moving into the gap the so-called "Mainstream" has neglected. I have SEEN these scumbags firsthand, and while it is fashionable amongst my fellow Conservatives to poh-poh "Islamophobia" as nonexistant, I myself can confirm it is very much alive albiet often misused by the various apologists and talking heads. So the rightful and sane governments must make a choice between cracking down and destroying the Islamist networks or opening a power vacuum into which the extremists will step in, the result of which will be nightmarish to the extreme and will (though these idiots will never admit that it will happen) disenfranchise the mainstream and even Liberal Muslims and push them away from the West out of simple self-preservation.

In short: the Jihad does not merely threaten the lives of "Infidels", and failure to act will likely brew a counterreaction from the extremists that will make the plight of the Japanese and those of Japanese descent abroad look like a nice day on the beach.

Originally posted by The Nuul
Yeah, thats what they hope for. But these are New Yorkers they are talking about though.

There are even Muslim New Yorkers who are opposed to the idea.

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
"proof?"

Certainly.

Google "Faisal Abdul Ralf", "Yasir Qadhi", and CAIR.

And the problem with the increased Muslim immigration into the West (or at least a considerable portion of it) is that increasingly the new immigrants refuse to assimilate or even integrate into the societies they have nominally moved into, to the point where you literally have these large sections of a given city that are literally no-go areas (take a look at the decision of the Swedish government to effectively cut all emergency aid- fire department and increasingly police- to Malmo) which are effectively ruled by the worst kind of Sharia law. Believe me, I know. I was working in Southern Germany for a time and a lot of my duties involved going into this enclave effectively run by Turkish extremists. I still have a small scar on my left hand from one of my encounters with a few of them. These goons literally believe they are waging holy war in the enemy's home territory by outbreeding them, and they are NOT nice to deal with.

Naturally, this should not be taken as though every Muslim immigrant is a knife-happy Jihadist- I would know-, but unfortunately they make up a considerable portion of the populace, and they unfortunately tend to have power in their given communities.

And to those of you fools who drag your feet in responding to the problem in the name of "tolerance" or whatever, you are doing nothing but hurting your cause. Kindness to the Guilty is but sadism to the Innocent, and asides from the bloodshed that has followed the Islamists wherever they have set up, very, VERY unsavory groups have been moving into the gap the so-called "Mainstream" has neglected. I have SEEN these scumbags firsthand, and while it is fashionable amongst my fellow Conservatives to poh-poh "Islamophobia" as nonexistant, I myself can confirm it is very much alive albiet often misused by the various apologists and talking heads. So the rightful and sane governments must make a choice between cracking down and destroying the Islamist networks or opening a power vacuum into which the extremists will step in, the result of which will be nightmarish to the extreme and will (though these idiots will never admit that it will happen) disenfranchise the mainstream and even Liberal Muslims and push them away from the West out of simple self-preservation.

In short: the Jihad does not merely threaten the lives of "Infidels", and failure to act will likely brew a counterreaction from the extremists that will make the plight of the Japanese and those of Japanese descent abroad look like a nice day on the beach.

ladies and gentlemen, Daniel Pipes

Inimalist: And what is THAT supposed to prove, guv'ner?

For the record, I only rarely examine Pipes' work, but even so, even a broken clock can be right once a day, and while Pipes is often wrong, he is far more reliable than a broken clock.

So may I ask why you feel as though exclaiming that does absolutely anything in this debate?

nothing, in fact

also, the i on inimalist is not capitalized

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
For the record, I only rarely examine Pipes' work, but even so, even a broken clock can be right once a day, and while Pipes is often wrong, he is far more reliable than a broken clock. Twice

inimalist: "nothing, in fact"

And so you added it why?

"also, the i on inimalist is not capitalized"

I shall keep that in mind.

I think that placing a mosque so close to ground zero is insensitive, but it's a free country.

Originally posted by Stoic
I think that placing a mosque so close to ground zero is insensitive, but it's a free country.

That's the problem :P Because America stands for freedom and respect for diversity it can easily be taken advantage of. And I believe that's exactly what's going on here.

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
And to those of you fools who drag your feet in responding to the problem in the name of "tolerance" or whatever, you are doing nothing but hurting your cause.

Indeed. Remember when we stopped being dicks to the Irish and they took over the government and instituted a policy of forced bachannals that killed millions? Or when women got to be treated like people and immedaitely castrated all the men in America? Oh, or when black people got the vote and used it to sweep across the country raping or killing every white person they met?

What's that you say Mr. Historical Precedent? None of that happened? Golly.

Oh and you go on to say that stopping crazy people for being crazy by attacking everyone tangientally related to them is incredibly stupid! Well you've certainly given me a lot of think about.

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
Kindness to the Guilty is but sadism to the Innocent,

I'm pretty sure that cutting out the middle man and direct persecuting the innocent also counts.

So what's the official reason behind building a Mosque at (or close to?) 'Ground Zero'?

Symmetric Chaos:

Did you even effing READ my godd@mmed post, knave?

My entire point is that by failing to actually kill of the Muslims who enjoy holy war and chopping heads, we are only hurting the INNOCENT MAJORITY of the Muslims to say nothing of the others who will die if the Islamists succeed (ironically with the help of the anti-Muslim extremists who have been stepping into the breach BECAUSE FOOLS LIKE YOURSELF CANNOT BRING THEMSELVES TO STAMP OUT THE RADICALS!).

