-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Ground Zero Mosque (or cultural gathering centre for the politcally correct)
- Thread starter Empoleon Bonaparte
- Start date
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
Someone who destroyed the World Trade Center and kills 3,000, worships no religion but that of terror, this is a figure of speech, you know it, no reasonable person could possibly attribute a terrorist's actions to represent religion that preaches "do not take a person's life". Even if they attributed their actions to Islam, that does not inversely mean that Islam supports them! We seriously need to dissassociate religions from their past atrocities and give them the impartial eye of freedom they deserve. God is responsible for religion. Humans make atrocities.
If it is a statue and not a religious house, then why did you bring it up if it not comparable to a mosque?
The First Amendment inherently gives this matter a legal angle! Why are you claiming it does not? The Constitution applies in any situaiton, it is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.
Quoting Aristotle and citing the First Amendment of the Constitution makes me idiotic? Who have I embarassed myself in front of? You? <_< I don't feel that ashamed about that, frankly, you're the one who's started swearing at me and calling me "idiotic" and my points "pathetically stupid" after just two posts, and brushing off the angle I brought to the debate instead of trying to refute my points.
Gosh.
Last edited:
How about actually putting up a argument worthy of shutting me up?
SunnyC said:
Here is the problem, Islam is a very bi polar religion, we have already gone over this in this thread. The same religion that says "Do not take a person's life" also talks about slaughtering the Infedels, and talks about Mohammad cutting off the heads of 600 - 800 Jewish Men and Boys. We cannot ignore that aspect of the religion.
SunnyC said:
It is comparable in that it is a structure that is insensitive to millions of people as some of the ideals held by many of the people that joined the Confederate Army, were also held by those that slaughtered MLK.
SunnyC said:
See I don't know if you are ignorant or just do not understand. The only way the First Amendment were to come in, is if the Legislature or the Courts were to point at them and say "No Islamic Buildings near Ground Zero". You yourself should know this already, you posted the law saying and I quote: "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Last time I checked protesting and applying public pressure is not making a law. Infact to flip it around, the First Amendment gives the public the express right to apply pressure on to this group by their freedom of speech and their freedom to assemble peacefully.
SunnyC said:
You are idiotic as you seem to have no grasp of what you are saying. You thrust in the First Amendment with some misbegotten belief that it automatically means that people cannot apply public pressure to make this building move. Or that that Seventy Two Percent of this country that is against this thing is some how working with Congress and the Courts to stop it by bringing about some Anti Religious laws. That is not true, and by trying to further that argument you are making yourself look pathetically stupid.
I'm going to pop back in for a quick second jsut to throw around some ideas as this thread seems to be going off the rails a bit (not to suggest it was smooth sailing with me here...):
...eh...
"It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless army and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global Jihad." The key word here being "Sunni", and there's a funny thing about the Sunni movements... So while it is correct to say there is no "religion of terror", the terrorists who attacked our country believe in a different branch of Islam than the ones who live here. It may sound petty, but it's like blaming Protestants for a Catholic massacre.
That is all. Auf Wiedersehen.
...eh...
"It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless army and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global Jihad." The key word here being "Sunni", and there's a funny thing about the Sunni movements... So while it is correct to say there is no "religion of terror", the terrorists who attacked our country believe in a different branch of Islam than the ones who live here. It may sound petty, but it's like blaming Protestants for a Catholic massacre.
That is all. Auf Wiedersehen.
Now we can get down to the integrecies of it, as to if they believe the same things about Mohammad and the terror he caused, not to mention last time I checked no one has really come out and say that the Mosque Leader is Sunni or Shi'ite. Or at least not from what I have found. And of course speaking of the Mosque leader you can also go back and point to his relatively radical stance on pretty much being a al Qaeda apologist.
