A Mosque On The Twin Towers Site?

[CaneBrain 95]

To keep this thread consistent, I must now conclude that you hate Christians. Having a constitutional right means that your doing something must be not only allowed, but also agreed with, or else we pull out the Websters and add a new entry under '-phobe'How can you be against the rights of this many to make a political speech ( copying the left's burning of the flag)?Just because it is unthinking, anger inducing and might anger some on the other side?I also wonder how you would feel if this was a Muslim burning a Bible?

Building a Mosque and burning a book are so far from each other that I won't respond to this nonsense other than: I think anyone who would burn a book is trash unless it is a back about the New York Jets of the Patriots or something.I don't see any connection between this situation and Mosque under the "should they" question. I don't see anything offensive about building a Mosque in a city with many of them. I do see something offensive in burning a book.

[Balloon guy 158]

Building a Mosque and burning a book are so far from each other that I won't respond to this nonsense other than: I think anyone who would burn a book is trash unless it is a back about the New York Jets of the Patriots or something.

What if you are cold?And the book is Phil Hellmuth's Play Poker Like the Pros?

[vbnautilus 48]

Guess I was wrong, sigh.Sure, they do. Anyone here think they should honestly do so? Can't we find common ground on this stupid issue if nothing else? This will be story #1 in the whole Muslim world and it will set back most of the progress (if any) our troops have made with the people of Afghanistan.Not to mention, there is nothing more intolerant and more indicative of stupidity than burning books.

I heard on the radio this morning that this county has a law against burning books without a permit, so that they would actually be violating a law (albeit a potentially unconstitutional one) to do this.

[CaneBrain 95]

What if you are cold?And the book is Phil Hellmuth's Play Poker Like the Pros?

well, ok. as long as you burn it like an eagle.i guess I should clarify.Ground Zero Mosque: Do they have the right? Yes. Should they? Nebulous, but I lean toward "whatever"Burning a Holy book: Do they have the right? Yes. Should they? A thousand times nay, no matter whose holy book it is.The difference is at least the should they question for the Mosque has some merit on both sides.

[CaneBrain 95]

I heard on the radio this morning that this county has a law against burning books without a permit, so that they would actually be violating a law (albeit a potentially unconstitutional one) to do this.

good I hope they arrest that jackass.....like Florida does not have enough people giving it a bad name.

[Balloon guy 158]

well, ok. as long as you burn it like an eagle.i guess I should clarify.Ground Zero Mosque: Do they have the right? Yes. Should they? Nebulous, but I lean toward "whatever"Burning a Holy book: Do they have the right? Yes. Should they? A thousand times nay, no matter whose holy book it is.The difference is at least the should they question for the Mosque has some merit on both sides.

Yea, I agree about the book burning thing.I can't understand how you guys can silence the voices in your head telling you that your argument is crap like I just had while trying for 2 posts to argue for the book burner's constitutional rights...

[Balloon guy 158]

I heard on the radio this morning that this county has a law against burning books without a permit, so that they would actually be violating a law (albeit a potentially unconstitutional one) to do this.

good I hope they arrest that jackass.....like Florida does not have enough people giving it a bad name.

Maybe the real story is that we have a government that decided to permit this sort of thing to maximize their collection of fees?

[dapokerbum 0]

You know what I would like to see ... Any religious person to just stand up and say that it is just a book. I know in the bible it says that if someone strikes you on one cheek to then offer the other cheek. So with that said, if there was some crazy extremesist muslim group who decided that they were going to burn the bible, I would offer mine. Because the root of the problem is people taking inanimate objects and trying to say that they are higher than say "Play Poker like the Pros". Just because it is burnt does not mean that I no longer have that word in my heart, mind, and soul. Instead you have people fighting and crying about it. Just let the guy do it and let him see what a waste of space he really is. All he wants to do is provoke the mulims, so if it does not cause provocation then who really wins?

[Balloon guy 158]

You know what I would like to see ... Any religious person to just stand up and say that it is just a book. I know in the bible it says that if someone strikes you on one cheek to then offer the other cheek. So with that said, if there was some crazy extremesist muslim group who decided that they were going to burn the bible, I would offer mine. Because the root of the problem is people taking inanimate objects and trying to say that they are higher than say "Play Poker like the Pros". Just because it is burnt does not mean that I no longer have that word in my heart, mind, and soul. Instead you have people fighting and crying about it. Just let the guy do it and let him see what a waste of space he really is. All he wants to do is provoke the mulims, so if it does not cause provocation then who really wins?