Is this your strategy all the time: accuse absolutely ANYBODY raising the point of being a rascist genocidal tyrant? Particularly when I have CONTINUOUSLY REPEATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN ON THIS VERY THREAD that I myself do not HAVE a problem with Muslims building a Mosque at Ground Zero (only the fact that those who ARE doing so have ties to the Islamist radicals).

It is times like this that I wish dueling were still legal.

If you cannot bother reading through one's opponet's posts, shut the frell up and get off the forum.

Carry on that attitude and you will be off the forum very soon, tortoise herder. Calm down.

Ushgarak: And may I ask what you intend to do about SC for his outright slander and comparing me to somebody who favors racial tyranny in spite of my CLEAR statements to the contrary?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I oppose building any religious monument at ground zero.

Me too.

Religion has left a nasty taste in my mouth.


Well, I wouldn't oppose a Buddhist temple.

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
Ushgarak: And may I ask what you intend to do about SC for his outright slander and comparing me to somebody who favors racial tyranny in spite of my CLEAR statements to the contrary?

I think you should look again at how you present yourself, because despite your protests that is how you look.

Regardless, your angry attack there was not justified. Dial it down.

"I think you should look again at how you present yourself, because despite your protests that is how you look."

Oh REALLY?

And what about this:

"Naturally, this should not be taken as though every Muslim immigrant is a knife-happy Jihadist- "

And this:

"my fellow Conservatives to poh-poh "Islamophobia" as nonexistant, I myself can confirm it is very much alive albiet often misused by the various apologists and talking heads."

And this:

"In short: the Jihad does not merely threaten the lives of "Infidels", and failure to act will likely brew a counterreaction from the extremists that will make the plight of the Japanese and those of Japanese descent abroad look like a nice day on the beach"

How much more do I have to emphasize that I do NOT like the blackshirt battalion and their lovely plans of racial purging? Do I have to write it in ALL CAPS to make it clear?

That should be plain to those who have actually read my posts, and failure to grasp that is the fault of those who have not read them, not my own.

"Regardless, your angry attack there was not justified."

And what was Symmetric Chaos' post, eh? Again, what do you intend to do about that?

"Dial it down."

I intend to. But I desire to have this slander addressed.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
A pizza place can't compare to a religious Mosque..a place where people can practice and worship a violent religion which inspired jihad terrorists to commit the atrocities they did.

Not to mention that nothing HAS been constructed or even planed on being constructed near the burial site to my knowledge. What do you THINK you know about Islam, because it is by no means a violent religion. It was only twisted by the jihadists, like Christianity was during the Crusades, to appear to support violence, but, in essence, it supports peace and harmony just as much as the other modern world religions. Also, I'm getting sick of you referring to Muslims as they, or them, as though they are a single unit. There are many different philosophies of Islam, just as there are for Christianity.

"What do you THINK you know about Islam, because it is by no means a violent religion. It was only twisted, like Christianity was during the Crusades, to appear to support violence."

True. But unfortunately that does mean by definition that there are more than a few flies in the ointment, including some of the sponsers to this mosque. What would we do if a bunch of Christian theocrats began hacking heads off and planning to impose religious despotism over all? We should do unto them the same thing we should do to the Jihadists.

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
"What do you THINK you know about Islam, because it is by no means a violent religion. It was only twisted, like Christianity was during the Crusades, to appear to support violence."

True. But unfortunately that does mean by definition that there are more than a few flies in the ointment, including some of the sponsers to this mosque. What would we do if a bunch of Christian theocrats began hacking heads off and planning to impose religious despotism over all? We should do unto them the same thing we should do to the Jihadists. Sure there are violent muslim organizations, just as there are violent christian organizations, but you can not justifiably call islam a violent religion, just as you can not call Christianity a violent religion. To do so is ignorant and irrational. That was all I was saying. I wanted to correct the hateful tone that Akbar was spewing. About the main topic: I am ambiguous about a Mosque being built so near Ground Zero. I understand both sides of the arguement, and have chosen to let others figure it out instead of supporting a side personally.

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
"I think you should look again at how you present yourself, because despite your protests that is how you look."

Oh REALLY?

And what about this:

"Naturally, this should not be taken as though every Muslim immigrant is a knife-happy Jihadist- "

And this:

"my fellow Conservatives to poh-poh "Islamophobia" as nonexistant, I myself can confirm it is very much alive albiet often misused by the various apologists and talking heads."

And this:

"In short: the Jihad does not merely threaten the lives of "Infidels", and failure to act will likely brew a counterreaction from the extremists that will make the plight of the Japanese and those of Japanese descent abroad look like a nice day on the beach"

How much more do I have to emphasize that I do NOT like the blackshirt battalion and their lovely plans of racial purging? Do I have to write it in ALL CAPS to make it clear?

That should be plain to those who have actually read my posts, and failure to grasp that is the fault of those who have not read them, not my own.

"Regardless, your angry attack there was not justified."

And what was Symmetric Chaos' post, eh? Again, what do you intend to do about that?

"Dial it down."

I intend to. But I desire to have this slander addressed.

All I can do is repeat exactly what I said- ironically, you didn't read me properly. DESPITE your words, you are still coming across as how SC mocked you. That's your fault. Again- change your attitude.

That's my decision on the matter, and it is final. Take it to PM rather than arguing the point in here.

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
"I think you should look again at how you present yourself, because despite your protests that is how you look."

Oh REALLY?

And what about this:

"Naturally, this should not be taken as though every Muslim immigrant is a knife-happy Jihadist- "

And this:

"my fellow Conservatives to poh-poh "Islamophobia" as nonexistant, I myself can confirm it is very much alive albiet often misused by the various apologists and talking heads."