Edit: He started off as a Sunni, moved to a more moderate version of the religion called Sufi, yet many of his statements have to wonder how moderate he has really become.
http://theweek.com/article/index/20...f-mdash-the-man-behind-the-ground-zero-mosque
Last edited:
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
It's bipolar because one part of the religion, here in America, has matured to the point that they are not that way anymore. Overseas, in the war-ravaged Middle East, Islam is full of anti-Semitism, and hatred for Americans who they see as an imperialistic superpower that is trying to conquer their countries and make them conform to a way of life that clashes with their religion. The overseas version spills into the American version. The more we welcome and tolerate and nurture the American version of Islam, the more we can foster that side of the religion and reduce its bipolar side.
Of course it does! I love every sort of protest, they fascinate me, check out my pictures of the gay rights protest I went to, and put the text of the First Amendment with the photo album. I love seeing protests, I love debating at protests and analyzing their logic.
What are protests about if they aren't about getting a law passed? If this protest was to hold any water it would influence someone in a position of power to pass a law to move the mosque. That would be unconstitutional.
Applying public pressure is not making a law. You're right. However, I have the right to question the legitimacy of the purpose of these protests as well. If the First Amendment prevents Congress from making a law respecting the establishment of religion, shouldn't the people take a hint and respect the same policy? I mean, if the second part First Amendment gives them the right to protest, then maybe they should look at the first part of the First Amendment and realize the irony of their actions.
I never said that the people cannot apply public pressure. The First Amendment guarantees their right to. I did say that they were seeking "extra rights" by wanting to move the mosque, but as you have demonstrated, they have the right to pressure the owner of the mosque into moving it. I was wrong. On the other hand, it's quite ironic that the people are seeking to do something that the people would be outraged over the government trying to do, interfere with religion, because of the First Amendment. It's quite a paradox.
I never said that either - I said that moving the location of the mosque would be assuming an extra right. Whether or not a law is passed, "72% of the country" is seeking to do something by constitutional means that is sadly not of the same spirit of the constitution. And when I say that, you should know exactly what I mean since we have gone over the First Amendment.
Also, you never answered me. You've specified the line you don't think the mosque should be built within. How long do you think we should wait before a mosque can be built within the line, or should it be permanent? If someone tries to build a mosque there in a few more years, do you think that would be right? Not 72 percent of Americans - but do you think it would be right?
Last edited:
No it is bipolar because the religion teaches and says two different things, that has not changed. You have the peaceful Mohammad version, then you have Mohammad the war lord, the two are essentually the same person and are spoken of and taught of in the Qu'ran.
You still seem to get it wrong, while the First Amendment denies Congress that power, it does not deny the public the power to protest the movement of the Mosque. They are not protesting to get a law to be past, if so they would be protesting outside of the New York Government to do so, no such thing has happened. Instead they are applying public pressure, not political pressure to get it to move, that is entirely justifiable and entirely legal and entirely American.
That would be outraged if the Government tried to do it, that would be the Government overstepping its bounds. Right now everyone is perfectly within their bounds and perfectly within the right of the law.
Is it not within the spirit of the Constitution? The Constitution prevents the Government from overstepping its bounds and creating a national religion or by unfairly penalizing a religion. On the same token the Constitution gives the people the right to speak out and peacefully assemble to protest something that they believe is wrong. They are doing just that. In reality it is perfectly in the spirit of the Constitution.
I do not think it would be right, I believe just like MLK's death spot, or Hiroshima's Ground Zero, that is a sight that carries alot of emotions and as such they should seek another place to build their structure.
I was going to say that there is more than just Sunni and Shi'a (of course, to be fair, those are the two most prominent denominations.)
And you say this... why? Where was he being an al-Qaeda apologist? I believe the quote was "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." Claiming that one party was a catalyst does not inherently justify the actions of the opposing party.
As for Hamas being a terrorsit orginization:"I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy."
I was more talking about his recent quote, but combine that with your own quote and it does begin a disturbing trend.
‘The United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims.’
The argument he makes is a failed one as it has already been shown that Saddam Hussain by reselling the aid for weapons was responsible for the Children's death. Yet by making a false Moral Equivalency, he is essentially saying "al Qaeda may be bad, but the U.S. is alot worse". And lets not also forget the specifics of his words, how many guilty non muslims have al Qaeda killed? How many guilty non muslims died on 9/11?