Random House?It's all a plot to print more books.A cleverly run plot by the trilateralist!

[Roll the Bones 74]

I've been debating where to put this but it seems like an excellent time to segue into it here.http://www.slate.com/id/2266154/Free Exercise of Religion? No, Thanks.The taming and domestication of religious faith is one of the unceasing chores of civilization.By Christopher HitchensA recent blizzard of liberal columns has framed the debate over American Islam as if it were no more than the most recent stage in the glorious history of our religious tolerance. This phrasing of the question has the (presumably intentional) effect of marginalizing doubts and of lumping any doubters with the anti-Catholic Know-Nothings, the anti-Semites, and other bigots and shellbacks. So I pause to take part in a thought experiment, and to ask myself: Am I in favor of the untrammeled "free exercise of religion"?No, I am not. Take an example close at hand, the absurdly named Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. More usually known as the Mormon church, it can boast Glenn Beck as one of its recruits. He has recently won much cheap publicity for scheduling a rally on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s March on Washington. But on the day on which the original rally occurred in 1963, the Mormon church had not yet gotten around to recognizing black people as fully human or as eligible for full membership. (Its leadership subsequently underwent a "revelation" allowing a change on this point, but not until after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.) This opportunism closely shadowed an earlier adjustment of Mormon dogma, abandoning its historic and violent attachment to polygamy. Without that doctrinal change, the state of Utah was firmly told that it could not be part of the Union. More recently, Gov. Mitt Romney had to assure voters that he did not regard the prophet, or head of the Mormon church, as having ultimate moral and spiritual authority on all matters. Nothing, he swore, could override the U.S. Constitution. Thus, to the extent that we view latter-day saints as acceptable, and agree to overlook their other quaint and weird beliefs, it is to the extent that we have decidedly limited them in the free exercise of their religion.One could cite some other examples, such as those Christian sects that disapprove of the practice of medicine. Their adult members are generally allowed to die while uttering religious incantations and waving away the physician, but, in many states, if they apply this faith to their children—a crucial element in the "free exercise" of religion—they can be taken straight to court. Not only that, they can find themselves subject to general disapproval and condemnation.AdvertisementIt was probably the latter consideration that helped impel the majority of American Orthodox Jews to give up the practice of metzitzah b'peh, a radical form of male circumcision that is topped off, if you will forgive the expression, by the sucking of the infant's penis by the rabbi or mohel so as to remove any remaining blood or debris. A few tiny sects still cling to this disgusting ritual, which in New York a few years ago led to a small but deadly outbreak of herpes among recently circumcised babies. On that occasion, despite calls for a ban on the practice from many Jewish doctors, the vastly overrated Mayor Michael Bloomberg chose an election year to say that such "free exercise" should not be interfered with. We talk now as if it was ridiculous ever to suspect Roman Catholics of anything but the highest motives, yet by the time John F. Kennedy was breaking the unspoken taboo on the election of a Catholic as president, the Vatican had just begun to consider making public atonement for centuries of Jew-hatred and a more recent sympathy for fascism. Even today, many lay Catholics are appalled at the Vatican's protection of men who are sought for questioning in one of the gravest of all crimes: the organized rape of children. It is generally agreed that the church's behavior and autonomy need to be modified to take account both of American law and American moral outrage. So much for the naive invocation of "free exercise."One could easily go on. The Church of Scientology, the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon, and the Ku Klux Klan are all faith-based organizations and are all entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. But they are also all subject to a complex of statutes governing tax-exemption, fraud, racism, and violence, to the point where "free exercise" in the third case has—by means of federal law enforcement and stern public disapproval—been reduced to a vestige of its former self.Now to Islam. It is, first, a religion that makes very large claims for itself, purporting to be the last and final word of God and expressing an ambition to become the world's only religion. Some of its adherents follow or advocate the practice of plural marriage, forced marriage, female circumcision, compulsory veiling of women, and censorship of non-Muslim magazines and media. Islam's teachings generally exhibit suspicion of the very idea of church-state separation. Other teachings, depending on context, can be held to exhibit a very strong dislike of other religions, as well as of heretical forms of Islam. Muslims in America, including members of the armed forces, have already been found willing to respond to orders issued by foreign terrorist organizations. Most disturbingly, no authority within the faith appears to have the power to rule decisively that such practices, or such teachings, or such actions, are definitely and utterly in conflict with the precepts of the religion itself. Reactions from even "moderate" Muslims to criticism are not uniformly reassuring. "Some of what people are saying in this mosque controversy is very similar to what German media was saying about Jews in the 1920s and 1930s," Imam Abdullah Antepli, Muslim chaplain at Duke University, told the New York Times. Yes, we all recall the Jewish suicide bombers of that period, as we recall the Jewish yells for holy war, the Jewish demands for the veiling of women and the stoning of homosexuals, and the Jewish burning of newspapers that published cartoons they did not like. What is needed from the supporters of this very confident faith is more self-criticism and less self-pity and self-righteousness.Those who wish that there would be no mosques in America have already lost the argument: Globalization, no less than the promise of American liberty, mandates that the United States will have a Muslim population of some size. The only question, then, is what kind, or rather kinds, of Islam it will follow. There's an excellent chance of a healthy pluralist outcome, but it's very unlikely that this can happen unless, as with their predecessors on these shores, Muslims are compelled to abandon certain presumptions that are exclusive to themselves. The taming and domestication of religion is one of the unceasing chores of civilization. Those who pretend that we can skip this stage in the present case are deluding themselves and asking for trouble not just in the future but in the immediate present.