And this:

"In short: the Jihad does not merely threaten the lives of "Infidels", and failure to act will likely brew a counterreaction from the extremists that will make the plight of the Japanese and those of Japanese descent abroad look like a nice day on the beach"

How much more do I have to emphasize that I do NOT like the blackshirt battalion and their lovely plans of racial purging? Do I have to write it in ALL CAPS to make it clear?

That should be plain to those who have actually read my posts, and failure to grasp that is the fault of those who have not read them, not my own.

"Regardless, your angry attack there was not justified."

And what was Symmetric Chaos' post, eh? Again, what do you intend to do about that?

"Dial it down."

I intend to. But I desire to have this slander addressed.

I believe you need to familiarize yourself with the forum rules.

When you are told to drop it, you do so. Immediately. Period.

Also, it's not slander.

Edit: Whoops, Ush beat me to it. However, the point still stands.

"Also, it's not slander."

May I politiely what comparing a fear of religious fanatics equals supporting violence and/or tyranny against a religious or racial group is?

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
"Also, it's not slander."

May I politiely what comparing a fear of religious fanatics equals supporting violence and/or tyranny against a religious or racial group is? Nice grammar, but please, just drop it. You seem nice enough and I wouldn't like to see you getting the boot for not shutting the hell up.

Originally posted by Amazing Vrayo!!
What do you THINK you know about Islam, because it is by no means a violent religion. It was only twisted by the jihadists, like Christianity was during the Crusades, to appear to support violence, but, in essence, it supports peace and harmony just as much as the other modern world religions. Also, I'm getting sick of you referring to Muslims as they, or them, as though they are a single unit. There are many different philosophies of Islam, just as there are for Christianity.

Lol..one needs only to open and read the Quran.

For example, what's the penalty for apostasy?

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
My entire point is that by failing to actually kill of the Muslims who enjoy holy war and chopping heads, we are only hurting the INNOCENT MAJORITY of the Muslims to say nothing of the others who will die if the Islamists succeed (ironically with the help of the anti-Muslim extremists who have been stepping into the breach BECAUSE FOOLS LIKE YOURSELF CANNOT BRING THEMSELVES TO STAMP OUT THE RADICALS!).

You say that we should slaughter an entire group of people but then in below you will complain about being compared to a "racist genocidal tyrant". Are you sure you don't see the problem here?

I don't believe I've said we shouldn't stamp out radical crazy people. As we've seen in history radicals can't do much unless you force people to join them with a culture that hates them. We didn't have to kill Andrea Dworkin to save men from castration, we just made it impossible for most people to support her version of feminism by making it unappealing and pointless.

If you want to stop radical Islam you don't take the fight to them. It's not an army you're up against, it's an idea. They get power from two sources: their own propaganda and actual things that the west does to Muslims. Yes, you also have to be vigilant about protecting people but that has always been and always will be true. There's no real reason to direct it toward dangerous Islamist in particular.

But let's look at history again. Civil rights:

Who helped white people more? The ones who hunted down the Black Panthers or the ones who pulled the rug out from under their ideology that white people are evil? And in the end how "blackified" did America get by that "weak liberal" response?

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
Is this your strategy all the time: accuse absolutely ANYBODY raising the point of being a rascist genocidal tyrant?

See? I said you were going to say this up top.

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
It is times like this that I wish dueling were still legal.

It's times like this I'm glad it isn't and that in fact you have to either present ideas rationally or be treated as a wacko. Seriously this applies to me too, I get angry sometimes and it never has any effect on the person I'm talking too except to make them think I don't know what I'm talking about.

Symmetric Chaos:

Ah, here's the disconnect:

"you say that we should slaughter an entire group of people"

I was not saying we SHOULD slaughter all Muslims, I only siad that UNLESS the governments of the West fulfill their part of the Social contract and stamp out Islamist terrorism like any other terrorist group, that is what WILL happen. Nothing nice or recommended about it, but if you have been looking at European politics and the advent of extremely racist and downright Neo-Fascist political parties both there and even here (Vlaams Belgans, the Sweden Democrats, etc, etc , etc,), that is ultimately the conclusion.

To illustrate, what do you think would have happened to Japan after WWII had the operation of the occupation been run by the average American infuriated by Pearl Harbor and the various crimes of the Japanese military across Asia and the Pacific and ginned up on some of the very worst type of racial hatred? Which was why we did NOT allow the average American to run the occupation, because we instead put level heads in charge who would not dishonor their nation and the sacrifices of their dead by dwarfing even the crimes of the Japanese regime.

That is how government is supposed to operate: in large part as the brake upon the worst instincts of the masses. Unfortunately, many have not been doing that (which includes clamping down on terrorism of any stripe) by giving Islamists a free hand (for instance, take a look at the infamous "Mullah Hook" who lived off British welfare even as he incited violence against all who did not fufill his violent creed, including several Muslims). And unfortunately, when people believe the legitimate governments are doing nothing, they turn to several VERY unpleasant people instead. I'm sure we can all name a few historical precedents of that. But the simple bottom line is that if and when these demogauges get sufficient support sufficiently riled up enough, it is quite likely that they will commit crimes that might even dwarf those of the Islamists. And the best way to prevent that is to release the pressure by going after the actual terrorists.

"If you want to stop radical Islam you don't take the fight to them. It's not an army you're up against, it's an idea."