Again this is not the words of a moderate.
Last edited:
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
Yet, for all the verses about anti-Semitism and killing the infedels, obviously an overwhelming majority of Islamic Americans don't follow them or we'd be getting attacks coming from everywhere at once with all the Islamic Americans in our nation. That's the thing about religion, it can stir your passion to do something, but it doesn't control anyone, especially in America. You'd think Christians would be getting even against Jews now for killing Jesus and oppressing Christians so long ago, and there are anti-Semitic Christians, but Christianity is now seen as one of the most peaceful nations in the world.
Gah did you read what I said? I said you were right and the First Amendment DOES give the public to protest the location of the mosque, and I acknowledged that public pressure is not the same as a law. Plus I said that I love protests, they're very justifiable and American and entirely legal.
It's kind of ironic though, that although they would hate the government for interfering in religion, they themselves are willing to meddle with religious freedom. Not unlawful, just sort of...contradictory.
It's in the sprit of the Constitution because its a peaceable assembly, but it's not perfectly within the spirit of the Constitution because they are campaigning to affect a religious place of worship. Personally, I would say the protest against the first protest is "perfectly" within the spirit of the Constitution. It's not protesting the right to protest. To suggest so - that would be a strawman. The protest against the people protesting the mosque is protesting what they see as a protest that obstructs general freedom of religion. The Bill of Rights was drafted to protect the rights of the people from the government, and give them freedom of religon, so why would we protest to achieve something that historically we have been victims of?
Okay, then how would we protect this place from any Islamic place of worship forever if we didn't pass a law saying that no mosque can be built within it? Are people going to keep lining up to protest whenever they try to build a mosque there again for the next 50 years? It seems to me that as long as Islamic Americans live there, they're going to want to build a mosque there so they can go to church.
And see that is the problem, no matter if it sturs the people or not, it is still morally wrong to be preaching even a few of those verses down the street from the result of those verses.
Not really, the Government in this situation is a all powerful entity that can over step the law and force some one to move, no one wants that as they have the lawful right to be there. What they want is for the Radical Imam to come to the realization that he is doing more harm than good and to move.
Except the Freedom of Religion is in protection against the Government, not against the masses who may view your religion as wrong. If we were to establish that people protesting a religion is Constitutionally wrong, than anything Athiests essentially say is Constitutionally wrong. You seem to be having a misunderstanding as to what the Constitution pertains to.
I would hope that they would protest 50 years from now, and feel just as insulted as say the Japanese would feel now if a "American Aviation and Flight" Museum was set up just down the street from Ground Zero at Hiroshima.
Also it is wrong to say Islamic people live there, as I have already pointed out before, it is a commercial district, a place for working, people working 9 to 5 are not going to go to a Mosque to worship, they will be heading home for that.
I don't really see how that statement has any moral implications, and I must say he chooses his words carefully. What with the recent war, hundreds of thousands of Middle-Eastern Muslims have been killed - I'm not saying just by the US, but they have been killed. That's where the second part comes into play, because he specifies non-Muslims - but we should not forget all of the suicide bombings during the war that without a doubt killed more civilian Muslims than foreign troops.
I could give you the Iraqi body count of the war, but I'm hesitant to as no count out there, that I'm aware of, separates civilian deaths from military deaths or who the perpetrator(s) was(were) so I would see throwing around numbers somewhat pointless.
But even still, in that quote he doesn't justify or glorify or whathaveyou the acts of al-Qaeda in anyway; he simply criticizes the US for their actions.
The moral equivalency is that the U.S. is just as bad or worse than al Qaeda. As for the hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern Muslims killed, I point to the statistic showing that 76% or more of Civilian Casulties in Afghanistan are from al Qaeda and Taliban attacks. Which is why he states non muslims, as saying Muslims for al Qaeda would be absolutely false.