[Mercury69 3]

I heard on the radio this morning that this county has a law against burning books without a permit, so that they would actually be violating a law (albeit a potentially unconstitutional one) to do this.

Maybe burning the permit make more of a statement?Here's a link I found helpful in unravellnig all the political hyperbole that's spewing from people's mouths:Ground Zero Mosque Fact Check

[Balloon guy 158]

To sum up the thread:Muslims want to do something that is insensitive. When this is pointed out they say: "tough we are doing it anyway."Some people say: "This sucks.Other people say: "Don't piss them off, they will try to kill us if you do."Some people say; "Let's burn their koran"Other people say: "Don't do that, they will just try to kill us if they do"Some people say: "Maybe we shouldn't consider them a good thing anymore."Other people say: " Shut up, they are a religion of peace."Some people say: "?"

[SweetDee 0]

I like this, this is a nice mind****.What he is basically saying is that if they move it that becomes a national security issue, because radical Muslims will see it as a affront of sorts....in my book that's just a thinly veiled threat. "Hey, you make me change desks and my fat buddy in fifth period will clean your clock."http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/08/imam.lkl/index.html?hpt=T1This whole thing is getting a little bit too testy, it's like on the one hand I want to be a nice guy but just too many things are pointing to a not so much religion of peace. I mean, a guy who wants burn books is basically being told by the state dept he will get soldiers killed....again, by the religion of peace. What's wrong with this picture?

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Well Sarah's against the Book Burning:

Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.I would hope that Pastor Terry Jones and his supporters will consider the ramifications of their planned book-burning event. It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance. Don’t feed that fire.

And for this Imam to claim "National Security Concerns" as a reason for not moving the site of the Mosque is ludicrous. It validates the "Radical" Muslims. Seriously this is the most far-reaching rationalization I've heard in this Debate so far. LLY is a close second.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Interesting take from a women who lost her husband in the Trade Center.This time of year is always very hard for me. The rapid drop in humidity, the crispness of the air and clear blue of the sky that prior to September 11, 2001 could only be described as deliciously divine now catapult many 9/11 victims and family members, such as myself, immediately back to the sheer horror of that day nine years ago, and the weeks, months and years following. The actual anniversary day is the most harrowing for many. I say "for many," because unlike the leaders of the organizations protesting what they've coined the "Ground Zero mosque," I don't claim to speak for all 9/11 family members. We are an enormous and diverse group, with varied opinions. But for many, the anniversary can be a day of sacred remembrance, of relived visceral terror (not helped by the bombardment of crass media coverage), and of many, many other private rituals and feelings 9/11 family members have.Continued..http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raina-wallen...tml?ir=Politics

[FCP Bob 1,321]

Well Sarah's against the Book Burning:And for this Imam to claim "National Security Concerns" as a reason for not moving the site of the Mosque is ludicrous. It validates the "Radical" Muslims. Seriously this is the most far-reaching rationalization I've heard in this Debate so far. LLY is a close second.

She can't just say it's wrong to burn Korans but instead implies that burning somebody else's Holy Book is equivalent to building an Islamic Center next to the porno shops.Not acknowledging that the growing anti-Islamic attitude in the US is a security concern would be pretty stupid.Is anybody other than me thinking that moron Pastor in Florida is a candidate for a future Darwin Award ?