Sorry, but with all due respect, that is historically naive. That is akin to saying that in order to fight Fascism, you do not take the fight to them because you are not up against an army. Which is partially true, but unfortunately it DOES have an "army" of sorts in its service, one which has already threatened several nations (sometimes, like Pakistan, almost to the brink of collapse). While the ideological fight is crucial, one cannot win this war without destroying the military infrastructure that supports it. Which means going after the camps.

"their own propaganda and actual things that the west does to Muslims."

Unfortunately, they have a third source of power: the legions of thugs, wannabe martyrs, and recruits who wield concrete force. Hitler's power began not with Versailles but with the Brownshirts. Lenin's power began not with Das Kapital but with the hordes of disillusioned and hungry who flocked to the Red banner. And likewise, the power of Achmadinijad, Osama, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc ultimately starts with their "holy warriors." And like it or not, in order to win, we are going to have to get through them.

I apologize for the confusion, but that does not change the fact that you misinterpreted my post.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
The elected officials of New York city are planning on building a Mosque close to where the twin towers fell on 9/11 as a commemoration of the lives lost that day and to please the Muslim population. Personally I find this insulting and quite ridiculous. What do you guys think?

Here is a link for a petition in opposition of the Mosque.



how is building a mosque near groud zero gonna commemorate 911 victims? more like dishonor. i think it's being done as a cruel insult in reality. the whole thing's in very poor taste.

like wtf? the very people that'll be practicing the same religion the 911 terrorists practiced want to build a mosque near where these islamofacists killed 3000 americans in 1 morning? gtfo.. that's what i'm gonna remember...

to please the muslim community? uh no. i'm sorry. wtf is that..? lol..

it's the dumbest sh*t i've ever heard this year. i can't believe this is even being considered! and by the U.S. gov't!

i say we draw mohammed saying "no way, jose" with the american flag as his turban, print them on legal sized flyers and post them around every scaffolding, telephone post, and available ad space on every street corner near and around groud zero.

The Government must offer muslim Americans' needs. Mosque is one of them. Therefore, It should not be problem for you to build a mosque. Also, this would be good answer in order to explain that we are not enemy of them.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Lol..one needs only to open and read the Quran.

For example, what's the penalty for apostasy?

The same as in The Bible.

c'mon. you'd have to be a stupid idiot to think that this back handed peaceful and gentle gesture is supose to be some kinda benevolent act that's supose to honor the 911 fallen.

no. don't build that mosque. fcuk that. build that freedom tower..

you think iran or pakistan would build a christian church near an area where americans killed 3000 iranians or pakistanis. hell fcuking no. go ahead and erect one. they'd bomb and demolish it on christmas eve and hang everyone associated with the building the next morning.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Lol..one needs only to open and read the BIBLE.

For example, what's the penalty for apostasy? Banishment usually, but in some cases, execution.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
c'mon. you'd have to be a stupid idiot to think that this back handed peaceful and gentle gesture is supose to be some kinda benevolent act that's supose to honor the 911 fallen.

no. don't build that mosque. fcuk that. build that freedom tower..

you think iran or pakistan would build a christian church near an area where americans killed 3000 iranians or pakistanis. hell fcuking no. go ahead and erect one. they'd bomb and demolish it on christmas eve and hang everyone associated with the building the next morning. Good job implying that all Americans are Christians, and that all Middle Eastern residents are Muslim.

Originally posted by Amazing Vrayo!!
Good job implying that all Americans are Christians, and that all Middle Eastern residents are Muslim.

well it's not what i meant. get it right. but, i will say that most religious americans are christians and most religious middle-easterners are muslim. not all, most. i'll also say that although not all muslims are terrorists, so far all terrorists have been muslim. and that should say something, if anything. now i'm not anti-muslim, i'm anti islamo-facist, an anti-terrorist and against those whom harbor their murderous beliefs within.

look, point is, this wouldn't fly out there. it would here because we here in the U.S. are afraid of offending anyone and everyone in the whole world except americans.

the whole world can offend us and we have to take it, while still offering aid, but we're not allowed to defend ourselves, our country and our principles because it'd be the incorrect thing to do just because? fcuk outta here..


No Mosque near Ground Zero! !

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
well it's not what i meant. get it right. but, i will say that most religious americans are christians and most religious middle-easterners are muslim. not all, most. i'll also say that although not all muslims are terrorists, so far all terrorists have been muslim. and that should say something, if anything. now i'm not anti-muslim, i'm anti islamo-facist, an anti-terrorist and against those whom harbor their murderous beliefs within.

look, point is, this wouldn't fly out there. it would here because we here in the U.S. are afraid of offending anyone and everyone in the whole world except americans.

the whole world can offend us and we have to take it, while still offering aid, but we're not allowed to defend ourselves, our country and our principles because it'd be the incorrect thing to do just because? fcuk outta here..


No Mosque near Ground Zero! ! It's one of the many responsibilities of calling ourselves a world power. We have to be the good guy the whole time, or the bigger person (or in this case country).

Originally posted by Amazing Vrayo!!
Banishment usually, but in some cases, execution.

Nice edit. Banishment and execution are pretty serious end results. Not to mention violent ones. The entire Quran is filled with talks about waging war against non-believers. Some of the details are gruesome and not open to interpretation.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The same as in The Bible.

That was the Old Testament. Since Jesus came around, a "new law" was made. A law of love and peace: turning the other cheek, etc. If someone apostatized from the church, they were not to be stoned or persecuted, but loved and prayed for. It's the gross perversion of Christ's message that justified things like the Crusades.