He places the US as worse than al Qaeda, as obviously some one who kills more is obviously worse by any standard. That is false moral equivalency, and uses a absolutely pathetic justification for it which is false as well. Notice that his justification isn't the war, but children that died during the UN sanctions, he does not delve into the war because obviously al Qaeda is responsible for the terror attacks that gripped Iraq and Afghanistan.
Last edited:
Just popping in after a small break from this thread; it being an exceptionally busy time of the year for me.
The crazy thing that I've noted about most religions is that they are not entirely composed of what the text says. There's a lot more to the whole shebang, including (but not limited to), interpretation, what people actually follow (as opposed to what the text says, because I think it can be assumed that not everybody who follows a religion follows every single law, detail, etc. involved), and so on. Most religions would not seem to be comprised of the base text alone, but a mixture of the base text and the people who follow the religion.
Not to mention it's not uncommon for religious text to seemingly contradict itself on an issue, at times, so how folks know what to follow in regards to an issue is something to think about, I guess.
Have you noticed that, whatever the Qo'ran says, there would indeed appear to be devout Muslims who are not going out and killing infidels, supporting terrorists, and even (gasp!) speaking out against them? Why would you think that is...?
Buuut-- my argument with you, by apparent mutual agreement, isn't/wasn't about the specifics of Islam anyhow.
Just thought I'd comment.
Though, as the evidence against the builder would seem to start placing the whole "What interpretation will this guy be preaching?" I begin to question my moral support of this particular situation... Which isn't to say I wouldn't back a religious building that would most definitely be preaching a much more moderate form of the religion being built near a site where an extremist group involved with that religion did something bad. Just that if it's questionable if the religious building would be preaching so moderate a version to begin with, I'm going to have much more trouble backing it.
EDIT: And, of course, more posting goes on while I type this thing up.
Ah, well that would be more of an issue of what a particular person thinks of as morally wrong. I, personally, don't see much being morally wrong with preaching on focusing on the good parts, while marginalizing the bad parts (though, not necessarily admitting that bad parts simply aren't there. A good solid, "Don't do that," and putting emphasis on the good parts and away from the bad would do it for me).
The crazy thing that I've noted about most religions is that they are not entirely composed of what the text says. There's a lot more to the whole shebang, including (but not limited to), interpretation, what people actually follow (as opposed to what the text says, because I think it can be assumed that not everybody who follows a religion follows every single law, detail, etc. involved), and so on. Most religions would not seem to be comprised of the base text alone, but a mixture of the base text and the people who follow the religion.
Not to mention it's not uncommon for religious text to seemingly contradict itself on an issue, at times, so how folks know what to follow in regards to an issue is something to think about, I guess.
Have you noticed that, whatever the Qo'ran says, there would indeed appear to be devout Muslims who are not going out and killing infidels, supporting terrorists, and even (gasp!) speaking out against them? Why would you think that is...?
Buuut-- my argument with you, by apparent mutual agreement, isn't/wasn't about the specifics of Islam anyhow.
Just thought I'd comment.Though, as the evidence against the builder would seem to start placing the whole "What interpretation will this guy be preaching?" I begin to question my moral support of this particular situation... Which isn't to say I wouldn't back a religious building that would most definitely be preaching a much more moderate form of the religion being built near a site where an extremist group involved with that religion did something bad. Just that if it's questionable if the religious building would be preaching so moderate a version to begin with, I'm going to have much more trouble backing it.
EDIT: And, of course, more posting goes on while I type this thing up.
Ah, well that would be more of an issue of what a particular person thinks of as morally wrong. I, personally, don't see much being morally wrong with preaching on focusing on the good parts, while marginalizing the bad parts (though, not necessarily admitting that bad parts simply aren't there. A good solid, "Don't do that," and putting emphasis on the good parts and away from the bad would do it for me).
Last edited:
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
And how do you know they will? Don't you think they're conscious of being close to Ground Zero as well and know they'll get in trouble if they preach jihad?
