Ground Zero Mosque (or cultural gathering centre for the politcally correct)

[Tyrant Tar]

Having a mosque that close is similar to having a jar of salt next to an open wound.

But there are already two mosques (Masjid Manhattan and Masjid al-Farah) near the area. "True" mosques too tiny to accommodate all the followers.

A bit off-tangent, but mosques mean Muslims, who will undoubtedly visit the eventual Freedom Tower like all other races. Ergo, visitors WILL see Muslims at Ground Zero. Just like visitors to Pearl Harbor see Japanese people there...


Thinking it wrong for Muslims or anything Islamic to be near G0 when they have done nothing even remotely terroristic is flat-out stereotyping.

 

[BigLutz]

How do you think it's morally wrong?

Like it or not, the terrorists who did set off the attack, were driven by parts of the Quran and Mohammad's life to kill and destroy. To have a mosque built so close to Ground Zero, which will undoubtedly cover those aspects of the Quran and Mohammad's life and to have a Imam build it who is already questionable is morally wrong.

But there are already two mosques (Masjid Manhattan and Masjid al-Farah) near the area. "True" mosques too tiny to accommodate all the followers.

Were they built before or after 9/11. If before you have no point. If after you do.

Thinking it wrong for Muslims or anything Islamic to be near G0 when they have done nothing even remotely terroristic is flat-out stereotyping.

Like it or not these were ISLAMIC TERRORISTS that attacked. Who yes were driven to attack by parts of the Quran. As such it is not sterotyping to say that it is disrespectful and wrong to have a holy center being built so close to a attack that was brought about by that religion.

 

[11DBHK]

ok i think everyone needs to take a back and take a deep breath

 

[AzukanAsimbu]

ok i think everyone needs to take a back and take a deep breath

indeed. its just a mosque. not a terrorist breeding ground. as said above there are already two mosques close to the area.

im sure weve bombed plenty of buildings in Muslims areas in the Middle East

 

[BigLutz]

indeed. its just a mosque. not a terrorist breeding ground. as said above there are already two mosques close to the area.

And as said before those mosques were built far before 9/11 now unless we have fortune telling Imams in the area, they are not comparable.

im sure weve bombed plenty of buildings in Muslims areas in the Middle East

So.. let me get this straight you are comparing a terror attack, a deliberate and unprovoked act to target civilians and cause as much mass murder as possible. To events that happen in a war zone in which the targets were assumed to be military in nature, or were hit by accident?

 

[11DBHK]

indeed. its just a mosque. not a terrorist breeding ground. as said above there are already two mosques close to the area.

im sure weve bombed plenty of buildings in Muslims areas in the Middle East

war kinda has that affect

 

[Shepard]

Like it or not, the terrorists who did set off the attack, were driven by parts of the Quran and Mohammad's life to kill and destroy. To have a mosque built so close to Ground Zero, which will undoubtedly cover those aspects of the Quran and Mohammad's life and to have a Imam build it who is already questionable is morally wrong.

I see nothing in this argument that resonates on the level of morality. If anything, you're committing a logical falacy by extending the crimes of the few responsible for the WTC tragedy to an entire religion. Were they motivated by their religion? Yes, that's not in dispute. But you can't hold every other muslim in the world responsible for the actions of a few.

So please, tell me again how exactly putting up a Mosque close to ground zero is morally wrong. I mean, if you think it's not appropriate, that's one thing (and we can debate that too), but don't see anything that is fundamentally bad/evil about creating a new a Mosque 2 blocks away from Ground Zero. So unless you can actually establish a legitimate moral ground for not wanting this Mosque to be established, don't reduce this to simple morality.

 

[BigLutz]

I see nothing in this argument that resonates on the level of morality. If anything, you're committing a logical falacy by extending the crimes of the few responsible for the WTC tragedy to an entire religion. Were they motivated by their religion? Yes, that's not in dispute. But you can't hold every other muslim in the world responsible for the actions of a few.

So please, tell me again how exactly putting up a Mosque close to ground zero is morally wrong. I mean, if you think it's not appropriate, that's one thing (and we can debate that too), but don't see anything that is fundamentally bad/evil about creating a new a Mosque 2 blocks away from Ground Zero. So unless you can actually establish a legitimate moral ground for not wanting this Mosque to be established, don't reduce this to simple morality.

Again as we already established they were motivated by religion, a Mosque is a place where they will preach such religion that in the end motivated them. Is there any guarantee that they will cut out all the parts of Mohammad's bloody conquest across the Middle East? Or any parts that have been twisted in the past to be used by the terrorists?

I say it is a argument of morality because morally it is wrong to be preaching or promoting or teaching things that led to such a horrible tragedy, just down the street from said tragedy.

 

[Shepard]

Again as we already established they were motivated by religion, a Mosque is a place where they will preach such religion that in the end motivated them. Is there any guarantee that they will cut out all the parts of Mohammad's bloody conquest across the Middle East? Or any parts that have been twisted in the past to be used by the terrorists?