Before Christ, usually, someone was stoned (not drugs, but rocks) to death for apostasy and blaspheme. After Christ, it became a "let he who is sinless cast for the stone" law.


If you ever hear of a Christian demanding the life of someone, saying that God told them to kill, etc. etc...they really missed the whole point of Jesus Christ's message: one of love and forgiveness. Jesus was a hippie, yo.






I'd say that public projects like the one on this thread, should be voted on by the public. Majoritarianism? Sure. Thems the shits.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The same as in The Bible.

Not quite.

If an apostate from Islam is a sane, adult, male then they are executed. An apostate, according to Sharia, has to meet those three criteria.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That was the Old Testament. Since Jesus came around, a "new law" was made. A law of love and peace: turning the other cheek, etc. If someone apostatized from the church, they were not to be stoned or persecuted, but loved and prayed for. It's the gross perversion of Christ's message that justified things like the Crusades.

Before Christ, usually, someone was stoned (not drugs, but rocks) to death for apostasy and blaspheme. After Christ, it became a "let he who is sinless cast for the stone" law.






Originally posted by dadudemon
If you ever hear of a Christian demanding the life of someone, saying that God told them to kill, etc. etc...they really missed the whole point of Jesus Christ's message: one of love and forgiveness. Jesus was a hippie, yo.






Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Not quite.

If an apostate from Islam is a sane, adult, male then they are executed. An apostate, according to Sharia, has to meet those three criteria.

That's not what any version of Luke 19:27 I can find says. It is the king in a story Jesus tells speaking at that point and, well, kings were like that back then.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's not what any version of Luke 19:27 I can find says. It is the king in a story Jesus tells speaking at that point and, well, kings were like that back then.

It is a parable for salvation. The nobleman in the story is Jesus. One will suffer eternal damnation if he does not follow, serve, and obey Jesus.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is a parable for salvation. The nobleman in the story is Jesus. If one does not follow, serve, and obey Jesus, he will suffer eternal damnation.

That's certainly one legitimate reading of it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Thanks for proving my point. If you know a bit about Christ's teachings, you'd realize the major load this brought to the contemporary Jews. In that scripture are some of the words that damned Jesus' fate to an eventual death.

In addition, what did Jesus mean when he said he was come to fulfill the law?


How do you read the " not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law"?

Originally posted by Bardock42
How do you read the " not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law"?

I PM'd my answer to you as Adam_Poe needs to answer your question.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How do you read the " not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law"?

It means exactly what it says; Jesus did not come to abolish the laws of the Old Testament. If the laws are not abolished, then they still stand.

But I don't like having a beard, though slaves from foreign lands could be useful.

So what is the reason behind building a mosque? I have no problem with it, but then again, I'm not in USA.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So what is the reason behind building a mosque? I have no problem with it, but then again, I'm not in USA.

I've asked that too, I think reason could be very important.

I'm sure I've explained it a couple of pages back.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It means exactly what it says; Jesus did not come to abolish the laws of the Old Testament. If the laws are not abolished, then they still stand.

That's not what it means, at all.

Originally posted by Robtard
But I don't like having a beard, though slaves from foreign lands could be useful.
If you're not ethnically jewish most laws from the bible don't apply.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
so far all terrorists have been muslim. and that should say something, if anything.
How soon we have forgotten the Oklahoma bombing and others. The 2nd most brutal terrorist act in US history and was carried out by a christian.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If you're not ethnically jewish most laws from the bible don't apply.

Oh yeah, tell that to the people that try and use the Bible to justify modern laws.

Originally posted by King Kandy
How soon we have forgotten the Oklahoma bombing and others. The 2nd most brutal terrorist act in US history and was carried out by a christian.

Not sure if Timmy was shouting "God is great" or if he ever tried to use religion as a cause. Think he was just out to get the 'big bad gov'ment'.

Though personally, I think he was a patsy.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure if Timmy was shouting "God is great" or if he ever tried to use religion as a cause. Think he was just out to get the 'big bad gov'ment'.

Though personally, I think he was a patsy.
Look up the christian identity movement. Mcveigh and other nuts, I would say they are as dangerous as radical muslims.

Originally posted by Robtard
Oh yeah, tell that to the people that try and use the Bible to justify modern laws.
Well, maybe orthodox jews. I'm an atheist, it's all equally meaningless to me. But when people act like the Koran is a brutal document... yes, yes it is, but no more so than the bible. Personally I think the Koran would have the be the more morally correct of the two.

Pat Condell obviously doesn't like the idea.

I would not like any religious monument at ground zero... but I think a mosque is the best option if we need one. It would show the US stands united against terrorism.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I would not like any religious monument at ground zero... but I think a mosque is the best option if we need one. It would show the US stands united against terrorism.

How would it do that by building a Mosque?

Originally posted by Robtard
How would it do that by building a Mosque?
It would show that the US doesn't harbor hatred against it's muslim citizens, while a church for instance could mean we were trying to push away all who shared the religion of the terrorists in prejudice.

I think the fact that the guy owns the land gives him the right to build whatever shit he wants there.

Sure. I just think certain things would be in VERY poor taste.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I think the fact that the guy owns the land gives him the right to build whatever shit he wants there.

Ah, I was thinking this was some sort of government or public works project; in that case, yes, private citizen should be able to build what he pleases.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Sure. I just think certain things would be in VERY poor taste.