You're not understanding me. I'm not saying that people protesting a religion is Constitutionally wrong or that the Constitution makes it so that nobody can protest religion. I said that any protest is protected under the First Amendment! I'm saying that it is not entirely in the spirit of the constitution to protest against establishing a place of worship and it's extremely ironic, because having that amendment in the Constitution is about more than just protecting us from the government, it's about the inherent sacredness of our speech and our conscience. I was wrong to go at it from a legal stance. I'm saying now, just like there's some hazy connection between this mini-mosque and 9/11, there's also a connection between the ramifications of this protest and freedom of religion. I don't want to stop it because I hate protests or I think this one is somehow unlawful. I simply disagree with its message, and I have the right to do that.
Also, republics are specifically for the purpose of protecting free speech and religion from the masses.
Except, we as America were responsible for Hiroshima. Islam was not responsible for 9/11. Even President Bush took to the airwaves and defended Islam after 9/11.
So if it is wrong to say Islamic people live there, and nobody is going to go to the Mosque, then why are you worried about people gathering there and hearing these inflammatory verses? You're giving me contradictory information here.
Last edited:
And of course the question goes to what is justified correctly, there are many in the Middle East that believe that attacking America via Martyrs is correctly justified. The man existed around 1600 to 1500 years ago, but it is essentially the religion he built and thus his teachings are reflected in it.
SunnyC said:
You cannot essentially preach the Qu'ran with out getting into the more dispicable parts of Mohammad's life, it would be as if dancing around half of Jesus' life.
SunnyC said:
The problem is that really is not in the spirit of the Constitution. The writers of the Constitution had just gotten done with a country who had a Government run religion, they knew the dangers of that, and specifically established a clause that would prevent the same thing happening here. There is no evidence to say that they established Freedom of Religion from keeping people from protesting against that religion.
SunnyC said:
Umm no, if they were specifically for that purpose than republics would not allow anyone for the masses to criticize religion or any one else's speech.
SunnyC said:
The attendance is one thing, there is a mosque further down the street and there is absolutely no evidence that there needs to be another for attendance. That being said it does not matter if he is in a empty room, preaching verses that were used to justify the attacks on September 11th is still morally wrong, it doesn't matter if 1 person hears it or if 1 million people hear it.
Last edited:
His actions aren't justified, I mean the Romans conquered Europe because they ran out of cereal, but he just killed. That doesn't necessarily reflect the people's view of Islam, but his view. We respect him for spreading Islam, but not his sinful deeds.
Oh yeah, I read your sig. Politicians often change their views to please their target audience, as the true government is run by the people.
Last edited:
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
Don't you think American Muslims are capable of historical perspective, and they realize that the time Mohammad was doing these "despicable" deeds was a more warlike time and such acts would not be acceptable today? You don't see all Christians taking many wives and practicing incest and killing nonbelievers because they want to literally imitate the actions of the protagonists in the Bible.
I never said that I think people should be kept from protesting Islam. I support any the existential rights of any protest 100%. But I also support my right to disagree with any protest, and I think this protest is screwed up! I am saying that if Congress cannot exercise power over the practice of religion, for the sake of the people, then what sense is it that people are going to the streets using their right to protest in order to try and mess with someone's right to practice their religion? I'm not saying our founding fathers would want to keep this protest from going on. I'm saying they would disagree with it personally and/or philosophically.
Are people protesting the mosque down the street too?
Last edited:
The problem isn't if American Muslims realize it or not, the problem is the very idea of preaching any verses that were used as justification for the September 11th attacks so close to Ground Zero is absolutely and utterly morally reprehensible.
Well that is doubtful as seeing how the people are not petitioning the Government or the State to actually address it in legal ways. In effect the Founding Fathers could see it as no greater act of the American People, as you have two sides here, both believe they are right, having a very public dialogue about it with out the state stepping in and enforcing it's decision on what is right and what is wrong. How can you get any more American than that.
No because the Mosque was built in the late 1970s, you cannot say they were insensitive in building it if they built it back then unless they had some kind of Muslim ESP and foresaw the attacks.
nikohesus said:
That is the problem, you may not see them as Justified, I may not see them as Justified, but alot of people do see them as Justified.
nikohesus said:
Yeah it's also called being a Hypocrite, something our President has perfected to a art form.