Oh really, we're going down this road? What about all of the crappy things that have been done in the name of Christianity? The Crusades? The Spanish Inquisition? Witch hunts? Or if you prefer a more recent example, the deplorable labeling of homosexuality as a sin?

Again, I point you to the fact that you are demonstrating prejudice toward an entire religion for the acts of a few. No matter what you think, Mosques aren't training grounds for terrorists, they're just places of worship. There will always be a few Muslims who take the message too far or too literally, just as there will always be other people who take Christianity too far or too seriously.

I say it is a argument of morality because morally it is wrong to be preaching or promoting or teaching things that led to such a horrible tragedy, just down the street from said tragedy.

Again, there will always be people who take the message too far or too literally, or who will construe it to their own ends, but that doesn't make it morally wrong to practice their faith. And from what I hear you saying, you think the entire faith is morally wrong, so what does proximity even matter? What about the Mosques that already exist in the Ground Zero area then? Or all the Mosques in the US, or even in the world? Should they all be torn down as well for what you claim they "represent"? Who's in the moral wrong here?

This isn't an issue of morality as you claim. It's an issue of xenophobia and lack of religious tolerance (let alone understanding). I don't care whatever your opinion is as long as you call a spade a spade and don't try to trump this up to being fundamentally about good and evil, right and wrong. You don't like it? Fine, but state it as an opinion and don't try to construe it as anything else.

 

[11DBHK]

shepard, chill
the other mosques arent directly near gz from what i hear so its not an issue for some people, they just dot care but i can see how lutz would be iffy about building a mosque there. true also that not all muslims are radicals, but arewe really willing to risk getting hit again?

 

[BigLutz]

Oh really, we're going down this road? What about all of the crappy things that have been done in the name of Christianity? The Crusades? The Spanish Inquisition? Witch hunts? Or if you prefer a more recent example, the deplorable labeling of homosexuality as a sin?

Again, I point you to the fact that you are demonstrating prejudice toward an entire religion for the acts of a few. No matter what you think, Mosques aren't training grounds for terrorists, they're just places of worship. There will always be a few Muslims who take the message too far or too literally, just as there will always be other people who take Christianity too far or too seriously.

Er.. last time I checked Christianity has labeled homosexuality as a sin for a long time, since the founding of the Old Testament.

But lets use this example, lets say a couple of extreme Christian Nut Jobs decided that they were going to use a couple of cars packed with explosives and drove it through a gay pride parade in San Fransisco killing thousands.

Would it be morally right to set up a Christian church just down the street from that act of terrorism chiefly because of that act of terrorism? NO! Of course not. It would be morally wrong and disgusting to do so as no matter what the church will have to broach the topic of homosexuality, a topic that led to the deaths of countless people just right down the street.

Again, there will always be people who take the message too far or too literally, or who will construe it to their own ends, but that doesn't make it morally wrong to practice their faith. And from what I hear you saying, you think the entire faith is morally wrong, so what does proximity even matter? What about the Mosques that already exist in the Ground Zero area then? Or all the Mosques in the US, or even in the world? Should they all be torn down as well for what you claim they "represent"? Who's in the moral wrong here?

Last time I checked those mosques near Ground Zero were not set up after 9/11, as such unless you had fortune telling Imams your point is moot. For those in the rest of the United States I have no problem with nor do I see them as morally wrong. There is a difference between setting up a Faith Center in the middle of Ohio, and setting up one next to the largest terror attack in US History committed Yes by that religion. If you cant understand that, then that is sad.

This isn't an issue of morality as you claim. It's an issue of xenophobia and lack of religious tolerance (let alone understanding). I don't care whatever your opinion is as long as you call a spade a spade and don't try to trump this up to being fundamentally about good and evil, right and wrong. You don't like it? Fine, but state it as an opinion and don't try to construe it as anything else.

Oh please are you making the absolute pathetic blanket statement that the vast majority of Americans, many of whom would have no problem living NEXT to a mosque are now xenophobic and have religious intolerance? Are you that pathetically stupid? This is a problem with morals, it is a problem that they purposely looked for a place as close to Ground Zero as possible to preach a religion that did influence the attacks. Period.

 

[Deku_Link]

Last time I checked those mosques near Ground Zero were not set up after 9/11, as such unless you had fortune telling Imams your point is moot.

Shepard asked if you think the mosques near Ground Zero should be torn down, and you dodged the question. Should they or should they not, and why?

 

[BigLutz]

Shepard asked if you think the mosques near Ground Zero should be torn down, and you dodged the question. Should they or should they not, and why?

No I do not believe they should as they were set up with out prior knowledge of the attacks. And last time I checked there was really only one mosque even close to Ground Zero. There is a difference between purposely setting up a Mosque to preach Islam after the attack and so close to the site, and having one that had been there for years.

 

[Deku_Link]

No I do not believe they should as they were set up with out prior knowledge of the attacks. And last time I checked there was really only one mosque even close to Ground Zero. There is a difference between purposely setting up a Mosque to preach Islam after the attack and so close to the site, and having one that had been there for years.