If he wanted to build a giant dick scupture corn-holing a nun, I agree. But a Mosque is just another place of worship; no more offensive than a Mormon church.

Taking into account the nut-jobs in NYC, he should keep his insurance on the building in order.

Originally posted by Robtard
If he wanted to build a giant dick scupture corn-holing a nun, I agree. But a Mosque is just another place of worship; no more offensive than a Mormon church.

Taking into account the nut-jobs in NYC, he should keep his insurance on the building in order.
A church, in and of itself is just a building. If we want to totally ignore the message it would send, he should build the giant dick. However if we care about the message, building a church is pretty much like saying muslims aren't welcome in the US.

Originally posted by King Kandy
How soon we have forgotten the Oklahoma bombing and others. The 2nd most brutal terrorist act in US history and was carried out by a christian.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Look up the christian identity movement. Mcveigh and other nuts, I would say they are as dangerous as radical muslims.

inimalist and I argued about that, for several posts. Tim said he was closer to agnostic or atheist, but his actions, associations, and literature were all Christian Identity movement type shit.


So, it depends on which side of the hair you'd like to split. Technically, the OKC bombing was not a Christian terrorist attack. But, IMO, it's no worse than a 3rd party siding with the Montagues and then killing a Capulet. Sure, they weren't a Montague...but they still sided with them...and even idolized their Anti-Capulet Treatise.



Originally posted by King Kandy
A church, in and of itself is just a building. If we want to totally ignore the message it would send, he should build the giant dick. However if we care about the message, building a church is pretty much like saying muslims aren't welcome in the US.



How about skipping the dick and make it a big ol' boobie, instead? How doesn't like boobies?

Originally posted by King Kandy
A church, in and of itself is just a building. If we want to totally ignore the message it would send, he should build the giant dick. However if we care about the message, building a church is pretty much like saying muslims aren't welcome in the US.

Bit of a stretch, don't you think? The Church = No Muslims.

Originally posted by Robtard
Bit of a stretch, don't you think? The Church = No Muslims.

Its not a not stretch because that would be the implication. Until the 20th century most churches around the world didn't allow Muslims to step foot in them. Bush even used the word "Crusade" to refer to the invasion of Iraq. A church at Ground Zero would be reinforcing an Us-against-Them mentality, and would be like saying "You lost, but we're still here".

Watch, if a church is erected by Ground Zero I'm sure unhappy American Muslims would be on the news. And they would have a legit beef too. Just like the Hindus in Sri Lanka who hate the name of the country because it implies its a Buddhist state and that the Tamils aint welcome.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Its not a not stretch because that would be the implication. Until the 20th century most churches around the world didn't allow Muslims to step foot in them. Bush even used the word "Crusade" to refer to the invasion of Iraq. A church at Ground Zero would be reinforcing an Us-against-Them mentality, and would be like saying "You lost, but we're still here".

Watch, if a church is erected by Ground Zero I'm sure unhappy American Muslims would be on the news. And they would have a legit beef too. Just like the Hindus in Sri Lanka who hate the name of the country because it implies its a Buddhist state and that the Tamils aint welcome.

20th century kicked off over a hundred years ago. Last I heard, mainstream churches are open to anyone. Bush's use of words is what it is, propaganda; he's gone now.

Oh, I'm sure there would be a bunch of jabbering Muslims complaining, just like the non-Muslims who would get upset at a Mosque going up; their complaints would be stupid too.

I'd hate the landowner to not be able to build what he wishes, but considering the retards in America, the city should just deny the permit to construct any house of worship. Maybe build a donut-shop, everybody likes those.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
They'll regret it soon since suicide pretty much has people thrown down into the fiery pits of you-know-where. That whole "kill yourself and be surrounded by virgin women in Heaven" is just a label to make people want to kill themselves without having a second thought. Funny where lust can get you.

They have as much chance as being right as you do.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Not really, many more religions and philosophical thoughts claim that the punishment for suicide and murder is hell, or an equivalent form of punishment, than the one strand of Islam that preaches suicide bombing in the 9/11 instance.

So really, the Islamic "extremists" are taking a big risk in a manner of speaking! More people believing in something doesn't increase the chance of it being right.

As an Athiest I believe both scenarios are equally unlikely.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So how do you arrive at the conclusion that it is 50/50? If we look at it in terms of options, the Buddhists are right, the Christians are right, the Sikhs are right, the majority of Muslims are right or the single stand of Suicide supporting Muslims are right.

There are many possible eventualities which await the Muslim suicide bomber, many of which might end up in some form of hell but only one would end up with him in Heaven...

I don't think your religious stance is really relevant. I would say, that assuming there is an after life, the chance of him going to heaven with virgins is more unlikely than him ending up in hell. Since the muslim's scenario is so specific whereas hell could be involved in countless possible eventualities. My point is that to me both ideas seem to be very unlikely... So unlikely they are basically negligible (Hence the Atheism).

Therefor they are as likely as eachother....

And as an additonal point: More people believing in something doesn't increase the chance of it being correct. If 99% of people believed that humans didn't need to breathe... humans would still need to breathe.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
That's the problem :P Because America stands for freedom and respect for diversity it can easily be taken advantage of. And I believe that's exactly what's going on here.

yeah god forbid we should actually uphold our own values and respect people of all different faiths. don't you people realize that freedom and diversity are supposed to be reserved for AMERICANS (christians, jews, and atheists who celebrate christmas). We can't have muslims taking advantage of how nice and respectful we are (because obviously americans are so respectful of minorities as evidenced by Admiral Akbar)



ok, so the sarcasm ends here.