[Roll the Bones 74]

She can't just say it's wrong to burn Korans but instead implies that burning somebody else's Holy Book is equivalent to building an Islamic Center next to the porno shops.Not acknowledging that the growing anti-Islamic attitude in the US is a security concern would be pretty stupid.Is anybody other than me thinking that moron Pastor in Florida is a candidate for a future Darwin Award ?

Ugh, leave it to Palin to compare building an interfaith center to burning holy books.

[Balloon guy 158]

She can't just say it's wrong to burn Korans but instead implies that burning somebody else's Holy Book is equivalent to building an Islamic Center next to the porno shops.Not acknowledging that the growing anti-Islamic attitude in the US is a security concern would be pretty stupid.Is anybody other than me thinking that moron Pastor in Florida is a candidate for a future Darwin Award ?

What she said:

People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.

and what you are implying are not the same thing.Hers was based on the facts, yours were based on your dislike of Sarah.She wins, again.

[Balloon guy 158]

BTW, last year the US government burned a bunch of Bibles:

Reuters the next day, May 5th, 2009: "Bibles in Afghan languages sent to a U.S. soldier at a base in Afghanistan were confiscated and destroyed to ensure that troops did not breach regulations which forbid proselytising, a military spokeswoman said. The U.S. military has denied its soldiers tried to convert Afghans to Christianity, after Qatar-based Al Jazeera television showed soldiers at a bible class ... U.S. Central Command's General Order Number 1 forbids troops on active duty from trying to convert people to another religion."

Because they are the rational ones, it is our people who are flying off the handle and acting irrational:

Al Jazeera, back in 2009 was accusing our troops of trying to convert Muslims to Christianity by printing Bibles in native languages, and they were being taught in seminars how to do the conversions. Ahmed Shah Ahmedzai said, "This is very damaging for diplomatic relations between the two counties ... everyone knows people are very conservative here, very faithful to Islam. They will never accept any other religion. ... Someone who leaves Islam is sentenced very severely -- the death penalty [is imposed]. There must be a serious investigation now that it has come out into the public and [into the] press." So they were demanding an investigation of the US military for trying to convert Muslims to Christianity in Afghanistan 2009. And Ahmed Shah Ahmedzai said, "Look, they're not going to shift, if they do, they get killed. Somebody who leaves Islam is sentenced to death."

[Mercury69 3]

I'm not sure if anyone has conclusively said the Constitutional Rights = Sensible Actions

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I'm not sure if anyone has conclusively said the Constitutional Rights = Sensible Actions

Take that back, or I will SO quarter troops in your home, you have no idea.

[dapokerbum 0]

You know the more I think about this Koran burning ... it seems like it shouldn't be THAT big of a deal. It's a book, granted it's "the holy word of Muhammed", but it's still only a book. The news is now warning other governments that there could be backlash everywhere. There are literally millions of copies of the Koran. If some ****in whack job wants to burn one then we should just let him do it and STOP with all the coverage. If we could just step back and say WHO CARES then this would just go away. Imagine if he just went to burn the Koran and there was NOONE around ... then the dude feels like the idiot he is and nothing happens. Instead it is turning into this retarded media frenzy where even the POTUS is asking you not to do it.IMO this whole thing is retarded. I don't care if you burn Play Poker like the pros, the bible, of mice and men, or even the Koran. IT'S A BOOK and it's ONE GUY. This isn't like those government book burnings during the Nazi regime ... this is ONE GUY being a moron. Let him be a moron and move on.

[El Guapo 8]

We live in a society that is so fearful of what the Muslims think because it might offend them which could lead to another bombing (from a peaceful religion btw) that Comedy Central edited out all images of Mohamed and the mention of his name in a South Park episode recently.Do you really think people will be ok with some redneck burning the Quran?

[Balloon guy 158]

We live in a society that is so fearful of what the Muslims think because it might offend them which could lead to another bombing (from a peaceful religion btw) that Comedy Central edited out all images of Mohamed and the mention of his name in a South Park episode recently.Do you really think people will be ok with some redneck burning the Quran?

Well if there is one thing that this country agrees with: It's that people who hate Jews should have their wants placed ahead of our own.

[Balloon guy 158]

Take that back, or I will SO quarter troops in your home, you have no idea.

So awesome