But if it's wrong to establish a new mosque because the terrorists were motivated by the religion that's being practiced there, why isn't it wrong to leave other mosques standing using the exact same reasoning? If the real root of the problem is what religion is being practiced there, why is the fact that other mosques were built earlier reason enough to give them a pass? The fact that other mosques were built prior to the attacks seems like little more than a red herring when faced with the actual reason to prevent new ones from being built.

 

[BigLutz]

But if it's wrong to establish a new mosque because the terrorists were motivated by the religion that's being practiced there, why isn't it wrong to leave other mosques standing using the exact same reasoning? If the real root of the problem is what religion is being practiced there, why is the fact that other mosques were built earlier reason enough to give them a pass?

As I said before unless the Imams were fortune tellers and could see the future then they had no idea when establishing that mosque that members of their own religion would use that religion to kill thousands a few miles a way. In many ways it boils down to intent as well, were the mosques who were built before 9/11 built because of the attacks? No. Is this mosque? Yes.

 

[11DBHK]

something just dawned on me...is it just me or does the building of this mosque seem somehow apologetic?
the usa is just trying to smooth over realations with the general muslim populus
it boils down the government trying to cover their own asses. go figure

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

It's Still Insensitive

Oh really, we're going down this road? What about all of the crappy things that have been done in the name of Christianity? The Crusades? The Spanish Inquisition? Witch hunts? Or if you prefer a more recent example, the deplorable labeling of homosexuality as a sin?

Let's take a different line of reasoning. The Imam of this Mosque-N-More at one time was unwilling to call Hamas a terrorist organization. Now, if somebody asked me, a serious, conservative Christian, if the Spanish Inquisition was wrong and I hemmed and hawed, you know what would happen. People would be all over me--and rightly so. This isn't an issue of being unfair to this Imam. His own morals and sensitivity are questionable.

Er.. last time I checked Christianity has labeled homosexuality as a sin for a long time, since the founding of the Old Testament.

That is correct. It is the modern gay agenda which has at times sought to deny this.
(BTW, your example is great! I had thought of something similar before, but never posted it.)

But if it's wrong to establish a new mosque because the terrorists were motivated by the religion that's being practiced there, why isn't it wrong to leave other mosques standing using the exact same reasoning? If the real root of the problem is what religion is being practiced there, why is the fact that other mosques were built earlier reason enough to give them a pass? The fact that other mosques were built prior to the attacks seems like little more than a red herring when faced with the actual reason to prevent new ones from being built.

Deku_Link, that would only make sense if anyone is actually saying that the construction of this Mosque-N-More can be legally prohibited. In America, a properly-zoned religious structure cannot legally be forced to close because it is insulting. Nor can it be forced to move. Despite the claims of its proponents, it remains insensitive. As such, BigLutz is correct in believing this to be morally wrong, because it isn't moral to do insensitive things and claim you are trying to be sensitive. That's called lying.

something just dawned on me...is it just me or does the building of this mosque seem somehow apologetic?
the usa is just trying to smooth over realations with the general muslim populus
it boils down the government trying to cover their own asses. go figure

The government isn't building the Mosque-N-More. The local government has approved it in the sense that it's zoned properly (it is legal to build it there).

 

[Pristarin]

That is correct. It is the modern gay agenda which has at times sought to deny this.

Not honest biblical scholars that are aware of scripture, that offer plausible alternate interpretations of holy texts? No, it couldn't be. It's the "modern gay agenda" instead.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Myths Remain

Not honest biblical scholars that are aware of scripture, that offer plausible alternate interpretations of holy texts? No, it couldn't be. It's the "modern gay agenda" instead.

Besides the fact that your statement is off topic, you can roll your eyes all you want but that won't change the fact that there is such a thing as a gay agenda, and that it is not built of honest biblical scholarship.

Take Hope Remains for example. In their About Us page, they say:

When translating from Hebrew and Greek to English, we tend to bypass religious resources, which have been known to alter meanings for doctrinal reasons (not just on this topic). We prefer to rely primarily on secular language sources, whose only "agenda" is proper understanding of the language.

In this quote, they actually imply that every translation which has verses condemning homosexual actions (and even many of the religious Hebrew/Greek resources) had an agenda themselves. But it gets worse when we consider that even in their Resources section they do not cite these secular Hebrew and Greek resources. That is not honest scholarship.

Also, that site propogates the very erroneous "gay David" view on this page. They can only make it appear that David and Jonathan were a same-sex couple by completely ignoring verses 18, 22, 23, and 26 of the same chapter they cite, which clearly indicate that David was not married to any of Saul's children at the time he offered his daughters to him.

A bit off-tangent, but mosques mean Muslims, who will undoubtedly visit the eventual Freedom Tower like all other races. Ergo, visitors WILL see Muslims at Ground Zero. Just like visitors to Pearl Harbor see Japanese people there...

To avoid being off topic myself, I point out that the above is erroneous because it doesn't involve Japanese people building anything. If they built something promoting the emperor who was in power during the Pearl Harbor attacks right near Pearl Harbor, that would be insensitive, as anyone would agree.

 

[11DBHK]

@fighting pikachu then whos funding it?