The whole problem with this situation is the type of response that i just quoted. Whether or not a mosque is built doesn't matter. On the one hand, I somehow feel opposed to any religious building being built there. As we are not a religious nation (supposedly) we should not have a religious building commemorating a national tragedy. However, I feel that the reason there has been so much backlash against the building of a mosque is caused by people's specific dislike and fear of the islamic community. If there had been plans to build a church instead, we would not be having this discussion. While i believe that there never should have been any plans to build a mosque in the first place, to oppose it now would clearly demonstrate a hatred and fear of muslims and create (or i should say reinforce) a religious hierarchy in the united states in which the judeo christian faiths are placed above others.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
We're not talking about what people believe we are talking about potential eventualities after death. Whether anyone believes in it or not doesn't really matter.

The likelihood that after your death you will be greeted in some sort of heaven by a bunch of virgins if you behave a specific way, happens to be the exact same likelihood that after your death you will be thrown into a pit of fire if you behave a specific way.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The likelihood that after your death you will be greeted in some sort of heaven by a bunch of virgins if you behave a specific way, happens to be the exact same likelihood that after your death you will be thrown into a pit of fire if you behave a specific way.

Well, it is possible that he will get to heaven with the virgins because of his suicide bombing. However it is also possible he will go to hell for his suicide and murder. It is also possible he will be reincarnated as a slug for his actions. It is possible nothing will happen. It is possible he will go to heaven but not because of his actions.

All are equally likely, but for the 1 possible eventuality the Muslim suicide bomber hopes for there are hundreds of other equally likely possibility...therefore the odds are against him getting what he wants.

If I'm totally wrong and am missing out some basic mathematical principle then I of course retract what I'm saying. But i think it makes sense. For example, if I get on a plane, it is equally likely that I will land in France as it is I will land in Peru. However, there is a very high probability that I will arrive in a country that is not France.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Well, it is possible that he will get to heaven with the virgins because of his suicide bombing. However it is also possible he will go to hell for his suicide and murder. It is also possible he will be reincarnated as a slug for his actions. It is possible nothing will happen. It is possible he will go to heaven but not because of his actions.

All are equally likely, but for the 1 possible eventuality the Muslim suicide bomber hopes for there are hundreds of other equally likely possibility...therefore the odds are against him getting what he wants.

If I'm totally wrong and am missing out some basic mathematical principle then I of course retract what I'm saying. But i think it makes sense. For example, if I get on a plane, it is equally likely that I will land in France as it is I will land in Peru. However, there is a very high probability that I will arrive in a country that is not France.

Oh you are right that the odds of him getting what he wants are likely much slimmer than not getting what he wants.

However initially you were talking about the odds of him going to hell vs. the odds of him getting what he wants, which are pretty similar, really.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh you are right that the odds of him getting what he wants are likely much slimmer than not getting what he wants.

However initially you were talking about the odds of him going to hell vs. the odds of him getting what he wants, which are pretty similar, really.

Well if we consider there are more possible eventualities that would lead him to hell than there are to Heaven with Virgins....

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Well if we consider there are more possible eventualities that would lead him to hell than there are to Heaven with Virgins.... I think you're just missing the point GMG.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Pat Condell obviously doesn't like the idea.

And with Pat...why is a religion getting first dibs on what to build near the towers? Are we not a Nation free from religion? Oh course, the moron in the presidency thinks otherwise:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100814/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_ground_zero_mosque_obama

If you're an atheist and voted for this guy....you're an idiot..but it's okay...drink the kool aid and sleep happy or go listen to Will i am YES WE CAN and just think November 2008...the rest of the nation will just move forward with November 2010.

Originally posted by WanderingDroid
And with Pat...why is a religion getting first dibs on what to build near the towers?

Do you have your facts straight? Has there nothing been build near the World Trade Center site since the attacks? What radius around it?

Originally posted by WanderingDroid
Are we not a Nation free from religion? Oh course, the moron in the presidency thinks otherwise:

You are not a nation free from Religion. You are a nation free to pursue Religion.

Originally posted by WanderingDroid
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100814/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_ground_zero_mosque_obama

If you're an atheist and voted for this guy....you're an idiot..but it's okay...drink the kool aid and sleep happy or go listen to Will i am YES WE CAN and just think November 2008...the rest of the nation will just move forward with November 2010.

Most atheists don't solely define themselves over their lack of belief in God. Obama has a multitude of stances, many very much contrary to all reasonable contenders in the last election, and if you happen to agree with many of them, perhaps ones that you deem more important than any Religious issue, not voting for him would have been foolish.

Originally posted by WanderingDroid
And with Pat...why is a religion getting first dibs on what to build near the towers? Are we not a Nation free from religion? Oh course, the moron in the presidency thinks otherwise:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100814/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_ground_zero_mosque_obama

If you're an atheist and voted for this guy....you're an idiot..but it's okay...drink the kool aid and sleep happy or go listen to Will i am YES WE CAN and just think November 2008...the rest of the nation will just move forward with November 2010.
I'm an atheist and i'm in 100% agreement on this with Obama... It is a very positive symbol to show our commitment to religious freedom in this country. If we want to spite terrorists, what better way than celebrate the things they are opposed to?

Oh, additionally

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
It's the latter. The officials of New York believe the building of this Mosque will improve relations between the West and Muslims.

I read up on this now, and it is not true. This is really a totally private matter. A real estate agency bought it from the former owner and now wants to develop it. I see nothing wrong with that at all, there's not even any government favoritism involved.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm an atheist and i'm in 100% agreement on this with Obama... It is a very positive symbol to show our commitment to religious freedom in this country. If we want to spite terrorists, what better way than celebrate the things they are opposed to?

I agree. I am oftentimes impressed by Obama's obvious clarity of reasoning. I may not agree with all he says, but he appears to be an intelligent, honest guy standing up for what he believes, and believing things for good reasons.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm an atheist and i'm in 100% agreement on this with Obama... It is a very positive symbol to show our commitment to religious freedom in this country. If we want to spite terrorists, what better way than celebrate the things they are opposed to?

The terrorists will not understand the point you are making. It is an unfortunate cultural gulf that they will not cross.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The terrorists will not understand the point you are making. It is an unfortunate cultural gulf that they will not cross.
Well then there's no harm either way.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well then there's no harm either way.

As in it does not change the situation?

Having a mosque a few blocks from ground zero sends a positive message to the US. It isn't supposed to have any kind of role that will discourage terrorism. That isn't the point of it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Having a mosque a few blocks from ground zero sends a positive message to the US. It isn't supposed to have any kind of role that will discourage terrorism. That isn't the point of it.

What positive message would it bring. 911 is a charged topic. Most people, like myself, will not care one way or the other, but there is no positive message. All I see is a childish attempts by some, on both sides, to make points. The only positive thing I can see is that the war mongers, on both sides, are at least not killing people this time.

Freedom of religion is not a positive message to you?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Freedom of religion is not a positive message to you?

Not really. It would only be a positive message if freedom of religion was somehow threatened in this nation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not really. It would only be a positive message if freedom of religion was somehow threatened in this nation.

And if a religion wasn't allowed to practice on their privately acquired land you wouldn't think that to be a threat?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not really. It would only be a positive message if freedom of religion was somehow threatened in this nation.
Like for instance if people were not allowed to build mosques near ground zero?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Freedom of religion is not a positive message to you?

Ay guey, gimmie a break, man....

Nobody is denying that Muslims have the right to practice their religion. The First Amendment gives everyone that right--that's not the issue. It's an ought to question. Even though its technically legal to build a mosque at Ground Zero, is it morally right? Any sane person would see that its not. The only real "message" it would send is that America is waiving a whiteflag to Islamism. The guys doing this might as well piss on the graves of the 3,000 victims.

Its even called Cordoba House, after the Cordoba mosque in Spain which symbolized the Muslim conquest of that country. So the message is that they've conquered Manhattan.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Like for instance if people were not allowed to build mosques near ground zero?

Who is succeeding in stopping that? There are a lot of places in the US were a church or mosque or other religious building would not be appropriate because of local zoning laws or general beliefs of the community. Not allowing a religious building to be built is not an indication of anything. This is a local NY city issue, and should stay that way.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Ay guey, gimmie a break, man....

Nobody is denying that Muslims have the right to practice their religion. The First Amendment gives everyone that right--that's not the issue. It's an ought to question. Even though its technically legal to build a mosque at Ground Zero, is it morally right? Any sane person would see that its not. The only real "message" it would send is that America is waiving a whiteflag to Islamism. The guys doing this might as well piss on the graves of the 3,000 victims.

Its even called Cordoba House, after the Cordoba mosque in Spain which symbolized the Muslim conquest of that country. So the message is that they've conquered Manhattan.

If all the people in the US said we don't care, then it would not be a "message (is) that they've conquered Manhattan". If we just laugh at them, then what can they do?

Should it be allowed? Of course.

Was it a good idea on the mosque builder(s)' part(s) to choose that as a site? Probably not. I can't imagine that lot was their only choice.

Diversity is what makes America great. While I can understand how some people might be skeptical of the idea of a Mosque at Ground Zero, I believe it will send a message to the world about America's values. We have always been a nation founded on Individual Rights and Freedoms (including religion).

Originally posted by GameWinner
Diversity is what makes America great. While I can understand how some people might be skeptical of the idea of a Mosque at Ground Zero, I believe it will send a message to the world about America's values. We have always been a nation founded on Individual Rights and Freedoms (including religion).

What message?

A Mosque at ground zero.

man there is a song title for ya

9/11 had nothing to do with Islam, per se...it was all a big cover up by.........the ILLUMINATI. A mosque is just a way for the world's elite to continue that deception.


lol

if they want to build a mosque there they should be allowed to - if the governmet starts denying people the right to worship as they please then its a clear sign that the terrorists have one.

You know, the best thing about this debate?

They aren't building a mosque at Ground Zero. They never were planning to. That was all just made up by people looking for something to complain about. They're opening an Islamic community center a few blocks away in an old privately-owned building.

Ditto

Americans love to s*itting themselves up

If you deny right of worship to one group, I suspect they can do it to others....which goes against constitution.

The US constitution made for and by White Americans in truth.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Islam didn't destroy the towers, so I don't really care.
Originally posted by politicsguy
if they want to build a mosque there they should be allowed to - if the governmet starts denying people the right to worship as they please then its a clear sign that the terrorists have one.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If you deny right of worship to one group, I suspect they can do it to others....which goes against constitution.

Originally posted by Peach
You know, the best thing about this debate?

They aren't building a mosque at Ground Zero. They never were planning to. That was all just made up by people looking for something to complain about. They're opening an Islamic community center a few blocks away in an old privately-owned building.

All this ^

let them build it, like someone said it wasn't islam that attacked the towers.